Top Banner
449

Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Jul 31, 2015

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
Page 2: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

DESIGNERS’ GUIDES TO THE EUROCODES

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF COMPOSITE STEELAND CONCRETE STRUCTURES

PART 1.1: GENERAL RULES AND RULESFOR BUILDINGS

1Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 3: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

2Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 4: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

DESIGNERS’ GUIDES TO THE EUROCODES

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF COMPOSITESTEEL AND CONCRETE STRUCTURES

PART 1.1: GENERAL RULES AND RULESFOR BUILDINGS

R. P. JOHNSON and D. ANDERSON

3Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 5: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JDURL: http://www.thomastelford.com

Distributors for Thomas Telford books areUSA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria

First published 2004

Also available from Thomas Telford BooksDesigners’ Guide to EN 1990. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. H. Gulvanessian, J.-A.Calgaroand M. Holický. ISBN 0 7277 3011 8

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 0 7277 3151 3

© The authors and Thomas Telford Limited 2004

All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs and PatentsAct 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted inany form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the priorwritten permission of the Publishing Director, Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1Heron Quay, London E14 4JD

This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statementsmade and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply that suchstatements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort hasbeen made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions expressed in this publication provide asafe and accurate guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors orpublishers

Typeset by Helius, Brighton and RochesterPrinted and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin

4Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 6: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

Preface

EN 1994, also known as Eurocode 4, is one standard of the Eurocode suite and describes theprinciples and requirements for safety, serviceability and durability of composite steel andconcrete structures. It is subdivided into three parts:

• Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings• Part 1.2: Structural Fire Design• Part 2: Bridges.

It is intended to be used in conjunction with EN 1990, Basis of Structural Design, EN 1991,Actions on Structures, and the other design Eurocodes.

Aims and objectives of this guideThe principal aim of this book is to provide the user with guidance on the interpretation anduse of EN 1994-1-1 and to present worked examples. The guide explains the relationshipwith the other Eurocode parts to which it refers and with the relevant British codes. Italso provides background information and references to enable users of Eurocode 4 tounderstand the origin and objectives of its provisions.

Layout of this guideEN 1994-1-1 has a foreword and nine sections, together with three annexes. This guide hasan introduction which corresponds to the foreword of EN 1994-1-1, and Chapters 1 to 9 ofthe guide correspond to Sections 1 to 9 of the Eurocode. Chapters 10 and 11 correspond toAnnexes A and B of the Eurocode, respectively. Appendices A to C of this guide includeuseful material from the draft Eurocode ENV 1994-1-1.The numbering and titles of the sections in this guide also correspond to those of theclauses of EN 1994-1-1. Some subsections are also numbered (e.g. 1.1.2). This impliescorrespondence with the subclause in EN 1994-1-1 of the same number. Their titles alsocorrespond. There are extensive references to lower-level clause and paragraph numbers.The first significant reference is in bold italic type (e.g. clause 1.1.1(2)). These are in strictnumerical sequence throughout the book, to help readers to find comments on particularprovisions of the code. Some comments on clauses are necessarily out of sequence, but use ofthe index should enable these to be found.

All cross-references in this guide to sections, clauses, subclauses, paragraphs, annexes,figures, tables and equations of EN 1994-1-1 are in italic type, which is also used where textfrom a clause in EN 1994-1-1 has been directly reproduced (conversely, cross-referencesto and quotations from other sources, including other Eurocodes, are in roman type).

5Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 7: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

Expressions repeated from EN 1994-1-1 retain their number; other expressions havenumbers prefixed by D (for Designers’ Guide), e.g. equation (D6.1) in Chapter 6.

AcknowledgementsThe authors are deeply indebted to the other members of the four project teams forEurocode 4 on which they have worked: Jean-Marie Aribert, Gerhard Hanswille, BerntJohansson, Basil Kolias, Jean-Paul Lebet, Henri Mathieu, Michel Mele, Joel Raoul,Karl-Heinz Roik and Jan Stark; and also to the Liaison Engineers, National TechnicalContacts, and others who prepared national comments. They thank the University ofWarwick for the facilities provided for Eurocode work, and, especially, their wives Diana andLinda for their unfailing support.

R. P. JohnsonD. Anderson

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

vi

6Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 8: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

Contents

Preface vAims and objectives of this guide vLayout of this guide vAcknowledgements vi

Introduction 1

Chapter 1. General 31.1. Scope 3

1.1.1. Scope of Eurocode 4 31.1.2. Scope of Part 1.1 of Eurocode 4 3

1.2. Normative references 51.2.1. General reference standards 51.2.2. Other reference standards 5

1.3. Assumptions 51.4. Distinction between principles and application rules 51.5. Definitions 6

1.5.1. General 61.5.2. Additional terms and definitions 6

1.6. Symbols 6

Chapter 2. Basis of design 92.1. Requirements 92.2. Principles of limit states design 92.3. Basic variables 92.4. Verification by the partial factor method 10

2.4.1. Design values 102.4.2. Combination of actions 112.4.3. Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) 11

Chapter 3. Materials 133.1. Concrete 133.2. Reinforcing steel 153.3. Structural steel 163.4. Connecting devices 16

3.4.1. General 163.4.2. Stud shear connectors 17

3.5. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings 17

7Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 9: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

Chapter 4. Durability 194.1. General 194.2. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings 19

Chapter 5. Structural analysis 215.1. Structural modelling for analysis 21

5.1.1. Structural modelling and basic assumptions 215.1.2. Joint modelling 21

5.2. Structural stability 225.2.1. Effects of deformed geometry of the structure 225.2.2. Methods of analysis for buildings 23

5.3. Imperfections 245.3.1. Basis 245.3.2. Imperfections in buildings 24

5.4. Calculation of action effects 275.4.1. Methods of global analysis 27

Example 5.1: effective width of concrete flange 295.4.2. Linear elastic analysis 295.4.3. Non-linear global analysis 335.4.4. Linear elastic analysis with limited redistribution for

buildings 345.4.5. Rigid plastic global analysis for buildings 36

5.5. Classification of cross-sections 37

Chapter 6. Ultimate limit states 416.1. Beams 41

6.1.1. Beams for buildings 416.1.2. Effective width for verification of cross-sections 43

6.2. Resistances of cross-sections of beams 436.2.1. Bending resistance 44

Example 6.1: resistance moment in hogging bending, with effective web 506.2.2. Resistance to vertical shear 54

Example 6.2: resistance to bending and vertical shear 556.3. Resistance of cross-sections of beams for buildings with partial

encasement 576.3.1. Scope 576.3.2. Resistance to bending 576.3.3–6.3.4. Resistance to vertical shear, and to bending and

vertical shear 576.4. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams 58

6.4.1. General 586.4.2. Verification of lateral–torsional buckling of continuous

composite beams with cross-sections in Class 1, 2 and 3for buildings 58

6.4.3. Simplified verification for buildings without directcalculation 61

Use of intermediate lateral bracing 63Flow charts for continuous beam 64

Example 6.3: lateral–torsional buckling of two-span beam 666.5. Transverse forces on webs 666.6. Shear connection 67

6.6.1. General 67Example 6.4: arrangement of shear connectors 69

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

viii

8Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 10: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

6.6.2. Longitudinal shear force in beams for buildings 706.6.3. Headed stud connectors in solid slabs and concrete

encasement 706.6.4. Design resistance of headed studs used with profiled

steel sheeting in buildings 72Example 6.5: reduction factors for transverse sheeting 76

6.6.5. Detailing of the shear connection and influence ofexecution 76

6.6.6. Longitudinal shear in concrete slabs 81Example 6.6: transverse reinforcement for longitudinal shear 82Example 6.7: two-span beam with a composite slab – ultimate limitstate 84Example 6.8: partial shear connection with non-ductile connectors 100Example 6.9: elastic resistance to bending, and influence of degreeof shear connection and type of connector on bending resistance 1016.7. Composite columns and composite compression members 103

6.7.1. General 1036.7.2. General method of design 1056.7.3. Simplified method of design 1056.7.4. Shear connection and load introduction 1116.7.5. Detailing provisions 113

Example 6.10: composite column with bending about one or both axes 113Example 6.11: longitudinal shear outside areas of load introduction,for a composite column 1186.8. Fatigue 119

6.8.1. General 1196.8.2. Partial factors for fatigue assessment 1196.8.3. Fatigue strength 1206.8.4. Internal forces and fatigue loadings 1206.8.5. Stresses 1216.8.6. Stress ranges 1226.8.7. Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress ranges 123

Example 6.12: fatigue in reinforcement and shear connection 124

Chapter 7. Serviceability limit states 1277.1. General 1277.2. Stresses 1287.3. Deformations in buildings 128

7.3.1. Deflections 1287.3.2. Vibration 130

7.4. Cracking of concrete 1317.4.1. General 1317.4.2. Minimum reinforcement 1327.4.3. Control of cracking due to direct loading 134General comments on clause 7.4 135

Example 7.1: two-span beam (continued) – SLS 136

Chapter 8. Composite joints in frames for buildings 1418.1. Scope 1418.2. Analysis, including modelling and classification 1428.3. Design methods 1448.4. Resistance of components 145Example 8.1: end-plate joints in a two-span beam in a braced frame 147

CONTENTS

ix

9Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 11: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

Chapter 9. Composite slabs with profiled steel sheeting for buildings 1619.1. General 1619.2. Detailing provisions 1629.3. Actions and action effects 1629.4. Analysis for internal forces and moments 1639.5–9.6. Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shuttering 1649.7. Verification of composite slabs for the ultimate limit states 164

9.7.1. Design criterion 1649.7.2. Flexure 1649.7.3. Longitudinal shear for slabs without end anchorage 1659.7.4. Longitudinal shear for slabs with end anchorage 1679.7.5. Vertical shear 1689.7.6. Punching shear 168

9.8. Verification of composite slabs for serviceability limit states 1689.8.1. Cracking of concrete 1689.8.2. Deflection 168

Example 9.1: two-span continuous composite slab 170

Chapter 10. Annex A (Informative). Stiffness of joint components in buildings 179A.1. Scope 179A.2. Stiffness coefficients 179A.3. Deformation of the shear connection 181Further comments on stiffness 181Example 10.1: elastic stiffness of an end-plate joint 181

Chapter 11. Annex B (Informative). Standard tests 187B.1. General 187B.2. Tests on shear connectors 188B.3. Testing of composite floor slabs 191Example 11.1: m–k tests on composite floor slabs 194Example 11.2: the partial-interaction method 198

Appendix A. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams for buildings 203Simplified expression for ‘cracked’ flexural stiffness of acomposite slab 203Flexural stiffness of beam with encased web 204Maximum spacing of shear connectors for continuous U-frameaction 204Top transverse reinforcement above an edge beam 206Derivation of the simplified expression for λLT 206

Effect of web encasement on λLT 208Factor C4 for the distribution of bending moment 209Criteria for verification of lateral–torsional stability withoutdirect calculation 209

Web encasement 210

Appendix B. The effect of slab thickness on resistance of composite slabs tolongitudinal shear 211Summary 211The model 211

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

x

10Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 12: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:28:59

The m–k method 212The use of test results as predictors 212Shape of function y(x) 213Estimate of errors of prediction 213Conclusion for the m–k method 214

The partial-connection method 214Conclusion for the partial-connection method 214

Appendix C. Simplified calculation method for the interaction curve forresistance of composite column cross-sections to compressionand uniaxial bending 217Scope and method 217Resistance to compression 218Position of neutral axis 219Bending resistances 219Interaction with transverse shear 219Neutral axes and plastic section moduli of some cross-sections 219

General 219Major-axis bending of encased I-sections 220Minor-axis bending of encased I-sections 220

Concrete-filled circular and rectangular hollow sections 221Example C.1: N–M interaction polygon for a column cross-section 222

References 225

Index 231

CONTENTS

xi

11Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 13: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:16

Introduction

The provisions of EN 1994-1-11

are preceded by a foreword, most of which is common to allEurocodes. This Foreword contains clauses on:

• the background to the Eurocode programme• the status and field of application of the Eurocodes• national standards implementing Eurocodes• links between Eurocodes and harmonized technical specifications for products• additional information specific to EN 1994-1-1• National Annex for EN 1994-1-1.

Guidance on the common text is provided in the introduction to the Designers’ Guide toEN 1990, Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design,

2and only background information essential to

users of EN 1994-1-1 is given here.EN 1990

3lists the following structural Eurocodes, each generally consisting of a number

of parts which are in different stages of development at present:

EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Structural DesignEN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on StructuresEN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete StructuresEN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel StructuresEN 1994 Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete StructuresEN 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of Timber StructuresEN 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry StructuresEN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical DesignEN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake ResistanceEN 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of Aluminium Structures

The information specific to EN 1994-1-1 emphasizes that this standard is to be used withother Eurocodes. The standard includes many cross-references to particular clauses inEN 1992

4and EN 1993.

5Similarly, this guide is one of a series on Eurocodes, and is for use

with the guide for EN 1992-1-16

and the guide for EN 1993-1-1.7

It is the responsibility of each national standards body to implement each Eurocode partas a national standard. This will comprise, without any alterations, the full text of theEurocode and its annexes as published by the European Committee for Standardization(CEN). This will usually be preceded by a National Title Page and a National Foreword, andmay be followed by a National Annex.

Each Eurocode recognizes the right of national regulatory authorities to determine valuesrelated to safety matters. Values, classes or methods to be chosen or determined at nationallevel are referred to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs), and are listed in theforeword to each Eurocode, in the clauses on National Annexes. NDPs are also indicated by

13Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 14: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:16

notes immediately after relevant clauses. Each National Annex will give or cross-refer to theNDPs to be used in the relevant country. Otherwise the National Annex may contain only thefollowing:

8

• decisions on the application of informative annexes, and• references to non-contradictory complementary information to assist the user in applying

the Eurocode.

In EN 1994-1-1 the NDPs are principally the partial factors for material or productproperties peculiar to this standard; for example, for the resistance of headed stud shearconnectors, and of composite slabs to longitudinal shear. Other NDPs are values that maydepend on climate, such as the free shrinkage of concrete.

2

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

14Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 15: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:20

CHAPTER 1

General

This chapter is concerned with the general aspects of EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design ofComposite Steel and Concrete Structures, Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Thematerial described in this chapter is covered in Section 1, in the following clauses:

• Scope Clause 1.1• Normative references Clause 1.2• Assumptions Clause 1.3• Distinction between principles and application rules Clause 1.4• Definitions Clause 1.5• Symbols Clause 1.6

1.1. Scope1.1.1. Scope of Eurocode 4

Clause 1.1.1

Clause 1.1.1(2)

The scope of EN 1994 (all three parts) is outlined in clause 1.1.1. It is to be used with EN 1990,Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design, which is the head document of the Eurocode suite.Clause 1.1.1(2) emphasizes that the Eurocodes are concerned with structural behaviour andthat other requirements, e.g. thermal and acoustic insulation, are not considered.

The basis for verification of safety and serviceability is the partial factor method. EN 1990recommends values for load factors and gives various possibilities for combinations ofactions. The values and choice of combinations are to be set by the National Annex for thecountry in which the structure is to be constructed.

Eurocode 4 is also to be used in conjunction with EN 1991, Eurocode 1: Actions onStructures9 and its National Annex, to determine characteristic or nominal loads. When acomposite structure is to be built in a seismic region, account needs to be taken of EN 1998,Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance.10

Clause 1.1.1(3)

The Eurocodes are concerned with design and not execution, but minimum standards ofworkmanship are required to ensure that the design assumptions are valid. For this reason,clause 1.1.1(3) lists the European standards for the execution of steel structures and theexecution of concrete structures. The former includes some requirements for compositeconstruction, for example for the testing of welded stud shear connectors.

1.1.2. Scope of Part 1.1 of Eurocode 4EN 1994-1-1 deals with aspects of design that are common to the principal types ofcomposite structure, buildings and bridges. This results from the CEN requirement that aprovision should not appear in more than one EN standard, as this can cause inconsistencywhen one standard is revised before another. For example, if the same rules for resistance tobending apply for a composite beam in a building as in a bridge (as most of them do), then

15Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 16: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:20

those rules are ‘general’ and must appear in EN 1994-1-1 and not in EN 1994-2 (onbridges).11 This has been done even where most applications occur in bridges. For example,clause 6.8 (fatigue) is in Part 1.1, with a few additional provisions in Part 2.

In EN 1994-1-1, all rules that are for buildings only are preceded by a heading thatincludes the word ‘buildings’, or, if an isolated paragraph, are placed at the end of therelevant clause, e.g. clauses 5.3.2 and 5.4.2.3(5).

The coverage in this guide of the ‘general’ clauses of Part 1.1 is relevant to both buildingsand bridges, except where noted otherwise. However, guidance provided by or related to theworked examples may be relevant only to applications in buildings.

Clause 1.1.2(2) Clause 1.1.2(2) lists the titles of the sections of Part 1.1. Those for Sections 1–7 are thesame as in the other material-dependent Eurocodes. The contents of Sections 1 and 2similarly follow an agreed model.

The provisions of Part 1.1 cover the design of the common composite members:

• beams in which a steel section acts compositely with concrete• composite slabs formed with profiled steel sheeting• concrete-encased or filled composite columns• joints between composite beams and steel or composite columns.

Sections 5 and 8 concern connected members. Section 5, ‘Structural analysis’, is neededparticularly for a frame that is not of ‘simple’ construction. Unbraced frames and swayframes are within its scope. The provisions include the use of second-order global analysisand prestress by imposed deformations, and define imperfections.

The scope of Part 1.1 extends to steel sections that are partially encased. The web of thesteel section is encased by reinforced concrete, and shear connection is provided betweenthe concrete and the steel. This is a well-established form of construction. The primaryreason for its choice is improved resistance in fire.

Fully encased composite beams are not included because:

• no satisfactory model has been found for the ultimate strength in longitudinal shear of abeam without shear connectors

• it is not known to what extent some design rules (e.g. for moment–shear interaction andredistribution of moments) are applicable.

A fully encased beam with shear connectors can usually be designed as if partly encased oruncased, provided that care is taken to prevent premature spalling of encasement incompression.

Part 2, Bridges, includes further provisions that may on occasion be useful for buildings,such as those on:

• composite plates (where the steel member is a flat steel plate, not a profiled section)• composite box girders• tapered or non-uniform composite members• structures that are prestressed by tendons.

The omission of application rules for a type of member or structure should not prevent itsuse, where appropriate. Some omissions are deliberate, to encourage the use of innovativedesign, based on specialized literature, the properties of materials, and the fundamentals ofequilibrium and compatibility; and following the principles given in the relevant Eurocodes.This applies, for example, to:

• large holes in webs of beams• types of shear connector other than welded studs• base plates beneath composite columns• shear heads in reinforced concrete framed structures, and• many aspects of ‘mixed’ structures, as used in tall buildings.

4

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

16Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 17: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:20

In addition to its nine normative sections, EN 1994-1-1 includes three informative annexes:

• Annex A, ‘Stiffness of joint components in buildings’• Annex B, ‘Standard tests’• Annex C, ‘Shrinkage of concrete for composite structures for buildings’.

The reasons for these annexes, additional to the normative provisions, are explained in therelevant chapters of this guide.

1.2. Normative referencesReferences are given only to other European standards, all of which are intended to be usedas a package. Formally, the Standards of the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) apply only if given an EN ISO designation. National standards for design and forproducts do not apply if they conflict with a relevant EN standard.

It is intended that, following a period of overlap, all competing national standards willbe withdrawn by around 2010. As Eurocodes may not cross-refer to national standards,replacement of national standards for products by EN or ISO standards is in progress, with atime-scale similar to that for the Eurocodes.

During the period of changeover to Eurocodes and EN standards it is likely that an ENreferred to, or its National Annex, may not be complete. Designers who then seek guidancefrom national standards should take account of differences between the design philosophiesand safety factors in the two sets of documents.

1.2.1. General reference standardsSome references here, and also in clause 1.2.2, appear to repeat references in clause 1.1.1.The difference is explained in clause 1.2. These ‘dated’ references define the issue of thestandard that is referred to in detailed cross-references, given later in EN 1994-1-1.

1.2.2. Other reference standardsEurocode 4 necessarily refers to EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Part1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, and to several parts of EN 1993, Eurocode 3:Design of Steel Structures.

In its application to buildings, EN 1994-1-1 is based on the concept of the initial erectionof a steel frame, which may include prefabricated concrete-encased members. The placing ofprofiled steel sheeting or other shuttering follows. The addition of reinforcement and in situconcrete completes the composite structure. The presentation and content of EN 1994-1-1therefore relate more closely to EN 1993-1-1 than to EN 1992-1-1.

1.3. AssumptionsThe general assumptions are those of EN 1990, EN 1992 and EN 1993. Commentary onthem will be found in the relevant guides in this series.

1.4. Distinction between principles and application rulesClauses in the Eurocodes are set out as either principles or application rules. As defined byEN 1990:

• ‘Principles comprise general statements for which there is no alternative and requirementsand analytical models for which no alternative is permitted unless specifically stated’

• ‘Principles are distinguished by the letter ‘P’ following the paragraph number’• ‘Application Rules are generally recognised rules which comply with the principles and

satisfy their requirements’.

5

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL

17Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 18: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:20

There are relatively few principles. It has been recognized that a requirement or analyticalmodel for which ‘no alternative is permitted unless specifically stated’ can rarely include anumerical value, because most values are influenced by research and/or experience, and maychange over the years. (Even the specified elastic modulus for structural steel is an approximatevalue.) Furthermore, a clause cannot be a principle if it requires the use of another clause thatis an application rule; effectively that clause also would become a principle.

It follows that, ideally, the principles in all the codes should form a consistent set, referringonly to each other, and intelligible if all the application rules were deleted. This over-ridingprinciple has strongly influenced the drafting of EN 1994.

1.5. Definitions1.5.1. GeneralIn accordance with the model for Section 1, reference is made to the definitions givenin clauses 1.5 of EN 1990, EN 1992-1-1, and EN 1993-1-1. Many types of analysis are definedin clause 1.5.6 of EN 1990. It is important to note that an analysis based on the deformedgeometry of a structure or element under load is termed ‘second order’ rather than‘non-linear’. The latter term refers to the treatment of material properties in structuralanalysis. Thus, according to EN 1990 ‘non-linear analysis’ includes ‘rigid plastic’. Thisconvention is not followed in EN 1994-1-1, where the heading ‘Non-linear global analysis’(clause 5.4.3) does not include ‘rigid plastic global analysis’ (clause 5.4.5).

Clause 1.5.1 References from clause 1.5.1 include clause 1.5.2 of EN 1992-1-1, which defines prestressas an action caused by the stressing of tendons. This applies to EN 1994-2 but not toEN 1994-1-1, as this type of prestress is outside its scope. Prestress by jacking at supports,which is outside the scope of EN 1992-1-1, is within the scope of EN 1994-1-1.

The definitions in clauses 1.5.1 to 1.5.9 of EN 1993-1-1 apply where they occur in clauses inEN 1993 to which EN 1994 refers. None of them uses the word ‘steel’.

1.5.2. Additional terms and definitionsClause 1.5.2 Most of the 13 definitions in clause 1.5.2 of EN 1994-1-1 include the word ‘composite’. The

definition of ‘shear connection’ does not require the absence of separation or slip at theinterface between steel and concrete. Separation is always assumed to be negligible, butexplicit allowance may need to be made for effects of slip, e.g. in clauses 5.4.3, 7.2.1, 9.8.2(7)and A.3.

The definition ‘composite frame’ is relevant to the use of Section 5. Where the behaviour isessentially that of a reinforced or prestressed concrete structure, with only a few compositemembers, global analysis should generally be in accordance with Eurocode 2.

These lists of definitions are not exhaustive, because all the codes use terms with precisemeanings that can be inferred from their contexts.

Concerning use of words generally, there are significant differences from British codes.These arose from the use of English as the base language for the drafting process, and theneed to improve precision of meaning and to facilitate translation into other Europeanlanguages. In particular:

• ‘action’ means a load and/or an imposed deformation• ‘action effect’ (clause 5.4) and ‘effect of action’ have the same meaning: any deformation

or internal force or moment that results from an action.

1.6. SymbolsThe symbols in the Eurocodes are all based on ISO standard 3898: 1987.12 Each code has itsown list, applicable within that code. Some symbols have more than one meaning, theparticular meaning being stated in the clause.

6

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

18Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 19: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:20

There are a few important changes from previous practice in the UK. For example, an x–xaxis is along a member, a y–y axis is parallel to the flanges of a steel section (clause 1.7(2) ofEN 1993-1-1), and a section modulus is W, with subscripts to denote elastic or plasticbehaviour.

Wherever possible, definitions in EN 1994-1-1 have been aligned with those in EN 1990,EN 1992 and EN 1993; but this should not be assumed without checking the list in clause 1.6.Some quite minor differences are significant.

The symbol fy has different meanings in EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993-1-1. It is retained inEN 1994-1-1 for the nominal yield strength of structural steel, though the generic subscriptfor that material is ‘a’, based on the French word for steel, ‘acier’. Subscript ‘a’ is not used inEN 1993-1-1, where the partial factor for steel is not γA, but γM; and this usage is followed inEN 1994-1-1. The characteristic yield strength of reinforcement is fsk, with partial factor γS.

7

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL

19Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 20: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:25

CHAPTER 2

Basis of design

The material described in this chapter is covered in Section 2 of EN 1994-1-1, in the followingclauses:

• Requirements Clause 2.1• Principles of limit states design Clause 2.2• Basic variables Clause 2.3• Verification by the partial factor method Clause 2.4

The sequence follows that of EN 1990, Sections 2–4 and 6.

2.1. RequirementsDesign is to be in accordance with the general requirements of EN 1990. The purpose ofSection 2 is to give supplementary provisions for composite structures.

Clause 2.1(3)Clause 2.1(3) reminds the user again that design is based on actions and combinations ofactions in accordance with EN 1991 and EN 1990, respectively. The use of partial safetyfactors for actions and resistances (the ‘partial factor method’) is expected but is not arequirement of Eurocodes. The method is presented in Section 6 of EN 1990 as one way ofsatisfying the basic requirements set out in Section 2 of that standard. This is why use of thepartial factor method is given ‘deemed to satisfy’ status in clause 2.1(3). To establish that adesign was in accordance with the Eurocodes, the user of any other method would normallyhave to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority and/or the client, that themethod satisfied the basic requirements of EN 1990.

2.2. Principles of limit states designThe clause provides a reminder that the influence of sequence of construction on actioneffects must be considered. It does not affect the bending resistance of beams that are inClass 1 or 2 (as defined in clause 5.5) or the resistance of a composite column, as these aredetermined by rigid plastic theory, but it does affect the resistances of beams in Class 3 or 4.

2.3. Basic variablesClause 2.3.3The classification of effects of shrinkage and temperature in clause 2.3.3 into ‘primary’ and

‘secondary’ will be familiar to designers of continuous beams, especially for bridges.Secondary effects are to be treated as ‘indirect actions’, which are ‘sets of imposed

deformations’ (clause 1.5.3.1 of EN 1990), not as action effects. This distinction appears tohave no consequences in practice, for the use of EN 1994-1-1.

21Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 21: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:25

2.4. Verification by the partial factor method2.4.1. Design values

Clause 2.4.1.1Clause 2.4.1.2

Clauses 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.1.2 illustrate the treatment of partial factors. Recommended valuesare given in Notes, in the hope of eventual convergence between the values for each partialfactor that will be specified in the National Annexes. This process was adopted because theregulatory bodies in the member states of CEN, rather than CEN itself, are responsible forsetting safety levels. The Notes are informative, not normative (i.e., not part of the precedingprovision), so that there are no numerical values in the principles of clause 2.4.1.2, asexplained earlier.

The Notes also link the partial factors for concrete, reinforcing steel and structural steel tothose recommended in EN 1992 and EN 1993. Design would be more difficult if the factorsfor these materials in composite structures differed from the values in reinforced concreteand steel structures.

The remainder of EN 1994-1-1 normally refers to design strengths, rather thancharacteristic or nominal values with partial factors. The design strength for concrete isgiven by

fcd = fck /γC (2.1)

where fck is the characteristic cylinder strength. This definition is stated algebraically becauseit differs from that of EN 1992-1-1, in which an additional coefficient αcc is applied:

fcd = αcc fck /γC (D2.1)

The coefficient is explained by EN 1992-1-1 as taking account of long-term effects and ofunfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied. The recommended value is1.0, but a different value could be chosen in a National Annex. This possibility is notappropriate for EN 1994-1-1 because the coefficient has been taken as 1.0 in calibration ofcomposite elements.

Clause 2.4.1.3 Clause 2.4.1.3 refers to ‘product standards hEN’. The ‘h’ stands for ‘harmonized’. Thisterm from the Construction Products Directive13 is explained in the Designers’ Guide toEN 1990.2

Clause 2.4.1.4 Clause 2.4.1.4, on design resistances, refers to expressions (6.6a) and (6.6c) given in clause6.3.5 of EN 1990. Resistances in EN 1994-1-1 often need more than one partial factor, and souse expression (6.6a), which is

Rd = R{(ηi Xk, i /γM, i); ad} i ≥ 1 (D2.2)

For example, clause 6.7.3.2(1) gives the plastic resistance to compression of a cross-section asthe sum of terms for the structural steel, concrete and reinforcement:

Npl, Rd = Aa fyd + 0.85Ac fcd + As fsd (6.30)

In this case, there is no separate term ad based on geometrical data, because uncertainties inareas of cross-sections are allowed for in the γM factors.

In terms of characteristic strengths, from clause 2.4.1.2, equation (6.30) becomes:

Npl, Rd = Aa fy /γM + 0.85Ac fck/γC + As fsk/γS (D2.3)

in which:

• the characteristic material strengths Xk, i are fy, fck and fsk

• the conversion factors, ηi in EN 1990, are 1.0 for steel and reinforcement and 0.85 forconcrete

• the partial factors γM, i are γM, γC and γS.

Expression (6.6c) of EN 1990 is Rd = Rk/γM. It applies where characteristic properties anda single partial factor can be used; for example, in expressions for the shear resistance of aheaded stud (clause 6.6.3.1).

10

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

22Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 22: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:25

2.4.2. Combination of actionsNo comment is necessary.

2.4.3. Verification of static equilibrium (EQU)The abbreviation EQU appears in EN 1990, where four types of ultimate limit state aredefined in clause 6.4.1:

• EQU, for loss of static equilibrium• FAT, for fatigue failure• GEO, for failure or excessive deformation of the ground• STR, for internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure.

This guide covers ultimate limit states only of types STR and FAT. Use of type GEO arisesin design of foundations to EN 1997.14

11

CHAPTER 2. BASIS OF DESIGN

23Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 23: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:42

CHAPTER 3

Materials

This chapter concerns the properties of materials needed for the design of compositestructures. It corresponds to Section 3, which has the following clauses:

• Concrete Clause 3.1• Reinforcing steel Clause 3.2• Structural steel Clause 3.3• Connecting devices Clause 3.4• Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings Clause 3.5

Rather than repeating information given elsewhere, Section 3 consists mainly of cross-references to other Eurocodes and EN standards. The following comments relate toprovisions of particular significance for composite structures.

3.1. ConcreteClause 3.1(1)Clause 3.1(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1 for the properties of concrete. For lightweight-aggregate

concrete, several properties are dependent on the oven-dry density, relative to 2200 kg/m3.Complex sets of time-dependent properties are given in its clause 3.1 for normal concrete

and clause 11.3 for lightweight-aggregate concrete. For composite structures built unpropped,with several stages of construction, simplification is essential. Specific properties are nowdiscussed. (For thermal expansion, see Section 3.3.)

Strength and stiffnessStrength and deformation characteristics are summarized in EN 1992-1-1, Table 3.1 fornormal concrete and Table 11.3.1 for lightweight-aggregate concrete.

Strength classes for normal concrete are defined as Cx/y, where x and y are respectively thecylinder and cube compressive strengths in units of newtons per square millimetre. Allcompressive strengths in design rules in Eurocodes are cylinder strengths, so an unsafe erroroccurs if a specified cube strength is used in calculations. It should be replaced at the outsetby the equivalent cylinder strength, using the relationships given by the strength classes.

Classes for lightweight concrete are designated LCx/y. The relationships between cylinderand cube strengths differ from those of normal concrete.

Except where prestressing by tendons is used (which is outside the scope of this guide), thetensile strength of concrete is rarely used in design calculations for composite members. Themean tensile strength fctm appears in the definitions of ‘cracked’ global analysis in clause5.4.2.3(2), and in clause 7.4.2(1) on minimum reinforcement. Its value and the 5 and 95%fractile values are given in Tables 3.1 and 11.3.1 of EN 1992-1-1. The appropriate fractilevalue should be used in any limit state verification that relies on either an adverse orbeneficial effect of the tensile strength of concrete.

25Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 24: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:42

Values of the modulus of elasticity are given in Tables 3.1 and 11.3.1. Clause 3.1.3 ofEN 1992-1-1 points out that these are indicative, for general applications. The short-termelastic modulus Ecm increases for ages greater than 28 days. The influence of this smallchange on the effective modulus is negligible compared with the uncertainties in themodelling of creep, so it should be ignored.

Stress/strain propertiesThe design compressive strength of concrete, fcd, is defined in clause 3.1.6(1)P of EN 1992-1-1as

fcd = αcc fck/γC

where

αcc is the coefficient taking account of long term effects on the compressive strength and ofunfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied.

Note: The value of αcc for use in a Country should lie between 0.8 and 1.0 and may be found in itsNational Annex. The recommended value is 1.

The reference in clause 3.1(1) to EN 1992-1-1 for properties of concrete begins ‘unlessotherwise given by Eurocode 4 ’ . Resistances of composite members given in EN 1994-1-1 arebased on extensive calibration studies (e.g. see Johnson and Huang15,16). The numericalcoefficients given in resistance formulae are consistent with the value αcc = 1.0 and the useof either elastic theory or the stress block defined in clause 6.2.1.2. Therefore, there is noreference in EN 1994-1-1 to a coefficient αcc or to a choice to be made in a National Annex.The symbol fcd always means fck/γC, and for beams and most columns is used with thecoefficient 0.85, as in equation (6.30) in clause 6.7.3.2(1). An exception, in that clause, is whenthe value of 0.85 is replaced by 1.0 for concrete-filled column sections, based on calibration.

The approximation made to the shape of the stress–strain curve is also relevant. Thosegiven in clause 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 are mainly curved or bilinear, but in clause 3.1.7(3) there isa simpler rectangular stress distribution, similar to the stress block given in the BritishStandard for the structural use of concrete, BS 8110.17 Its shape, for concrete strength classesup to C50/60, and the corresponding strain distribution are shown in Fig. 3.1.

This stress block is inconvenient for use with composite cross-sections, because the regionnear the neutral axis assumed to be unstressed is often occupied by a steel flange, andalgebraic expressions for resistance to bending become complex.

In composite sections, the contribution from the steel section to the bending resistancereduces the significance of that from the concrete. It is thus possible18 for EN 1994 to allowthe use of a rectangular stress block extending to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 3.1.

For a member of unit width, the moment about the neutral axis of the EN 1992 stress blockranges from 0.38fckx

2/γC to 0.48fckx2/γC, depending on the value chosen for αcc. The value for

beams in EN 1994-1-1 is 0.425fckx2/γC. Calibration studies have shown that this overestimates

14

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

x

Plasticneutral axis

0 0.0035

Compressive strain

0.8 x

0

EN 1994-1-1:0.85fcd, with fcd = fck/gC

Compressive stress

EN 1992-1-1:fcd = accfck/gC

Fig. 3.1. Stress blocks for concrete at ultimate limit states

26Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 25: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:42

the bending resistance of cross-sections of columns, so a correction factor αM is given inclause 6.7.3.6(1). See also the comments on clauses 6.2.1.2(2) and 6.7.3.6.

Clause 3.1(2)Clause 3.1(2) limits the scope of EN 1994-1-1 to the strength range C20/25 to C60/75 fornormal concrete and from LC20/22 to LC60/66 for lightweight concrete. These rangesare narrower than those given in EN 1992-1-1 because there is limited knowledge andexperience of the behaviour of composite members with weak or very strong concrete. Thisapplies, for example, to the load/slip properties of shear connectors, the redistribution ofmoments in continuous beams and the resistance of columns. The use of rectangular stressblocks for resistance to bending (clause 6.2.1.2(d)) relies on the strain capacity of thematerials. The relevant property of concrete, εcu3 in Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1, is –0.0035 forclasses up to C50/60, but is only –0.0026 for class C90/105.

ShrinkageClause 3.1(3)

Clause 3.1(4)

The shrinkage of concrete referred to in clause 3.1(3) is the drying shrinkage that occursafter setting. It does not include the plastic shrinkage that precedes setting, nor autogenousshrinkage. The latter develops during hardening of the concrete (clause 3.1.4(6) ofEN 1992-1-1), and is that which occurs in enclosed or sealed concrete, as in a concrete-filledtube, where no loss of moisture occurs. Clause 3.1(4) permits its effect on stresses anddeflections to be neglected, but does not refer to crack widths. It has little influence oncracking due to direct loading, and the rules for initial cracking (clause 7.4.2) take account ofits effects.

The shrinkage strains given in clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1 are significantly higher thanthose given in BS 8110. Taking grade C40/50 concrete as an example, with ‘dry’ environment(relative humidity 60%), the final drying shrinkage could be –400 × 10–6, plus autogenousshrinkage of –75 × 10–6.

The value in ENV 1994-1-1 was –325 × 10–6, based on practice and experience. In theabsence of adverse comment on the ENV, this value is repeated in Annex C (informative) ofEN 1994-1-1, with a Note below clause 3.1 that permits other values to be given in NationalAnnexes. In the absence of this Note, a design using a value from Annex C, confirmed in aNational Annex, would not be in accordance with the Eurocodes. This is because normativeclause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1 takes precedence over an informative National Annex, and allvariations in National Annexes have to be permitted in this way.

In typical environments in the UK, the influence of shrinkage of normal-weight concreteon the design of composite structures for buildings is significant only in:

• very tall structures• very long structures without movement joints• the prediction of deflections of beams with high span/depth ratios (clause 7.3.1 (8)).

There is further comment on shrinkage in Chapter 5.

CreepThe provisions of EN 1992-1-1 on creep of concrete can be simplified for compositestructures for buildings, as discussed in comments on clause 5.4.2.2.

3.2. Reinforcing steelClause 3.2(1)Clause 3.2(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1, which states in clause 3.2.2(3)P that its rules are valid for

specified yield strengths fyk up to 600 N/mm2.The scope of clause 3.2 of EN 1992-1-1, and hence of EN 1994-1-1, is limited to

reinforcement, including wire fabrics with a nominal bar diameter of 5 mm and above, thatis, ‘ribbed’ (high bond) and weldable. There are three ductility classes, from A (the lowest) toC. The requirements include the characteristic strain at maximum force, rather than the

15

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

27Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 26: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:42

elongation at fracture used in past British standards. Clause 5.5.1(5) of EN 1994-1-1 excludesthe use of Class A reinforcement in any composite cross-section in Class 1 or 2.

The minimum ductility properties of wire fabric given in Table C.1 of EN 1992-1-1 maynot be sufficient to satisfy clause 5.5.1(6) of EN 1994-1-1, as this requires demonstration ofsufficient ductility to avoid fracture when built into a concrete slab.19 It has been found intests on continuous composite beams with fabric in tension that the cross-wires initiatecracks in concrete, so that tensile strain becomes concentrated at the locations of the weldsin the fabric.

Clause 3.2(2) For simplicity, clause 3.2(2) permits the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement to be takenas 210 kN/mm2, the value given in EN 1993-1-1 for structural steel, rather than 200 kN/mm2,the value in EN 1992-1-1.

3.3. Structural steelClause 3.3(1)

Clause 3.3(2)

Clause 3.3(1) refers to EN 1993-1-1. This lists in its Table 3.1 steel grades with nominal yieldstrengths up to 460 N/mm2, and allows other steel products to be included in NationalAnnexes. Clause 3.3(2) sets an upper limit of 460 N/mm2 for use with EN 1994-1-1. There hasbeen extensive research20–23 on the use in composite members of structural steels with yieldstrengths exceeding 355 N/mm2. It has been found that some design rules need modificationfor use with steel grades higher than S355, to avoid premature crushing of concrete. Thisapplies to:

• redistribution of moments (clause 5.4.4(6))• rotation capacity (clause 5.4.5(4a))• plastic resistance moment (clause 6.2.1.2(2))• resistance of columns (clause 6.7.3.6(1)).

Thermal expansionFor the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of steel, clause 3.2.6 of EN 1993-1-1 gives avalue of 12 × 10–6 ‘per °C’ (also written in Eurocodes as /K or K–1). This is followed by a Notethat for calculating the ‘structural effects of unequal temperatures’ in composite structures,the coefficient may be taken as 10 × 10–6 per °C, which is the value given for normal-weightconcrete in clause 3.1.3(5) of EN 1992-1-1 ‘unless more accurate information is available’.

Thermal expansion of reinforcement is not mentioned in EN 1992-1-1, presumablybecause it is assumed to be the same as that of normal-weight concrete. For reinforcement incomposite structures the coefficient should be taken as 10 × 10–6 K–1. This was stated inENV 1994-1-1, but is not in the EN.

Coefficients of thermal expansion for lightweight-aggregate concretes can range from4 × 10–6 to 14 × 10–6 K–1. Clause 11.3.2(2) of EN 1992-1-1 states that

The differences between the coefficients of thermal expansion of steel and lightweight aggregateconcrete need not be considered in design,

but ‘steel’ here means reinforcement, not structural steel. The effects of the difference from10 × 10–6 K–1 should be considered in design of composite members for situations where thetemperatures of the concrete and the structural steel could differ significantly.

3.4. Connecting devices3.4.1. GeneralReference is made to EN 1993, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.8: Design ofJoints,24 for information relating to fasteners, such as bolts, and welding consumables.Provisions for ‘other types of mechanical fastener’ are given in clause 3.3.2 of EN 1993-1-3.25

Commentary on joints is given in Chapters 8 and 10.

16

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

28Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 27: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:42

3.4.2. Stud shear connectorsHeaded studs are the only type of shear connector for which detailed provisions are given inEN 1994-1-1, in clause 6.6.5.7. Any other method of connection must satisfy clause 6.6.1.1.The use of adhesives on a steel flange is unlikely to be suitable.

Clause 3.4.2Clause 3.4.2 refers to EN 13918, Welding – Studs and Ceramic Ferrules for Arc StudWelding.26 This gives minimum dimensions for weld collars. Other methods of attachingstuds, such as spinning, may not provide weld collars large enough for the resistances of studsgiven in clause 6.6.3.1(1) to be applicable.

Shear connection between steel and concrete by bond or friction is permitted only inaccordance with clause 6.7.4, for columns, and clauses 9.1.2.1 and 9.7, for composite slabs.

3.5. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildingsThe title includes ‘in buildings’, as this clause and other provisions for composite slabs arenot applicable to composite bridges.

Clause 3.5The materials for profiled steel sheeting must conform to the standards listed in clause 3.5.There are at present no EN standards for the wide range of profiled sheets available. Suchstandards should include tolerances on embossments and indentations, as these influenceresistance to longitudinal shear. Tolerances on embossments, given for test specimens inclause B.3.3(2), provide guidance.

The minimum bare metal thickness has been controversial, and in EN 1994-1-1 is subjectto National Annexes, with a recommended minimum of 0.70 mm. The total thickness of zinccoating in accordance with clause 4.2(3) is about 0.05 mm.

17

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

29Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 28: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:46

CHAPTER 4

Durability

This chapter concerns the durability of composite structures. It corresponds to Section 4,which has the following clauses:

• General Clause 4.1• Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildings Clause 4.2

4.1. GeneralAlmost all aspects of the durability of composite structures are covered by cross-referencesto EN 1990, EN 1992 and EN 1993. The material-independent provisions, in clause2.4 of EN 1990, require the designer to take into account 10 factors. These include theforeseeable use of the structure, the expected environmental conditions, the design criteria,the performance of the materials, the particular protective measures, the quality ofworkmanship and the intended level of maintenance.

Clauses 4.2 and 4.4.1 of EN 1992-1-1 define exposure classes and cover to reinforcement.A Note defines structural classes. These and the ‘acceptable deviations’ (tolerances) forcover may be modified in a National Annex. Clause 4.4.1.3 recommends an addition of10 mm to the minimum cover to allow for the deviation.

As an example, a concrete floor of a multi-storey car park will be subject to the action ofchlorides in an environment consisting of cyclic wet and dry conditions. For these conditions(designated class XD3) the recommended structural class is 4, giving a minimum cover for a50 year service life of 45 mm plus a tolerance of 10 mm. This total of 55 mm can be reduced,typically by 5 mm, where special quality assurance is in place.

Section 4 of EN 1993-1-1 refers to execution of protective treatments for steelwork.If parts will be susceptible to corrosion, there is need for access for inspection andmaintenance. This will not be possible for shear connectors, and clause 4.1(2) of EN 1994-1-1refers to clause 6.6.5, which includes provisions for minimum cover.

4.2. Profiled steel sheeting for composite slabs in buildingsClause 4.2(1)PClause 4.2(3)

For profiled steel sheeting, clause 4.2(1)P requires the corrosion protection to be adequatefor its environment. Zinc coating to clause 4.2(3) is ‘sufficient for internal floors in anon-aggressive environment’. This implies that it may not provide sufficient durability foruse in a multi-storey car park or near the sea.

31Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 29: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

CHAPTER 5

Structural analysis

Structural analysis may be performed at three levels: global analysis, member analysis, andlocal analysis. This chapter concerns global analysis to determine deformations and internalforces and moments in beams and framed structures. It corresponds to Section 5, which hasthe following clauses:

• Structural modelling for analysis Clause 5.1• Structural stability Clause 5.2• Imperfections Clause 5.3• Calculation of action effects Clause 5.4• Classification of cross-sections Clause 5.5

Wherever possible, analyses for serviceability and ultimate limit states use the samemethods. It is generally more convenient, therefore, to specify them together in a singlesection, rather than to include them in Sections 6 and 7. For composite slabs, though, allprovisions, including those for global analysis, are given in Section 9.

The division of material between Section 5 and Section 6 (ultimate limit states) is notalways obvious. Calculation of vertical shear is clearly ‘analysis’, but longitudinal shear is inSection 6. This is because its calculation for beams in buildings is dependent on the methodused to determine the resistance to bending. However, for composite columns, methods ofanalysis and member imperfections are considered in clause 6.7.3.4. This separationof imperfections in frames from those in columns requires care, and receives detailedexplanation after the comments on clause 5.4. The flow charts for global analysis (Fig. 5.1)include relevant provisions from Section 6.

5.1. Structural modelling for analysis5.1.1. Structural modelling and basic assumptionsGeneral provisions are given in EN 1990. The clause referred to says, in effect, that modelsshall be appropriate and based on established theory and practice and that the variables shallbe relevant.

Clause 5.1.1(2)Composite members and joints are commonly used in conjunction with others of

structural steel. Clause 5.1.1(2) makes clear that this is the type of construction envisaged inSection 5, which is aligned with and cross-refers to Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 whereverpossible. Where there are significant differences between these two sections, they arereferred to here.

5.1.2. Joint modellingClause 5.1.2(2)The three simplified joint models listed in clause 5.1.2(2) – simple, continuous and

semi-continuous – are those given in EN 1993. The subject of joints in steelwork has its

33Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 30: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

own Eurocode part, EN 1993-1-8.24 For composite joints, its provisions are modified andsupplemented by Section 8 of EN 1994-1-1.

The first two joint models are those commonly used for beam-to-column joints in steelframes. For each joint in the ‘simple’ model, the location of the nominal pin relative to thecentre-line of the column, the ‘nominal eccentricity’, has to be chosen. This determines theeffective span of each beam and the bending moments in each column. Practice varies acrossEurope, and neither EN 1993-1-1 nor EN 1994-1-1 gives values for nominal eccentricities.Guidance may be given in a National Annex, or in other literature.

Clause 5.1.2(3)

In reality, most joints in buildings are neither ‘simple’ (i.e. pinned) nor ‘continuous’. Thethird model, ‘semi-continuous’, is appropriate for a wide range of joints with moment–rotation behaviours intermediate between ‘simple’ and ‘continuous’. This model is rarelyapplicable to bridges, so the cross-reference to EN 1993-1-8 in clause 5.1.2(3) is ‘forbuildings’. The provisions of EN 1993-1-8 are for joints ‘subjected to predominantly staticloading’ (its clause 1.1(1)). They are applicable to wind loading on buildings, but not tofatigue loading, which is covered in EN 1993-1-9 and in clause 6.8.

For composite beams, the need for continuity of slab reinforcement past the columns, tocontrol cracking, causes joints to transmit moments. For the joint to ‘have no effect on theanalysis’ (from the definition of a ‘continuous’ joint in clause 5.1.1(2) of EN 1993-1-8),so much reinforcement and stiffening of steelwork are needed that the design becomesuneconomic. Joints with some continuity are usually semi-continuous. Structural analysisthen requires prior calculation of the properties of joints, except where they can be treated as‘simple’ or ‘continuous’ on the basis of ‘significant experience of previous satisfactoryperformance in similar cases’ (clause 5.2.2.1(2) of EN 1993-1-8, referred to from clause8.2.3(1)) or experimental evidence.

Clause 5.1.2(2) refers to clause 5.1.1 of EN 1993-1-8, which gives the terminology for thesemi-continuous joint model. For elastic analysis, the joint is ‘semi-rigid’. It has a rotationalstiffness, and a design resistance which may be ‘partial strength’ or ‘full strength’, normallymeaning less than or greater than the bending resistance of the connected beam. If theresistance of the joint is reached, then elastic–plastic or rigid plastic global analysis isrequired.

5.2. Structural stabilityThe following comments refer mainly to beam-and-column frames, and assume that theglobal analyses will be based on elastic theory. The exceptions, in clauses 5.4.3, 5.4.4 and5.4.5 are discussed later. All design methods must take account of errors in the initialpositions of joints (global imperfections) and in the initial geometry of members (memberimperfections); of the effects of cracking of concrete and of any semi-rigid joints; and ofresidual stresses in compression members.

The stage at which each of these is considered or allowed for will depend on the softwarebeing used, which leads to some complexity in clauses 5.2 to 5.4.

5.2.1. Effects of deformed geometry of the structure

Clause 5.2.1(2)PClause 5.2.1(3)

In its clause 1.5.6, EN 1990 defines types of analysis. ‘First-order’ analysis is performed onthe initial geometry of the structure. ‘Second-order’ analysis takes account of the deformationsof the structure, which are a function of its loading. Clearly, second-order analysis mayalways be applied. With appropriate software increasingly available, second-order analysisis the most straightforward approach. The criteria for neglect of second-order effectsgiven in clauses 5.2.1(2)P and 5.2.1(3) need not be considered. The analysis allowing forsecond-order effects will usually be iterative but normally the iteration will take place withinthe software. Methods for second-order analysis are described in textbooks such as that byTrahair et al.27

22

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

34Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 31: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

Clause 5.2.1(3)A disadvantage of second-order analysis is that, in general, the useful principle of

superposition does not apply. Clause 5.2.1(3) provides a basis for the use of first-orderanalysis. The check is done for a particular load combination and arrangement. Theprovisions in this clause are similar to those for elastic analysis in the corresponding clause inEN 1993-1-1.

In an elastic frame, second-order effects are dependent on the nearness of the designloads to the elastic critical load. This is the basis for expression (5.1), in which αcr is defined as‘the factor … to cause elastic instability’. This may be taken as the load factor at whichbifurcation of equilibrium occurs. For a conventional beam-and-column frame, it is assumedthat the frame is perfect, and that only vertical loads are present, usually at their maximumdesign values. These are replaced by a set of loads which produces the same set of memberaxial forces without any bending. An eigenvalue analysis then gives the factor αcr, applied tothe whole of the loading, at which the total frame stiffness vanishes, and elastic instabilityoccurs.

To sufficient accuracy, αcr may also be determined by a second-order load–deflectionanalysis. The non-linear load–deflection response approaches asymptotically to the elasticcritical value. Normally, though, it is pointless to use this method, as it is simpler to use thesame software to account for the second-order effects due to the design loads. A more usefulmethod for αcr is given in clause 5.2.2(1).

Unlike the corresponding clause in EN 1993-1-1, the check in clause 5.2.1(3) is not justfor a sway mode. This is because clause 5.2.1 is relevant not only to complete frames but alsoto the design of individual composite columns (see clause 6.7.3.4). Such members may beheld in position against sway but still be subject to significant second-order effects due tobowing.

Clause 5.2.1(4)PClause 5.2.1(4)P is a reminder that the analysis needs to account for the reduction instiffness arising from cracking and creep of concrete and from possible non-linear behaviourof the joints. Further remarks on how this should be done are made in the comments onclauses 5.4.2.2, 5.4.2.3 and 8.2.2, and the procedures are illustrated in Fig. 5.1(b)–(d). Ingeneral, such effects are dependent on the internal moments and forces, and iteration istherefore required. Manual intervention may be needed, to adjust stiffness values beforerepeating the analysis. It is expected, though, that advanced software will be written forEN 1994 to account automatically for these effects. The designer may of course makeassumptions, although care is needed to ensure these are conservative. For example,assuming that joints have zero rotational stiffness (resulting in simply-supported compositebeams) could lead to neglect of the reduction in beam stiffness due to cracking. The overalllateral stiffness would probably be a conservative value, but this is not certain. However, in aframe with stiff bracing it will be worth first calculating αcr, assuming joints are pinned andbeams are steel section only; it may well be found that this value of αcr is sufficiently high forfirst-order global analysis to be used.

Using elastic analysis, it is not considered necessary to account for slip (see clause5.4.1.1(8)), provided that the shear connection is in accordance with clause 6.6.

5.2.2. Methods of analysis for buildingsClause 5.2.2(1)Clause 5.2.2(1) refers to clause 5.2.1(4) of EN 1993-1-1 for a simpler check, applicable to

many structures for buildings. This requires calculation of sway deflections due to horizontalloads only, and first-order analysis can be used to determine these deflections. It is assumedthat any significant second-order effects will arise only from interaction of column forceswith sway deflection. It follows that the check will only be valid if axial compression in beamsis not significant. Fig. 5.1(e) illustrates the procedure.

Clause 5.2.2(2)Even where second-order effects are significant, clause 5.2.2(2) allows these to bedetermined by amplifying the results from a first-order analysis. No further information isgiven, but clause 5.2.2(5) of EN 1993-1-1 describes a method for frames, provided that theconditions in its clause 5.2.2(6) are satisfied.

23

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

35Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 32: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

Clause 5.2.2(3)Clause 5.2.2(4)Clause 5.2.2(5)Clause 5.2.2(6)Clause 5.2.2(7)

Clauses 5.2.2(3) to 5.2.2(7) concern the relationships between the analysis of the frameand the stability of individual members. A number of possibilities are presented. If relevantsoftware is available, clause 5.2.2(3) provides a convenient route for composite columns,because column design to clause 6.7 generally requires a second-order analysis. Usually,though, the global analysis will not account for all local effects, and clause 5.2.2(4) describesin general terms how the designer should then proceed. Clause 5.2.2(5) refers to the methodsof EN 1994-1-1 for lateral–torsional buckling, which allow for member imperfections. Thisapplies also to local and shear buckling in beams, so imperfections in beams can usually beomitted from global analyses.

In clause 5.2.2(6), ‘compression members’ are referred to as well as columns, to includecomposite members used in bracing systems and trusses. Further comments on clauses5.2.2(3) to 5.2.2(7) are made in the sections of this guide dealing with clauses 5.5, 6.2.2.3, 6.4and 6.7. Figure 5.1(a) illustrates how global and member analyses may be used, for a planeframe including composite columns.

5.3. Imperfections5.3.1. Basis

Clause 5.3.1(1)P Clause 5.3.1(1)P lists possible sources of imperfection. Subsequent clauses (and also clause5.2) describe how these should be allowed for. This may be by inclusion in the global analysesor in methods of checking resistance, as explained above.

Clause 5.3.1(2) Clause 5.3.1(2) requires imperfections to be in the most unfavourable direction and form.The most unfavourable geometric imperfection normally has the same shape as the lowestbuckling mode. This can sometimes be difficult to find; but it can be assumed that thiscondition is satisfied by the Eurocode methods for checking resistance that include effects ofmember imperfections (see comments on clause 5.2.2).

5.3.2. Imperfections in buildings

Clause 5.3.2.1(1)

Generally, an explicit treatment of geometric imperfections is required for compositeframes. In both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-1-1 the values are equivalent rather thanmeasured values (clause 5.3.2.1(1)), because they allow for effects such as residual stresses,in addition to imperfections of shape. The codes define both global sway imperfections forframes and local bow imperfections of individual members (meaning a span of a beam or thelength of a column between storeys).

Clause 5.3.2.1(2)

The usual aim in global analysis is to determine the action effects at the ends of members.If necessary, a member analysis is performed subsequently, as illustrated in Fig. 5.1(a); forexample to determine the local moments in a column due to transverse loading. Normallythe action effects at members’ ends are affected by the global sway imperfections but notsignificantly by the local bow imperfections. In both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-1-1 the effectof a bow imperfection on the end moments and forces may be neglected in global analysis ifthe design normal force NEd does not exceed 25% of the Euler buckling load for thepin-ended member (clause 5.3.2.1(2)).

Clause 5.3.2.1(3) Clause 5.3.2.1(3) is a reminder that an explicit treatment of bow imperfections is alwaysrequired for checking individual composite columns, because the resistance formulae are forcross-sections only and do not allow for action effects caused by these imperfections.

Clause 5.3.2.1(4) The reference to EN 1993-1-1 in clause 5.3.2.1(4) leads to two alternative methods ofallowing for imperfections in steel columns. One method includes all imperfections in theglobal analysis. Like the method just described for composite columns, no individual stabilitycheck is then necessary.

The alternative approach is that familiar to most designers. Member imperfections arenot accounted for in the global analysis. The stability of each member is then checked usingend moments and forces from that analysis, with buckling formulae that take account ofimperfections.

24

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

36Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 33: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

25

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Do second-order global analysis

Note: These flow charts are for aparticular load combination andarrangement for ultimate limit states, for a beam-and-column type plane frame in its own plane, and for global analyses in whichallowances may be needed forcreep, cracking of concrete, andthe behaviour of joints.

‘EC3’ means EN 1993-1-1

Yes

Yes

Check beams for lateral–torsional buckling, using resistance formulae that include member imperfections(clauses 5.2.2(5) and 5.3.2.3(2))

Were member imperfections for columns included in the global analysis?

Is the member in axial compression only?

Verify column cross-sections to clause 6.7.3.6 or 6.7.3.7, from clause 5.2.2(6)

Do second-order analysis foreach column, with end action-effects from the globalanalysis, including memberimperfections, from clause 5.2.2(6)

No

Use buckling curves that account for second-order effects and memberimperfections to check the member (clause 6.7.3.5)

No Yes

Do first-order global analysis

Determine frame imperfections as equivalent horizontal forces,to clause 5.3.2.2, which refers to clause 5.3.2 of EC3. Neglect member imperfections (clause 5.3.2.1(2))

No

Note: for columns,more detail is givenin Fig. 6.36

Go to Fig. 5.1(e), on methods of global analysis

For each column, estimate NEd, find l to clause 5.3.2.1(2).Determine member imperfection for each column (to clause 5.3.2.3) and where condition (2) of clause 5.3.2.1(2) is not satisfied, include these these imperfections in second-orderanalysis

Is second-order analysisneeded for global analysis?

Go to Fig. 5.1(b),on creep

Go to Fig. 5.1(c),on cracking

Determine appropriate stiffnesses, making allowance forcracking and creep of concrete and for behaviour of joints

Go to Fig. 5.1(d),on joints

-

Fig. 5.1. Global analysis of a plane frame

(a) Flow chart, global analysis of a plane frame with composite columns

37Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:30

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 34: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

26

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Does clause 5.4.2.2(11), on use of a nominal modular ratio, apply?

NoYes

For composite beams, assume an effective modulus (clause 5.4.2.2(11)) and determine a nominal modular ratio, n

For composite beams, determine modular ratios n0 for short-term loading and nL for permanent loads. For a combination of short-term and permanent loading, estimate proportions of loading and determine a modular ratio n from n0 and nL

For each composite column, estimate the proportion of permanent to total normalforce, determine effective modulus Ec, eff (clause 6.7.3.3(4)), and hence the designeffective stiffness, (EI)eff, II, from clause 6.7.3.4(2)

Determine cracked stiffness for each composite column, to clause 6.7.3.4

Yes No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Is the frame braced? Assume uncracked beamsMake appropriate allowances for creep (clause 5.4.2.2) and flexibility of joints (clause 8.2.2)Analyse under characteristic combinations to determine internalforces and moments (clause 5.4.2.3 (2)) and determine crackedregions of beams

Do adjacent spans satisfy clause 5.4.2.3(3)?

Are internal joints rigid?

Assume cracked lengths forbeams (clause 5.4.2.3(3))

Assign appropriate stiffnesses for beams

No

Yes

Yes

No

Can the joint be classified on the basis of experimental evidence or significant experience ofprevious performance in similar cases? (See EN 1993-1-8 (clause 5.2.2.1(2))

In the model for the frame, assign appropriate rotational stiffness to the joint

Determine rotational stiffness ((clause 8.2.2 and EN 1993-1-8 (clause 5.1.2))

Determine classification by stiffness (clause 8.2.3 and EN 1993-1-8 (clause 5.2))

Calculate initial rotational stiffness, Sj, ini (clause 8.3.3, Annex B andEN 1993-1-8 (clause 6.3))

Is the joint nominally-pinned or rigid?

Fig. 5.1. (Contd)

(b) Supplementary flow chart, creep

(c) Supplementary flow chart, cracking of concrete

(d) Supplementary flow chart, stiffness of joints, for elastic global analysis only

38Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:30

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 35: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

Global imperfectionsClause 5.3.2.2(1)Clause 5.3.2.2(1) refers to clause 5.3.2 of EN 1993-1-1. This gives values for the global sway

imperfections, describes how imperfections may be replaced by equivalent horizontal forces,and permits these to be disregarded if the real horizontal forces (e.g. due to wind) aresignificant relative to the design vertical load.

Member imperfectionsClause 5.3.2.3(1)Clause 5.3.2.3(1) refers to Table 6.5, which gives the amplitudes of the central bow of a

member designed as straight. It makes little difference whether the curve is assumed to be ahalf sine wave or a circular arc. These single-curvature shapes are assumed irrespective ofthe shape of the bending-moment diagram for the member, but the designer has to decide onwhich side of the member the bow is present.

Clause 5.3.2.3(2)Clause 5.3.2.3(3)

Clauses 5.3.2.3(2) and 5.3.2.3(3) refer to member imperfections that need not be includedin global analyses. If they are, only cross-section properties are required for checkingresistances.

5.4. Calculation of action effects5.4.1. Methods of global analysis

Clause 5.4.1.1

EN 1990 defines several types of analysis that may be appropriate for ultimate limit states.For global analysis of buildings, EN 1994-1-1 gives four methods: linear elastic analysis (withor without redistribution), non-linear analysis and rigid plastic analysis. Clause 5.4.1.1 givesguidance on matters common to more than one method.

Clause 5.4.1.1(1)For reasons of economy, plastic (rectangular stress block) theory is preferred for checking

the resistance of cross-sections. In such cases, clause 5.4.1.1(1) allows the action effects to

27

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Is axial compression in the beams‘not significant’?

Determine acr by use of appropriate softwareor from the literature

Second-order effects to betaken into account

Determine acr for each storey by EN 1993-1-1 (clause 5.2.1(4)). Determine the minimum value

First-order analysis isacceptable

Yes No

Yes

Yes

No

Is the structure a beam-and-column plane frame?

Determine appropriate allowances for cracking and creep of concrete and for behaviour of joints,clause 5.2.1(4). Assign appropriate stiffnesses to the structure. (See Figs 5.1(b) to (d))

Is acr ≥ 10?

Fig. 5.1. (Contd)

(e) Supplementary flow chart, choice between first-order and second-order global analysis

39Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:31

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 36: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

be determined by elastic analysis; for composite structures this method has the widestapplication.

Clause 5.4.1.1(2) Clause 5.4.1.1(2) makes clear that for serviceability limit states, elastic analysis shouldbe used. Linear elastic analysis is based on linear stress/strain laws, but for compositestructures, cracking of concrete needs to be considered (clause 5.4.2.3). Other possiblenon-linear effects include the flexibility of semi-continuous joints (Section 8).

Clause 5.4.1.1(4)Clause 5.4.1.1(5)Clause 5.4.1.1(6)

Methods for satisfying the principle of clause 5.4.1.1(4) are given for local buckling inclauses 5.4.1.1(5) and 5.4.1.1(6), and for shear lag in concrete in clause 5.4.1.2. Reference ismade to the classification of cross-sections. This is the established method of taking accountof local buckling of steel elements in compression. It determines the available methods ofglobal analysis and the basis for resistance to bending. The classification system is defined inclause 5.5.

There are several reasons28,29 why the apparent incompatibility between the methods usedfor analysis and for resistance is accepted, as stated in clause 5.4.1.1(1). There is no suchincompatibility for Class 3 sections, as resistance is based on an elastic model. For Class 4sections (those in which local buckling will occur before the attainment of yield), clause5.4.1.1(6) refers to clause 2.2 of EN 1993-1-1, which gives a general reference to EN 1993-1-5(‘plated structural elements’).30 This defines those situations in which the effects of shear lagand local buckling in steel plating can be ignored in global analyses.

Clause 5.4.1.1(7) Clause 5.4.1.1(7) reflects a general concern about slip, shared by EN 1993-1-1. Forcomposite joints, clause A.3 gives a method to account for deformation of the adjacent shearconnectors.

Clause 5.4.1.1(8)Composite beams have to be provided with shear connection in accordance with clause

6.6. Clause 5.4.1.1(8) therefore permits internal moments and forces to be determinedassuming full interaction. For composite columns, clause 6.7.3.4(2) gives an effective flexuralstiffness for use in global analysis.

Shear lag in concrete flanges, and effective widthAccurate values for effective width of an uncracked elastic flange can be determined bynumerical analysis. They are influenced by many parameters and vary significantly alongeach span. They are increased both by inelasticity and by cracking of concrete. For thebending resistance of a beam, underestimates are conservative, so values in codes have oftenbeen based on elastic values.

Clause 5.4.1.2 The simplified values given in clause 5.4.1.2 of EN 1994-1-1 are very similar to those usedin BS 5950: Part 3.1:199031 and BS ENV 1994-1-1:1994. The values are generally lower thanthose in EN 1992-1-1 for reinforced concrete T-beams. To adopt those would often increasethe number of shear connectors. Without evidence that the greater effective widths are anymore accurate, the established values for composite beams have mainly been retained.

The effective width is based on the distance between points of contraflexure. InEN 1992-1-1, the sum of the distances for sagging and hogging regions equals the span ofthe beam. In reality, points of contraflexure are dependent on the load arrangement.EN 1994-1-1 therefore gives a larger effective width at an internal support, to reflect thecritical load arrangement for this cross-section. In sagging regions, the assumed distancesbetween points of contraflexure are the same in both codes.

Clause 5.4.1.2(4)Although there are significant differences between effective widths for supports and

mid-span regions, it is possible to ignore this in elastic global analysis (clause 5.4.1.2(4)). Thisis because shear lag has limited influence on the results.

Clause 5.4.1.2(5)A small difference from earlier codes for buildings concerns the width of steel flange

occupied by the shear connectors. Clause 5.4.1.2(5) allows this width to be included withinthe effective region. Alternatively, it may be ignored (clause 5.4.1.2(9)).

Clause 5.4.1.2(8) Clause 5.4.1.2(8) is a reminder that Fig. 5.1 is based on continuous beams. Although clause8.4.2.1(1) refers to it, clause 5.4.1.2 does not define the effective flange width adjacent to anexternal column. Figure 5.1 may be used as a guide, or the width may be taken as the widthoccupied by slab reinforcement that is anchored to the column (see Fig. 8.2).

28

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

40Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:31

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 37: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

Example 5.1: effective width of concrete flangeThe notation and method used are those of clause 5.4.1.2. A continuous beam of uniformsection consists of two spans and a cantilever, as shown in Fig. 5.2. Values for beff arerequired for the mid-span regions AB and CD, for the support regions BC and DE, andfor the support at A.

The calculation is shown in Table 5.1. The result for support A is found from equations(5.4) and (5.5), as follows:

beff = 0.2 + [0.55 + (0.025 × 6.8/0.4)] × 0.4 +[0.55 + (0.025 × 6.8/0.85)] × 0.85 = 1.23 m

Global analysis may be based on stiffness calculated using the results for AB and CD,but the difference between them is so small that member ABCDE would be analysed as abeam of uniform section.

5.4.2. Linear elastic analysisThe restrictions on the use of rigid plastic global analysis (plastic hinge analysis), in clause5.4.5, are such that linear–elastic global analysis will often be used for composite frames.

Creep and shrinkageClause 5.4.2.2There are some differences in clause 5.4.2.2 from previous practice in the UK. The elastic

modulus for concrete under short-term loading, Ecm, is a function of the grade and density ofthe concrete. For normal-weight concrete, it ranges from 30 kN/mm2 for grade C20/25to 39 kN/mm2 for grade C60/75. With Ea for structural steel given as 210 kN/mm2, theshort-term modular ratio, given by n0 = Ea/Ecm, thus ranges from 7 to 5.3.

Figure 5.1(b) illustrates the procedure to allow for creep in members of a compositeframe. The proportion of loading that is permanent could be obtained by a preliminaryglobal analysis, but in many cases this can be estimated by simpler calculations.

For composite beams in structures for buildings where first-order global analysis isacceptable (the majority), clause 5.4.2.2(11) allows the modular ratio to be taken as 2n0 forboth short-term and long-term loading – an important simplification, not given in BS 5950.The only exceptions are:

29

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Table 5.1. Effective width of the concrete flange of a composite T-beam

Region

AB BC CD DE Support A

Le (from Fig. 5.2) (m) 6.80 4.5 7.0 4.0 6.80Le /8 (m) 0.85 0.562 0.875 0.50 –be1 (m) 0.40 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40be2 (m) 0.85 0.562 0.875 0.50 0.85beff (m) 1.45 1.162 1.475 1.10 1.23

0.4 0.2 1.4 8 10 2

A B C D E

Fig. 5.2. Worked example: effective width

41Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:31

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 38: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

• structures where second-order global analysis is required by clause 5.2• structures for buildings mainly intended for storage• structures prestressed by ‘controlled imposed deformations’ – this would apply, for

example, to the bending of steel beams by jacking before concrete is cast around one ofthe flanges.

Where the conditions of clause 5.4.2.2(11) do not apply, the modular ratio for use inanalyses for the effects of long-term loading, nL, depends on the type of loading and thecreep coefficient ϕt. This coefficient depends on both the age of the concrete on first loading,t0, and on the age at the time considered in the analysis, which is normally taken as ‘infinity’.

The use of this method is excluded for members with both flanges composite; but as theseoccur mainly in bridges, no alternative is given in Part 1.1.

Clause 5.4.2.2(3) Although clause 5.4.2.2(4) gives the age of loading by effects of shrinkage as 1 day, clause5.4.2.2(3) allows one mean value of t0 to be assumed. If, for example, unproppedconstruction is used for floor slabs, this might be taken as the age at which they could besubjected to non-trivial imposed loads. These are likely to be construction loads.

It makes quite a difference whether this age is assumed to be (for example) 2 weeks or2 months. From clause 5.4.2.2(2), the values for normal-weight concrete are found fromclause 3.1.4 of EN 1992-1-1. Suppose that normal cement is used for grade C25/30 concrete,that the building will be centrally heated, so ‘inside conditions’ apply, and that compositefloor slabs with a mean concrete thickness of 100 mm are used. Only one side of the slabs isexposed to drying, so the notional size is 200 mm. The increase in t0 from 14 to 60 daysreduces the creep coefficient from 3.0 to about 2.1.

The effect of type of loading is introduced by the symbol ψL in the equation

nL = n0(1 + ψLϕt) (5.6)

The reason for taking account of it is illustrated in Fig. 5.3. This shows three schematic curvesof the change of compressive stress in concrete with time. The top one, labelled S, is typicalof stress caused by the increase of shrinkage with time. Concrete is more susceptible to creepwhen young, so there is less creep than for the more uniform stress caused by permanentloads (line P). The effects of imposed deformations can be significantly reduced by creepwhen the concrete is young, so the curve is of type ID. The creep multiplier ψL has the values0.55, 1.1 and 1.5, respectively, for these three types of loading. The value for permanentloading on reinforced concrete is 1.0. It is increased to 1.1 for composite members becausethe steel component does not creep. Stress in concrete is reduced by creep less than it wouldbe in a reinforced member, so there is more creep.

These application rules are based mainly on extensive theoretical work on compositebeams of many sizes and proportions,32 and find application more in design of compositebridges, than in buildings.

Clause 5.4.2.2(6) The ‘time-dependent secondary effects due to creep’ referred to in clause 5.4.2.2(6) are mostunlikely to be found in buildings. Their calculation is quite complex, and is explained, with anexample, in Johnson and Hanswille.33

30

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Time

S

P

ID

0

1.0

sc/sc, 0

Fig. 5.3. Time-dependent compressive stress in concrete, for three types of loading

42Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:32

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 39: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

For creep in columns, clause 5.4.2.2(9) refers to clause 6.7.3.4(2), which in turn refers to aneffective modulus for concrete given in clause 6.7.3.3(4). If separate analyses are to be madefor long-term and short-term effects, clause 6.7.3.3(4) can be used, assuming that the ratio ofpermanent to total load is 1.0 and 0, respectively.

Shrinkage of concreteFor the determination of shrinkage strain, reference should be made to the commentary onclause 3.1. The effects in columns are unimportant, except in very tall structures. In beamswith the slab above the steel member, shrinkage causes sagging curvature. This is its ‘primaryeffect’, which is reduced almost to zero where the concrete slab is cracked through itsthickness.

In continuous beams, the primary curvature is incompatible with the levels of thesupports. It is counteracted by bending moments caused by changes in the support reactions,which increase at internal supports and reduce at end supports. The moments and theassociated shear forces are the ‘secondary effects’ of shrinkage.

Clause 5.4.2.2(7)

Clause 5.4.2.2(8)

Clause 5.4.2.2(7) allows both types of effect to be neglected at ultimate limit states in abeam with all cross-sections in Class 1 or 2, unless its resistance to bending is reducedby lateral–torsional buckling. This restriction can be significant. Clause 5.4.2.2(8) allowsthe option of neglecting primary curvature in cracked regions.34 This complicates thedetermination of the secondary effects, because the extent of the cracked regions has to befound, and the beam then has a non-uniform section. It may be simpler not to take theoption, even though the secondary hogging bending moments at internal supports are thenhigher. These moments, being a permanent effect, enter into all load combinations, and mayinfluence the design of what is often a critical region.

The long-term effects of shrinkage are significantly reduced by creep. In the exampleabove, on creep of concrete, ϕt = 3 for t0 = 14 days. For shrinkage, with t0 = 1 day, clause3.1.4 of EN 1992-1-1 gives ϕt = 5, and equation (5.6) gives the modular ratio as:

n = n0(1 + 0.55 × 5) = 3.7n0

Where it is necessary to consider shrinkage effects within the first year or so after casting,a value for the relevant free shrinkage strain can be obtained from clause 3.1.4(6) ofEN 1992-1-1.

The influence of shrinkage on serviceability verifications is dealt with in Chapter 7.

Effects of cracking of concreteClause 5.4.2.3Clause 5.4.2.3 is applicable to both serviceability and ultimate limit states. Figure 5.1(c)

illustrates the procedure.In conventional composite beams with the slab above the steel section, cracking of

concrete reduces the flexural stiffness in hogging moment regions, but not in saggingregions. The change in relative stiffness needs to be taken into account in elastic globalanalysis. This is unlike analysis of reinforced concrete structures, where cracking occursin both hogging and sagging bending, and uncracked cross-sections can be assumedthroughout.

Clause 5.4.2.3(2)Clause 5.4.2.3(3)

EN 1994-1-1 provides several different methods to allow for cracking in beams. This isbecause its scope is both ‘general’ and ‘buildings’. Clause 5.4.2.3(2) provides a generalmethod. This is followed in clause 5.4.2.3(3) by a simplified approach of limited application.For buildings, a further method is given separately in clause 5.4.4.

In the general method, the first step is to determine the expected extent of cracking inbeams. The envelope of moments and shears is calculated for characteristic combinationsof actions, assuming uncracked sections and including long-term effects. The section isassumed to crack if the extreme-fibre tensile stress in concrete exceeds twice the mean valueof the axial tensile strength given by EN 1992-1-1. The cracked stiffness is then adopted forsuch sections, and the structure re-analysed. This requires the beams with cracked regions tobe treated as beams of non-uniform section.

31

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

43Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:32

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 40: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

The ‘uncracked’ and ‘cracked’ flexural stiffnesses EaI1 and EaI2 are defined in clause 1.5.2.Steel reinforcement is normally neglected in the calculation of I1.

The reasons why stiffness is not reduced to the ‘cracked’ value until an extreme-fibre stressof twice the mean tensile strength of the concrete is reached, are as follows:

• the concrete is likely to be stronger than specified• reaching fctm at the surface may not cause the slab to crack right through, and even if it

does, the effects of tension stiffening are significant at the stage of initial cracking• until after yielding of the reinforcement, the stiffness of a cracked region is greater than

EaI2, because of tension stiffening between the cracks• the calculation uses an envelope of moments, for which regions of slab in tension are

more extensive than they are for any particular loading.

Clause 5.4.2.3(3)Clause 5.4.2.3(4)Clause 5.4.2.3(5)

Clauses 5.4.2.3(3) to 5.4.2.3(5) provide a non-iterative method, but one that is applicableonly to some situations. These include conventional continuous composite beams, andbeams in braced frames. The cracked regions could differ significantly from the assumedvalues in a frame that resists wind loading by bending. Where the conditions are not satisfied,the general method of clause 5.4.2.3 (2) should be used.

Cracking affects the stiffness of a frame, and therefore needs to be considered in thecriteria for use of first-order analysis (clauses 5.2.1(3) and 5.2.2(1)). For braced frameswithin the scope of clause 5.4.2.3(3), the cracked regions in beams are of fixed extent, and theeffective stiffness of the columns is given by clause 6.7.3.4(2). The corresponding value of theelastic critical factor αcr can therefore be determined prior to analysis under the design loads.It is then worth checking if second-order effects can be neglected.

For unbraced frames, the extent of the cracking can only be determined from analysisunder the design loads. This analysis therefore needs to be carried out before the criteriacan be checked. It is more straightforward to carry out a second-order analysis, withoutattempting to prove whether or not it is strictly necessary. Where second-order analysis isnecessary, strictly the extent of cracking in beams should take account of the second-ordereffects. However, as this extent is based on the envelope of internal forces and moments forcharacteristic combinations, these effects may not be significant.

The ‘encasement’ in clause 5.4.2.3(5) is a reference to the partially encased beams definedin clause 6.1.1(1)P. Fully encased beams are outside the scope of EN 1994-1-1.

Temperature effectsClause 5.4.2.5(2) Clause 5.4.2.5(2) states that temperature effects, specified in EN 1991-1-5,35 may normally be

neglected in analyses for certain situations. Its scope is narrow because it applies to allcomposite structures, not buildings only. It provides a further incentive to select steelsections for beams that are not weakened by lateral–torsional buckling.

Study of the ψ factors of Annex A1 of EN 199036 for combinations of actions for buildingswill show, for many projects, that temperature effects do not influence design. This isillustrated for the design action effects due to the combination of imposed load (Q) withtemperature (T), for a building with floors in category B, office areas. Similar commentsapply to other combinations of actions and types of building.

The combination factors recommended in clause A1.2.2(1) of EN 1990 are given in Table5.2. It is permitted to modify these values in a National Annex. For ultimate limit states, thecombinations to be considered, in the usual notation and with the recommended γF factors,are

32

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Table 5.2. Combination factors for imposed load and temperature

Action y0 y1 y2

Imposed load, building in category B 0.7 0.5 0.3Temperature (non-fire) in buildings 0.6 0.5 0

44Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:32

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 41: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

1.35Gk + 1.5(Qk + 0.6Tk) and 1.35Gk + 1.5(Tk + 0.7Qk)

The second one, with T leading, governs only where Tk > 0.75Qk. Normally, action effectsdue to temperature are much smaller than those due to imposed load, and additional actioneffects resulting from the inclusion of T in the first combination are not significant.

For serviceability limit states, much depends on the project. Note 2 to clause 3.4(1)P ofEN 1990 states: ‘Usually the serviceability requirements are agreed for each individualproject’. Similarly, clause A1.4.2(2) of Annex A1 of EN 1990 states, for buildings: ‘Theserviceability criteria should be specified for each project and agreed with the client. Note:The serviceability criteria may be defined in the National Annex.’

There are three combinations of actions given in EN 1990 for serviceability limit states:characteristic, frequent and quasi-permanent. The first of these uses the same combinationfactors ψ0 as for ultimate limit states, and the comments made above therefore apply. Thequasi-permanent combination is normally used for long-term effects, and temperature istherefore not included.

For the frequent combination, the alternatives are:

Gk + 0.5Qk and Gk + 0.5Tk + 0.3Qk

The second one governs only where Tk > 0.4Qk.This example suggests that unless there are members for which temperature is the most

severe action, as can occur in some industrial structures, the effects T are unlikely toinfluence verifications for buildings.

Prestressing by controlled imposed deformationsClause 5.4.2.6(2)Clause 5.4.2.6(2) draws attention to the need to consider the effects of deviations of

deformations and stiffnesses from their intended or expected values. If the deformations arecontrolled, clause 5.4.2.6(2) permits design values of internal forces and moments arisingfrom this form of prestressing to be calculated from the characteristic or nominal value of thedeformation, which will usually be the intended or measured value.

The nature of the control required is not specified. It should take account of the sensitivityof the structure to any error in the deformation.

Prestressing by jacking of supports is rarely used in buildings, as the subsequent loss ofprestress can be high.

5.4.3. Non-linear global analysisClause 5.4.3Clause 5.4.3 adds little to the corresponding clauses in EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993-1-1, to

which it refers. These clauses give provisions, mainly principles, that apply to any method ofglobal analysis that does not conform to clause 5.4.2, 5.4.4 or 5.4.5. They are relevant, forexample, to the use of finite-element methods.

There is some inconsistency in the use of the term ‘non-linear’ in the Eurocodes. Thenotes to clauses 1.5.6.6 and 1.5.6.7 of EN 1990 make clear that all of the methods ofglobal analysis defined in clauses 1.5.6.6 to 1.5.6.11 (which include ‘plastic’ methods) are‘non-linear’ in Eurocode terminology. ‘Non-linear’ in these clauses refers to the deformationproperties of the materials.

Moderate geometrical non-linearity, such as can occur in composite structures, is allowedfor by using analyses defined as ‘second-order’. The much larger deformations that canoccur, for example, in some cable-stayed structures, need special treatment.

In clause 5.4 of EN 1993-1-1, global analyses are either ‘elastic’ or ‘plastic’, and ‘plastic’includes several types of non-linear analysis. The choice between these alternative methodsshould take account of the properties of composite joints given in Section 8 of EN 1994-1-1.

Clause 5.4.3(1)Clause 5.7 in EN 1992-1-1 referred to from clause 5.4.3(1) is ‘Non-linear analysis’, whichadds little new information.

In EN 1994-1-1, non-linear analysis, clause 5.4.3, and rigid plastic analysis, clause 5.4.5, aretreated as separate types of global analysis, so that clause 5.4.3 is not applicable where clause

33

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

45Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:32

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 42: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

5.4.5 is being followed. The term ‘non-linear’ is used also for a type of resistance, in clause6.2.1.4.

5.4.4. Linear elastic analysis with limited redistribution for buildingsThe concept of redistribution of moments calculated by linear-elastic theory is wellestablished in the design of concrete and composite framed structures. It makes limitedallowance for inelastic behaviour, and enables the size of a design envelope of bendingmoments (from all relevant arrangements of variable loads) to be reduced. In compositebeams it is generally easier to provide resistance to bending in mid-span regions than atinternal supports. The flexural stiffness at mid-span is higher, sometimes much higher, thanat internal supports, so that ‘uncracked’ global analyses overestimate hogging bendingmoments in continuous beams. A flow chart for this clause is given in Fig. 5.4.

Clause 5.4.4(1) Clause 5.4.4(1) refers to redistribution in ‘continuous beams and frames’, but compositecolumns are not mentioned. At a beam–column intersection in a frame, there are usuallybending moments in the column, arising from interaction with the beam. Redistribution forthe beam may be done by assuming it to be continuous over simple supports. If the hoggingmoments are reduced, the bending moments in the column should be left unaltered. Ifhogging moments are increased, those in the column should be increased in proportion.

The clause is applicable provided second-order effects are not significant. Inelasticbehaviour results in loss of stiffness, but EN 1994-1-1 does not require this to be taken intoaccount when determining whether the clause is applicable. Although there is considerableexperience in using expression (5.1) as a criterion for rigid plastic global analysis of steelframes with full-strength joints, to allow for non-linear material properties, clause 5.2.1(3) ofEN 1993-1-1 gives the more severe limit, αcr ≥ 15. This limit is a nationally determinedparameter. EN 1994-1-1 retains the limit αcr ≥ 10, but account should be taken of crackingand creep of concrete and the behaviour of joints.

Clause 5.4.4(2) One of the requirements of clause 5.4.4(2) is that redistribution should take account of ‘alltypes of buckling’. Where the shear resistance of a web is reduced to below the plastic valueVpl, Rd to allow for web buckling, and the cross-section is not in Class 4, it would be prudenteither to design it for the vertical shear before redistribution, or to treat it as if in Class 4.

Although the provisions of clause 5.4.4 appear similar to those of clause 5.2.3.1 ofBS 5950-3-1, there are important differences. Some of these arise because the scope of theBritish standard is limited to conventional composite beams in normal building structures.The Eurocode provisions are not applicable where:

(1) second-order global analysis is required(2) a serviceability or fatigue limit state is being verified(3) the structure is an unbraced frame(4) semi-rigid or partial-strength joints are used(5) beams are partially encased, unless the rotation capacity is sufficient or encasement in

compression is neglected(6) the depth of a beam varies within a span(7) a beam with steel of grade higher than S355 has cross-sections in Class 3 or 4(8) the resistance of the beam is reduced to allow for lateral–torsional buckling.

The reasons for these exclusions are now briefly explained:

(1) redistribution arises from inelastic behaviour, which lessens the stiffness of the structureand threatens stability

(2) fatigue verification is based on elastic analysis(3) the amounts of redistribution given in Table 5.1 have been established considering

beams subjected only to gravity loading(4) the amounts of redistribution given in Table 5.1 allow for inelastic behaviour in

composite beams, but not for the moment–rotation characteristics of semi-rigid orpartial-strength joints

34

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

46Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:33

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 43: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

Clause 5.4.4(3)

(5) crushing of the concrete encasement in compression may limit the rotation capacityneeded to achieve redistribution; limits to redistribution for partially encased beams canbe determined by using the rules for steel members or concrete members, whichever isthe more restrictive (clause 5.4.4(3))

(6) the amounts of redistribution given in Table 5.1 have been established only for beams ofuniform section

35

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Is there a need for second-order global analysis? (Clause 5.4.4(1))

No RoM from regions influenced by buckling

No

Steel member. Follow clause 5.4(2) of EN 1993-1-1. (Clause 5.4.4(3)

Do first-order elastic global analysis

No RoM permitted

Concrete member. Follow clause 5.5 of EN 1992-1-1. (Clause 5.4.4(3))

Composite member. Are there any partially encased beams without aconcrete or composite slab?

Are there any cross-sections or members where resistance is influenced by any form of buckling other than local buckling? (Clause 5.4.4(2))

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Follow the more restrictive of the rules for steel and for concrete members. (Clause 5.4.4(3))

Does the structure analysed include any composite columns?

No RoM that reduces moments in columns permitted, unless rotation capacity has been verified. (Inferred from clause 5.4.5(5))

Is the beam partially encased?

Is the beam part of an unbracedframe? (Clause 5.4.4(4))

Either: check rotation capacity, or: ignore encasement in compression when finding MRd at sections where BM reduced. (Clause 5.4.4(4))

Are the conditions of clause 5.4.4(4) on jointsand depth of member both satisfied?

No RoM permitted. (Clause 5.4.4(6))

(END)

Increase maximum hogging BMs by up to 10% for ‘cracked’ analyses and 20% for ‘uncracked’ analyses. (Clause 5.4.4(5))

Is the grade of the steelhigher than S355?

No RoMpermitted

(END)

Treat Class 1 sections as Class 2 unless rotation capacity verified. (Clause 5.4.4(6))

No RoM of BMsapplied to the steel member. (Clause 5.4.4(7))

Maximum hogging BMs may be reduced, by amounts within the limits given in Table 5.1 unless verified rotation capacity permits a higher value. (Clause 5.4.4(5))

(END)

Are all cross-sectionsin Class 1 or 2?

Are all cross-sections in Class 1 or 2?

Note: The provisions from here onwards refer to ‘beams’ not to ‘frames’

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

YesYes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Fig. 5.4. Flow chart for redistribution of moments. Note: this chart applies for verifications for limitstates other than fatigue, based on linear-elastic global analysis (RoM, redistribution of bending moments;BM, bending moment)

47Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:33

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 44: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

(7) the greater strains associated with higher grade steels may increase the rotation neededto achieve redistribution

(8) lateral–torsional buckling may limit the rotation capacity available.

The last condition can be restrictive, as it may apply where > 0.2 (see clause 6.4.2(4)).However, for composite beams with rolled or equivalent welded steel sections, the valuerecommended in a note to clause 6.3.2.3(1) of EN 1993-1-1 is > 0.4.

The conditions above apply to the percentages given in Table 5.1, which applies only tobeams. It should not be inferred that no redistribution is permitted in structures that fail tosatisfy one or more of them. It would be necessary to show that any redistribution proposedsatisfied clause 5.4.4(2).

Under distributed loading, redistribution usually occurs from hogging to sagging regionsof a beam (except of course at an end adjacent to a cantilever). The limits to this redistributionin Table 5.1 are based on extensive experience in the use of earlier codes and on research.They have been checked by parametric studies, based on Eurocode 4, of beams in Class 228

and Class 3.29

The limits given in Table 5.1 for ‘uncracked’ analyses are the same as in BS 5950,31 but aremore restrictive by 5% for ‘cracked’ analyses of beams in Class 1 or 2. This reflects thefinding37 that the difference caused by cracking, between moments calculated by elastictheory in such beams, is nearer 15% than 10%.

No provision is made in EN 1994-1-1 for a ‘non-reinforced’ subdivision of Class 1, forwhich redistribution up to 50% is allowed in BS 5950-3-1. The use of such sections is notprevented by EN 1994-1-1. The requirements for minimum reinforcement given in clause5.5.1(5) are applicable only if the calculated resistance moment takes account of compositeaction. The resistance of a non-reinforced cross-section is that of the steel member alone.

Clause 5.4.4(4)

The use of plastic resistance moments for action effects found by elastic global analysis(clause 5.4.1.1(1)) implies redistribution of moments, usually from internal supports tomid-span regions, additional to the degrees of redistribution permitted, but not required, byclause 5.4.4(4).38

Clause 5.4.4(5)

Where there are heavy point loads, and in particular for adjacent spans of unequal length,there can be a need for redistribution from mid-span to supports. This is allowed, to a limitedextent, by clause 5.4.4(5).

Clause 5.4.4(7)

The effects of sequence of construction should be considered where unpropped constructionis used and the composite member is in Class 3 or 4. As Table 5.1 makes allowance forinelastic behaviour in a composite beam, clause 5.4.4(7) limits redistribution of moments tothose arising after composite action is achieved. No such limitation applies to a cross-sectionin Class 1 or Class 2, as the moment resistance is determined by plastic analysis and istherefore independent of the loading sequence.

The reference in clause 5.4.4(3)(b) to redistribution in steel members is to those that donot subsequently become composite.

5.4.5. Rigid plastic global analysis for buildingsPlastic hinge analysis, so well known in the UK, is referred to as ‘rigid plastic’ analysisbecause it is based on the assumption that the response of a member to bending moment iseither rigid (no deformation) or plastic (rotation at constant bending moment). Other typesof inelastic analysis defined in clause 1.5.6 of EN 1990 are covered in clause 5.4.3. Typicalmoment–curvature curves are shown in Fig. 5.5. No application rules are given for thembecause they require purpose-written computer programmes.

These other methods are potentially more accurate than rigid plastic analysis, but only ifthe stress–strain curves are realistic and account is taken of longitudinal slip, as required byclause 5.4.3(2)P.

Clause 5.4.5 Taking account of the cross-references in clause 5.4.5, the conditions under which use ofrigid plastic global analysis is allowed extend over two pages, which need not be summarizedhere. Development of a collapse mechanism in a composite structure requires a greater

36

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

LTλ

LTλ

48Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:33

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 45: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

degree of redistribution of elastic moments than in most steel structures, because beams areusually much stronger at mid-span than at supports. The purpose of the conditions is toensure that this redistribution, and the large in-plane deformations associated with it, canoccur without loss of resistance caused by buckling, fracture of steel, or crushing of concrete.

Rigid plastic analysis is applicable only if second-order effects are not significant.Comments on clause 5.4.1.1 referred to the use of expression (5.1) when material behaviour isnon-linear. Care needs to be taken if plastic hinges are expected to form in partial-strengthjoints.39 These may be substantially weaker than the connected members and the plastichinges may form at relatively low levels of load. It would be prudent to neglect the stiffness ofsuch joints when determining αcr.

Clause 5.4.5(1)

Clause 5.4.5(4)

Clause 5.4.5(1) requires cross-sections of ‘steel members’ to satisfy clause 5.6 ofEN 1993-1-1. This applies during unpropped construction, but not to steel elementsof composite members, except as provided in clause 5.4.5(6). The provision on rotationcapacity in clause 5.6(2) of EN 1993-1-1 is replaced by the conditions of clause 5.4.5(4) ofEN 1994-1-1.

The rule on neutral axis depth in clause 5.4.5(4)(g) is discussed under clause 6.2.1.2.

5.5. Classification of cross-sectionsTypical types of cross-section are shown in Fig. 6.1. The classification of cross-sections ofcomposite beams is the established method of taking account in design of local buckling ofsteel elements in compression. It determines the available methods of global analysis and thebasis for resistance to bending, in the same way as for steel members. Unlike the method inEN 1993-1-1, it does not apply to columns.

Clause 5.5A flow diagram for the provisions of clause 5.5 is given in Fig. 5.6. The clause numbersgiven are from EN 1994-1-1, unless noted otherwise.

Clause 5.5.1(1)PClause 5.5.1(1)P refers to EN 1993-1-1 for definitions of the four classes and theslendernesses that define the class boundaries. Classes 1 to 4 correspond respectively to theterms ‘plastic’, ‘compact’, ‘ semi-compact’ and ‘slender’ that were formerly used in Britishcodes. The limiting slendernesses are similar to those of BS 5950-3-1.31 The numbers appeardifferent because the two definitions of flange breadth are different, and the coefficient thattakes account of yield strength, ε, is defined as ÷(235/fy) in the Eurocodes, and as ÷(275/fy) inBS 5950.

The scope of EN 1994-1-1 includes members where the cross-section of the steelcomponent has no plane of symmetry parallel to the plane of its web (e.g. a channel section).Asymmetry of the concrete slab or its reinforcement is also acceptable.

Clause 5.5.1(2)

The classifications are done separately for steel flanges in compression and steel webs, butthe methods interact, as described below. The class of the cross-section is the less favourableof the classes so found (clause 5.5.1(2)), with three exceptions. One is where a web is assumed

37

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

0

Rigid–plastic

Bendingmoment

Elastic–perfectly plastic

Elasto-plastic

Curvature

Fig. 5.5. Moment–curvature curves for various types of global analysis

49Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:34

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 46: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

to resist shear forces only (clause 5.5.2(12) of EN 1993-1-1). The others are the ‘hole-in-web’option of clause 5.5.2(3) and the use of web encasement, both discussed later.

Reference is sometimes made to a beam in a certain class. This means that none of itscross-sections is in a less favourable class than the one stated, and may imply a certaindistribution of bending moment. Clause 5.5.1(2) warns that the class of a composite sectiondepends on the sign of the bending moment (sagging or hogging), as it does for a steel sectionthat is not symmetrical about its neutral axis for bending.

Designers of structures for buildings normally select beams with steel sections such thatthe composite sections are in Class 1 or 2, for the following reasons:

• Rigid plastic global analysis is not excluded, provided that the sections at locations ofplastic hinges are in Class 1.

38

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Is steel compression flange restrained by shear connectors to clause 5.5.2(1)?

Is the web encased in concrete to clause 5.5.3(2)?

Classify flange to Table 5.2 of EN 1994-1-1

From clause 5.5.2(2), classify flange to Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1

Note 1: ‘Flange’ means steel compression flangeNo

No

Yes

Yes

Note: See Note 2, below

Web is Class 3

Class 1Compression flange is:

Locate the plastic neutral axis, allowing for partial shear connection, if any

From clause 5.5.2(2), classify the web using the plastic stress distribution, to Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1

Locate the elastic neutral axis, assuming full shear connection, taking account of sequence of construction, creep, and shrinkage, to clause 5.5.1(4)

Web in Class 3

Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

Web not classified Web is Class 4

Is web encased to clause 5.5.3(2)?

Yes

No Yes

No

No

Yes

From clause 5.5.2(2), classify the web using the elastic stress distribution, to Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1

Is the compression flange in Class 1 or 2?

Is the compression flange in Class 3?

Replace web by effective web in Class 2, to clause 5.5.2(3)?

Web is Class 2 Effective web is Class 2

Is the flange in Class 1?

Section is Class 1 Section is Class 2

Web is Class 1

Yes Effective section is Class 2 Section is Class 3 Section is Class 4

No

Note 2: Where elastic global analysis will be used, and the web will be assumed to resist shear force only, clause 5.5.4(6) of EN 1993-1-1 permits the section to be designed as Class 2, 3 or 4, depending only on the class of the flange

Yes No

Fig. 5.6. Classification of a cross-section of a composite beam

50Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:34

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 47: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

• Bending resistances of beams can be found using plastic theory. For composite sections,this gives resistances from 20 to 40% above the elastic resistance, whereas the increasefor steel sections is about 15%.

• The limits to redistribution of moments are more favourable than for Classes 3 and 4.• Where composite floor slabs are used, it may be difficult to provide full shear

connection. Clause 6.6.1.1(14) permits partial connection, but only where all beamcross-sections are in Class 1 or 2.

Clause 5.5.1(3)

Simply-supported composite beams in buildings are almost always in Class 1 or 2, becausethe depth of web in compression (if any) is small, and the connection to the concrete slabprevents local buckling of the adjacent steel flange. Clause 5.5.1(3) refers to this, and clause5.5.2(1) refers to the more useful clause 6.6.5.5, which limits the spacing of the shearconnectors required.

Clause 5.5.1(4)

Since the class of a web depends on the level of the neutral axis, and this is different forelastic and plastic bending, it is not obvious which stress distribution should be used for asection near the boundary between Classes 2 and 3. Clause 5.5.1(4) provides the answer, theplastic distribution. This is because the use of the elastic distribution could place a section inClass 2, for which the bending resistance would be based on the plastic distribution, which inturn could place the section in Class 3.

Clause 5.5.1(5)

Clause 5.5.1(6)

Clause 5.5.1(5), on the minimum area of reinforcement for a concrete flange, appearshere, rather than in Section 6, because it gives a further condition for a cross-section to beplaced in Class 1 or 2. The reason is that these sections must maintain their bendingresistance, without fracture of the reinforcement, while subjected to higher rotation thanthose in Class 3 or 4. This is ensured by disallowing the use of bars in ductility Class A (thelowest), and by requiring a minimum cross-sectional area, which depends on the tensile forcein the slab just before it cracks.40 Clause 5.5.1(6), on welded mesh, has the same objective.

Clause 5.5.1(7)Clause 5.5.1(7) draws attention to the use of unpropped construction, during which boththe top flange and the web of a steel beam may be in a lower class until the member becomescomposite.

The hole-in-web method

Clause 5.5.2(3)This useful device first appeared in BS 5930-3-1.31 It is now in clause 6.2.2.4 of EN 1993-1-1,which is referred to from clause 5.5.2(3).

In beams subjected to hogging bending, it often happens that the bottom flange is in Class1 or 2, and the web is in Class 3. The initial effect of local buckling of the web would be a smallreduction in the bending resistance of the section. The assumption that a defined depth ofweb, the ‘hole’, is not effective in bending enables the reduced section to be upgraded fromClass 3 to Class 2, with the advantages for design that are listed above. The method isanalogous to the use of effective areas for Class 4 sections, to allow for local buckling.

There is a limitation to its scope that is not evident from the wording in EN 1993-1-1:

The proportion of the web in compression should be replaced by a part of 20εtw adjacent to thecompression flange, with another part of 20εtw adjacent to the plastic neutral axis of the effectivecross-section.

It follows that for a design yield strength fyd the compressive force in the web is limited to40εtw fyd. For a composite beam in hogging bending, the tensile force in the longitudinalreinforcement in the slab can exceed this value, especially where fyd is reduced to allow forvertical shear. The method is then not applicable, because the second ‘part of 20εtw’ is notadjacent to the plastic neutral axis, which lies within the top flange. The method, and thislimitation, are illustrated in Examples 6.1 and 6.2.

Partially encased cross-sectionsPartially encased sections are defined in clause 6.1.1(1)P. Those illustrated there also haveconcrete flanges. The web encasement improves the resistance of both the web and the other

39

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

51Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:34

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 48: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:29:52

Clause 5.5.3(1) flange to local buckling. A concrete flange is not essential, as shown in clause 5.5.3(1), whichgives the increased slenderness ratios for compression flanges in Classes 2 and 3. The limitfor Class 1 is unaltered.

The rest of clause 5.5.3 specifies the encasement that enables a Class 3 web to be treated asClass 2, without loss of cross-section. Conditions under which the encasement contributes tothe bending and shear resistance of the member are given in Section 6, where relevantcomments will be found.

40

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

52Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:34

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 49: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

CHAPTER 6

Ultimate limit states

This chapter corresponds to Section 6 of EN 1994-1-1, which has the following clauses:

• Beams Clause 6.1• Resistances of cross-sections of beams Clause 6.2• Resistance of cross-sections of beams for buildings with partial encasement Clause 6.3• Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams Clause 6.4• Transverse forces on webs Clause 6.5• Shear connection Clause 6.6• Composite columns and composite compression members Clause 6.7• Fatigue Clause 6.8

Clauses 6.1 to 6.7 define resistances of cross-sections to static loading, for comparison withaction effects determined by the methods of Section 5. The ultimate limit state considered isSTR, defined in clause 6.4.1(1) of EN 1990 as:

Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members, … where thestrength of constructional materials of the structure governs.

For lateral–torsional buckling of beams and for columns, the resistance is influenced bythe properties of the whole member, and there is an implicit assumption that the member isof uniform cross-section, apart from variations arising from cracking of concrete and fromdetailing.

The self-contained clause 6.8, ‘Fatigue’, covers steel, concrete and reinforcement bycross-reference to Eurocodes 2 and 3, and deals mainly with shear connection in beams.

Clause 6.1.1

Most of the provisions of Section 6 are applicable to both buildings and bridges, but anumber of clauses are headed ‘for buildings’, and are replaced by other clauses in EN 1994-2.Some of these differences arise from the different treatments of shear connection in the twocodes, which are compared in comments on clause 6.1.1.

6.1. Beams6.1.1. Beams for buildingsFigure 6.1 shows typical examples of beams for buildings within the scope of EN 1994-1-1.The details include web encasement, and profiled sheeting with spans at right angles to thespan of the beam, and continuous or discontinuous over the beam. The top right-handdiagram represents a longitudinal haunch. Not shown (and not excluded) is the commonsituation in which profiled sheeting spans are parallel to the span of the beam. A re-entranttrough is shown in the bottom right-hand diagram. Sheeting with trapezoidal troughs is alsowithin the scope of the code.

53Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:34

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 50: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

The steel cross-section may be a rolled I- or H-section or may be a doubly-symmetrical ormono-symmetrical plate girder. Other possible types include any of those shown in sheet 1 ofTable 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1; for example, rectangular hollow sections. Channel and anglesections should not be used unless the shear connection is designed to provide torsionalrestraint. Stub girders are not within the scope of EN 1994-1-1. There is an extensiveliterature on their design.41

Shear connection

Clause 6.1.1(4)P

In buildings, composite cross-sections are usually in Class 1 or 2, and the bending resistanceis determined by plastic theory. At the plastic moment of resistance, the longitudinal force ina concrete flange is easily found, so design of shear connection for buildings is often based onthe change in this force between two cross-sections where the force is known. This led to theconcepts of critical cross-sections (clause 6.1.1(4)P to clause 6.1.1(6)) and critical lengths(clause 6.1.1(6)). These concepts are not used in bridge design. Cross-sections in Class 3 or 4are common in bridges, and elastic methods are used. Longitudinal shear flows are thereforefound from the well-known result from elastic theory, vL = .

Points of contraflexure are not critical cross-sections, partly because their location isdifferent for each arrangement of variable load. A critical length in a continuous beam maytherefore include both a sagging and a hogging region. Where connectors are uniformlyspaced over this length, the number in the hogging region may not correspond to the forcethat has to be transferred from the longitudinal slab reinforcement. This does not matter,provided that the reinforcing bars are long enough to be anchored beyond the relevantconnectors. The need for consistency between the spacing of connectors and curtailment ofreinforcement is treated in clause 6.6.1.3(2)P.

Clause 6.1.1(5)

A sudden change in the cross-section of a member changes the longitudinal force in theconcrete flange, even where the vertical shear is zero. In theory, shear connection to providethis change is needed. Clause 6.1.1(5) gives a criterion for deciding whether the change issudden enough to be allowed for, and will normally show that changes in reinforcement canbe ignored. Where the clause is applied, the new critical section has different forces in theflange on each side of it. It may not be clear which one to use.

One method is to use the result that gives the greater change of force over the criticallength being considered. An alternative is to locate critical cross-sections on both sides of thechange point, not more than about two beam depths apart. The shear connection in the short

42

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Fig. 6.1. Typical cross-sections of composite beams

/VAy I

54Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:35

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 51: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

critical length between these two sections, based on the longitudinal forces at those sections,needs to take account of the change of section.

The application of clause 6.1.1(5) is clearer for a beam that is composite for only part of itslength. The end of the composite region is then a critical section.

A tapering member has a gradually changing cross-section. This can occur from variationin the thickness or effective width of the concrete flange, as well as from non-uniformity inthe steel section. Where elastic theory is used, the equation vL, Ed = VEd A /I should bereplaced by

(D6.1)

Clause 6.1.1(6)where x is the coordinate along the member. For buildings, where resistances may be based onplastic theory, clause 6.1.1(6) enables the effect to be allowed for by using additional criticalsections. It is applicable, for example, where the steel beam is haunched. The treatment ofvertical shear then requires care, as part of it is resisted by the sloping steel flange.

Clause 6.1.1(7)

Provisions for composite floor slabs, using profiled steel sheeting, are given only forbuildings. The space within the troughs available for the shear connection is often insufficientfor the connectors needed to develop the ultimate compressive force in the concrete flange,and the resistance moment corresponding to that force is often more than is required,because of other constraints on design. This has led to the use of partial shear connection,which is defined in clause 6.1.1(7). It is applicable only where the critical cross-sections are inClass 1 or 2. Thus, in buildings, bending resistances are often limited to what is needed, i.e. toMEd, with shear connection based on bending resistances; see clause 6.6.2.2.

Where bending resistances of cross-sections are based on an elastic model and limitingstresses, longitudinal shear flows can be found from vL, Ed = VEd A /I. They are related toaction effects, not to resistances. Shear connection designed in this way, which is usual inbridges, is ‘partial’ according to the definition in clause 6.1.1(7)P, because increasing it wouldincrease the bending resistances in the vicinity – though not in a way that is easily calculated,because inelastic behaviour and partial interaction are involved.

For these reasons, the concept ‘partial shear connection’ is confusing in bridge design andnot relevant. Clauses in EN 1994-1-1 that refer to it are therefore labelled ‘for buildings’.

Effective cross-section of a beam with a composite slabWhere the span of a composite slab is at right angles to that of the beam, as in the lower half ofFig. 6.1, the effective area of concrete does not include that within the ribs. Where the spansare parallel (θ = 0), the effective area includes the area within the depth of the ribs, butusually this is neglected. For ribs that run at an angle θ to the beam, the effective area ofconcrete within an effective width of flange may be taken as the full area above the ribs pluscos2 θ times the area of concrete within the ribs. Where θ > 60°, cos2 θ should be taken as zero.

Service ducts in slabs can cause a significant loss of effective cross-section.

6.1.2. Effective width for verification of cross-sections

Clause 6.1.2(2)The variation of effective width along a span, as given by clause 5.4.1.2, is too complex forverification of cross-sections in beams for buildings. The simplification in clause 6.1.2(2)often enables checks on the bending resistance of continuous beams to be limited to thesupports and the mid-span regions. This paragraph should not be confused with clause5.4.1.2(4), which applies to global analysis.

6.2. Resistances of cross-sections of beamsThis clause is for beams without partial or full encasement in concrete. Most of it isapplicable to both buildings and bridges. Partial encasement is treated for buildings only, inclause 6.3. Full encasement is outside the scope of EN 1994.

43

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

y

L, Ed Ed Ed

d( / )/

dAy I

V Ay I Mx

ν = +

y

55Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:35

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 52: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

No guidance is given in EN 1994-1-1, or in EN 1993, on the treatment of large holes insteel webs, but specialized literature is available.42,43 Bolt holes in steelwork should betreated in accordance with EN 1993-1-1, particularly clauses 6.2.2 to 6.2.6.

6.2.1. Bending resistanceIn clause 6.2.1.1, three different approaches are given, based on rigid plastic theory,non-linear theory and elastic analysis. The ‘non-linear theory’ is that given in clause 6.2.1.4.This is not a reference to non-linear global analysis.

Clause 6.2.1.1(3) The assumption that composite cross-sections remain plane is always permitted by clause6.2.1.1(3), where elastic and non-linear theory are used, because the conditions set will besatisfied if the design is in accordance with EN 1994. The implication is that longitudinal slipis negligible.

There is no requirement for slip to be determined. This would be difficult because thestiffness of shear connectors is not known accurately, especially where the slab is cracked.Wherever slip may not be negligible, the design methods of EN 1994-1-1 are intended toallow for its effects.

Clause 6.2.1.1(5)For beams with curvature in plan sufficiently sharp for torsional moments not to be

negligible, clause 6.2.1.1(5) gives no guidance on how to allow for the effects of curvature. Inanalysis from first principles, checks for beams in buildings can be made by assuming thatthe changing direction of the longitudinal force in a flange (and a web, if significant) createsa transverse load on that flange, which is then designed as a horizontal beam to resist thatload. A steel bottom flange may require horizontal restraint at points within the span of thebeam, and the shear connection should be designed for both longitudinal and transverseforces.

Clause6.2.1.2(1)(a)

‘Full interaction’ in clause 6.2.1.2(1)(a) means that no account need be taken of slip orseparation at the steel–concrete interface.

Reinforcement in compressionClause6.2.1.2(1)(c)

It is usual to neglect slab reinforcement in compression (clause 6.2.1.2(1)(c)). If it is included,and the concrete cover is little greater than the bar diameter, consideration should be givento possible buckling of the bars. Guidance is given in clause 9.6.3(1) of EN 1992-1-1 onreinforcement in concrete walls. The meaning is that the reinforcement in compressionshould not be the layer nearest to the free surface of the slab.

Small concrete flangesWhere the concrete slab is in compression, the method of clause 6.2.1.2 is based on theassumption that the whole effective areas of steel and concrete can reach their designstrengths before the concrete begins to crush. This may not be so if the concrete flange issmall compared with the steel section. This lowers the plastic neutral axis, and so increasesthe maximum compressive strain at the top of the slab, for a given tensile strain in the steelbottom flange.

Clause 6.2.1.2(2)

A detailed study of the problem has been reported.44 Laboratory tests on beams show thatstrain hardening of steel usually occurs before crushing of concrete. The effect of this, andthe low probability that the strength of both the steel and the concrete will be only at thedesign level, led to the conclusion that premature crushing can be neglected unless the gradeof the structural steel is higher than S355. Clause 6.2.1.2(2) specifies a reduction in Mpl, Rd

where the steel grade is S420 or S460 and the depth of the plastic neutral axis is high. Thisproblem also affects the rotation capacity of plastic hinges. Extensive research45,46 led to theupper limit to neutral-axis depth given in clause 5.4.5(4)(g).

For composite columns, the risk of premature crushing led to a reduction in the factor αM,given in clause 6.7.3.6(1), for S420 and S460 steels.

44

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

56Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:36

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 53: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Ductility of reinforcement

Clause 6.2.1.2(3)Reinforcement with insufficient ductility to satisfy clause 5.5.1(5), and welded mesh, shouldnot be included within the effective section of beams in Class 1 or 2 (clause 6.2.1.2(3)). This isbecause laboratory tests on hogging moment regions have shown19 that some reinforcingbars, and most welded meshes, fracture before the moment–rotation curve for a typicaldouble-cantilever specimen reaches a plateau. The problem with welded mesh is explainedin comments on clause 3.2(1).

Profiled steel sheeting

Clause 6.2.1.2(4)

Clause 6.2.1.2(5)

The contribution of profiled steel sheeting in compression to the plastic moment ofresistance of a beam is ignored (clause 6.2.1.2(4)) because at large strains its resistance canbe much reduced by local buckling. Profiled sheeting with troughs that are not parallel to thespan of a beam is ineffective in tension. This is because deformation could arise from changein shape of the profile rather than strain resulting from stress. Where the troughs areparallel, resistance to tension may still be difficult to achieve. For advantage to be takenof clause 6.2.1.2(5), the sheeting needs to be continuous, and interaction with othercomponents of the cross-section has to be achieved.

Beams with partial shear connection in buildings

Clause 6.2.1.3(1)

Clause 6.2.1.3(2)

The background to the use of partial shear connection is explained in comments on clause6.1.1. It is permitted only for the compressive force in the concrete slab (clause 6.2.1.3(1)).Where the slab is in tension the shear connection must be sufficient to ‘ensure yielding’(clause 6.2.1.3(2)) of the reinforcement within the effective section. Full shear connection isrequired in hogging regions of composite beams for several reasons:

• the bending moment may be larger than predicted because the concrete has not crackedor, if it has, because of tension stiffening

• the yield strength of the reinforcement exceeds fsd ( = fsk/γS)• tests show that at high curvatures, strain hardening occurs in the reinforcement• the design rules for lateral–torsional buckling do not allow for the effects of partial

interaction.

It could be inferred from the definition of full shear connection in clause 6.1.1(7) thatwhere the bending resistance is reduced below Mpl, Rd by the effects of lateral buckling, shearconnection is required only for the reduced resistance. Clause 6.2.1.3(2) makes it clear thatthe inference is incorrect. Thus, clause 6.2.1.2 on the plastic resistance moment Mpl, Rd

applies, amongst other cases, to all beams in Class 1 or 2 with tensile force in the slab.The words ‘hogging bending’ in clause 6.2.1.3 imply that the concrete slab is above the

steel beam. This is an assumption implicit in much of the drafting of the provisions ‘forbuildings’. In the ‘general’ clauses, phrases such as ‘regions where the slab is in tension’ areused instead, because in bridges this can occur in regions of sagging curvature (Fig. 6.2).

The provisions referred to in clause 6.2.1.3(1) include clause 6.6.1.1(14), which begins ‘Ifall cross-sections are in Class 1 or Class 2 …’. This means all sections within the spanconsidered. In practice, the use of an effective web in Class 2 (clause 5.5.2(3)) ensures thatfew Class 3 sections need be excluded.

45

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Fig. 6.2. Example of a composite beam with the slab in tension at mid-span

57Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:36

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 54: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Ductile connectorsClause 6.2.1.3(3) Clause 6.2.1.3(3) refers to ‘ductile connectors’. The basic condition for the use of partial

shear connection is that the bending resistance must not fall below the design value untilafter the curvature has reached the minimum value relied upon in the method of globalanalysis used. Use of redistribution of moments, for example, relies upon curvatures beyondthe elastic range.

In other words:

slip required (i.e. relied on in design) £ slip available (D6.2)

It has been shown by extensive numerical analyses, checked against test results,47,48 thatthe slip required increases with the span of the beam and, of course, as the number of shearconnectors is reduced. The latter parameter is represented by the ratio of the numberof connectors provided within a critical length, n, to the number nf required for ‘fullshear connection’ (defined in clause 6.1.1(7)P), i.e. the number that will transmit the forceNc, f to the slab (see Fig. 6.2). A reduced number, n, will transmit a reduced force, Nc. Thus,for connectors of a given shear strength, the ‘degree of shear connection’ is

η = Nc /Nc, f = n/nf (D6.3)

The application rules for general use are based on an available slip of 6 mm. Condition(D6.2) was then applied by defining combinations of η and span length such that the sliprequired did not exceed 6 mm.

Headed studs regarded as ductile are defined in clause 6.6.1.2, where a flow chart (seeFig. 6.11) and further comments are given. For partial shear connection with non-ductileconnectors, reference should be made to comments on clause 6.2.1.4.

Calculation modelsThe calculation model given in clause 6.2.1.3(3) can be explained as follows. For a givencross-section, the force Nc, f can be found using clause 6.2.1.2. For η < 1, the concrete stressblock has a reduced depth, and a neutral axis at its lower edge. For longitudinal equilibrium,part of the steel beam must also be in compression, so it too has a neutral axis. The modelassumes no separation of the slab from the beam, so their curvatures must be the same. Thestrain distribution is thus as shown in Fig. 6.3, which is for the situation shown in Fig. 6.4 inEN 1994-1-1. At the interface between steel and concrete there is slip strain, i.e. rate ofchange of longitudinal slip. Neither the slip at this point nor the slip strain need be calculatedin practice.

Clause 6.2.1.3(4)Clause 6.2.1.3(5)

Clauses 6.2.1.3(4) and 6.2.1.3(5) give two relationships between resistance moment MRd

and degree of shear connection. Calculations using the method above give curve AHC in theupper part of Fig. 6.4(a), in which Mpl, a, Rd is the plastic resistance of the steel section. Theline AC is a simpler and more conservative approximation to it. Their use is now illustrated.The lower half of Fig. 6.4(a) shows the limits to the use of partial shear connection given inclause 6.6.1.2.

46

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

0.85fcd Nc = hNc, f

fyd

fyd Ma

MRd

Na

0Stresses Strains

Fig. 6.3. Plastic stress and strain distributions under sagging bending for partial shear connection

58Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:36

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 55: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Outline of a typical design procedureThe example is a simply-supported beam of span L, with a Class 1 section at mid-span. Withfull shear connection the resistance is Mpl, Rd. The steel section has flanges of equal area, andthe loading is uniformly distributed. Stud connectors are to be used.

(1) Find the minimum shear connection, (n/nf)min, for which the connectors are ductile, fromclause 6.6.1.2 (e.g. route DEF in Fig. 6.4(a)), and the corresponding resistance tobending (route FMB).

(2) If that resistance exceeds the design moment MEd, this degree of shear connection issufficient. Calculate the number of connectors for full shear connection, and then, from(n/nf)min, the number required.

(3) If the resistance, point B, is much higher than MEd, it may be possible to reduce thenumber of connectors by using the method for non-ductile connectors, as explained inExample 6.4 below.

(4) If the resistance, point B, is below MEd, as shown in Fig. 6.4(a), the interpolation methodcan be used (route GKN) to give the value of n/nf required. Alternatively, point H can bedetermined, as shown below, and hence point J. The higher of the values of η given bypoints J and F is the minimum degree of shear connection, and, hence, n can be found.

(5) The spacing of the n connectors is now considered, along the length Lcr between the tworelevant critical cross-sections (here, mid-span and a support). If the conditions of clause6.6.1.3(3) are satisfied, as they are here if Mpl, Rd £ 2.5Ma, pl, Rd, the spacing may be

47

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

25

20

10

00.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Le (m)

n/nf

Studs to clause 6.6.1.2(3),Ab = At

Other studs, Ab = At,from clause 6.6.1.2(1)

fy = 275

fy = 460

P

QF

ED

N

h (= Nc/Nc, f) Nc, el /Nc, f

Nc/Nc, f

J

K

H

A

B M

G

C

00.4 1.0

Mpl, Rd

Mpl, a, Rd

MEd

1.0

C

Q

U

T

V

0

S

ROther studs, Ab = 3At

P

Mpl, Rd

Mel, Rd

MEd

Ma, Ed

Fig. 6.4. Design methods for partial shear connection

(a) Ductile connectors

(b) Non-ductile connectors

59Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:37

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 56: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

uniform. Otherwise, an intermediate critical section must be chosen, clause 6.6.1.3(4), orthe spacing must be related to the elastic distribution of longitudinal shear, clause6.6.1.3(5).

Determination of n for a given MEd by the equilibrium methodThe number of connectors needed to develop the moment MEd is n = Nc /PRd, where PRd is thedesign resistance of a connector and Nc is the force referred to in clause 6.2.1.3(3), for amoment MEd. Its calculation is tedious, but can be simplified a little, as shown here.

Figure 6.5 shows a cross-section of a beam in sagging bending, where the compressiveforce in the concrete slab is Nc, less than Nc, f (equation (D6.3)), being limited by the strengthof the shear connection. Following clause 6.2.1.3(3), the plastic stress blocks are as shown inFig. 6.5. The neutral axis in the steel is at a depth xa below the interface. It is convenient toretain the known force Na acting at the centre of area G of the steel section, and to take thecompressive strength over depth xa as 2fyd. This is because the stress in that area is to bechanged from yield in tension to yield in compression, providing a compressive force Nac inthe steel. We need to find out whether or not xa > tf.

In most beams with full shear connection, Nc, f = Na, because the plastic neutral axis lieswithin the slab. It is required that Nc /Nc, f ≥ 0.4, from Fig. 6.4(a), so

Nc ≥ 0.4Nc, f ≥ 0.4Na (a)

From equilibrium,

Nc + Nac = Na (b)

so, from expression (a),

Nac £ 0.6Na (c)

When the neutral axis is at the underside of the steel top flange, of area Atop,

Nac /Na = 2Atop /Aa (d)

For most rolled I-sections, Atop ≥ 0.3Aa, so when xa = tf, from equation (d),

Nac ≥ 0.6Na (e)

From expressions (c) and (e), xa < tf when the preceding assumptions are valid. They usuallyare, so only the case xa < tf is considered. Force Nac is then as shown in Fig. 6.5, and acts at adepth hc + hp + 0.5xa below the top of the slab. For rolled sections, xa = hc + hp, so thisdepth can be taken as hc + hp. Taking moments about the top of the slab,

48

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

hc

xc

xa

beff

hp

hg

tf

b

G

(a)

Na = Asfyd

Nc = 0.85beffxcfcd

Nac = 2bxafyd

(b)

Fig. 6.5. Theory for force Nc. (a) Cross-section. (b) Longitudinal stresses

60Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:37

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 57: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

MEd = Na(hg + hp + hc) – ½xc Nc – Nac(hc + hp) (D6.4)

Substitution for Nac from equation (b) and use of the expression for Nc in Fig. 6.5 gives

MEd = Na hg + 0.85beff xc fcd (hc + hp – ½xc)

This can be solved for xc, which gives Nc, and then n from n = Nc /PRd , since PRd is known forgiven connectors.

In practice, it may be simpler to calculate Na, choose a convenient value for n, find Nc andthen xc, calculate Nac from equation (b), and see whether or not equation (D6.4) gives a valuethat exceeds MEd. If it does not, n is increased and the process repeated.

There is much interaction between clause 6.2.1.3 and clauses 6.6.1.2 and 6.6.1.3. The use ofpartial shear connection is illustrated in Example 6.7, which follows the comments on clause6.6, in Examples 6.8 and 6.9, which are based on the same data, and in Fig. 6.11.

Non-ductile connectors

Clause 6.2.1.4

These are connectors that do not satisfy the requirements for ductile connectors given inclauses 6.6.1.1 and 6.6.1.2. Plastic behaviour of the shear connection can no longer beassumed. Non-linear or elastic theory should now be used to determine resistance tobending. Provisions are given in clause 6.2.1.4 and clause 6.2.1.5.

Clause 6.2.1.4(2)

The effect of slip at the steel–concrete interface is to increase curvature, and usually toreduce longitudinal shear, for a given distribution of bending moment along a span. Whereconnectors are not ‘ductile’, slip must be kept small, so it is rational to neglect slip whencalculating longitudinal shear. This is why clause 6.2.1.4(2) says that cross-sections should beassumed to remain plane.

Non-linear resistance to bending

Clause 6.2.1.4(1)Clause 6.2.1.4(2)Clause 6.2.1.4(3)Clause 6.2.1.4(4)Clause 6.2.1.4(5)

There are two approaches, described in clause 6.2.1.4. With both, the calculations should bedone at the critical sections for the design bending moments. The first approach, given inclause 6.2.1.4(1) to 6.2.1.4(5), enables the resistance of a section to be determined iterativelyfrom the stress–strain relationships of the materials. A strain distribution is assumed for thecross-section, and the resulting stresses determined. Usually, the assumed strain distributionwill have to be revised, to ensure that the stresses correspond to zero axial force on thesection. Once this condition is satisfied, the bending moment is calculated from the stressdistribution. This may show that the design bending moment does not exceed the resistance,in which case the calculation for bending resistance may be terminated. Otherwise, a generalincrease in strain should be made and the calculations repeated. For concrete, EN 1992-1-1gives ultimate strains for concrete and reinforcement which eventually limit the momentresistance.

Clause 6.2.1.4(6)Clearly, in practice this procedure requires the use of software. For sections in Class 1 or 2,

a simplified approach is given in clause 6.2.1.4(6). This is based on three points on the curverelating longitudinal force in the slab, Nc, to design bending moment MEd that are easilydetermined. With reference to Fig. 6.4(b), which is based on Fig. 6.6, these points are:

• P, where the composite member resists no moment, so Nc = 0• Q, which is defined by the results of an elastic analysis of the section• C, based on plastic analysis of the section.

Clause 6.2.1.4(7)

Accurate calculation shows QC to be a convex-upwards curve, so the straight line QC is aconservative approximation. Clause 6.2.1.4(6) thus enables hand calculation to be used. Forbuildings, clause 6.2.1.4(7) refers to a simplified treatment of creep.

Shear connection to clause 6.2.1.4Computations based on the stress–strain curves referred to in clause 6.2.1.4(3) to 6.2.1.4(5)lead to a complete moment-curvature curve for the cross-section, including a falling branch.The definition of partial shear connection in clause 6.1.1(7)P is unhelpful, because the

49

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

61Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:37

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 58: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

50

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

number of connectors for full shear connection can be found only from the stress distributioncorresponding to the maximum moment. This is why Nc, f in Fig. 6.4(b) is based on plasticanalysis to clause 6.2.1.2. This figure is approximately to scale for a typical composite sectionin sagging bending, for which

Mpl, Rd /Mel, Rd = 1.33

Nc, el/Nc, f = 0.6

The position of line PQ depends on the method of construction. It is here assumed thatthe beam was unpropped, and that at the critical section for sagging bending, the momentMa, Ed applied to the steel alone was 0.25Mpl, Rd.

For a given design moment MEd (which must include Ma, Ed, as resistances of sections arefound by plastic theory), the required ratio n/nf is given by route TUV in Fig. 6.4(b).

No specific guidance is given for the spacing of shear connectors when moment resistanceis determined by non-linear theory. The theory is based on plane cross-sections (clause6.2.1.4(2)), so the spacing of connectors should ideally correspond to the variation of theforce in the slab, Nc, along the member. Where non-ductile connectors are used, this shouldbe done. For ductile connectors, clause 6.6.1.3(3), which permits uniform spacing, may beassumed to apply.

Elastic resistance to bending

Clause 6.2.1.5(2)

Clause 6.2.1.4(6) includes, almost incidentally, a definition of Mel, Rd that may seem strange. Itis a peculiarity of composite structures that when unpropped construction is used, the elasticresistance to bending depends on the proportion of the total load that is applied before themember becomes composite. Let Ma, Ed and MEd be the design bending moments for the steeland composite sections, respectively, for a section in Class 3. Their total is typically less thanthe elastic resistance to bending, so to find Mel, Rd, one or both of them must be increaseduntil one or more of the limiting stresses in clause 6.2.1.5(2) is reached. To enable a uniqueresult to be obtained, clause 6.2.1.4(6) says that MEd is to be increased, and Ma, Ed leftunchanged. This is because Ma, Ed is mainly from permanent actions, which are less uncertainthan the variable actions whose effects comprise most of MEd.

Unpropped construction normally proceeds by stages, which may have to be consideredindividually in bridge design. For simply-supported spans in buildings, it is usually sufficientlyaccurate to assume that the whole of the wet concrete is placed simultaneously on the baresteelwork.

The weight of formwork is, in reality, applied to the steel structure and removed from thecomposite structure. This process leaves self-equilibrated residual stresses in compositecross-sections. For composite beams in buildings, these can usually be ignored in calculationsfor the final situation.

Clause 6.2.1.5(5) One permanent action that influences MEd is shrinkage of concrete. Clause 6.2.1.5(5)enables the primary stresses to be neglected in cracked concrete, but the implication is thatthey should be included where the slab is in compression. This provision, which affects Mel, Rd,should not be confused with clause 5.4.2.2(8), which concerns global analysis to determinethe secondary effects of shrinkage in statically-indeterminate structures. (Secondary effectsare defined in clause 2.3.3.)

These complications explain why, for ultimate limit states in buildings, design methodsbased on elastic behaviour are best avoided, as far as possible.

Example 6.1: resistance moment in hogging bending, with effective webA typical cross-section near an internal support of a continuous composite beam is shownin Fig. 6.6(a). The plastic and elastic methods of calculation for the hogging moment ofresistance are illustrated by preparing a graph that shows changes in this resistance as theeffective area of longitudinal reinforcement in the slab, As, is increased from zero to

62Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:38

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 59: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

51

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

1800 mm2. The use of an effective web to clause 5.5.2(3), discussed in Chapter 5, is alsoillustrated. The depth of the ‘web’, as used here, is the depth between flange fillets (orwelds), defined as c in Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, not the clear depth between the flanges.Also from EN 1993-1-1, αc is the depth of the web in compression, for a section in Class 1or 2, and ε is the correction factor for yield strength of the steel.

The definition of the hole-in-web model, given in Fig. 6.3 of EN 1993-1-1, omits thedepth of the hole and the location of the new plastic neutral axis (pna). They were given inENV 1994-1-1,49 and are shown in Fig. 6.6(a). The depth of the hole, 2(αc – 40tε),includes a small approximation, which is now explained.

In principle, the ‘hole’ should have zero depth when α, c, t and ε are such that the web ison the boundary between Class 2 and Class 3. When α > 0.5 (as is usual), and from Table5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, this is when

αc/tε = 456α/(13α – 1)

As α increases from 0.5 to 1.0, the right-hand side of this equation reduces from 41.4 to 38.For α < 0.5, it is 41.5. For simplicity, it is taken as 40 for all values of α, so that the depth ofweb in compression can be defined as 40tε, in blocks of depth 20tε above and below thehole.

The original depth in compression, αc, is reduced to 40tε. For equilibrium, the depth intension must be reduced by αc – 40tε, so the plastic neutral axis moves up by this amount,as shown in Fig. 6.6(a), and the depth of the hole is thus 2(αc – 40tε).

Other useful results for a symmetrical steel section are as follows. The depth of webin compression, 40tε, includes the depth needed to balance the tensile force in thereinforcement, which is

hr = As fsd /tfyd (D6.5)

The tension in the top flange, including web fillets, balances the compression in thebottom flange, so for longitudinal equilibrium the depth of web in tension is

ht = 40tε – hr (D6.6)

The total depth of the web is c, so the depth of the hole is

hh = c – 40tε – ht = c – 80tε + hr (D6.7)

26

199

286

116

116B

0

0

A

C

D

As80

70

New pna

ac – 40te

ac

pna

142

8.6 19

c = 360

100

19

Hole

102

95

116

222

340

0

0

228

228102 328

100

(a) (b) (c)

fyd

fyd

fyd

6.3

ht = 152

hh = 4

20te

20te

2(ac – 40te)

Fig. 6.6. Plastic resistance moment in hogging bending, for As = 267 mm2 (units: mm and kN).(a) Cross-section of Class 3 beam with hole in web. (b) Stress blocks for Mpl, Rd for Class 2 beam.(c) Stress blocks in web for Mpl, Rd for Class 3 beam

63Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:38

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 60: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

52

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Data and resultsData for the calculations, in addition to the dimensions shown in Fig. 6.6, are:

• structural steel: fy = 355 N/mm2, γM = 1.0, so fyd = 355 N/mm2

• reinforcement: fsk = 500 N/mm2, γS = 1.15, so fsd = 435 N/mm2

• steel section: 406 × 140 UB39 with Aa = 4940 mm2, Ia = 124.5 × 106 mm4.

The upper limit chosen for As corresponds to a reinforcement ratio of 1.5%, which isquite high for a beam in a building, in a flange with beff = 1.5 m. If there were no profiledsheeting (which plays no part in these calculations) the ratio for the 150 mm slab would be0.8%, and there would be two layers of bars. For simplicity, one layer of bars is assumedhere, with propped construction.

The full results are shown in Fig. 6.7. Typical calculations only are given here.

Classification of the cross-sectionClause 5.5.1(1)P refers to EN 1993-1-1, where Table 5.2 applies. For fy = 355 N/mm2, itgives ε = 0.81.

For the bottom flange,

c = (142 – 6.3)/2 – 10.2 = 57.6 mm

c/tε = 57.6/(8.6 × 0.81) = 8.3

This is less than 9, so the flange is in Class 1, irrespective of the area of slab reinforcement.The web depth between fillets is c = 360 mm, so

c/tε = 360/(6.3 × 0.81) = 70.5

300

220

200

240

260

280

340

320

0 500 1000 1500 2000

M (kN m)

Class 2

Class 3,hole in web

bottom flange yields

B

C

A

J

F

H

G E

As (mm2)

Mel, Rd

Mel, Rd

Mpl, Rd

Mpl, Rd

reinforcement yields

Fig. 6.7. Influence of longitudinal reinforcement on hogging moments of resistance

64Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:38

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 61: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

53

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

This is less than 72, so when As = 0, the web is in Class 1. Addition of reinforcementincreases the depth of web in compression, so its class depends on As. Here, α > 0.5, andfrom Table 5.2 in EN 1993-1-1 the limit for Class 2 is

c/tε = 456/(13α – 1)

For c/tε = 70.5 this gives α = 0.574. It will be shown that this corresponds toAs = 267 mm2, by calculating Mpl, Rd by the methods for both a Class 2 and a Class 3section.

Mpl, Rd for Class 2 section with As = 267 mm2

The stress blocks for the web are shown in Fig. 6.6(b).

(1) Find Mpl, a, Rd for the steel section. For a rolled section, the plastic section modulus isusually found from tables. Here,

Wpl = 0.721 × 106 mm3

so

Mpl, a, Rd = 0.721 × 355 = 256 kN m

(2) Find Fs, the force in the reinforcement at yield:

Fs = 267 × 0.435 = 116 kN

From equation (D6.5), the depth of web for this force is

hr = 116/(6.3 × 0.355) = 52 mm

To balance the force Fs, the stress in a depth of web hr/2 changes from +fyd to –fyd. Thisis shown as ABCD in Fig. 6.6.

(3) The lever arm for the forces Fs is 286 mm, so taking moments,

Mpl, Rd = 256 + 116 × 0.286 = 289 kN m

Mpl, Rd for Class 3 section with As = 267 mm2

The hole-in-web method is now used. Steps 1 and 2 are as above.

(3) The contribution of the web is deducted from Mpl, a, Rd :

Mpl, a, flanges = 256 – 0.362 × 6.3 × 355/4 = 183.5 kN m

(This value is not calculated directly because of the complex shape of each ‘flange’which includes the web fillets, or, for a plate girder, a small depth of web.)

(4) From equation (D6.7), the depth of the hole is

hh = 360 – 408 + 52 = 4 mm

(5) From equation (D6.6), the depth of web in tension is

ht = 204 – 52 = 152 mm

and the force in it is

Ft = 152 × 6.3 × 0.355 = 340 kN

(6) The stress blocks in the web are shown in Fig. 6.6(c). Taking moments about thebottom of the slab,

Mpl, Rd = 183.5 + 116 × 0.1 – 340 × 0.095 + 228(0.222 + 0.328) = 288 kN m

This agrees with the result for the Class 2 member, point A in Fig. 6.7, because thissection is at the class boundary. Hence, the depth of the hole is close to zero.

65Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:39

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 62: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

54

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Mpl, Rd for As > 267 mm2

Similar calculations for higher values of As give curve AB in Fig. 6.7, with increasingdepths of hole until, at As = 1048 mm2, the new plastic neutral axis reaches the top of theweb, ht = 0, and the hole reaches its maximum depth. Further increase in As, ∆As say,causes changes of stress within the top flange only. Taking moments about the interface, itis evident that the plastic bending resistance is increased by

∆Mpl, Rd ª ∆As fyd hs

where hs is the height of the reinforcement above the interface, 100 mm here. This isshown by line BC in Fig. 6.7.

The bending resistance given by this method no longer approaches that given by elastictheory (as it should, as the slenderness of the web in compression approaches the Class 3/4boundary). Use of the method with the new plastic neutral axis in the top flange isexcluded by Eurocode 3, as explained in comments on clause 5.5.2(3). It is, in any case, notrecommended because:

• the authors are not aware of any experimental validation for this situation (which isuncommon in practice)

• Mpl, Rd is being calculated using a model where the compressive strain in the steelbottom flange is so high that the rotation capacity associated with a Class 2 sectionmay not be available.

Equation (D6.6) shows that this restriction is equivalent to placing an upper limit of40tε on hr. Any slab reinforcement that increases hr above this value moves the sectionback into Class 3. This can also be a consequence of vertical shear, as illustrated inExample 6.2.

This point is relevant to the writing of software based on the code because software,once written, tends to be used blindly.

Elastic resistance to bendingFor simplicity, Mel, Rd has been calculated assuming propped construction. The stress inthe reinforcement governs until As reaches 451 mm2 (point J), after which Mel, Rd isdetermined by yield of the bottom flange. This is shown by curves EF and GH in Fig. 6.7.

Web in Class 4The hole-in-web method is available only for webs in Class 3, so in principle a checkshould be made that the web is not in Class 4, using the elastic stress distribution. A Class 4web can occur in a plate girder, but is most unlikely in a rolled I- or H-section. In thisexample, the Class 3/4 boundary is reached at As = 3720 mm2.

6.2.2. Resistance to vertical shearClause 6.2.2 Clause 6.2.2 is for beams without web encasement. The whole of the vertical shear is usually

assumed to be resisted by the steel section, as in previous codes for composite beams. Thisenables the design rules of EN 1993-1-1, and EN 1993-1-530 where necessary, to be used. Theassumption can be conservative where the slab is in compression. Even where it is in tensionand cracked in flexure, consideration of equilibrium shows that the slab must make somecontribution to shear resistance, except where the reinforcement has yielded. For solid slabs,the effect is significant where the depth of the steel beam is only twice that of the slab,50 butdiminishes as this ratio increases.

Clause 6.2.2.3(2)

In composite plate girders with vertical stiffeners, the concrete slab can contribute to theanchorage of a tension field in the web,51 but the shear connectors must then be designed forvertical forces (clause 6.2.2.3(2)). The simpler alternative is to follow Eurocode 3, ignoringboth the interaction with the slab and vertical tension across the interface.

66Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:39

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 63: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

55

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Bending and vertical shearClause 6.2.2.4

Clause 6.2.2.4(1)

The methods of clause 6.2.2.4 are summarized in Fig. 6.8. Shear stress does not significantlyreduce bending resistance unless the shear is quite high. For this reason, the interaction maybe neglected until the shear force exceeds half of the shear resistance (clause 6.2.2.4(1)).

Clause 6.2.2.4(2)Both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-1-1 use a parabolic interaction curve. In clause 6.2.2.4(2)the reduction factor for the design yield strength of the web is (1 – ρ), where

ρ = [(2VEd /VRd) – 1]2 (6.5)

and VRd is the resistance in shear. For a design shear force equal to VRd, the bending resistanceis that provided by the flanges alone, denoted Mf, Rd. This is calculated in Example 6.2.

The bending resistance at VEd = 0 may be the elastic or the plastic value, depending onthe class of the cross-section. Where it is reduced to Mb, Rd by lateral–torsional buckling,interaction between bending and shear does not begin until a higher shear force than VRd /2 ispresent, as shown in Fig. 6.8(a).

Where the shear resistance VRd is less than the plastic resistance to shear, Vpl, Rd, because ofshear buckling, clause 6.2.2.4(2) replaces Vpl, Rd by the shear buckling resistance Vb, Rd.

Where the design yield strength of the web is reduced to allow for vertical shear, the effecton a Class 3 section in hogging bending is to increase the depth of web in compression. If thechange is small, the hole-in-web model can still be used, as shown in Example 6.2. For ahigher shear force, the new plastic neutral axis may be within the top flange, and thehole-in-web method is inapplicable.

Clause 6.2.2.4(3)The section is then treated as Class 3 or 4, and clause 6.2.2.4(3) applies. It refers toEN 1993-1-5. For beams, the rule given there is essentially

MEd /MRd + (1 – Mf, Rd /Mpl, Rd)(2VEd /VRd – 1)2 £ 1 (D6.8)

These symbols relate to the steel section only. For a composite section, longitudinal stressesare found by elastic theory. These lead to values of MEd, NEd and VEd acting on the steelsection, which is then checked to EN 1993-1-5. It is fairly easy to check if a given combinationof these action effects can be resisted – but calculation of bending resistance for a givenvertical shear is difficult.

Example 6.2: resistance to bending and vertical shearVertical shear is more likely to reduce resistance to bending in a continuous beam than ina simply-supported one, and it is instructive to consider its influence on a beam withbending resistance found by the hole-in-web method. Where the web is not susceptible toshear buckling, the application of clause 6.2.2.4 is straightforward. This example istherefore based on one of the few UB sections where web buckling can occur, if S355 steel

Bendingresistance

0.5

VEd/VRd

0Mf, Rd Mb, Rd Mel, Rd

or Mpl, Rd

(a) (b)

132

180

100

48

102

102

108

43

326

118

100

213

213 328

fyd

Mpl, a, fl

VRd is the lesser of Vpl, Rd and Vb, Rd

1.0

Fig. 6.8. Resistance to bending and vertical shear (dimensions in mm)

67Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:39

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 64: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

56

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

is used. It is the section used in Example 6.1, 406 × 140 UB39, shown in Fig. 6.6, withlongitudinal reinforcement of area As = 750 mm2.

The bending resistance will be calculated when the design vertical shear is VEd = 300 kN.All other data are as in Example 6.1.

From EN 1993-1-1, resistance to shear buckling must be checked if hw/tw > 72ε/η, whereη is a factor for which EN 1993-1-5 recommends the value 1.2. These clauses are usuallyapplied to plate girders, for which hw is the clear depth between the flanges. Ignoring thecorner fillets of this rolled section, hw = 381 mm, and for S355 steel, ε = 0.81, so

hwη/twε = 381 × 1.2/(6.3 × 0.81) = 90.5

The resistance of this unstiffened web to shear buckling is found using clauses 5.2 and 5.3of EN 1993-1-5, assuming a web of area hwtw, that there is no contribution from theflanges, and that there are transverse stiffeners at the supports. The result is

Vb, Rd = 475 kN

which is 85% of Vpl, Rd, as found by the method of EN 1993-1-1 for a rolled I-section. Fromclause 6.2.2.4(2),

ρ = [(2VEd /VRd) – 1]2 = (600/475 – 1)2 = 0.068

The reduced yield strength of the web is (1 – 0.068) × 355 = 331 N/mm2. For hoggingbending, the tensile force in the reinforcement is

Fs = 750 × 0.5/1.15 = 326 kN (D6.9)

From plastic theory, the depth of web in compression that is above the neutral axis of theI-section is

326/(2 × 0.331 × 6.3) = 78 mm

This places the cross-section in Class 3, so the hole-in-web method is applied. From Fig.6.6(a), the depth of the compressive stress-blocks in the web is 20tε. The value for ε shouldbe based on the full yield strength of the web, not on the reduced yield strength, soeach block is 102 mm deep, as in Fig. 6.6(c). The use of the reduced yield strengthwould increase ε and so reduce the depth of the ‘hole’ in the web, which would beunconservative. However, the force in each stress block should be found using thereduced yield strength, and so is now

228 × 331/355 = 213 kN

The tensile force in the web is therefore

2 × 213 – 326 = 100 kN

and the longitudinal forces are as shown in Fig. 6.8(b).From Example 6.1,

Mpl, a, flanges = 183.5 kN m

Taking moments about the bottom of the slab,

Mpl, Rd = 183.5 + 326 × 0.1 + 213(0.118 + 0.328) – 100 × 0.043Mpl, Rd = 307 kN m (D6.10)

For this cross-section in bending only, the method of Example 6.1, with As = 750 mm2,gives

Mpl, Rd = 314 kN m

The alternative to this method would be to use elastic theory. The result would thendepend on the method of construction.

68Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:39

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 65: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

6.3. Resistance of cross-sections of beams for buildings withpartial encasementEncasement in concrete of the webs of steel beams is normally done before erection, castingone side at a time. This obviously increases the cost of fabrication, transport and erection,but when it satisfies clause 5.5.3(2) it has many advantages for design:

• it provides complete fire resistance for the web and, with longitudinal reinforcement,compensation for the weakness of the bottom flange in fire, in accordance withEN 1994-1-252

• it enables a Class 3 web to be upgraded to Class 2, and the slenderness limit for a Class 2compression flange to be increased by 40% (clause 5.5.3)

• it widens significantly the range of steel sections that are not susceptible to lateral–torsional buckling (clause 6.4.3(1)(h))

• it increases resistance to vertical shear, to clause 6.3.3(2)• it improves resistance to combined bending and shear, to clause 6.3.4(2)• it improves resistance to buckling in shear, clause 6.3.3(1).

6.3.1. ScopeClause 6.3.1(2)To avoid shear buckling, clause 6.3.1(2) limits the slenderness of the encased web to

d/tw £ 124ε. In practice, with encasement, steel sections in buildings are almost certain to bein Class 1 or 2. Clause 6.3 is applicable only to these.

6.3.2. Resistance to bendingClause 6.3.2

Clause 6.3.2(2)The rules for resistance to bending, clause 6.3.2, correspond to those for uncased sections ofthe same class, except that lateral–torsional buckling is not mentioned in clause 6.3.2(2).Encasement greatly improves resistance to lateral–torsional buckling. Example 6.3, thecomments on clause 6.4.2(7), and pp. 153–154 of Johnson and Molenstra,44 are relevant.However, it is possible for a beam within the scope of clause 6.3 to be susceptible; aweb-encased IPE 450 section in S420 steel is an example. Continuous beams that do notsatisfy clause 6.4.3 should therefore be checked.

Partial shear connection is permitted for a concrete flange, but not for web encasement.The resistance to longitudinal shear provided by studs within the encasement is found in theusual way, but no guidance is given on the contribution from bars that pass through holes inthe web or stirrups welded to the web, in accordance with clauses 5.5.3(2) and 6.3.3(2). Theyare provided to ensure the integrity of the encased section.

The load–slip properties of different types of shear connection should be compatible(clause 6.6.1.1(6)P). It is known from research on ‘Perfobond’ shear connectors (longitudinalflange plates projecting into the slab, with holes through which bars pass) that these barsprovide shear connection with good slip properties,53,54 so a contribution from them could beused here; but welds to stirrups may be too brittle.

6.3.3–6.3.4. Resistance to vertical shear, and to bending and vertical shearClause 6.3.3The rules in clause 6.3.3 are based on the concept of superposition of resistances of

composite and reinforced concrete members. This concept has been used in Japan fordecades, in design of structures for earthquake resistance. The shear connection mustbe designed to ensure that the shear force is shared between the steel web and theconcrete encasement. The references to EN 1992-1-1 are intended to ensure that the webencasement retains its shear resistance at a shear strain sufficient to cause yielding of thesteel web.

Clause 6.3.3(1)Clause 6.3.4

Clause 6.3.3(1) shows that no account need be taken of web buckling in shear. Moment–shear interaction is treated in clause 6.3.4 in a manner consistent with the rules for uncasedsections.

57

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

69Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:40

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 66: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

6.4. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams6.4.1. General

Clause 6.4.1(1)

It is assumed in this section that in completed structures for buildings, the steel top flangesof all composite beams will be stabilized laterally by connection to a concrete or compositeslab (clause 6.4.1(1)). The rules on maximum spacing of connectors in clauses 6.6.5.5(1)and 6.6.5.5(2) relate to the classification of the top flange, and thus only to localbuckling. For lateral–torsional buckling, the relevant rule, given in clause 6.6.5.5(3), is lessrestrictive.

Clause 6.4.1(2)Any steel top flange in compression that is not so stabilized should be checked for lateral

buckling (clause 6.4.1(2)) using clause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-1-1. This applies particularly duringunpropped construction. In a long span, it may be necessary to check a steel beam that iscomposite along only part of its length. The general method of clause 6.4.2, based on the useof a computed value of the elastic critical moment Mcr, is applicable, but no detailed guidanceon the calculation of Mcr is given in either EN 1993-1-1 or EN 1994-1-1. Buckling ofweb-encased beams without a concrete flange has been studied.55 However, for buildings,the construction phase is rarely critical in practice, because the loading is so much less thanthe design total load.

Steel bottom flanges are in compression only in cantilevers and continuous beams. Thelength in compression may include most of the span, when that span is lightly loaded andboth adjacent spans are fully loaded. Bottom flanges in compression should always berestrained laterally at supports (clause 6.4.3(1)(f) is relevant). It should not be assumed thata point of contraflexure is equivalent to a lateral restraint.

In a composite beam, the concrete slab provides lateral restraint to the steel member, andalso restrains its rotation about a longitudinal axis. Lateral buckling is always associated withdistortion (change of shape) of the cross-section. Design methods for composite beams musttake account of the bending of the web, Fig. 6.9(b). They differ in detail from the method ofclause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-1-1, but the same imperfection factors and buckling curves are used,in the absence of any better-established alternatives.

Clause 6.4.1(3) The reference in clause 6.4.1(3) to EN 1993-1-1 provides a general method for use whereneither of the methods of EN 1994-1-1 are applicable (e.g. for a Class 4 beam).

6.4.2. Verification of lateral–torsional buckling of continuous compositebeams with cross-sections in Class 1, 2 and 3 for buildingsThis general method of design is written with distortional buckling of bottom flanges inmind. It would not apply, for example, to a mid-span cross-section of a beam with the slab atbottom-flange level (see Fig. 6.2). Although not stated, it is implied that the span concernedis of uniform composite section, excluding minor changes such as reinforcement details andeffects of cracking of concrete. The use of this method for a two-span beam is illustrated inExample 6.7.

Clause 6.4.2(1)

Clause 6.4.2(2)Clause 6.4.2(3)

The method is based closely on clause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-1-1. There is correspondence inthe definitions of the reduction factor χLT (clause 6.4.2(1)) and the relative slenderness,(clause 6.4.2(4)). The reduction factor is applied to the design resistance moment MRd, whichis defined in clauses 6.4.2(1) to 6.4.2(3). Expressions for MRd include the design yield strengthfyd. The reference in these clauses to the use of γM1 is provided because this is a check oninstability. The recommended values for γM0 and γM1 are the same (1.0), but a NationalAnnex could define different values.

The determination of MRd for a Class 3 section differs from that of Mel, Rd in clause6.2.1.4(6) only in that the limiting stress fcd for concrete in compression need not beconsidered. It is necessary to take account of the method of construction.

The buckling resistance moment Mb, Rd given by equation (6.6) must exceed the highestapplied moment MEd within the unbraced length of compression flange considered.

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

58

LTλ

70Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:40

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 67: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Lateral buckling for a Class 3 cross-section with unpropped constructionThe influence of method of construction on the verification of a Class 3 composite sectionfor lateral buckling is as follows. From equation (6.4)

MRd = Mel, Rd = Ma, Ed + kMc, Ed (a)

where the subscript c indicates the action effect on the composite member.From equation (6.6) the verification is

MEd = Ma, Ed + Mc, Ed £ χLT Mel, Rd (b)

which is

χLT ≥ (Ma, Ed + Mc, Ed)/Mel, Rd = MEd /Mel, Rd (c)

The total hogging bending moment MEd may be almost independent of the method ofconstruction. However, the stress limit that determines Mel, Rd may be different for proppedand unpropped construction. If it is bottom-flange compression in both cases, then Mel, Rd islower for unpropped construction, and the limit on χLT from equation (c) is more severe.

Elastic critical buckling momentClause 6.4.2(4)

Clause 6.4.2(5)

Clause 6.4.2(4) requires the determination of the elastic critical buckling moment, takingaccount of the relevant restraints, so their stiffnesses have to be calculated. The lateralrestraint from the slab can usually be assumed to be rigid. Where the structure is such that apair of steel beams and a concrete flange attached to them can be modelled as an inverted-Uframe (Fig. 6.11), continuous along the span, the rotational restraining stiffness at top-flangelevel, ks, can be found from clauses 6.4.2(5) to 6.4.2(7).

Clause 6.4.2(6)Clause 6.4.2(7)

Clause 6.4.2(5) gives conditions that define this frame. Analysis is based on its stiffness perunit length, ks, given by the ratio F/δ, where δ is the lateral displacement caused by a force F(Fig. 6.9(a)). The flexibility δ/F is the sum of flexibilities due to:

59

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

h

ds

tf

tw

hs

A B

F F d

q0

d

a

(a)

C

D

(b)

L

L1 L2

0.8 ≥ L2 /L1 £ 1.25

L1

L

(c)

Fig. 6.9. U-frame action and distortional lateral buckling

71Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:40

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 68: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

• bending of the slab, which may not be negligible: 1/k1 from equation (6.9)• bending of the steel web, which predominates: 1/k2 from equation (6.10)• flexibility of the shear connection.

It has been found56 that this last flexibility can be neglected in design to EN 1994-1-1. Thisleads to equation (6.8) for stiffness ks.

This ‘continuous U-frame’ concept has long been used in the design of steel bridges.57

There is a similar ‘discrete U-frame’ concept, which would be relevant to composite beams ifthe steel sections had vertical web stiffeners. The shear connectors closest to those stiffenerswould then have to transmit almost the whole of the bending moment Fh (Fig. 6.9(a)), whereF is now a force on a discrete U-frame. The last of the three flexibilities listed above mightthen not be negligible, nor is it certain that the shear connection and the adjacent slab wouldbe sufficiently strong.58 Where stiffeners are present, the resistance of the connection aboveeach stiffener to repeated transverse bending should be established, as there is a risk of localshear failure within the slab. There is at present no simple method of verification. The words‘may be unstiffened’ in clause 6.4.3(1)(f) are misleading, as the resistance model is based onboth theory and research on unstiffened webs. It should, in the authors’ opinion, read ‘shouldbe unstiffened’. The problem is avoided in bridge design by using transverse steel members,such as U- or H-frames (Fig. 6.10(a)).

The conditions in clause 6.4.3(1) referred to from clause 6.4.2(5) are commonly satisfied inbuildings by the beams that support composite slabs; but where these are secondary beams, themethod is not applicable to the primary beams because condition (e) is not satisfied. Bottomflanges of primary beams can sometimes be stabilized by bracing from the secondary beams.

The calculation of ks is straightforward, apart from finding (EI)2, the cracked flexural stiffnessof a composite slab. An approximate method, used in Example 6.7, is derived in Appendix A.

Concrete-encased webClause 6.4.2(7)Clause 6.4.2(9)

Clauses 6.4.2(7) and 6.4.2(9) allow for the additional stiffness provided by web encasement.This is significant: for rolled steel sections, k2 from equation (6.11) is from 10 to 40 times thevalue from equation (6.10), depending on the ratio of flange breadth to web thickness.Encasement will often remove any susceptibility to lateral–torsional buckling. The modelused for equation (6.11) is explained in Appendix A.

Theory for the continuous inverted-U frame modelA formula for the elastic critical buckling moment for the U-frame model was given in AnnexB of ENV 1994-1-1,49 but was removed from EN 1994-1-1, as it was considered to be‘textbook material’. However, it is sufficiently unfamiliar to be worth giving here.

Subject to conditions discussed below, the elastic critical buckling moment at an internalsupport of a continuous beam is

Mcr = (kcC4/L)[(Ga Iat + ks L2/π2)Ea Iafz]1/2 (D6.11)

where: kc is a property of the composite section, given below,C4 is a property of the distribution of bending moment within length L,Ga is the shear modulus for steel (Ga = Ea/[2(1 + υ)] = 80.8 kN/mm2),Iat is the torsional moment of area of the steel section,ks is the rotational stiffness defined in clause 6.4.2(6),L is the length of the beam between points at which the bottom flange of the steel

member is laterally restrained (typically, the span length), andIafz is the minor-axis second moment of area of the steel bottom flange.

Where the cross-section of the steel member is symmetrical about both axes, the factor kc

is given by

kc = (hsIy /Iay)/[(hs2/4 + ix

2)/e + hs] (D6.12)

with

e = AIay /[Aa zc(A – Aa)] (D6.13)

60

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

72Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:41

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 69: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

where: hs is the distance between the centres of the flanges of the steel section,Iy is the second moment of area for major-axis bending of the cracked composite

section of area A,Iay is the corresponding second moment of area of the steel section,ix

2 = (Iay + Iaz)/Aa, where Iaz and Aa are properties of the steel section, andzc is the distance between the centroid of the steel beam and the mid-depth of the slab.

Four of the conditions for the use of these formulae are given in paragraphs (c) to (f) ofclause 6.4.3(1). Three further conditions were given in ENV 1994-1-1. These related to theresistance of the slab part of the U-frame to hogging transverse bending in the plane of theU-frame, to its flexural stiffness, and to the spacing of shear connectors. It is now consideredthat other requirements are such that these will, in practice, be satisfied. Further explanationis given in Appendix A.

The coefficient C4 was given in a set of tables, determined by numerical analyses, in whichits range is 6.2–47.6. These values are given in Appendix A (see Figs A.3 and A.4). Thecoefficient accounts for the increased resistance to lateral buckling where the bendingmoment is not uniform along the member. When checking lateral stability, the distributionof bending moments corresponding to C4 must be used as the action effects, and not anequivalent uniform value. The calculation method is shown in Example 6.7.

Alternative theory for the elastic critical momentThere is an analogy between the differential equations for distortional lateral buckling,taking account of restraint to warping, and those for a compressed member on an elasticfoundation. This has led59 to an alternative expression for the elastic critical moment. Likeequation (D6.11), its use requires computed values that depend on the bending-momentdistribution and, for this method, also on the parameter

ηB2 = ks L4/(EaIωD)

where ks, L and Ea are as above, and IωD is the sectorial moment of inertia of the steel memberrelated to the centre of the restrained steel flange. Four graphs of these values are given inHanswille,59 and a more general set in Hanswille et al.60

Predictions of Mcr by this method and by equation (D6.11) were compared with results offinite-element analyses, for beams with IPE 500 and HEA 1000 rolled sections. This methodwas found to agree with the finite-element results for both internal and external spans.Equation (D6.11) was found to be satisfactory for internal spans, but to be less accurategenerally for external spans, and unconservative by over 30% in some cases. This suggeststhat it needs further validation.

6.4.3. Simplified verification for buildings without direct calculation

Clause 6.4.3(1)As calculations for the U-frame model are quite extensive, a simplified method has beendeveloped from it. Clause 6.4.3(1) defines continuous beams and cantilevers that may bedesigned without lateral bracing to the bottom flange, except at supports. Its Table 6.1 giveslimits to the steel grade and overall depth of the steel member, provided that it is an IPE orHE rolled section. The contribution from partial encasement is allowed for in paragraph (h)of this clause.

These results are derived from equation (D6.11) for the elastic critical buckling moment,making assumptions that further reduce the scope of the method. Accounts of its origin areavailable in both English61 and German.62 It is outlined in Johnson and Fan,56 and is similar tothat used in the treatment of lateral–torsional buckling of haunched beams.63

The basis is that there shall be no reduction, due to lateral buckling, in the resistance of thebeam to hogging bending. It is assumed that this is achieved when £ 0.4. This value isgiven in a Note to clause 6.3.2.3 of EN 1993-1-1, which can be modified by a National Annex.Any National Annex that defines a lower limit should therefore also state if the method ispermitted.

61

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

LTλ

73Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:41

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 70: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

The slenderness is a function of the variation of bending moment along the span. Thiswas studied using various loadings on continuous beams of the types shown in Fig. 6.9(c), andon beams with cantilevers. The limitations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 6.4.3(1) onspans and loading result from this work.

Simplified expression for , and use of British UB rolled sectionsTable 6.1 applies only to IPE and HE rolled sections. Criteria for other rolled I- andH-sections are deduced in Appendix A. The basis for the method is as follows.

For uncased beams that satisfy the conditions that apply to equation (D6.11) for Mcr, havea double symmetrical steel section, and are not concrete encased, the slenderness ratio for aClass 1 or Class 2 cross-section may conservatively be taken as

(D6.14)

The derivation from equation (D6.11) is given in Appendix A. Most of the terms in equation(D6.14) define properties of the steel I-section; bf is the breadth of the bottom flange, andother symbols are as in Fig. 6.9(a).

To check if a particular section qualifies for ‘simplified verification’, a section parameter Fis calculated. From equation (D6.14), it is

(D6.15)

Limiting values of F, Flim say, are given in Appendix A (see Fig. A.5) for the nominal steelgrades listed in Table 6.1. The horizontal ‘S’ line at or next above the plotted point F gives thehighest grade of steel for which the method of clause 6.3.3 can be used for that section.

Some examples are given in Table 6.1, with the values of Flim in the column headings. Manyof the heavier wide-flange sections in S275 steel qualify for verification without directcalculation, but few UB sections in S355 steel do so.

In ENV 1994-1-1, verification without direct calculation was permitted for hot-rolledsections of ‘similar shape’ to IPE and HE sections, that conformed to Table 6.1 and ageometrical condition similar to the limit on F. In EN 1994-1-1 this has been replaced by areference to National Annexes.

Use of UB rolled sections with encased webs to clause 5.5.3(2)It is shown in Appendix A (equation (DA.4)) that the effect of web encasement is to increaseFlim by at least 29%. All the sections shown in Table 6.1 now qualify for S275 steel, and all

62

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

λLT

0.75 0.50.25yw s s f

LTf f w f a 4

5.0 14

ft h h tb t t b E C

λÊ ˆ Ê ˆÊ ˆ Ê ˆ

= +Á ˜ Á ˜Á ˜ Á ˜Ë ¯ Ë ¯Ë ¯ Ë ¯

0.75 0.25

w s s f

f f w f

14t h h t

Fb t t b

Ê ˆÊ ˆ Ê ˆ= +Á ˜ Á ˜Á ˜Ë ¯ Ë ¯Ë ¯

Table 6.1. Qualification of some UB rolled steel sections for verification of lateral–torsional stability,in a composite beam, without direct calculation

Section

Right-handside ofexpression(D6.15)

S275 steel,uncased(13.9)

S355 steel,uncased(12.3)

S275 steel,cased(18.0)

S355 steel,cased(15.8)

457 × 152 UB52 16.4 No No Yes No457 × 152 UB67 14.9 No No Yes Yes457 × 191 UB67 13.6 Yes No Yes Yes457 × 191 UB98 11.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes533 × 210 UB82 14.4 No No Yes Yes533 × 210 UB122 12.5 Yes No Yes Yes610 × 229 UB125 14.1 No No Yes Yes610 × 229 UB140 13.5 Yes No Yes Yes610 × 305 UB149 12.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes610 × 305 UB238 9.83 Yes Yes Yes Yes

LTλ

74Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:41

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 71: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

except one do so for S355 steel. Web encasement is thus an effective option for improvingthe lateral stability of a rolled steel section in a continuous composite beam.

The method of clause 6.4.2 should be used where the steel section does not qualify.

Use of intermediate lateral bracingWhere the buckling resistance moment Mb, Rd as found by one of the preceding methods issignificantly less than the design resistance moment MRd of the cross-sections concerned, itmay be cost-effective to provide discrete lateral restraint to the steel bottom flange. Wherethe slab is composite, a steel cross-member may be needed (Fig. 6.10(a)), but for solid slabs,other solutions are possible (e.g. Fig. 6.10(b)).

Clause 6.3.2.1(2) of EN 1993-1-1 refers to ‘beams with sufficient restraint to thecompression flange’, but does not define ‘sufficient’. A Note to clause 6.3.2.4(3) ofEN 1993-1-1 refers to Annex BB.3 in that EN standard for buckling of components ofbuilding structures ‘with restraints’. Clause BB.3.2(1) gives the minimum ‘stable lengthbetween lateral restraints’, but this is intended to apply to lateral–torsional buckling, andmay not be appropriate for distortional buckling. Further provisions for steel structures aregiven in EN 1993-2.64

There is no guidance in EN 1994-1-1 on the minimum strength or stiffness that a lateralrestraint must have. There is guidance in Lawson and Rackham,63 based on BS 5950: Part 1,clause 4.3.2.65 This states that a discrete restraint should be designed for 2% of the maximumcompressive force in the flange. It is suggested63 that where discrete and continuous restraintsact together, as in a composite beam, the design force can be reduced to 1% of the force inthe flange. Provision of discrete bracing to make up a deficiency in continuous restraint isattractive in principle, but the relative stiffness of the two types of restraint must be such thatthey are effective in parallel.

Another proposal is to relate the restraining force to the total compression in the flangeand the web at the cross-section where the bracing is provided, to take advantage of the steepmoment gradient in a region of hogging bending.

In tests at the University of Warwick,66 bracings that could resist 1% of the totalcompression, defined in this way, were found to be effective. The calculation of thiscompressive force involves an elastic analysis of the section, not otherwise needed, and therule is unsafe near points of contraflexure. There is at present no simple design methodbetter than the 2% rule quoted above, which can be over-conservative. An elastic analysiscan be avoided by taking the stress in the flange as the yield stress.

The design methods based on equation (D6.11) for Mcr work well for complete spans,but become unsatisfactory (over-conservative) for short lengths of beam between lateralbracings. This is because the correct values of the factors C4 are functions of the lengthbetween lateral restraints. For simplicity, only the minimum values of C4 are given in thefigures in Appendix B of this guide. They are applicable where the half-wavelength of abuckle is less than the length L in equation (D6.11). This is always so where L is a completespan, but where L is part of a span, the value given may be over-conservative. This is

63

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.10. Laterally restrained bottom flanges

75Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:42

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 72: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

illustrated at the end of Example 6.7, where the effect of providing lateral bracing isexamined.

Flow charts for continuous beamThe flow charts in Fig. 6.11 cover some aspects of design of an internal span of a continuouscomposite beam. Their scope is limited to cross-sections in Class 1, 2 or 3, an uncased web, auniform steel section, and no flexural interaction with supporting members. It is assumedthat for lateral–torsional buckling, the simplified method of clause 6.4.3 is not applicable.Figure 6.11(a) refers to the following notes:

64

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Classify sections at A and C, to clause 5.5

Is section Class 1 or 2?

Class 1 or 2 Class 3Use effective section inClass 2, to clause 5.5.2(3)?

Find MRd as Mpl, Rd , to clause 6.2.1.2

Find Ma, Ed at A and C byelastic global analysis forrelevant arrangements ofactions on steel members;no redistributionFind Mel, Rd at A

and C to clause 6.4.2(3)

No

No

Yes

Find lLT at A and C, to clause 6.4. Is steel element a ‘rolled or equivalent welded’ section?

Yes

No

No

A CB

Elevation of beam

Is lLT > 0.4 for AB or BC? (Clause 6.3.2.3(1) of EN 1993-1-1) Is lLT > 0.2 for AB or BC?

Find cLT to clause 6.4, and hence find Mb, Rd

Use elastic global analysis, with relevant modular ratio, for actions on steel and compositemembers and relevant load arrangements to find MEd (= Ma, Ed + Mc, Ed) at A, B and C.Is lLT > 0.2 (or 0.4) for either AB or BC? (See Notes (1) and (2), before Example 6.3)

Yes

Yes

NoIgnore shrinkage (clause 5.4.2.2(7))

Yes

Classify cross-section B. Find MRd at B for full shear connection. Is MEd < MRd at B?

Is M Ed less than MRd or Mb, Rd, as appropriate at both of sections A and C?

No

Yes

Redistribute hogging bending moments Mc, Ed to clause 5.4.4, to find new MEd at sections A, B and C. See Fig. 5.4

No

Re-design is required

(END)

Re-design is required

(END)

Yes

No

Go to Fig. 6.11(b) for design of shear connection

Yes

Fig. 6.11. (a) Flow chart for design for ultimate limit state of an internal span of a continuous beam in abuilding, with uniform steel section and no cross-sections in Class 4

76Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:42

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 73: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

65

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Are all critical sections in Class 1 or 2, to clause 6.6.1.1(14)?

Sagging regionHogging region

Yes

Find longitudinal shear flows, ignoring tensile strength ofconcrete and tension stiffening,to clauses 6.6.2.1 and 6.6.2.2. See comments on clause 6.6.2

No

Find hmin to clause 6.6.1.2. Do you intend to use h ≥ hmin?

Has it been shown thatproposed connectors satisfyclauses 6.6.1.1(4)P and 6.6.1.1(5)?

Are connectors studs to clause 6.6.1.2(1) or (3)?

Yes

(c) Choose h and find MRd such that clause 6.6.1.1(3)P is satisfied

Yes (advised)

Yes (advised)

(b) Choose h

No

Find MRd to clauses 6.2.1.3(3) to 6.2.1.3(5)

(a) Choose h ≥ hmin so that studs are ‘ductile’

Is MRd ≥ MEd Increase h. Return to (a), (b), or (c)

Yes

No

No

No

Use full shear connection for Nc, f found from MRd, toclause 6.6.2.1(1) or 6.6.2.2(1)

Are all critical cross-sections in Class 1 or 2?

Sagging region. Find ns = hNc, f /PRdfor region each side of B

Hogging region. Find nh = Nc, f /PRdfor regions adjacent to A and C

Find PRd for stud connectors to clause 6.6.3.1 or 6.6.4. For other connectors, find PRd that satisfies clause 6.6.1.1 and determine if ‘ductile’

Find n = ns + nh for critical lengths AB and BC. Are connectors ‘ductile’?

Space n connectors uniformly over lengths AB (and CD) to clause 6.6.1.3(3)

Space n connectors over AB (and CD)in accordance with longitudinal shearto clause 6.6.1.3(5)

Either Or

No

Yes

Is Mpl, Rd > 2.5 Mpl, a, Rd at A, B, or C ? Check spacing of connectors to clauses 6.6.5.5(3) and 6.6.5.7(4). Do they ensure the stability of any part of the member?

Additional checks required to clause 6.6.1.3(4)

Yes

No

Check spacing to clause 6.6.5.5(2) and revise if necessary

Yes

(END)

No

Space connectors in accordance withthe shear flow, to clause 6.6.1.3(5)

(END)Yes

No

Find MRd to clause 6.2.1.4 or 6.2.1.5

Fig. 6.11. (Contd) (b) Flow chart for design of an internal span of a continuous beam in a building –shear connection

77Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:42

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 74: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

(1) The elastic global analysis is simpler if the ‘uncracked’ model is used. The limitsto redistribution of hogging moments include allowance for the effects of cracking,but redistribution is not permitted where allowance for lateral–torsional buckling isrequired (clause 5.4.4(4)). ‘Cracked’ analysis may then be preferred, as it gives lowerhogging moments at internal supports.

(2) If fully propped construction is used, Ma, Ed may be zero at all cross-sections.

Example 6.3: lateral–torsional buckling of two-span beamThe design method of clause 6.4.2, with application of the theory in Appendix A, isillustrated in Example 6.7, which will be found after the comments on clause 6.6. Thelength of the method is such that the ‘simplified verification’ of clause 6.4.3 is usedwherever possible.

Limitations of the simplified method are now illustrated, with reference to the two-span beam treated in Example 6.7. This uses an IPE 450 steel section in grade S355 steel,and is continuous over two 12 m spans. Details are shown in Figs 6.23–6.25.

Relevant results for hogging bending of the composite section at support B in Fig.6.23(c) are as follows:

Mpl, Rd = 781 kN m = 0.43 Mb, Rd = 687 kN m

The design ultimate loads per unit length of beam, from Table 6.2, are

permanent: 7.80 + 1.62 = 9.42 kN/m

variable: 26.25 kN/m

The steel section fails the condition in paragraph (g) of clause 6.4.3(1), which limits itsdepth to 400 mm. The beam satisfies all the other conditions except that in paragraph (b),for its ratio of permanent to total load is only 9.42/35.67 = 0.26, far below the specifiedminimum of 0.4.

The simplest way to satisfy paragraph (g) would be to encase the web in concrete, whichincreases the depth limit to 600 mm, and the permanent load to 11.9 kN/m.

The condition in paragraph (b) is quite severe. In this case, it is

11.9 ≥ 0.4(11.9 + qd)

whence

qd £ 17.8 kN/m

This corresponds to a characteristic floor loading of

17.8/(1.5 × 2.5) = 4.75 kN/m2

which is a big reduction from the 7 kN/m2 specified, even though the required reduction in(to £ 0.4) is less than 10%.

This result illustrates a common feature of ‘simplified’ methods. They have to cover sowide a variety of situations that they are over-conservative for some of them.

6.5. Transverse forces on webs

Clause 6.5

The local resistance of an unstiffened and unencased web to forces (typically, vertical forces)applied through a steel flange can be assumed to be the same in a composite member as in asteel member, so clause 6.5 consists mainly of references to EN 1993-1-5. The provisions ofSection 8 of EN 1993-1-5 are not limited to rolled sections, so are applicable to webs wherethe neutral axis is not at mid-depth, as is usual in composite beams.

In buildings, local yielding or buckling of a web may occur where a composite beam iscontinuous over a steel beam that supports it. Rolled I-sections in Class 1 or 2 may not be

66

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

LTλ

LTλ

78Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:42

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 75: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Clause 6.5.1(3)susceptible, but a Class 3 web, treated as effective Class 2, should almost always be stiffened(clause 6.5.1(3)).

A plate girder launched over roller supports cannot be stiffened at every section, so theerection condition may be critical; but this situation is rare in buildings.

Clause 6.5.2Flange-induced web buckling, clause 6.5.2, could occur where a large compression flangeis restrained from buckling out of its plane by a weak or slender web. This is prevented byspecifying a limit to the web slenderness, as a function of the ratio of flange area to web area.The slenderness limit is reduced if the flange is curved in elevation, to ensure that the webcan resist the radial component of the force in the flange. This form of web buckling cannotoccur with straight rolled steel I-sections, and needs to be checked only for plate girders ofunusual proportions and for members sharply curved in elevation.

The effect of sharp curvature is illustrated by reference to an IPE 400 section of gradeS355 steel, which has been cold curved about its major axis, before erection. Assuming thatits plastic resistance moment is to be used, the minimum permitted radius of curvature givenby clause 8(2) of EN 1993-1-5 is 2.1 m. Flange-induced buckling is clearly a rare problem forhot-rolled sections.

6.6. Shear connection6.6.1. GeneralBasis of design

Clause 6.6.1.1(1)Clause 6.6 is applicable to shear connection in composite beams. Clause 6.6.1.1(1) refers alsoto ‘other types of composite member’. Shear connection in composite columns is treated inclause 6.7.4, but reference is made to clause 6.6.3.1 for the design resistance of headed studconnectors. Similarly, headed studs used for end anchorage in composite slabs are treated inclause 9.7.4, but some provisions in clause 6.6 are also applicable.

Clause 6.6.1.1(2)PAlthough the uncertain effects of bond are excluded by clause 6.6.1.1(2)P, friction is notexcluded. Its essential difference from bond is that there must be compressive force acrossthe relevant surfaces. This usually arises from wedging action. Provisions for shearconnection by friction are given in clauses 6.7.4.2(4) (columns) and 9.1.2.1 (composite slabs).

Clause 6.6.1.1(3)PClause 6.6.1.1(4)P

Clause 6.6.1.1(5)

‘Inelastic redistribution of shear’ (clause 6.6.1.1(3)P) is relied on in the many provisionsthat permit uniform spacing of connectors. Clause 6.6.1.1(4)P uses the term ‘ductile’ forconnectors that have deformation capacity sufficient to assume ideal plastic behaviour of theshear connection. Clause 6.6.1.1(5) quantifies this as a characteristic slip capacity of 6 mm.47

In practice, designers will not wish to calculate required and available slip capacities. Clause6.6.1.2(1) enables such calculations to be avoided by limiting the extent of partial shearconnection and by specifying the type and range of shear connectors.

Clause 6.6.1.1(6)PThe need for compatibility of load/slip properties, clause 6.6.1.1(6)P, is one reason whyneither bond nor adhesives can be used to supplement the shear resistance of studs. Thecombined use of studs and block-and-hoop connectors has been discouraged for the samereason, though there is little doubt that effectively rigid projections into the concrete slab,such as bolt heads and ends of flange plates, contribute to shear connection.

Clause 6.6.1.1(7)P

Clause 6.6.1.1(8)

‘Separation’, in clause 6.6.1.1(7)P, means separation sufficient for the curvatures of thetwo elements to be different at a cross-section, or for there to be a risk of local corrosion.None of the design methods in EN 1994-1-1 takes account of differences of curvature, whichcan arise from a very small separation. Even where most of the load is applied by or above theslab, as is usual, tests on beams with unheaded studs show separation, especially afterinelastic behaviour begins. This arises from local variations in the flexural stiffnesses of theconcrete and steel elements, and from the tendency of the slab to ride up on the weld collars.The standard heads of stud connectors have been found to be large enough to controlseparation, and the rule in clause 6.6.1.1(8) is intended to ensure that other types ofconnector, with anchoring devices if necessary, can do so.

67

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

79Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:43

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 76: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Resistance to uplift is much influenced by the reinforcement near the bottom of the slab,so if the resistance of an anchor is to be checked by testing, reinforcement in accordance withclause 6.6.6 should be provided in the test specimens. Anchors are inevitably subjected alsoto shear.

Clause 6.6.1.1(9) Clause 6.6.1.1(9) refers to ‘direct tension’. Load from a travelling crane hanging from thesteel member is an example. In bridges, it can be caused by the differential deflexions ofadjacent beams under certain patterns of imposed load. Where it is present, its designmagnitude must be determined.

Clause 6.6.1.1(10)P Clause 6.6.1.1(10)P is a principle that has led to many application rules. The shear forcesare inevitably ‘concentrated’. One research study67 found that 70% of the shear on a stud wasresisted by its weld collar, and that the local (triaxial) stress in the concrete was several timesits cube strength. Transverse reinforcement performs a dual role. It acts as horizontal shearreinforcement for the concrete flanges, and controls and limits splitting. Its detailing iscritical where connectors are close to a free surface of the slab.

Larger concentrated forces occur where precast slabs are used, and connectors are placedin groups in holes in the slabs. This influences the detailing of the reinforcement near theseholes, and is referred to in Section 8 of EN 1994-2.

Clause 6.6.1.1(12) Clause 6.6.1.1(12) is intended to permit the use of other types of connector. ENV 1994-1-1included provisions for many types of connector other than studs: block connectors, anchors,hoops, angles, and friction-grip bolts. They have all been omitted because of their limited useand to shorten the code.

Clause 6.6.1.1(13) Clause 6.6.1.1(13) says that connectors should resist at least the design shear force,meaning the action effect. Their design for Class 1 and 2 sections is based on the designbending resistances (see clause 6.6.2), and hence on a shear force that normally exceeds theaction effect.

Clause 6.6.1.1(14)P The principle on partial shear connection, clause 6.6.1.1(14)P, leads to application rules inclause 6.2.1.3.

The flow chart in Fig. 6.11(b) is for a beam without web encasement, and may assist infollowing the comments on clauses 6.2 and 6.6.

Limitation on the use of partial shear connection in beams for buildingsAs noted in comments on clause 6.2.1.3, the rules for partial shear connection are based onan available slip of 6 mm. Connectors defined as ‘ductile’ are those that had been shown tohave (or were believed to have) a characteristic slip capacity (defined in clause B.2.5(4))exceeding 6 mm.

Clause 6.6.1.2(1)

Prediction of slip capacity is difficult. Push tests on stud connectors have been reported inscores of publications, but few tests were continued for slips exceeding 3 mm. Slip capacitydepends on the degree of containment of the connector by the concrete and itsreinforcement, and hence on the location of free surfaces (e.g. in haunches or edge beams)as well as on the shape, size and spacing of the connectors. The information has beensummarized.47,48 The conclusions led to the approval of certain stud connectors as ‘ductile’(clause 6.6.1.2(1)), and also friction-grip bolts, which were within the scope of ENV 1994-1-1.

These conclusions seem optimistic when compared with the results of some push testsusing solid slabs, but connectors behave much better in beams reinforced as required by theEurocode than in small push-test specimens, where splitting can cause premature failure.One might expect a lower available slip from studs in very strong concrete, but the 6 mm limithas been confirmed68 by four push tests with cylinder strengths fcm ª 86 N/mm2.

Clause 6.6.1.2(3)

For certain types of profiled sheeting, available slips were found to be greater than6 mm.43,69 These results and other test data led to a relaxation of the limiting effective spansat which low degrees of shear connection can be used, as shown in the lower part of Fig.6.4(a). This applies only where the conditions in paragraphs (a)–(e) of clause 6.6.1.2(3) aresatisfied, because these are the situations for which test data are available. There is novalidated theoretical model that includes all the many relevant variables, so this relaxation is

68

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

80Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:43

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 77: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

69

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

allowed only where the force Nc is determined by the more conservative of the two methodsgiven in clause 6.2.1.3, the interpolation method.

Research continues on the influence on slip capacity of profile shape and the detailing ofstuds in troughs.

The limits to the use of partial shear connection in buildings are summarized in Fig. 6.4(a),where Le is the effective span. The span limits given by the lines PQ to RS are from theprovisions of clause 6.6.1.2 for ‘ductile’ connectors. The design of a long-span beam with alow degree of shear connection is likely to be governed by the need to limit its deflection,unless it is propped during construction or is continuous.

For composite beams in sagging bending, the steel top flange must be wide enough toresist lateral buckling during erection, and for attachment of the connectors, but can often besmaller than the bottom flange. A smaller flange lowers the plastic neutral axis of thecomposite section, and increases the slip required by the model for partial-interactiondesign. This is why clauses 6.6.1.2(1) and 6.6.1.2(2) give limits on the degree of shearconnection that are less liberal than those for beams with equal steel flanges.

Spacing of shear connectors in beams for buildingsClause 6.6.1.3(1)PClause 6.6.1.3(1)P extends clause 6.6.1.1(2)P a little, by referring to ‘spacing’ of connectors

and an ‘appropriate distribution’ of longitudinal shear. The interpretation of ‘appropriate’can depend on the method of analysis used and the ductility of the connectors.

The principle may be assumed to be satisfied where connectors are spaced ‘elastically’ toclause 6.6.1.3(5), which has general applicability. The more convenient use of uniformspacing requires the connectors to satisfy clause 6.6.1.3(3), which implies (but does notrequire) the use of plastic resistance moments. The connectors must be ‘ductile’, as definedin clauses 6.6.1.1(4)P and 6.6.1.1(5). This is normally achieved by satisfying clause 6.6.1.2.Clauses 6.6.1.1(3)P to 6.6.1.1(5) provide an alternative, which enables research-basedevidence to be used, but its use is not appropriate for routine design.

Clause 6.6.1.3(2)PIn practice, it is possible to space connectors uniformly in most beams for buildings, so for

continuous beams clause 6.6.1.3(2)P requires the tension reinforcement to be curtailed tosuit the spacing of the shear connectors.

Clause 6.6.1.3(4)Clause 6.6.1.3(4) could apply to a simply-supported or a continuous beam with a largeconcrete slab and a relatively small steel top flange. Connectors spaced uniformly along acritical length might then have insufficient available slip. Use of an additional critical sectionwould lead to a more suitable distribution.

Example 6.4: arrangement of shear connectorsAs an example of the use of these rules, a simply-supported beam of span 10 m isconsidered. It has distributed loading, equal steel flanges, a uniform cross-section in Class2, S355 steel, and stud connectors. At mid-span, MEd is much less than Mpl, Rd. Thecross-section is such that the required resistance to bending can be provided using 40% offull shear connection (n/nf = 0.4).

Clause 6.6.1.2(1) gives n/nf ≥ 0.55. However, if the slab is composite, and the otherconditions of clause 6.6.1.2(3) are satisfied, n/nf = 0.4 may be used.

Suppose now that the span of the beam is 12 m. The preceding limits to n/nf areincreased to 0.61 and 0.48, respectively. One can either design using these limits, or go toclause 6.6.1.3(5), which refers to ‘longitudinal shear calculated by elastic theory’. Thispresumably means using vL = VEd A /I, where VEd is the vertical shear on the compositesection. This gives a triangular distribution of longitudinal shear, or separatedistributions, to be superimposed, if creep is allowed for by using several modular ratios.The force in the slab at mid-span now depends on the proportion of MEd that is appliedto the composite member, and on the proportions of the cross-section. Connectorscorresponding to this force are then spaced accordingly, possibly with extra ones nearmid-span to satisfy the rule of clause 6.6.5.5(3) on maximum spacing of studs.

y

81Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:43

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 78: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

70

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Strictly, the envelope of vertical shear should be used for VEd, which gives non-zeroshear at mid-span. For distributed loading this increases the shear connection needed byonly 2%, but the envelope should certainly be used for more complex variable loading.

For continuous beams where MEd at mid-span is much less than Mpl, Rd, the methodis more complex, as partial shear connection is permitted only where the slab is incompression. The envelope of design vertical shear from the global analysis should beused. For simplicity, longitudinal shear can be found using properties of the uncrackedcross-section throughout, because this gives an overestimate in cracked regions. Examples6.7 and 6.8 (see below) are relevant.

It does not help, in the present example, to define additional critical sections within the6 m shear span of the beam, because the limits of clause 6.6.1.2 are given in terms ofeffective span, not critical length.

6.6.2. Longitudinal shear force in beams for buildingsClause 6.6.2.1Clause 6.6.2.2

Clauses 6.6.2.1 and 6.6.2.2 say, in effect, that the design longitudinal shear force should beconsistent with the bending resistances of the cross-sections at the ends of the critical lengthconsidered, not with the design vertical shear forces (the action effects). This is done for tworeasons:

• simplicity – for the design bending moments often lie between the elastic and plasticresistances, and calculation of longitudinal shear becomes complex

• robustness – for otherwise longitudinal shear failure, which may be more brittle thanflexural failure, could occur first.

Beam with Class 3 sections at supports and a Class 1 or 2 section at mid-spanClause 6.6.2.1 applies because non-linear or elastic theory will have been ‘applied tocross-sections’. The longitudinal forces in the slab at the Class 3 sections are then calculatedby elastic theory, based on the bending moments in the composite section. At mid-span, it isnot clear whether clause 6.6.2.2 applies, because its heading does not say ‘resistance of allcross-sections’. The simpler and recommended method is to assume that it does apply, andto calculate the longitudinal force at mid-span based on MRd at that section, as that isconsistent with the model used for bending. The total shear flow between a support andmid-span is the sum of the longitudinal forces at those points. The alternative would be tofind the longitudinal force at mid-span by elastic theory for the moments applied to thecomposite section, even though the bending stresses could exceed the specified limits.

Clause 6.6.2.2(3) This absence of ‘all’ from the heading is also relevant to the use of clause 6.6.2.2(3), on theuse of partial shear connection. The design for a beam with Class 3 sections at internalsupports limits the curvature of those regions, so the ultimate-load curvature at mid-spanwill be too low for the full-interaction bending resistance to be reached. The use of partialshear connection is then appropriate, with MRd less than Mpl, Rd.

6.6.3. Headed stud connectors in solid slabs and concrete encasementResistance to longitudinal shearIn BS 5950-3-131 and in earlier UK codes, the characteristic shear resistances of studs aregiven in a table, applicable only when the stud material has particular properties. There wasno theoretical model for the shear resistance.

Clause 6.6.3.1(1)The Eurocodes must be applicable to a wider range of products, so design equations are

essential. Those given in clause 6.6.3.1(1) are based on the model that a stud with a shankdiameter d and an ultimate strength fu, set in concrete with a characteristic strength fck and amean secant modulus Ecm, fails either in the steel alone or in the concrete alone.

The concrete failure is found in tests to be influenced by both the stiffness and the strengthof the concrete.

82Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:43

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 79: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

This led to equations (6.18)–(6.21), in which the numerical constants and partial safetyfactor γV have been deduced from analyses of test data. In situations where the resistancesfrom equations (6.18) and (6.19) are similar, tests show that interaction occurs between thetwo assumed modes of failure. An equation based on analyses of test data, but not on adefined model,70

PRd = k(πd2/4)fu(Ecm/Ea)0.4(fck/fu)

0.35 (D6.16)

gives a curve with a shape that approximates better both to test data and to values tabulatedin BS 5950.

In the statistical analyses done for EN 1994-1-171,72 both of these methods were studied.Equation (D6.16) gave results with slightly less scatter, but the equations of clause6.6.3.1(1) were preferred because of their clear basis and experience of their use in somecountries. Here, and elsewhere in Section 6, coefficients from such analyses were modifiedslightly, to enable a single partial factor, denoted γV (‘V’ for shear), 1.25, to be recommendedfor all types of shear connection. This value has been used in draft Eurocodes for over20 years.

It was concluded from this study72 that the coefficient in equation (6.19) should be 0.26.This result was based on push tests, where the mean number of studs per specimen was onlysix, and where lateral restraint from the narrow test slabs was usually less stiff than in theconcrete flange of a composite beam. Strength of studs in many beams is also increased bythe presence of hogging transverse bending of the slab. For these reasons the coefficient wasincreased from 0.26 to 0.29, a value that is supported by a subsequent calibration study15

based on beams with partial shear connection.Design resistances of 19 mm stud connectors in solid slabs, given by clause 6.6.3.1, are

shown in Fig. 6.12. It is assumed that the penalty for short studs, equation (6.20), does notapply. For any given values of fu and fck, the figure shows which failure mode governs. It canbe used for this purpose for studs of other diameters, provided that h/d ≥ 4.

The ‘overall nominal height’ of a stud, used in equations (6.20) and (6.21), is about 5 mmgreater than the ‘length after welding’, a term which is also in use.

71

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

100

80

60

20 30 40 50

PRd (kN)

Normal-densityconcrete

Density class 1.8

fu = 500 N/mm2

450

400

fck (N/mm2)

fcu (N/mm2)

25 37 50 60

Fig. 6.12. Design shear resistances of 19 mm studs with h/d ≥ 4 in solid slabs

83Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:44

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 80: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Weld collarsClause 6.6.3.1(2) Clause 6.6.3.1(2) on weld collars refers to EN 13918,26 which gives ‘guide values’ for the

height and diameter of collars, with the note that these may vary in through-deck studwelding. It is known that for studs with normal weld collars, a high proportion of the shear istransmitted through the collar.67 It should not be assumed that the shear resistances of clause6.6.3.1 are applicable to studs without collars (e.g. where friction welding by high-speedspinning is used). A normal collar should be fused to the shank of the stud. Typical collars inthe test specimens from which the design formulae were deduced had a diameter not lessthan 1.25d and a minimum height not less than 0.15d, where d is the diameter of the shank.

The collars of studs welded through profiled sheeting can be of different shape from thosefor studs welded direct to steel flanges, and the shear strength may also depend on theeffective diameter of the weld between the sheeting and the flange, about which little isknown. The resistances of clause 6.6.3.1 are applicable where the welding is in accordancewith EN ISO 14555,73 as is required.

Studs with a diameter exceeding 20 mm are rarely used in buildings, as welding throughsheeting becomes more difficult, and more powerful welding plant is required.

Splitting of the slabClause 6.6.3.1(3) Clause 6.6.3.1(3) refers to ‘splitting forces in the direction of the slab thickness’. These occur

where the axis of a stud lies in a plane parallel to that of the concrete slab; for example, ifstuds are welded to the web of a steel T-section that projects into a concrete flange. Theseare referred to as ‘lying studs’ in published research74 on the local reinforcement needed toprevent or control splitting. There is an informative annex on this subject in EN 1994-2.11 Asimilar problem occurs in composite L-beams with studs close to a free edge of the slab. Thisis addressed in clause 6.6.5.3(2).

Tension in studs

Clause 6.6.3.2(2)

Pressure under the head of a stud connector and friction on the shank normally causes thestud weld to be subjected to vertical tension before shear failure is reached. This is why clause6.6.1.1(8) requires shear connectors to have a resistance to tension that is at least 10% of theshear resistance. Clause 6.6.3.2(2) therefore permits tensile forces that are less than this to beneglected.

Resistance of studs to higher tensile forces has been found to depend on so manyvariables, especially the layout of local reinforcement, that no simple design rules could begiven. It is usually possible to find other ways of resisting the vertical tension that occurs, e.g.where a travelling crane is supported from the steel element of a composite beam.

6.6.4. Design resistance of headed studs used with profiled steel sheeting inbuildingsThe load–slip behaviour of a stud connector in a trough (of sheeting) or rib (of concrete;both terms are used) (Fig. 6.13) is more complex than in a solid slab. It is influenced by

• the direction of the ribs relative to the span of the beam• their mean breadth b0 and depth hp

• the diameter d and height hsc of the stud• the number nr of the studs in one trough, and their spacing• whether or not a stud is central within a trough, and, if not, by its eccentricity and the

direction of the shear.

The interactions between these parameters have been explored by testing, with sheetingcontinuous across the beam. It is clear that the most significant are the ratios hsc/hp and b0/hp

and, for ribs transverse to the supporting beams, nr and the eccentricity, if any. InEN 1994-1-1, as in earlier codes, reduction factors k (£ 1.0) are given, for application to thedesign resistances of studs in solid slabs. They are based entirely on testing and experience.

72

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

84Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:44

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 81: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Clause 6.6.4.1Sheeting with ribs parallel to the supporting beams (clause 6.6.4.1)There are two situations. The sheeting may be continuous across the beams – its side wallsthen provide lateral restraint to the concrete around the studs – or it may be discontinuous,as shown in Fig. 6.13, providing a haunch with a breadth that usually exceeds the breadth b0

of a trough. Edge fixings provided for erection may not provide much lateral restraint. Thedetailing rules for studs in unsheeted haunches, clause 6.6.5.4, then provide a guide to goodpractice, and may be more conservative than the rules of clause 6.6.4.1. Alternatively, thesheeting may be anchored to the beam. As practice varies, the means to achieve appropriateanchorage is a matter for the National Annex.

A haunch that just complies with clause 6.6.5.4 is shown, to scale, in Fig. 6.13. The rulesspecify:

• the angle θ (£ 45°)• the concrete side cover to the connector (≥ 50 mm)• the depth of the transverse reinforcement below the underside of the head (≥ 40 mm).

The application of clause 6.6.4.1(2) to this haunch is now considered. The reduction factoris

kl = 0.6(b0 /hp)[(hsc /hp) – 1] £ 1 (6.22)

where hsc may not be taken as greater than hp + 75 mm. The equation is from Grant et al.,75

dating from 1977 because there is little recent research on ribs parallel to the beam.76 Here, itgives

kl = 0.6(146/75)[(145/75) – 1] = 1.09

so there is no reduction. There would be, kl = 0.78, if the height of the stud were reduced to,say, 125 mm. In an unsheeted haunch it would then be necessary to provide transversereinforcement at a lower level than in Fig. 6.13, which might be impracticable. Reasonableconsistence is thus shown between clauses 6.6.4.1 and 6.6.5.4.

There is no penalty for off-centre studs in either of these clauses, or for more than one at across-section. The rules of clause 6.6.4.1 for continuous or anchored sheeting, and of clause6.6.5.4, for discontinuous un-anchored sheeting, should ensure good detailing.

73

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

26 2660 60

40

146, or b0 for continuous sheeting

hsc = 145

hp = 75

=

=

19

q

Fig. 6.13. Details of a haunch, with parallel sheeting (dimensions in mm)

85Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:44

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 82: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Where sheeting is continuous across a beam and through-deck stud welding is used, theremay be shear transfer from the sheeting to the beam. No guidance is given on this complexsituation, which may be ignored in design.

Clause 6.6.4.2 Sheeting with ribs transverse to the supporting beams (clause 6.6.4.2)In the preceding paragraphs, the likely mode of failure was loss of restraint to the base of thestud due to bursting (lateral expansion) of the haunch. A rib transverse to the beam, shown inFig. 6.14 with typical dimensions, is more highly stressed, as it has to transfer much of theshear from the base of the stud to the continuous slab above. Three modes of failure areshown in Fig. 6.15(a)–(c):

(a) failure surface above a stud that is too short (‘concrete pullout’)(b) haunch too slender, with plastic hinges in the stud(c) eccentricity on the ‘weak’ side of the centre, which reduces the effective breadth of the

haunch,69 and causes ‘rib punching’ failure.77

In BS 5950-3-1,31 the reduction formula from Grant et al.75 is given. It is, essentially,

kt = 0.85(b0 /hp)[(hsc/hp) – 1]/nr0.5 £ kt, max (D6.17)

with kt, max falling from 1 to 0.6 as nr, the number of studs in a rib, increases from 1 to 3. Wherea single stud is placed on the weak side of the centre of a rib, the breadth b0 is taken as 2e(Fig. 6.15(c)).

In a study of this subject61 it was concluded that equation (D6.17) was inconsistent andcould be unsafe. A new formula by Lawson78 gave better predictions, and was recommended.

For the Eurocode, a review of Mottram and Johnson69 and Lawson,78 and their applicationto a wider range of profiles than is used in the UK, found that more test data were needed. Itwas initially decided72 to reduce the factor 0.85 in equation (D6.17) to 0.7, to eliminatesituations where it had been found to be unsafe, with the conditions: nr not to be taken asgreater than 2 in computations, b0 ≥ hp, and hp £ 85 mm, with kt, max as before. Where there isone stud per rib, Fig. 6.16 shows that:

• where hsc ≥ 2hp and t > 1 mm, the reduction factor is usually 1.0• where hsc £ 1.5hp and/or t £ 1 mm, reductions in resistance can be large.

Most of the test data had been from sheeting exceeding 1.0 mm in thickness, withthrough-deck welding of studs up to 20 mm in diameter. Later work led to the reductions inkt, max for other situations, given in Table 6.2, for thinner sheeting and studs welded through

74

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

hc = 75

hsc = 95

=hp = 55

b0 = 160

50

e = 30

=

Fig. 6.14. Details of a haunch and positions of stud connectors, for trapezoidal sheeting transverse tothe supporting beams (dimensions in mm)

86Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:45

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 83: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

holes. Research also found that the use of a reduction factor for the strength of studs in asolid slab is not appropriate where strong studs are placed in a relatively weak rib, so furtherlimitations of scope were added:

• stud diameter not to exceed the limits given in Table 6.2• ultimate strength of studs in sheeting not to be taken as greater than 450 N/mm2.

75

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

(a) (b) (c)

e

(e)(d)

Fig. 6.15. Failure modes and placing of studs, for troughs of profiled sheeting. The alternate favourableand unfavourable placing of pairs of studs is shown in (d), and the diagonal placing of pairs of studs in (e)

0.6

1.0

0.8

kt

b0/hp

1.0 2.0 3.0

hsc/hp = 1.5

hsc/hp = 2 nr = 2

nr = 2

nr = 1

nr = 1

t > 1 mm

t > 1 mm

t £ 1 mm

t £ 1 mm

Range common in practice

Fig. 6.16. Reduction factor kt for studs with d 20 mm and through-deck welding

87Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:45

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 84: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Some trapezoidal sheetings have a small rib projecting above the main top surface; forexample, as shown in Fig. 9.4. It is clear from clause 6.6.4.1(1) that in equation (6.22), hp is thedepth including the rib. The words ‘overall depth’ are not repeated in clause 6.6.4.2, butshould be assumed to apply, unless there is extensive test evidence that equation (6.23) givessafe predictions of kt when hp is taken as the depth excluding the rib.

Crowding studs into a rib reduces ductility69 as well as strength. Ductility is needed most inlong spans where, fortunately, longitudinal shears are usually low (in buildings) in relation tothe width of steel top flange available for the placing of studs. This is relevant because thefailures sketched in Fig. 6.15 are in reality three-dimensional, and resistances depend in acomplex way on the arrangement of pairs of studs within a rib.

Where sheeting has a small stiffening rib that prevents studs from being placed centrallywithin each trough, and only one stud per trough is required, application of the rule given inclause 6.6.5.8(3) is straightforward. Comments on that clause are given later.

It is not clear from EN 1994-1-1 how two studs per trough should then be arranged. Ifthere were no central rib, then two studs in line, spaced ≥ 5d apart (clause 6.6.5.7(4)) wouldbe permitted. Small stiffening ribs, as shown in Fig. 6.14, should have little effect on shearresistance, so two-in-line is an acceptable layout. If the troughs are too narrow to permit this,then two studs side-by-side spaced ≥ 4d apart (clause 6.6.5.7(4)) fall within the scope ofclause 6.6.5.8(3), and can be arranged as shown in plan in Fig. 6.15(d). There is limitedevidence from tests76 that the diagonal layout of Fig. 6.15(e), to which the code does notrefer, may be weaker than two studs in line.

Example 6.5: reduction factors for transverse sheetingThe sheeting is as shown in Fig. 6.14, with an assumed thickness t = 0.9 mm, includingzinc coating. The overall depth is 55 mm. For one stud in the central location (shown bydashed lines in Fig. 6.14), b0 = 160 mm, hsc = 95 mm, and nr = 1. Equation (6.23) andTable 6.2 give

kt = (0.7 × 160/55)(95/55 – 1) = 1.48 (but £ 0.85)

For two studs per trough, placed centrally and side by side,

kt = 1.48/1.41 = 1.05 (but £ 0.7)

Further calculations of reduction factors are included in Example 6.7.

Biaxial loading of shear connectorsClause 6.6.4.3 The biaxial horizontal loading referred to in clause 6.6.4.3 occurs where stud connectors are

used to provide end anchorage for composite slabs, as shown in Fig. 9.1(c). Clause 9.7.4(3)gives the design anchorage resistance as the lesser of that given by clause 6.6 and Ppb, Rd, thebearing resistance of the sheet, from equation (9.10). Even where 16 mm studs are used inlightweight concrete, the bearing resistance (typically about 14 kN) will be the lower of thetwo.

These studs resist horizontal shear from both the slab and the beam. The interactionequation of clause 6.6.4.3(1) is based on vectorial addition of the two shear forces.

6.6.5. Detailing of the shear connection and influence of executionIt is rarely possible to prove the general validity of application rules for detailing, becausethey apply to so great a variety of situations. They are based partly on previous practice. Anadverse experience causes the relevant rule to be made more restrictive. In research, existingrules are often violated when test specimens are designed, in the hope that extensive goodexperience may enable existing rules to be relaxed.

Rules are often expressed in the form of limiting dimensions, even though most behaviour(excluding corrosion) is more influenced by ratios of dimensions than by a single value.Minimum dimensions that would be appropriate for an unusually large structural member

76

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

88Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:46

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 85: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

could exceed those given in the code. Similarly, code maxima may be too large for use in asmall member. Designers are unwise to follow detailing rules blindly, because no set of rulescan be comprehensive.

Resistance to separationClause 6.6.5.1(1)The object of clause 6.6.5.1(1) on resistance to separation is to ensure that failure surfaces in

the concrete cannot pass above the connectors and below the reinforcement, intersectingneither. Tests have found that these surfaces may not be plane; the problem is three-dimensional. A longitudinal section through a possible failure surface ABC is shown in Fig.6.17. The studs are at the maximum spacing allowed by clause 6.6.5.5(3).

Clause 6.6.5.1 defines only the highest level for the bottom reinforcement. Ideally, itslongitudinal location relative to the studs should also be defined, because the objective is toprevent failure surfaces where the angle α (Fig. 6.17) is small. It is impracticable to specify aminimum angle α, or to link detailing rules for reinforcement with those for connectors.

The angle α obviously depends on the spacing of the bottom bars, assumed to be 800 mmin Fig. 6.17. What is the maximum permitted value for this spacing? The answer is quitecomplex.

Clause 6.6.6.3(1) refers to clause 9.2.2(5) in EN 1992-1-1, where a Note recommends aminimum reinforcement ratio. For fck = 30 N/mm2 and fsk = 500 N/mm2 this gives 0.088%,or 131 mm2/m for this 150 mm slab. However, if the slab is continuous across the beam, mostof this could be in the top of the slab.

The minimum bottom reinforcement depends on whether the slab is continuous or not. Ifit is simply-supported on the beam, the bottom bars are ‘principal reinforcement’ to clause9.3.1.1(3) of EN 1992-1-1, where a Note gives their maximum spacing as 400 mm for thisexample, and 450 mm for ‘secondary’ reinforcement. The rules of clause 6.6.5.3(2) onsplitting may also apply.

If the slab is continuous over the beam, there may be no need for bottom flexuralreinforcement to EN 1992-1-1. Let us assume that there is a single row of 19 mm studs with adesign resistance, 91 kN per stud, which is possible in concrete of class C50/60 (Fig. 6.12).The bottom transverse reinforcement will then be determined by the rules of clause 6.6.6.1for shear surfaces of type b–b or c–c. These show that 12 mm bars at 750 mm spacing aresufficient. There appears to be no rule that requires closer spacing, but it would be prudentto treat these bars as ‘secondary flexural’ bars to EN 1992-1-1, not least because it increasesthe angle α. Using its maximum spacing, 450 mm, 10 mm bars are sufficient.

Cover to connectors

Clause 6.6.5.2

Shear connectors must project significantly above profiled steel sheeting, because of theterm (hsc /hp – 1) in equations (6.22) and (6.23) and the rule in clause 6.6.5.8(1) for projectionof 2d above ‘the top of the steel deck’. The interpretation of this for profiles with a smalladditional top rib is not clear. If 2d is measured from this rib, and the rules of EN 1992-1-1 forcover are applied to the top of the connector, the resulting minimum thickness of acomposite slab may govern its thickness. However, these slabs are normally used only indry environments, where the concessions on minimum cover given in clause 6.6.5.2 areappropriate.

77

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

800

95

55

30

A

B

C

a

Fig. 6.17. Level of bottom transverse reinforcement (dimensions in mm)

89Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:46

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 86: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Loading of shear connection during execution

Clause 6.6.5.2(4)As almost all relevant provisions on execution appear in standards for either steel orconcrete structures, there is no section on execution in EN 1994-1-1. This is why clause6.6.5.2(4) appears here.

The method of construction of composite beams and slabs (i.e. whether propped orunpropped), and also the sequence of concreting, affects stresses calculated by elastictheory, and the magnitude of deflections. It is significant, therefore, in verifications ofresistance of cross-sections in Class 3 or 4, and in serviceability checks.

Where propped construction is used, it is usual to retain the props until the concrete hasachieved a compressive strength of at least 75% of its design value. If this is not done,verifications at removal of props should be based on a reduced compressive strength.

Clause 6.6.5.2(4) gives a lower limit for this reduction in concrete strength. It also relatesto the staged casting of a concrete flange for an unpropped composite beam, setting, ineffect, a minimum time interval between successive stages of casting.

Local reinforcement in the slab

Clause 6.6.5.3(1)Clause 6.6.5.3(2)

Where shear connectors are close to a longitudinal edge of a concrete flange, use of U-bars isalmost the only way of providing the full anchorage required by clause 6.6.5.3(1). Thesplitting referred to in clause 6.6.5.3(2) is a common mode of failure in push-test specimenswith narrow slabs (e.g. 300 mm, which has long been the standard width in British codes). Itwas also found, in full-scale tests, to be the normal failure mode for composite L-beamsconstructed with precast slabs.79 Detailing rules are given in clause 6.6.5.3(2) for slabs wherethe edge distance e in Fig. 6.18 is less than 300 mm. The required area of bottom transversereinforcement, Ab, per unit length of beam, should be found using clause 6.6.6. In theunhaunched slab shown in Fig. 6.18, failure surface b–b will be critical (unless the slab is verythick) because the shear on surface a–a is low in an L-beam with an asymmetrical concreteflange.

To ensure that the reinforcement is fully anchored to the left of the line a–a, it isrecommended that U-bars be used. These can be in a horizontal plane or, where topreinforcement is needed, in a vertical plane.

No rules are given for the effectiveness as transverse reinforcement of profiled sheetingtransverse to the supporting beams, with ribs that extend to a cantilever edge of the slab. Thelength needed to develop the full tensile resistance of the sheeting will be known from thedesign procedure for the composite slab. It is always greater than the minimum edgedistance of 6d, and usually greater than 300 mm. Where it exceeds the length e available,bottom transverse reinforcement will be needed. The situation can be improved by placingall the connectors near the inner edge of the steel flange. Sheeting with ribs parallel to thefree edge should not be assumed to resist longitudinal splitting of the slab.

78

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

b

b

a

a

d

e (≥ 6 d )

≥ 0.5 d

Fig. 6.18. Longitudinal shear reinforcement in an L-beam

90Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:46

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 87: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Lying studsThere is also a risk of splitting where the shank of a stud (a ‘lying stud’) is parallel and close toa free surface of the slab, as shown, for example, in Fig. 6.19. The U-bars should then be in avertical plane. Research has found74 that the ‘6d rule’ for edge distance in clause 6.6.5.3(2) andthe provision of hoops may not be sufficient to ensure that the design shear resistance of thestud is reached. The height of the stud and the longitudinal bars shown are also important.

The slip capacity may be less than 6 mm, so the shear connection may not be ‘ductile’. Thestud shown in Fig. 6.19(b) may be subjected to simultaneous axial tension and vertical andlongitudinal shear, so details of this type should be avoided.

Lying studs are outside the scope of EN 1994-1-1. There is an informative annex in EN 1994-2.

Reinforcement at the end of a cantilever

Clause 6.6.5.3(3)P

At the end of a composite cantilever, the force on the concrete from the connectors actstowards the nearest edge of the slab. The effects of shrinkage and temperature can addfurther stresses37 that tend to cause splitting in region B in Fig. 6.20, so reinforcement in thisregion needs careful detailing. Clause 6.6.5.3(3)P can be satisfied by providing ‘herring-bone’bottom reinforcement (ABC in Fig. 6.20) sufficient to anchor the force from the connectorsinto the slab, and to ensure that the longitudinal bars provided to resist that force areanchored beyond their intersection with ABC.

The situation where a column is supported at point B is particularly critical. Incompatibilitybetween the vertical stiffnesses of the steel beam and the slab can cause local shear failure ofthe slab, even where the steel beam alone is locally strong enough to carry the column.80

HaunchesClause 6.6.5.4The detailing rules of clause 6.6.5.4 are based on limited test evidence, but are long-

established.81 In regions of high longitudinal shear, deep haunches should be used withcaution because there may be little warning of failure.

Haunches formed by profiled sheeting are considered under clause 6.6.4.1.

79

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

≥ 6d

≥ 6d

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.19. Examples of details susceptible to longitudinal splitting

Studs

Steelbeam

A

C

B

Transverse reinforcement not shown

Slab

Fig. 6.20. Reinforcement at the end of a cantilever

91Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:47

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 88: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Maximum spacing of connectorsSituations where the stability of a concrete slab is ensured by its connection to a steel beamare unlikely to occur in buildings. The converse situation, stabilization of the steel flange, isof interest only where the steel compression flange is not already in Class 1, so it rarely ariseswhere rolled I-sections are used.

Where the steel beam is a plate girder, there is unlikely to be any need for a top flange inClass 1. Its proportions can usually be chosen such that it is in Class 2, unless a wide thinflange is needed to avoid lateral buckling during construction.

Clause 6.6.5.5(2) Clause 6.6.5.5(2) is not restrictive in practice. As an example, a plate girder is considered,in steel with fy = 355 N/mm2, where the top flange has tf = 20 mm, an overall breadth of350 mm, and an outstand c of 165 mm. The ratio ε is 0.81 and the slenderness is

c/tf ε = 165/(20 × 0.81) = 10.2

so, from Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, the flange is in Class 3. From clause 6.6.5.5(2), it can beassumed to be in Class 1 if shear connectors are provided within 146 mm of each free edge, ata longitudinal spacing not exceeding 356 mm, for a solid slab.

The ratio 22 in this clause is based on the assumption that the steel flange cannot buckletowards the slab. Where there are transverse ribs (e.g. due to the use of profiled sheeting),the assumption may not be correct, so the ratio is reduced to 15. The maximum spacing inthis example is then 243 mm.

The ratio 9 for edge distance, used in the formula 9tf(235/fy)0.5 is the same as in

BS 5400: Part 5,82 and the ratio 22 for longitudinal spacing is the same as the ratio forstaggered rows given in BS 5400.

Clause 6.6.5.5(3) The maximum longitudinal spacing in buildings, given in clause 6.6.5.5(3), 6hc, £ 800 mm,is more liberal than the general rule of BS 5950-3-1,31 though that code permits a conditionalincrease to 8hc. The rule of EN 1994-1-1 is based on behaviour observed in tests, particularlythose where composite slabs have studs in alternate ribs only. Some uplift then occurs atintermediate ribs. Spacing at 800 mm would in some situations allow shear connectiononly in every third rib, and there was a requirement in ENV 1994-1-1 for anchorage,but not necessarily shear connection, to be provided in every rib. It is expected thatthis requirement will be included in the forthcoming EN 1090 for execution of steelstructures.

Detailing, for stud connectorsClause 6.6.5.6

Clause 6.6.5.7

The rules of clause 6.6.5.6 are intended to prevent local overstress of a steel flange near ashear connector and to avoid problems with stud welding. Application rules for minimumflange thickness are given in clause 6.6.5.7. Clauses 6.6.5.7(1) and 6.6.5.7(2) are concernedwith resistance to uplift. Rules for resistance of studs, minimum cover and projectionof studs above bottom reinforcement usually lead to the use of studs of height greaterthan 3d.

Clause 6.6.5.7(3) The limit 1.5 for the ratio d/tf in clause 6.6.5.7(3) influences the design of shear connectionfor closed-top box girders in bridges. For buildings, the more liberal limit of clause 6.6.5.7(5)normally applies. It has appeared in several earlier codes.

Clause 6.6.5.7(4) In clause 6.6.5.7(4), the minimum lateral spacing of studs in ‘solid slabs’ has been reducedto 2.5d, compared with the 4d of BS 5950-3-1. Although connection to precast slabs is outsidethe scope of EN 1994-1-1, this facilitates the use of large precast slabs supported on the edgesof the steel flanges, with projecting U-bars that loop over pairs of studs. There is muchexperience, validated by tests,83 of this form of construction, especially in multistorey carparks. Closely spaced pairs of studs must be well confined laterally. The term ‘solid slabs’should therefore be understood to exclude haunches.

Clause 6.6.5.8Further detailing rules for studs placed within troughs of profiled sheeting are given in

clause 6.6.5.8. The first two concern resistance to uplift and compaction of concrete aroundstuds.

80

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

92Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:47

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 89: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

81

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Clause 6.6.5.8(3)Clause 6.6.5.8(3) relates to a common situation: where a small stiffening rib in sheetingprevents the placing of studs centrally within a trough. It would be prudent to locate studs onthe ‘favourable’ side (see Fig. 6.15(a)), which, for symmetrical loading on a simply-supportedspan, is the side nearest the nearer support. This was not given as an application rule becauseit is difficult to ensure that the ‘favourable’ side would be correctly chosen on site. Instead,alternate-side placing is recommended, with alternate studs on the ‘unfavourable’ side (seeFig. 6.15(c)). However, research has found77 that the mean strength of pairs of studs placedon the two sides of a trough is about 5% less than if both were central, with a greaterreduction for sheeting less than 1 mm thick. Sheeting profiles with troughs wide enough tohave off-centre stiffening ribs are more suitable for composite slabs than those with centralribs. This clause does not refer to layouts that require two studs per trough. These arediscussed in comments on clause 6.6.4.2

6.6.6. Longitudinal shear in concrete slabsClause 6.6.6The subject of clause 6.6.6 is the avoidance of local failure of a concrete flange near the

shear connection, by the provision of appropriate reinforcement. These bars enhance theresistance of a thin concrete slab to in-plane shear in the same way that stirrups strengthen aconcrete web in vertical shear. Transverse reinforcement is also needed to control and limitthe longitudinal splitting of the slab that can be caused by local forces from individualconnectors. In this respect, the detailing problem is more acute than in the flanges ofconcrete T-beams, where the shear from the web is applied more uniformly.

The principal change from earlier codes is that the equations for the required areaof transverse reinforcement have been replaced by cross-reference to EN 1992-1-1. Itsprovisions are based on a truss analogy, as before, but a more general version of it, in whichthe angle between members of the truss can be chosen by the designer. It is an application ofstrut-and-tie modelling, which is widely used in EN 1992-1-1.

Clause 6.6.6.1(2)PThe definitions of shear surfaces in clause 6.6.6.1(2)P and the basic design method are asbefore. The method of presentation reflects the need to separate the ‘general’ provisions(clauses 6.6.6.1 to 6.6.6.3) from those restricted to ‘buildings’ (clause 6.6.6.4).

Clause 6.6.6.1(4)Clause 6.6.6.1(4) requires the design longitudinal shear to be ‘consistent with’ that used forthe design of the shear connectors. This means that the distribution along the beam ofresistance to in-plane shear in the slab should be the same as that assumed for the design ofthe shear connection. For example, uniform resistance to longitudinal shear flow (vL) shouldbe provided where the connectors are uniformly spaced, even if the vertical shear over thelength considered is not constant. It does not mean, for example, that if, for reasonsconcerning detailing, vL, Rd = 1.3vL, Ed for the connectors, the transverse reinforcement mustprovide the same degree of over-strength.

Clause 6.6.6.1(5)In applying clause 6.6.6.1(5), it is sufficiently accurate to assume that longitudinal bendingstress in the concrete flange is constant across its effective width, and zero outside it. Theclause is relevant, for example, to finding the shear on the plane a–a in the haunched beamshown in Fig. 6.15, which, for a symmetrical flange, is less than half of the shear resisted bythe connectors.

Resistance of a concrete flange to longitudinal shearClause 6.6.6.2(1)Clause 6.6.6.2(1) refers to clause 6.2.4 of EN 1992-1-1, which is written for a design

longitudinal shear stress vEd acting on a cross-section of thickness hf. The clause requires thearea of transverse reinforcement Asf at spacing sf to satisfy

Asf fyd /sf > vEd hf /cot θf (6.21 in EN 1992-1-1)

and the longitudinal shear stress to satisfy

vEd < νfcd sin θf cos θf (6.22 in EN 1992-1-1)

where ν = 0.6(1 – fck /250), with fck in units of newtons per square millimetre. (The Greek

93Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:47

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 90: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

82

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

letter ν used here in EN 1992-1-1 should not be confused with the Roman letter v, which isused for shear stress.)

The angle θf between the diagonal strut and the axis of the beam is chosen (within limits)by the designer. The use of the method is illustrated in the following example.

Example 6.6: transverse reinforcement for longitudinal shearFigure 6.21 shows a plan of an area ABCD of a concrete flange, assumed to be inlongitudinal compression, with shear stress vEd and transverse reinforcing bars of area Asf

at spacing sf. The shear force per transverse bar is

Fv = vEd hf sf

acting on side AB of the rectangle shown. It is transferred to side CD by a concrete strutAC at angle θf to AB, and with edges that pass through the mid-points of AB, etc., asshown, so that the width of the strut is sf sin θf.For equilibrium at A, the force in the strut is

Fc = Fv sec θf (D6.18)

For equilibrium at C, the force in the transverse bar BC is

Ft = Fc sin θf = Fv tan θf (D6.19)

For minimum area of transverse reinforcement, θf should be chosen to be as smallas possible. For a flange in compression, the limits to θf given in clause 6.2.4(4) ofEN 1992-1-1 are

45° ≥ θf ≥ 26.5° (D6.20)

so the initial choice for θf is 26.5°. Then, from equation (D6.19),

Ft = 0.5Fv (D6.21)

From equation (6.22) above,

vEd < 0.40νf cd

If this inequality is satisfied, then the value chosen for θf is satisfactory. However, let usassume that the concrete strut is over-stressed, because

vEd = 0.48νf cd

To satisfy equation (6.22)

CD

A B

Fv

Fc

Fv

Ftqf

sf sin qf

sf

Fig. 6.21. Truss analogy for in-plane shear in a concrete flange

94Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:48

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 91: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

83

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

sin θf cos θf ≥ 0.48

whence

θf ≥ 37°

The designer increases θf to 40°, which satisfies expression (D6.20). From equation(D6.19),

Ft = Fv tan 40° = 0.84Fv

From equation (D6.21), the change in θf, made to limit the compressive stress in theconcrete strut AC, increases the required area of transverse reinforcement by 68%.

The lengths of the sides of the triangle ABC in Fig. 6.21 are proportional to the forcesFv, Ft and Fc. For given Fv and sf, increasing θf increases Fc, but for θf < 45° (the maximumvalue permitted), the increase in the width sf sin θf is greater, so the stress in the concreteis reduced.

Shear planesClause 6.6.6.1(3) refers to ‘shear surfaces’. Those of types b–b, c–c, and d–d in Fig. 6.15 aredifferent from the type a–a surface because they resist almost the whole longitudinal shear,not (typically) about half of it. The relevant reinforcement intersects them twice, as shown bythe factor 2 in the table in Fig. 6.15.

For a surface of type c–c in a beam with the steel section near one edge of the concreteflange, it is clearly wrong to assume that half of the shear crosses half of the surface c–c.However, in this situation the shear on the adjacent plane of type a–a will govern, so themethod is not unsafe.

Minimum transverse reinforcementClause 6.6.6.3Clause 6.6.6.3 on this subject is discussed under clause 6.6.5.1 on resistance to separation.

Clause 6.6.6.4Longitudinal shear in beams with composite slabs (clause 6.6.6.4)

Clause 6.6.6.4(1)

Design rules are given for sheeting with troughs that run either transverse to the span of thesteel beam, or parallel to it. Where they intersect a beam at some other angle, one can eitheruse the more adverse of the two sets of rules, or combine them in an appropriate way. Therule for thickness of concrete in clause 6.6.6.4(1) is independent of the direction of thesheeting.

Clause 6.6.6.4(2)In clause 6.6.6.4(2), the ‘type b–b’ shear surface is as shown in Fig. 6.16, in which thelabelling of the shear surfaces differs from that in Fig. 6.15.

Clause 6.6.6.4(4)Clause 6.6.6.4(5)

The contribution made by sheeting to resistance in longitudinal shear depends not only on itsdirection but also on whether the designer can determine the position of the ends ofindividual sheets, and whether these ends are attached to the steel beam by through-deckwelding of stud connectors. If these decisions are made subsequently by the contractor, thedesigner may be unable to use transverse sheeting as reinforcement for shear in the plane ofthe slab. Its contribution to shear resistance is substantial where it is continuous acrossthe beam (clause 6.6.6.4(4)) and is useful where through-deck welding is used (clause6.6.6.4(5)).This is applied in Example 6.7.

Sheets attached only by fixings used for erection and those with their span parallel to thatof the beam are ineffective as transverse reinforcement.

Through-deck welding of studs is also used to enhance the resistance of a composite slabto longitudinal shear. EN 1994-1-1 does not state whether both procedures can be used atonce.

The question is discussed with reference to Fig. 6.22, which shows an exploded view of thebase of a stud welded to a steel flange through a layer of sheeting, which spans towards theright-hand side of the diagram. The concrete in the mid-span region of the composite slab

95Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:48

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 92: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

84

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

applies the force A to the upper part of the stud, which enables it to anchor a tension A in thesheeting. The force B is due to the action of the steel top flange and the sheeting asequivalent transverse reinforcement.

It is clear from Fig. 6.22 that forces A and B are not additive for the stud, because A existsabove the sheeting and B below it, but they are additive for the sheeting. The model in clause9.7.4(3) for the calculation of resistance Ppb, Rd is not shear failure of the stud but bearingfailure of the sheeting, which depends on the distance from the stud to the edge of the sheet.

This analysis shows that if the two procedures are used for the same stud, the availableresistance Ppb, Rd should be split between them, in whatever ratio may be required.

Example 6.7: two-span beam with a composite slab – ultimate limit stateA floor structure for a department store consists of composite beams of uniformcross-section at 2.50 m spacing, fully continuous over two equal spans of 12.0 m. The floorconsists of a composite slab of overall thickness 130 mm, spanning between the beams.The three supports for each beam may be treated as point supports, providing lateral andvertical restraint. A design is required for an internal beam, subjected to vertical loadingonly. The design service life is 50 years.

This particular concept is unlikely to be used in practice. The design will be found to begoverned by resistance at the internal support, and only a small part of the bendingresistance at mid-span can be used. However, it illustrates the use of many of theprovisions of EN 1994-1-1, and is chosen for that reason. The design of the compositeslab, the checking of the beam for serviceability limit states, and the influence ofsemi-continuous beam-to-column connections are the subjects of subsequent workedexamples in this and later chapters of this guide.

It will be assumed initially that unpropped construction is used, and that the whole 24 mlength of concrete flange is cast before significant composite action is developed in any ofthis length.

Loadings and materialsThe characteristic imposed load, including partitions, is

qk = 7.0 kN/m2 γF = 1.50

where γF is a partial safety factor. The floor finish adds

gk1 = 1.20 kN/m2 γF = 1.35

These are applied to the composite structure. For simplicity, the floor finish will betreated in global analyses as an imposed load, which is conservative.

Stud

A

AA

BB

B

A + BSheeting

Flange

Fig. 6.22. A through-deck welded stud acting as an end anchorage for a composite slab, and alsoproviding continuity for transverse reinforcement

96Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:48

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 93: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

85

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Preliminary studies have led to the choice of lightweight-aggregate concrete, of densityclass 1.8 and strength class LC25/28. For an oven-dry density not exceeding 1800 kg/m3,Table 11.1 in clause 11.3 of EN 1992-1-1 gives the design density of this reinforcedconcrete as 1950 kg/m3, which is now assumed to include the sheeting.

The chosen steel section is IPE 450, with the dimensions shown in Fig. 6.23. Its weight isgk3 = 0.76 kN/m, with γF = 1.35. Table 6.2 gives the loadings for a beam spacing of 2.5 m.

At this stage, the shape for the profiled sheeting is assumed to be as in Fig. 6.23. Themean thickness of the floor is 0.105 m, giving a characteristic load

gk2 = 0.105 × 1.95 × 9.81 = 2.01 kN/m2

with a partial safety factor γF = 1.35.

Properties of materialsStructural steel: grade S355, with γM = 1.0, so

Table 6.2. Loadings per unit length of beam

Load (kN/m)

CharacteristicUltimate(minimum)

Ultimate(maximum)

Composite slab 5.02 6.78 6.78Steel beam 0.76 1.02 1.02Total, on steel beam 5.78 7.80 7.80

Floor finishes 1.20 1.62 1.62Imposed load 17.50 0 26.25

Total, for composite beam 18.7 1.62 27.9

Total, for vertical shear 24.5 9.42 35.7

beff = 1600

80

50

450

14.6

9.4

IPE 450

379

21

190

12∆ at 125 12∆ at 200

E

E

30

1007525

42

881.0

(b)

A

12 000 12 000

D

DB C

(c)

(a)

Fig. 6.23. Elevation and cross-sections of the two-span beam (dimensions in mm). (a) SectionD–D. (b) Section E–E. (c) Elevation of beam

97Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:49

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 94: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

86

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

fy = fyd = 355 N/mm2 (D6.22)

and

ε = ÷(235/255) = 0.81

Concrete: fck = 25 N/mm2, γC = 1.5,

0.85fcd = 14.2 N/mm2 (D6.23)

From clause 11.3.1 of EN 1992-1-1, η1 = 0.4 + 0.6 × 1800/2200 = 0.891, so the meantensile strength is

flctm = 0.891 × 2.6 = 2.32 N/mm2 (D6.24)

From clause 11.3.2 of EN 1992-1-1, Elcm = 31 × (18/22)2 = 20.7 kN/mm2, so the short-term modular ratio is

n0 = 210/20.7 = 10.1

From informative Annex C, and a ‘dry’ environment, the ‘nominal total final free shrinkagestrain’ is

εcs = –500 × 10–6

Reinforcement: fsk = 500 N/mm2, γS = 1.15,

fsd = 435 N/mm2

Ductility: to be in Class B or C, from clause 5.5.1(5).Shear connectors: it is assumed that 19 mm studs will be used, welded through the steel

sheeting, with ultimate tensile strength

fu = 500 N/mm2

and γV = 1.25.

DurabilityThe floor finish is assumed to be such that the top of the slab is exposed to ‘low airhumidity’. From clause 4.2 of EN 1992-1-1, the exposure class is XC1. The minimumcover (clause 4.4.1) is then 15 mm for a service life of 50 years, plus a tolerance of between5 and 10 mm that depends on the quality assurance system, and is here taken as 9 mm. Atthe internal support, the 12 mm longitudinal bars are placed above the transverse bars,with a top cover of 24 mm, as shown in Fig. 6.23.

Properties of the IPE 450 cross-sectionFrom section tables:

Area: Aa = 9880 mm2 fillet radius: r = 21 mm

Second moments of area: 10–6Iay = 337.4 mm4 10–6Iaz = 16.8 mm4

Torsional moment of area: 10–6Iat = 0.659 mm4

Radii of gyration: iy = 185 mm iz = 41.2 mm ix = 190 mm

Section moduli: 10–6Way = 1.50 mm3 10–6Waz = 0.176 mm3

Plastic section modulus: 10–6Wpl, a, y = 1.702 mm3 (D6.25)

The factor 10–6 is used to enable moments in kN m to be related to stresses in N/mm2

without further adjustment, and because it gives numbers of convenient size.

98Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:49

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 95: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

87

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Effective widths of concrete flangeIn Fig. 5.1 of clause 5.4.1.2, L1 = L2 = 12.0 m; Le for beff,1 = 10.2 m. Assume b0 = 0.1 m;then

b1 = b2 = 2.5/2 – 0.05 = 1.20 m

At mid-span,

beff = 0.1 + 2 × 10.2/8 = 2.65 m (but £ 2.5 m)

so bei = 2.4/2 = 1.2 m. At the internal support, Le for beff, 2 = 0.25 × 24 = 6 m;

beff = 0.1 + 2 × 6/8 = 1.60 m

At an end support, bei = 1.20 m;

βi = 0.55 + 0.025 × 10.2/1.20 = 0.762

beff = 0.1 + 2 × 0.762 × 1.2 = 1.83 m

Classification of composite cross-sectionThe class of the web is quite sensitive to the area of longitudinal reinforcement in the slabat the internal support. It is (inconveniently) necessary to assume a value for this beforethe checks that govern it can be made. Large-diameter bars may not give sufficient controlof crack widths, so the reinforcement is assumed to be 12 mm bars at 125 mm, giving 13bars within a 1.625 m width, so

As = 1470 mm2

The effective area of concrete slab is 1.6 m by 80 mm, so

As/Ac = ρs = 0.0113

The requirement of clause 5.5.1(5) for minimum ρs will be checked during the design forcrack-width control; see Example 7.1.

The force in these bars at yield is

Fs, y = 1470 × 0.435 = 639 kN

Assuming a Class 2 section, the stress distribution for Mpl, Rd is needed. Starting fromthe stress distribution for Mpl, a, Rd, the depth of steel web that changes from tension tocompression is

639/(9.4 × 2 × 0.355) = 96 mm

For classification, clause 5.5.1(1)P refers to clause 5.5.2 of EN 1993-1-1. Its Table 5.2defines the depth of web, c, as that bounded by the root radii. Here, c = 379 mm, of whichthe depth in compression is

379/2 + 96 = 285 mm

whence

α = 285/379 = 0.75

This exceeds c/2, so from Table 5.2, for Class 2,

c/t £ 456 ε/(13α – 1) = 42.2

The actual c/t = 381/9.4 = 40.5; so at the internal support, the web is Class 2. At mid-span,it is obviously in Class 1 or 2. For the compression flange, from Table 5.2,

c = (190 – 9.4)/23 – 21 = 69.3 mm

Hence

99Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:49

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 96: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

88

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

c/tε = 69.3/(14.6 × 0.81) = 5.86

The limit for a Class 1 flange is 9.0; so the bottom flange is Class 1.The member is Class 2 at the internal support and Class 1 or 2 at mid-span.It follows from clause 5.4.2.4(2) that for global analyses for ultimate limit states,

(provided that lateral–torsional buckling does not govern) the whole of the loading maybe assumed to act on the composite member; and from clause 6.2.1.1(1)P that rigid-plastictheory may be used for resistances to bending at all cross-sections of the beam.

The use of partial shear connection (clause 6.2.1.3(1)) is limited to sagging regions, inaccordance with clause 6.6.2.2, which is for ‘beams in which plastic theory is used forresistance of cross-sections’ (i.e. sections in Class 1 or 2).

Design is thus much simpler when there are no beams with cross-sections in Class 3 or 4.This can usually be achieved in buildings, but rarely in multi-span bridges.

It is notable that if the steel top flange were in Class 3, its connection to the slab wouldnot enable it to be upgraded, because the condition of clause 6.6.5.5(2) is that the spacingof shear connectors does not exceed 15tfε, which is 15 × 14.6 × 0.81 = 177 mm. Thiswould be impracticable with the sheeting profile shown in Fig. 6.23.

Plastic resistance to bending (clause 6.2.1.2)At the internal support, it has been found (above) that a 96 mm depth of the upper half ofthe web is in compression. The design plastic resistance to hogging bending is that of thesteel section plus the effect of the reinforcing bars, shown in Fig. 6.24(a):

Mpl, a, Rd = 1.702 × 0.355 = 604 kN m (hogging and sagging)

Mpl, Rd = 604 + 639 × 0.277 = 781 kN m (hogging)

The characteristic plastic resistance is also needed. With γS = 1 for the reinforcement, itsforce at yield increases to 639 × 1.15 = 735 kN; the depth of web to change stress is110 mm; and, by the method used for Mpl, Rd,

Mpl, Rk = 802 kN m (hogging)

All of these resistances may need to be reduced to allow for lateral–torsional buckling orvertical shear.

For sagging bending at mid-span, reinforcement in compression is ignored, and theavailable area of concrete is 2.5 m wide and 80 mm thick. If it is all stressed to 0.85fcd, thecompressive force is

Fc = 14.2 × 2.5 × 80 = 2840 kN (D6.26)

If the whole steel section is at yield, the tensile force is

100

22596

604 kN m

639 kN

639 kN

277

1600

5

3507 kN

2840 kN

93

667 kN222

2500

90

225

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.24. Plastic moments of resistance in (a) hogging and (b) sagging bending (dimensions in mm)

100Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:50

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 97: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

89

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Fa = 9880 × 0.355 = 3507 kN

Assuming full shear connection, with the plastic neutral axis in the steel top flange, thethickness of flange to change from tension to compression is

tf, c = (3507 – 2840)/(2 × 0.355 × 190) = 5.0 mm

The longitudinal forces are then as shown in Fig. 6.24(b), and

Mpl, Rd = 2840 × 0.315 + 667 × 0.222 = 1043 kN m (sagging) (D6.27)

This resistance will be reduced later by the use of partial shear connection.

Plastic resistance to vertical shearClause 6.2.2.2 refers to clause 6.2.6 of EN 1993-1-1. This defines the shear area of a rolledI-section as

Av = A – 2btf + (tw + 2r)tf = 9880 – 380 × 14.6 + 51.4 × 14.6 = 5082 mm2

and gives the design plastic shear resistance as

Vpl, Rd = Av( fy/÷3)/γM0 = 5082 × 0.355/÷3 = 1042 kN

For shear buckling, clause 6.2.2.3 refers to Section 5 of EN 1993-1-5. No buckling check isrequired, because hw/t for the steel web, based on the depth between the flanges, is 45,below the limit of 48.6.

Flexural properties of elastic cross-sectionsSeveral sets of elastic properties are needed, even where the steel beam is of uniformsection, because of changes of modular ratio and effective width, and the use of ‘cracked’and ‘uncracked’ sections. Here, slab reinforcement is ignored in the ‘uncracked’ analyses.The error is conservative (except for the shear connection) and usually very small. It isconvenient to calculate all these properties at the outset (Table 6.3).

From clause 5.4.2.2(11), creep may be allowed for by using a modular ratio n = 2n0 =20.2 for both short-term and long-term loadings. Results for n = n0 are included in Table6.3 for use in Chapter 7. Effects of shrinkage are unusually high in this example. For these,it helps to use the more accurate modular ratio 28.7, as explained later.

The calculation for the uncracked properties at the internal support, with n = 10.1, isnow given, as an example. In ‘steel’ units, the width of the slab is 1.6/10.1 = 0.158 m, so thecomposite section is as shown in Fig. 6.25. Its properties are:

Area:

A = 9880 + 158 × 80 = 9880 + 12640 = 22 520 mm2

Height of neutral axis above centre of steel section:

zna = 12 640 × 315/22 520 = 177 mm

Table 6.3. Elastic section properties of the composite cross-section

Cross-sectionModularratio beff (m)

Neutralaxis (mm)

10-6Iy

(mm4)10-6Wc, top

(mm3)

(1) Support, cracked, reinforced – 1.6 42 467 –(2) Support, uncracked 10.1 1.6 177 894 50.7(3) Support, uncracked 20.2 1.6 123 718 62.5(4) Mid-span, uncracked 10.1 2.5 210 996 69.5(5) Mid-span, uncracked 20.2 2.5 158 828 84.7(6) Mid-span, uncracked 28.7 2.5 130 741 94.5

101Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:50

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 98: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

90

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Second moment of area:

10–6Iy = 337.4 + 9880 × 0.1772 + 12 640 × 0.1382 = 894 mm4

Flexural stiffness:

10–6Ea Iy = 210 × 894 = 187 700 kN mm2

Section modulus, top of slab, in concrete units:

10–6Wc, top = 894 × 10.1/178 = 50.7 mm3

Similar calculations were done for the other elastic section properties required. Theresults are given in Table 6.3.

Global analysisThe resistance to lateral–torsional buckling of the beam near the internal support, Mb, Rd,depends on the bending-moment distribution, so global analysis is done next.

Wherever possible, the rules for global analysis in Section 5 apply to both ultimate andserviceability limit states. Where alternatives are permitted, both types of limit stateshould be considered before making a choice.

For this beam, there is no need to take account of the flexibility of joints (clause 5.1.2).First-order elastic theory may be used (clauses 5.2.2(1) and 5.4.1.1(1)).

Clause 5.2.2(4) on imperfections is satisfied, because lateral–torsional buckling is theonly type of instability that need be considered, and its resistance formulae take accountof imperfections.

The simplest method of allowing for cracking, in clause 5.4.2.3(3), is applicable here,and will be used. Cracking almost always occurs in continuous beams. In this example,calculations for uncracked sections, using the longer method of clause 5.4.2.3(2), foundthat for the ultimate imposed loading on both spans, the tensile stress in the concrete atthe internal support exceeded three times its tensile strength. This ignored shrinkage,which further increases the tension.

For this beam, clause 5.4.2.3(3) requires the use of cracked section properties over alength of 1.8 m each side of the internal support. For global analysis, clause 5.4.1.2(4)permits the use of the mid-span effective width for the whole span; but here beff forthe cracked region is taken as 1.6 m, because resistances are based on this width andreinforcement outside it may be quite light.

The proposed use of n = 20.2 for the uncracked region merits discussion. Most of thepermanent load is applied to the steel beam, which does not creep, but resistances arebased on the whole of the load acting on the composite beam. Bending moment at theinternal support governs. Creep increases this, and the long-term effects of shrinkage areso significant that the case t Æ • is more critical than t ª 0.

Neutral axis

138

9880

177

158

90

225

12 640

Fig. 6.25. Uncracked composite section at internal support, with n0 = 10.1 (dimensions in mm)

102Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:50

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 99: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

91

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

For the quasi-permanent combination, the coefficient ψ2 for variable load in a departmentstore is given in clause A1.2.2(1) of EN 1990 as 0.6, and 0.6qk is 40% of 1.5qk, so somecreep of the composite member is likely.

In this example, n = 2n0 = 20.2 will be used for all action effects except shrinkage, forwhich a more accurate value is determined, as follows.

Modular ratio for the effects of shrinkageFrom clause 5.4.2.2(4), the age of loading can be assumed to be 1 day. Creep coefficientsfor normal-weight concrete are given in Fig. 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 in terms of h0, the notionalsize of the cross-section. For a slab with both surfaces exposed, this equals the slabthickness; but the slab here has one sealed surface, and h0 is twice its thickness. The meanthickness (see Fig. 6.23) is 105 mm, so h0 = 210 mm.

For normally hardening cement and ‘inside conditions’, Fig. 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1gives the creep coefficient ϕ(•, t0) as 5.0. For lightweight concrete, clause 11.3.3(1) ofEN 1992-1-1 gives a correction factor, which in this case is (18/22)2, giving ϕ = 3.35. Thecreep multiplier ψL in clause 5.4.2.2(2) takes account of the shape of the stress–time curvefor the effect considered, and is 0.55 for shrinkage. The modular ratio for shrinkageeffects is

n = n0(1 + ψLϕt) = 10.1(1 + 0.55 × 3.35) = 28.7

Bending momentsAlthough, through cracking, the beam is of non-uniform section, calculation of bendingmoments algebraically is straightforward, because the two spans are equal. When bothspans are fully loaded, only a propped cantilever need be considered (Fig. 6.26).

For distributed loading w per unit length, and ratio of flexural stiffnesses λ, as shown,an equation for the elastic bending moment MEd at B is derived in the first edition ofJohnson and Buckby37 (p. 375). It is

MEd, B = (wL2/4)(0.110λ + 0.890)/(0.772λ + 1.228)

The results are given in Table 6.4.Hence, the design bending moment for the internal support, excluding shrinkage

effects, with n = 20.2, is

MEd, B = 394 + 142 = 536 kN m

The vertical shear at the internal support is

MEd, B

0.85L

lII

B Cw

0.15L

Fig. 6.26. Elastic propped cantilever with change of section at 0.15L

Table 6.4. Design ultimate bending moments at the fixed end of the propped cantilever

Loading w (kN/m) n 10–6Iy (mm4) λ MEd, B (kN m)

Permanent 9.42 10.1 996 2.13 133Permanent 9.42 20.2 828 1.77 142Variable 26.25 10.1 996 2.13 370Variable 26.25 20.2 828 1.77 394

103Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:51

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 100: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

92

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

VEd, B = (9.42 + 26.25) × 6 + 536/12 = 259 kN

The plastic shear resistance of the IPE 450 section, Vpl, Rd, was found earlier to be 1042 kN.From clause 6.2.2.4(1), bending resistance is not reduced by shear until VEd > Vpl, Rd /2, sothere is no reduction here.

Redistribution of moments is not used because clause 5.4.4(4) does not permit it ifallowance for lateral–torsional buckling is required.

Secondary effects of shrinkageShrinkage of the slab causes sagging curvature and shortening of the composite member,the ‘primary effects’. In a continuous beam, the curvature causes bending moments andshear forces, the ‘secondary effects’. In regions assumed to be cracked, both the curvatureand the stresses from the primary effects are neglected (clauses 5.4.2.2(8) and 6.2.1.5(5)).

The important secondary effect in this beam, a hogging bending moment at the internalsupport, is now calculated. Shrinkage is a permanent action, and so is not reduced by acombination factor ψ0.

The slab is imagined to be separated from the steel beam, Fig. 6.27(a). Its area Ac is thatof the concrete above the sheeting. It shrinks. A force is applied to extend it to its originallength. It is

F = Ac(Ea/n)|εcs| (D6.28)

This acts at the centre of the slab, at a distance zsh above the centroid of the compositesection. The parts of the beam are reconnected. To restore equilibrium, an opposite forceF and a sagging moment Fzsh are applied to the composite section.

The radius of curvature of the uncracked part of the beam is

R = EaλIy /Fzsh (D6.29)

If the centre support is removed, the deflection δ at that point is

δ = (0.85L)2/2R (D6.30)

from the geometry of the circle (Fig. 6.27(b)).

F

zsh

Fzsh

F

R

0.85L 0.85L 0.30L

(a) (b)

P/2Msh, B

0.85L0.15L P

(d)(c)

P/2 P/2d

d

d

Fig. 6.27. Secondary effects of shrinkage

104Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:51

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 101: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

93

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

It remains to calculate the force P, applied at that point, to reduce the deflection tozero, so that the centre support can be replaced (Fig. 6.27(d)). The secondary hoggingbending moment at B is

MEd, sh, B = PL/2 (D6.31)

and the vertical shear is P/2.Using slope and deflection coefficients for a cantilever (Fig. 6.27(c)), P can be found

from the result

δ = (P/2)L3(0.13λ + 0.20)/(EaIyλ) (D6.32)

The calculation is as follows:

Ac = 2.5 × 0.08 = 0.20 m2

Ea = 210 kN/mm2, n = 28.7 and εcs = –500 × 10–6; so, from equation (D6.28), F = 732 kN.From Table 6.3,

λIy = 741 × 106 mm4 zsh = 225 – 40 = 185 mm

so, from equation (D6.29), R = 1149 m, and, from equation (D6.30) with L = 12 m,δ = 45.3 mm. From Table 6.3,

Iy = 467 × 106 mm4

so

λ = 741/467 = 1.587

so, from equation (D6.32),

P/2 = 10.0 kN

and

MEd, sh, B = 10 × 12 = 120 kN m

Should shrinkage be neglected at ultimate load?This unusually high value, 120 kN m, results from the use of a material with high shrinkageand a continuous beam with two equal spans. It increases the ultimate design bendingmoment at B by 22%. Clause 5.4.2.2(7) permits this to be neglected if resistance is notinfluenced by lateral–torsional buckling.

The reasoning is that as the bending resistances of the sections are determined byplastic theory, the ultimate condition approaches a collapse mechanism, in which elasticdeformations (e.g. those from shrinkage) become negligible in comparison with totaldeformations.

However, if the resistance at the internal support is governed by lateral–torsionalbuckling, and if the buckling moment (to be calculated) is far below the plastic moment,the inelastic behaviour may not be sufficient for the shrinkage effects to become negligible,before failure occurs at the internal support. Hence, the secondary shrinkage moment isnot neglected at this stage, even though this beam happens to have a large reserve ofstrength at mid-span, and would not fail until the support section was far into thepost-buckling phase.

Resistance to lateral–torsional bucklingThe top flange of the steel beam is restrained in both position and direction by thecomposite slab. Lateral buckling of the bottom flange near the internal support isaccompanied by bending of the web, so the problem here is distortional lateral buckling.

The provisions in EN 1994-1-1 headed ‘lateral–torsional buckling’ (clause 6.4), are infact for distortional buckling. Clause 6.4.1(3) permits, as an alternative, use of theprovisions in EN 1993-1-1 for steel beams. The method of clause 6.4.2 is used here. The

105Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:51

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 102: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

94

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

detailed comments on it, both in the main text and in Appendix A, should be referred to asrequired. The method requires the calculation of the elastic critical buckling moment atthe internal support, Mcr, for which information is given in tables in ENV 1994-1-1(reproduced as graphs in Appendix A (Figs A.3 and A.4)). The simple method of clause6.4.3 is not available, as the loading does not conform to paragraph (b) of clause 6.4.3(1).

Buckling near an internal support is often most critical in a span with minimum loadthat is adjacent to a fully loaded span. In this beam it was found that although the bucklingmoment Mb, Rd is increased when both spans are loaded (because the length of bottomflange in compression is reduced), the increase in the applied moment MEd is greater, sothe both-spans-loaded case is more critical. This case is now considered, with n = 20.2and all load assumed to act on the composite member.

From Table 6.4, the bending moments in the beam are as shown in Fig. 6.28. Shrinkageis considered separately. The ‘simply-supported’ moment M0 is 35.7 × 122/8 = 643 kN m,so, from Fig. A.3 for C4 (see Appendix A),

ψ = MB/M0 = 536/643 = 0.834 and C4 = 28.3

The elastic critical buckling moment was given earlier as

Mcr = (kcC4/L)[(GaIat + ksL2/π2)EaIafz]

1/2 (D6.11)

where kc is a property of the composite section, given in Section 6.4.2, Ga is the shearmodulus for steel,

Ga = Ea/[2(1 + υa)] = 80.8 kN/mm2

Iat is the torsional moment of area of the steel section,

Iat = 0.659 × 106 mm4

ks is defined in clause 6.4.2(6), and Iafz is the minor-axis second moment of area of the steelbottom flange,

10–6Iafz = 1.903 × 14.6/12 = 8.345 mm4

The stiffness ks is now found. It depends on the lesser of the ‘cracked’ flexural stiffnessesof the composite slab at a support and at mid-span, (EI)2. The value at the supportgoverns. An approximation for this, derived in Appendix A, is

(EI)2 = Ea[As Ae z2/(As + Ae) + Ae hp2/12]

where Ae is the equivalent transformed area per unit width of concrete in compression,

Ae = b0 hp /nbs

536

339

403494

B0

A C

4.75 m5.26 m

Full load on both spans

Variable load on span AB only

D

7.25 m

Fig. 6.28. Bending-moment distributions for ultimate limit state, excluding shrinkage

106Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:51

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 103: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

95

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

where b0 is the mean width of the troughs, bs is the spacing of the troughs, hp is the depth ofthe sheeting, As is the area of top reinforcement per unit width of slab and z is the ‘leverarm’, as shown in Fig. A.1 of Appendix A.

Calculation of (EI)2 for the composite slab, and ks

It is assumed that the transverse reinforcement above the steel beam will be below thelongitudinal bars and not less than 12 mm bars at 200 mm, giving As = 565 mm2/m andds = 42 mm, whence z = 63 mm (Fig. 6.29).

Assuming that buckling is caused by a short-term overload, n is taken as 10.1. From Fig.6.23, b0/bs = 0.5; hp = 50 mm; so Ae = 2475 mm2/m. Hence,

(EI)2 = 210[0.565 × 2.475 × 632/3040 + 2.475 × 502/12 000] = 491 kN m2/m

From clause 6.4.2(6), for unit width of a slab continuous across the steel beams at spacinga, and assuming that the conditions for using α = 4 apply,

k1 = 4(EI)2/a = 4 × 491/2.5 = 786 kN m/rad

per metre width, and

k2 = Eatw3/[4hs(1 – υa

2)]

where hs is the distance between the centres of the flanges of the IPE 450 section, 435 mm.Thus,

k2 = 210 × 9.43/(4 × 435 × 0.91) = 110 kN/rad

and

ks = k1k2/(k1 + k2) = 786 × 110/896 = 96.4 kN/rad

Calculation of kc

For a doubly symmetrical steel section, from equations (D6.12) and (D6.13),

kc = (hs Iy /Iay)/[(hs2/4 + ix

2)/e + hs]

with

e = AIay /[Aazc(A – Aa)]

In these expressions, the symbols are properties of the steel section, given earlier, exceptthat A is the area of the cracked composite section,

A = Aa + As = 11 350 mm2

bp

b0

ds

As

hp/2

z

Fig. 6.29. Cross-section of the composite slab

107Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:52

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 104: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

96

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

and zc is the distance between the centroid of the steel beam and mid-depth of the slab.Here, ‘slab’ means the 130 mm-deep composite slab, not the 80 mm depth of concretethat contributes to the composite section. It is the stiffness of the composite slab in thetransverse direction that prevents rotation of the steel top flange; so

zc = 225 + 130/2 = 290 mm

Hence,

e = 11 350 × 337 × 106/(9880 × 290 × 1470) = 909 mm

and

kc = (435 × 467/337)/[(2182 + 1902)/909 + 435] = 1.15

Calculation of Mcr and Mb, Rd

From equation (D6.11) for Mcr:

Mcr = (1.15 × 28.3/12)[(80.8 × 0.659 + 96.4 ×122/π2) × 210 × 8.345]1/2 = 4340 kN m

From clause 6.4.2(4), the relative slenderness depends also on the characteristic resistancemoment, calculated earlier. The slenderness is

= ÷(MRk/Mcr) = (802/4340)1/2 = 0.430

For the reduction factor χLT for a rolled section, clause 6.4.2(1) refers to clause 6.3.2.3 ofEN 1993-1-1, where buckling curve c is specified for this IPE section. This could be takento mean the curve c plotted in Fig. 6.4 of EN 1993-1-1; but that curve is inconsistent withthe equation for χLT in clause 6.3.2.3. This is understood to mean that the value of αLT

given for curve c in Table 6.3 of EN 1993-1-1 should be used in calculating χLT. Its valuedepends on the parameters and β, which can be given in a National Annex. Therecommended values, 0.4 and 0.75 respectively, are used here.

The calculation is

(The use of Fig. 6.4 gives the much lower result χLT = 0.88.)The buckling resistance is

Mb, Rd = χLTMpl, Rd = 0.983 × 781 = 767 kN m

This is well above the design ultimate moment with shrinkage included, MEd = 656 kN m.The result is quite sensitive to the values specified for and β.

Clause 6.3.2.2 of EN 1993-1-1 includes a rule that if MEd/Mcr £ 0.16, lateral–torsionalbuckling effects may be ignored. This applies here: MEd = 0.153Mcr. The rule appears tobe linked to the use of = 0.4. It is not clear whether it applies if a National Annexspecifies a lower value.

The provision of bracing to the bottom flange is considered at the end of this example.

Design for sagging bendingThe maximum sagging bending occurs in a span when the other span carries minimumload, and is reduced by creep, so n = 10.1 is assumed. Removal of variable load from onespan halves the bending moment it causes at the internal support, so from Table 6.4 thebending moment at the internal support is

MEd, B = 133 + 370/2 = 318 kN m

For the span with loading 35.67 kN/m, the end reaction is

LTλ

2LT LT LT LT, 0 LT0.5[1 ( ) ] 0.577Φ α λ λ βλ= + - + =

LT 2 2LT LT LT

10.983

[ ( )]χ

Φ Φ βλ= =

+ ÷ -

LT, 0λ

LT, 0λ

LT, 0λ

108Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:52

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 105: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

97

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

VEd, A = 35.67 × 6 – 318/12 = 188 kN

so the point of maximum moment is at a distance 188/35.67 = 5.26 m from the support,and the maximum sagging moment is

MEd = 188 × 5.26/2 = 494 kN m

This is so far below Mpl, Rd, 1043 kN m, that the least permitted degree of shear connectionwill be used. MEd is even below Mpl, a, Rd, which is 604 kN m.

From clause 6.6.1.2(1) the span length in sagging bending may be taken as 0.85L, or10.2 m here. From equation (6.12) with fy = 355 N/mm2, the minimum degree of shearconnection is

η = n/nf = 1 – (0.75 – 0.03 × 10.2) = 0.56

Clause 6.6.1.2(3) permits a lower value, subject to some conditions. It was found thatone of these – that there should be only one stud connector per rib of sheeting – could notbe satisfied. The minimum number of connectors in each half of the sagging region istherefore 0.56nf, where nf is the number for full shear connection. From Fig. 6.24(b), thecompressive force in the slab is then not less than 2840 × 0.56 = 1590 kN. Recalculationof Mpl, Rd, by the method used before gives

Mpl, Rd = 946 kN m

which is almost twice the resistance required.It does not follow that the design of this beam as non-composite would be satisfactory.

Example 7.1 shows that its deflection would probably be excessive.

Design of the shear connectionThe degree of shear connection used here enables the studs to be treated as ‘ductile’. Analternative design, using non-ductile connectors, is given in Example 6.8.

From clause 6.6.5.8(1) the height of the 19 mm studs must be at least 50 + 2 × 19 =88 mm. The standard height of 95 mm, after welding, satisfies this rule.

The design shear resistance per stud is governed by equation (6.19) of clause 6.6.3.1(1):

PRd = 0.29d2(fckEcm)1/2/γV = 0.29 × 192(25 × 20 700)1/2/(1000 × 1.25) = 60.25 kN

This result is modified by a factor kt given in clause 6.6.4.2. It depends on the height of thestud, hsc, the dimensions of the trough in the sheeting (see Fig. 6.23), the thickness of thesheeting (assumed to be 1.0 mm) and the number of studs per trough, nr.

For nr = 1: kt = 0.7 × 100/50 × (95/50 – 1) = 1.26, but £ 0.85

For nr = 2: kt = 1.26/÷2= 0.89, but £ 0.70

Provided that the studs are not also required to anchor the profiled sheeting, theresistances are therefore

PRd, 1 = 0.85 × 60.25 = 51.2 kN (D6.33)

PRd, 2 = 0.7 × 60.25 = 42.2 kN (D6.34)

so that a trough with two studs provides the equivalent of 2 × 42.2/51.2 = 1.65 singlestuds.

From Fig. 6.28, the studs for maximum sagging bending have to be provided within alength of 5.26 m. The troughs are spaced at 0.2 m, so 26 are available. The designcompressive force in the slab is 1590 kN, so the design shear flow is

1590/5.2 = 306 kN/m

The number of single studs required is

109Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:52

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 106: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

98

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

ns = 1590/51.2 = 31

Hence, two studs per trough have to be used over part of the span.For a shear span in a building, EN 1994-1-1 does not specify how non-uniform shear

connection should be arranged. Slip is minimized when the density of the connection isrelated to the shear per unit length, so the regions with pairs of studs should be adjacent tothe supports.

If the minimum number of troughs with two studs is n2s,

1.65n2s + 26 – n2s = 31

whence

n2s ≥ 7.8

For the cracked section in hogging bending, As fsd = 639 kN, which requires 12.5 singlestuds. When the hogging moment is a maximum, the distance from an internal support tothe cross-section of maximum sagging moment is 7.25 m (Fig. 6.28), so 36 troughs areavailable for a total of 31 + 12.5 = 43.5 single studs.

If the minimum number of troughs with two studs is n2h,

1.65n2h + 36 – n2h = 43.5

whence

n2h ≥ 11.6

The design shear flow is

(1590 + 639)/7.2 = 310 kN/m

The arrangement of studs shown in Fig. 6.30 provides the equivalent of 31.2 and 43.8studs, within the lengths 5.2 and 7.2 m, respectively.

The maximum sagging and hogging bending moments are caused by differentarrangements of imposed loading. This method of calculation takes account of this, withthe result that two studs near mid-span are effective for both sagging and hoggingresistance.

It is quicker to assume that the maximum sagging and hogging bending moments arecaused by a single loading. The resulting increase in the total number of studs is negligible.The disadvantage is that it is not clear how many of the troughs with two studs per troughshould be near each end of the span.

256

422

100

nL (kN/m)nL, Rd

A B1.6 4.8 9.6

Number oftroughs8

22 19.8

Equivalent number of single studs

306

5.2 12.0

Distance fromsupport A (m)

16 2 22 12

16 213.2

310

nL, Ed for maximumnL, Ed for maximumsagging BMhogging BM

Fig. 6.30. Arrangement of stud connectors in one 12 m span

110Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:53

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 107: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

99

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Design of the transverse reinforcementClause 6.6.6.1(4) says that the design longitudinal shear for the concrete slab should be‘consistent with the design and spacing of the shear connectors’. This is taken to mean thatthe resistance of the shear connection, rather than the design loading, determines thelongitudinal shear. Its maximum occurs where there are two studs per trough, and is

vL, Ed = 10 × 42.2 = 422 kN/m

From clause 6.6.6.4(2), shear surfaces that pass closely around a stud need not beconsidered. The critical situation is thus where sheeting is not continuous across a beam.It is assumed to be anchored by a stud, as shown in Fig. 6.31. From symmetry, the criticalshear plane, labelled a–a, is to be designed to resist 211 kN/m.

The shear resisted by the sheeting is given in clause 6.6.6.4(5). For the design bearingresistance of the sheeting it refers to clause 9.7.4. For the detailing shown in Fig. 6.31, theend distance a is 40 mm. The diameter of the weld collar is taken as

1.1 × 19 = 20.9 mm

whence kϕ in clause 9.7.4(3) is

kϕ = 1 + 40/20.9 = 2.91

The thickness of the profiled sheeting is shown in Fig. 6.23 as 1.0 mm; but the compositeslab has not yet been designed. Here, it is assumed to be at least 0.9 mm thick, with a yieldstrength of 350 N/mm2 and γM = 1.0. From equation (9.10),

Ppb, Rd = kϕdd0 tfyp, d = 2.91 × 20.9 × 0.9 × 0.35 = 19.1 kN/stud

From clause 6.6.6.4(5), with a stud spacing of 200 mm, the shear resistance provided bythe sheeting is

vL, pd, Rd = 19.1/0.2 = 95 kN/m

This must not exceed the yield strength of the sheeting, Ap fyp, d, which for this sheeting isover 400 kN/m.

The design shear for the concrete slab, of thickness 80 mm, is

vL, Ed = 211 – 95 = 116 kN/m

Clause 6.6.6.2(1) refers to clause 6.2.4 of EN 1992-1-1, for shear between web andflanges of T-sections. The method is a truss analogy, with some choice provided for theangle θf between the concrete diagonals of the truss and the longitudinal direction. The

35 40 20

50

45

a

a

Fig. 6.31. Detail of a stud welded through discontinuous profiled sheeting (dimensions in mm)

111Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:53

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 108: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

100

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

reinforcement required increases with the angle θf. For simplicity, the minimum anglegiven in clause 6.2.4(4) of EN 1992-1-1 for a tension flange, 38.6°, will be used for thewhole length of the span.

The area of transverse reinforcement per unit length is given by

Asf > vL, Ed /(fsd cot θf) = 116/(0. 435 × 1.25) = 213 mm2/m

This is much less than the amount assumed in design for lateral buckling (565 mm2/m). Itmay also be affected by the need for crack control above the beam, which arises in thedesign of the composite slab.

Design of bracing to bottom flanges near the internal supportIt is now shown that the values of factor C4 given in Appendix A are not suitable for designbased on Mcr where intermediate lateral bracing is provided.

From Fig. 6.28, with full loading on both spans, the distance of a point of contraflexurefrom support B is 12 – 2 × 4.75 = 2.5 m. Let us suppose that lateral bracing is to beprovided at this point, so that L in equation (D6.11) is reduced from 12 to 2.5 m.Assuming that the bending-moment distribution over this 2.5 m length is linear, Fig. A.4in Appendix A gives C4 = 11.1. Substituting these values into equation (D.6.11), withother values unchanged, gives Mcr = 2285 kN m, which is much lower than the previousvalue, 4340 kN m.

For this situation, it is necessary to find Mcr from elastic critical analysis by computer.

Summary of Example 6.7All important aspects of the design of this beam for persistent situations for ultimate limitstates have now been considered. Serviceability checks are given in the worked example atthe end of Chapter 7. The same beam with semi-continuous joints at support B is studiedin Examples 8.1 and 10.1.

Example 6.8: partial shear connection with non-ductile connectorsThe design bending-moment diagram for sagging bending in the preceding workedexample is shown in Fig. 6.28. The shear connection for the length AD of span AB wasdesigned for connectors that satisfied the definition of ‘ductile’ in clause 6.6.1.2. Theresult is shown in Fig. 6.30.

This work is now repeated, using the same data, except that the proposed connectorsare not ‘ductile’, to illustrate the use of clause 6.6.1.3(5). This requires the calculation ofthe shear flow vL, Ed by elastic theory. No ‘inelastic redistribution of shear’ is required, soclause 6.6.1.1(3)P on deformation capacity does not apply.

Calculation of the resistance moment MRd according to clause 6.2.1.3(3) is not permitted,so stresses are calculated by elastic theory and checked against the limits in clause6.2.1.5(2). From equations (D6.22) and (D6.23), these are

fcd = fck/γC = 25/1.5 = 16.7 N/mm2 (D6.35)

and

fyd = fyk = 355 N/mm2 (D6.36)

In this continuous beam, creep reduces stiffness at mid-span more than at the internalsupport, where the concrete is cracked, so the sagging bending moment and longitudinalshear (for constant loading) reduce over time. The short-term modular ratio, 10.1, istherefore used. Taking account of the use of unpropped construction, it is found for theloads in Table 6.2 that the maximum sagging bending moment acting on the compositesection, Mc, Ed, occurs at 5.4 m from support A (Fig. 6.28), and is

Mc, Ed = 404 kN m with Ma, Ed = 110 kN m

112Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:53

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 109: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

101

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Shrinkage of concrete in this beam reduces both the mid-span moments and thecompressive stress in concrete. For simplicity and safety, its effects are ignored.

Using the elastic section properties from row 4 of Table 6.3, the stresses are found to bewell below the limits given above. The mean stress in the 80 mm thickness of the concreteslab, with beff = 2.5 m, is 4.20 N/mm2, giving the longitudinal force in the slab as

Nc = 4.2 × 2.5 × 80 = 840 kN

From equation (D6.26), the force for full shear connection is

Nc, f = Fc = 2840 kN

so the degree of shear connection needed is

η = Nc/Nc, f = 840/2840 = 0.30

The elastic shear flow diagram is triangular, so the shear flow at support A is

vL, Ed = 2 × 840/5.4 = 311 kN/m

Stud connectors will be used, as before. They are not ‘ductile’ at this low degree of shearconnection. Their resistances are given by equations (D6.33) and (D6.34). For theprofiled sheeting used (Fig. 6.23(b)), there are five troughs per metre. One stud pertrough (vL, Rd = 256 kN/m) is not sufficient near support A. Two studs per troughprovide 422 kN/m. Near mid-span, it is possible to use one stud every other trough,(vL, Rd = 128 kN/m) as their spacing, 400 mm, is less than the limit set in clause 6.6.5.5(3).

Details of a possible layout of studs are shown in Fig. 6.32. This also shows theresistance provided over this 5.4 m length from Fig. 6.30. That is higher because in theprevious example, η = 0.56, not 0.30, and shear connection is provided for the whole load,not just that applied to the composite member.

This is not a typical result, because the design sagging moment here is unusually low, inrelation to the plastic resistance to sagging bending. It may become more typical in designto the Eurocodes, because of the influence of lateral–torsional buckling on accounting forshrinkage and the restrictions on redistribution of moments.

Example 6.9: elastic resistance to bending, and influence of degree of shearconnection and type of connector on bending resistanceThis example makes use of the properties of materials and cross-sections found inExample 6.7 on the two-span beam, and of the results from Example 6.8 on non-ductile

256

311

422

128

1.2 3.8 5.40

nL (kN/m)

For ‘ductile’ studs,from Example 6.7

For elastic design,from Example 6.8

No. of troughs 6 813

Distance fromsupport A (m)

nL, Ed

nL, Rd

Fig. 6.32. Longitudinal shear and shear resistance for length AD of the beam in Fig. 6.28

113Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:53

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 110: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

102

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

connectors. The cross-section of maximum sagging bending moment, point D, was thenfound to be 5.4 m from support A in Fig. 6.28.

For simplicity, the beam is now assumed to be simply-supported and of span 10.8 m, sothat this cross-section is at mid-span, with unpropped construction as before, so that thebending moment in the steel beam at this section is Ma, Ed = 110 kN m. Shrinkage effectsare beneficial, and are neglected.

The purpose is to find the relationship between the degree of shear connection, η, andthe bending resistance of the beam at mid-span, in accordance with clauses 6.2.1.3–6.2.1.5,6.6.1.2 and 6.6.1.3. The result is shown in Fig. 6.33.

At low degrees of shear connection, only elastic design is permitted, so the elasticbending resistance Mel, Rd is required, to clause 6.2.1.4(6). It depends on the modular ratio.It is found that the limiting stress (equations (D6.35) and (D6.36)) is reached first in thesteel bottom flange, and is increased by creep, so n = 20.2 is assumed.

For Ma, Ed = 110 kN m, the maximum stress in the steel beam is 73 N/mm2, leaving355 – 73 = 282 N/mm2 for loading on the composite beam. Using the elastic sectionproperties from row 5 of Table 6.3, the steel reaches yield when the bending moment onthe composite section is 610 kN m, so

Mel, Rd = 110 + 610 = 720 kN m

The compressive force in the concrete slab is then Nc, el = 1148 kN, so that

η = Nc, el/Nc, f = 1148/2840 = 0.404

Figure 6.33 is based on Figs 6.5 and 6.6(b) of EN 1994-1-1. The results above enablepoint B to be plotted.

When MEd = 110 kN m, Nc = 0. From equation (6.2) in clause 6.2.1.4(6), line BE isdrawn towards the point (0, 110) as shown. No lower limit to η is defined. It will in practicebe determined by the detailing rules for the shear connection.

For full shear connection,

MRd = 950

500

Ma, Ed = 110

0 1.0

Mpl, a, Rd = 604

Mpl, Rd = 1043

0.404 0.5740.2 0.8

Mel, Rd = 720

E

B

G

D

C

A

Bending moment (kN m)

h = Nc/Nc, f

Fig. 6.33. Design methods for partial shear connection

114Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:54

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 111: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

103

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Mpl, Rd = 1043 kN m

from equation (D6.27). This fixes point C in Fig. 6.33, and line BC (from equation (6.3)) isdrawn. Line EBC applies whether the connection is ‘ductile’ or not.

For this beam, with fy = 355 N/mm2 and equal steel flanges, equation (6.12) in clause6.6.1.2(1) gives

η ≥ 1 – (0.75 – 0.03 × 10.8) = 0.574

Hence,

Nc ≥ 0.574 × 2840 = 1630 kN

Using the method of clause 6.2.1.3(3) for ductile connectors, illustrated in Fig. 6.3, theplastic bending resistance is

MRd = 950 kN m

This gives point D in Fig. 6.33.When η = 0, the plastic resistance is Mpl, a, Rd. From equation (D6.25) this is

Mpl, a, Rd = 1.702 × 355 = 604 kN m

which is point A in Fig. 6.33.Similar calculations for assumed degrees of shear connection give the curve ADC,

which can, for simplicity, be replaced by the line AC (clause 6.2.1.3(5)). Both the curveand the line are valid only where η is high enough for the connection to be ‘ductile’.

The design bending resistances for this example are therefore given by EBGDC in Fig.6.33. Line BE gives the least shear connection that may be used when MEd < Mel, Rd,without restriction on the type of connector.

For higher values of MEd, the required degree of shear connection for non-ductileconnectors is given by the line BC. The bonus for using ductile connectors (as defined inclause 6.6.1.2) is the area GDC, where the position of the line GD is determined by thespan of the beam, and moves to the right as the span increases.

For the beam analysed here, with Ma, Ed = 110 kN m, a total bending momentMEd = 1000 kN m (for example) requires shear connection for about 2100 kN (η ª 0.74) ifheaded studs to clause 6.6.1.2 are used, but this increases to over 2600 kN for non-ductileconnectors.

6.7. Composite columns and composite compressionmembers6.7.1. GeneralScopeA composite column is defined in clause 1.5.2.5 as ‘a composite member subjected mainly tocompression or to compression and bending’. The title of clause 6.7 includes ‘compressionmembers’, to make clear that its scope is not limited to vertical members but includes, forexample, composite members in triangulated or Vierendeel girders. These girders may alsohave composite tension members, for which provisions are given in EN 1994-2.

In this guide, references to ‘columns’ includes other composite compression members,unless noted otherwise, and for buildings, ‘column’ means a length of column betweenadjacent lateral restraints; typically, a storey height.

Design rules for columns sometimes refer to ‘effective length’. That term is not generallyused in clause 6.7. Instead, the ‘relative slenderness’ is defined, in clause 6.7.3.3(2), in termsof Ncr, ‘the elastic critical normal force for the relevant buckling mode’.

This use of Ncr is explained in the comments on clause 6.7.3.3.Clause 6.7.1(1)PClause 6.7.1(1)P refers to Fig. 6.17, in which all the sections shown have double symmetry;

but clause 6.7.1(6) makes clear that the scope of the general method of clause 6.7.2 includesmembers of non-symmetrical section.84

115Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:54

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 112: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

The bending moment in a column depends on the assumed location of the line of actionof the axial force, N. Where the cross-section has double symmetry, this is the intersection ofthe axes of symmetry. In other cases the choice, made in the modelling for global analysis,should be retained for the analysis of the cross-sections. A small degree of asymmetry (e.g.due to an embedded pipe) can be allowed for by ignoring in calculations concrete areaselsewhere, such that symmetry is restored.

No shear connectors are shown in the cross-sections in Fig. 6.17, because within a columnlength the longitudinal shear is normally much lower than in a beam, and sufficient interactionmay be provided by bond or friction. Shear connectors should be provided for load introduction,following clause 6.7.4.

The minimum compression for a member to be regarded as a column, rather than a beam,is not stated. As shown in Example 6.11, the use of the cross-sections in Fig. 6.17 as beamswithout shear connectors is usually prevented by the low design shear strengths due to bondand friction (clause 6.7.4.3).

Clause 6.7.1(2)P The strengths of materials in clause 6.7.1(2)P are as for beams, except that class C60/75and lightweight-aggregate concretes are excluded. For these, additional provisions (e.g. forcreep, shrinkage, and strain capacity) would be required.85,86

Clause 6.7.1(3) Clause 6.7.1(3) and clause 5.1.1(2) both concern the scope of EN 1994-1-1. They appear toexclude composite columns in high-rise buildings with a reinforced concrete core. For these‘mixed’ structures, additional consideration in the global analysis of the effects of shrinkage,creep, and column shortening may be needed.

Clause 6.7.1(4) The steel contribution ratio (clause 6.7.1(4)), is essentially the proportion of the squashload of the section that is provided by the structural steel member. If it is outside the limitsgiven, the member should be treated as reinforced concrete or as structural steel, asappropriate.

Independent action effects

Clause 6.7.1(7)

The interaction curve for the resistance of a column cross-section to combined axial force Nand uniaxial bending M is shown in Fig. 6.19, and, as a polygon, in Fig. 6.38 of this guide. Ithas a region BD where an increase in NEd increases MRd. Clause 6.7.1(7) refers to a situationwhere at ultimate load the factored bending moment, γF MEk, could co-exist with an‘independent’ axial force that was less than its design value, γF NEk. It says that verificationshould be based on the lower value, 0.8γF NEk.

Discussion of this rule is illustrated in Fig. 6.34, which shows region BDC of the interactioncurve in Fig. 6.19, which is symmetrical about the line AD. If

104

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Npm, Rd/2

gFNEk

0.8gFNEk

B0

D

CN

M

E

MRdMpl, Rd

A

Fig. 6.34. Independent bending moment and normal force (not to scale)

116Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:55

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 113: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

γF NEk < Npm, Rd/2 (D6.37)

then MRd should be found for an axial force of 0.8γF NEk, as shown by point E. The reductionin MRd is usually small.

A simpler but more conservative rule is given in ENV 1994-1-1, with a clearer definition of‘independent actions’: if MRd corresponding to γF NEk is found to exceed Mpl, Rd, MRd shouldbe taken as Mpl, Rd. It is applicable unless the bending moment MEd is due solely to theeccentricity of the force NEd. Its effect is to replace the curve BDC in Fig. 6.34 with the lineBC.

Local bucklingClause 6.7.1(8)PThe principle of clause 6.7.1(8)P is followed by its application rules. They ensure that the

concrete (which will be reinforced in accordance with EN 1992-1-1) restrains the steel andprevents it from buckling even when yielded.

For partly encased sections, the encasement prevents local buckling of the steel web, andprevents rotation of the steel flange at its junction with the web, so that a higher bf/t ratio maybe used than for a bare steel section. Table 6.3 gives the limit as 44ε, compared with about 22ε(from EN 1993-1-1) for a Class 2 flange. (In EN 1994, as in EN 1993, ε = ÷(235/fy), in units ofnewtons per square millimetre.)

For concrete-filled rectangular hollow steel sections (RHS), the limit of 52ε compareswith about 41ε for a steel RHS. For a concrete-filled circular hollow section, the limiting d/tof 90ε2 compares with 70ε2 for Class 2 in EN 1993-1-1.

6.7.2. General method of design

Clause 6.7.2

Designers of composite columns will normally ensure that they fall within the scope of thesimplified method of clause 6.7.3; but occasionally the need arises for a non-uniform orasymmetric member. The ‘general method’ of clause 6.7.2 is provided both for this reason,and to enable advanced software-based methods to be used.

Clause 6.7.2(3)PClause 6.7.2 is more a set of principles than a design method. Development of software

that satisfies these principles is a complex task. Clause 6.7.2(3)P refers to ‘internal forces’.These are the action effects within the column length, found from those acting on its ends,determined by global analysis to Section 5. At present, such an analysis is likely to excludemember imperfections and second-order effects within members, but comprehensive softwaremay become available.

Clause 6.7.2(3) also refers to ‘elastic-plastic analysis’. This is defined in clause 1.5.6.10 ofEN 1990 as ‘structural analysis that uses stress/strain or moment/curvature relationshipsconsisting of a linear elastic part followed by a plastic part with or without hardening.’

As the three materials in a composite section follow different non-linear relationships,direct analysis of cross-sections is not possible. One has first to assume the dimensions andmaterials of the member, and then determine the axial force N and bending moment M at across-section from assumed values of axial strain and curvature φ, using the relevantmaterial properties. The M–N–φ relationship for each section can be found from many suchcalculations. This becomes even more complex where biaxial bending is present.87

Integration along the length of the column then leads to a non-linear member stiffnessmatrix that relates axial force and end moments to the axial change of length and endrotations.

6.7.3. Simplified method of designScope of the simplified method

Clause 6.7.3.1Clause 6.7.3.1(1)

The method has been calibrated by comparison with test results.88 Its scope (clause 6.7.3.1) islimited mainly by the range of results available, which leads to the restriction £ 2 in clause6.7.3.1(1). For most columns, the method requires second-order analysis in which explicitaccount is taken of imperfections. The use of strut curves is limited to axially loadedmembers.

105

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

λ

117Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:55

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 114: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Clause 6.7.3.1(2)

The restriction on unconnected steel sections in clause 6.7.3.1(1) is to prevent loss ofstiffness due to slip, which would invalidate the formulae for EI of the column cross-section.The limits to concrete cover in clause 6.7.3.1(2) arise from concern over strain softening ofconcrete invalidating the interaction diagram (Fig. 6.19), and from the limited test data forcolumns with thicker covers. These provisions normally ensure that for each axis of bending,the flexural stiffness of the steel section makes a significant contribution to the total stiffness.Greater cover can be used by ignoring in calculation the concrete that exceeds the statedlimits.

Clause 6.7.3.1(3) The limit of 6% in clause 6.7.3.1(3) on the reinforcement used in calculation is more liberalthan the 4% (except at laps) recommended in EN 1992-1-1. This limit and that on maximumslenderness are unlikely to be restrictive in practice.

Clause 6.7.3.1(4) Clause 6.7.3.1(4) is intended to prevent the use of sections susceptible to lateral–torsionalbuckling. The reference to hc < bc arises because hc is defined as the overall depth in thedirection normal to the major axis of the steel section (Fig. 6.17). The term ‘major axis’ can bemisleading, because some column sections have Iz > Iy, even though Ia, y > Ia, z.

Resistance of cross-sections

Clause 6.7.3.2(1)

Calculations for composite sections, with three materials, are potentially more complex thanfor reinforced concrete, so simplifications to some provisions of EN 1992-1-1 are made inEN 1994-1-1. Reference to the partial safety factors for the materials is avoided by specifyingresistances in terms of design values for strength, rather than characteristic values; forexample in equation (6.30) for plastic resistance to compression in clause 6.7.3.2(1). Thisresistance, Npl, Rd, is the ultimate axial load that a short column can sustain, assuming that thestructural steel and reinforcement are yielding and the concrete is crushing.

For concrete-encased sections, the crushing stress is taken as 85% of the design cylinderstrength, as explained in the comments on clause 3.1. For concrete-filled sections, theconcrete component develops a higher strength because of the confinement from the steelsection, and the 15% reduction is not made; see also the comments on clause 6.7.3.2(6).

Resistance to combined compression and bending

Clause 6.7.3.2(2)The bending resistance of a column cross-section, Mpl, Rd, is calculated as for a compositebeam in Class 1 or 2 (clause 6.7.3.2(2)). Points on the interaction curve shown in Figs 6.18 and6.19 represent limiting combinations of compressive axial load N and moment M whichcorrespond to the plastic resistance of the cross-section.

The resistance is found using rectangular stress blocks. For simplicity, that for theconcrete extends to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 6.35 for resistance to bending (point Bin Fig. 6.19 and Fig. 6.38). As explained in the comments on clause 3.1(1), this simplificationis unconservative in comparison with stress/strain curves for concrete and the rules ofEN 1992-1-1. To compensate for this, the plastic resistance moment for the column section isreduced by a factor αM in clause 6.7.3.6(1).

106

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

0.85fcd

fyd

fyd

fsd

fsd

Mpl, Rd

+ +

ReinforcementSteelConcrete

Fig. 6.35. Stress distributions for resistance in bending (tension positive)

118Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:55

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 115: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

As axial compression increases, the neutral axis moves; for example, towards the loweredge of the section shown in Fig. 6.35, and then outside the section. The interaction curve istherefore determined by moving the neutral axis in increments across the section, andfinding pairs of values of M and N from the corresponding stress blocks. This requires acomputer program, unless the simplification given in clause 6.7.3.2(5) is used. Simplifiedexpressions for the coordinates of points B, C and D on the interaction curve in Fig. 6.34 aregiven in Appendix C. Further comment is given in Examples 6.10 and C.1.

Influence of transverse shearClause 6.7.3.2(3)Clause 6.7.3.2(4)

Clauses 6.7.3.2(3) and 6.7.3.2(4), on the influence of transverse shear on the interactioncurve, are generally the same as clause 6.2.2.4 on moment–shear interaction in beams. Oneassumes first that the shear VEd acts on the structural steel section alone. If it is less than0.5Vpl, a, Rd, it has no effect. If it is greater, there is an option of sharing it between the steel andreinforced concrete sections, which may reduce that acting on the steel to below 0.5Vpl, a, Rd. Ifit does not, then a reduced design yield strength is used for the shear area, as for the web of abeam. In a column, however, the shear area depends on the plane of bending considered,and may consist of the flanges of the steel section. It is assumed that shear buckling does notoccur.

Simplified interaction curveClause 6.7.3.2(5)Clause 6.7.3.2(5) explains the use of the polygonal diagram BDCA in Fig. 6.19 as an

approximation to the interaction curve, suitable for hand calculation. The method applies toany cross-section with biaxial symmetry, not just to encased I-sections.

First, the location of the neutral axis for pure bending is found, by equating thelongitudinal forces from the stress blocks on either side of it. Let this be at distance hn fromthe centroid of the uncracked section, as shown in Fig. 6.19(B) and Fig. C.2 in Appendix C. Itis shown in Appendix C that the neutral axis for point C on the interaction diagram is atdistance hn on the other side of the centroid, and the neutral axis for point D passes throughthe centroid. The values of M and N at each point are easily found from the stress blocksshown in Fig. 6.19. For concrete-filled sections the factor 0.85 may be omitted.

Concrete-filled tubes of circular or rectangular cross-sectionClause 6.7.3.2(6)Clause 6.7.3.2(6) is based on the lateral expansion that occurs in concrete under axial

compression. This causes circumferential tension in the steel tube and triaxial compressionin the concrete. This increases the crushing strength of the concrete88 to an extent thatoutweighs the reduction in the effective yield strength of the steel in vertical compression.The coefficients ηa and ηc given in this clause allow for these effects.

This containment effect is not present to the same extent in concrete-filled rectangulartubes because less circumferential tension can be developed. In all tubes the effects ofcontainment reduce as bending moments are applied; this is because the mean compressivestrain in the concrete and the associated lateral expansion are reduced. With increasingslenderness, bowing of the member under load increases the bending moment, and thereforethe effectiveness of containment is further reduced. For these reasons, ηa and ηc aredependent on the eccentricity of loading and on the slenderness of the member.

Properties of the columnFor columns in a frame, some properties of each column length are needed before or duringglobal analysis of the frame:

Clause 6.7.3.3(1)• the steel contribution ratio (clause 6.7.3.3(1))Clause 6.7.3.3(2)• the relative slenderness (clause 6.7.3.3(2))Clause 6.7.3.3(3)• the effective flexural stiffnesses (clauses 6.7.3.3(3) and 6.7.3.4(2))Clause 6.7.3.3(4)• the creep coefficient and effective modulus for concrete (clause 6.7.3.3(4)).

The steel contribution ratio is explained in the comments on clause 6.7.1(4).

107

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

λ

119Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:55

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 116: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

The relative slenderness is needed to check that the column is within the scope of thesimplified method, clause 6.7.3.1(1). is calculated using characteristic values and theappropriate flexural stiffness is that given in clauses 6.7.3.3(3) and 6.7.3.3(4). The correctionfactor Ke is to allow for cracking.

As depends on the elastic critical normal force for the relevant buckling mode, thebehaviour of the surrounding members needs to be taken into account. This could require acalculation of the load factor αcr for elastic instability, following the procedure shown in Fig.5.1(e). It will often be possible though to make simplifying assumptions to show that aproposed column is within the scope for the method. For example, in a frame with a highstiffness against sway it would be reasonable to calculate Ncr assuming the member to bepin-ended. In an unbraced continuous frame, the stiffness of each beam could be taken asthat of the steel section alone, permitting Ncr to be determined from effective length chartsthat assume a beam to be of uniform stiffness. In any case, the upper limit on is somewhatarbitrary and does not justify great precision in Ncr.

The creep coefficient ϕt influences the effective modulus Ec, eff (clause 6.7.3.3(4)), andhence the flexural stiffness of each column. It depends on the age at which concrete isstressed and the duration of the load. These will not be the same for all the columns in aframe. The effective modulus depends also on the proportion of the design axial load that ispermanent. The design of a column is rarely sensitive to the influence of the creep coefficienton Ec, eff, so conservative assumptions can be made about uncertainties. Normally, a singlevalue of effective modulus can be used for all the columns in the frame.

Verification of a columnThe flow chart of Fig. 6.36 shows a possible calculation route, intended to minimizeiteration, for a column as part of a frame. It is used in Example 6.10. It is assumed that thecolumn has cross-section details that can satisfy clauses 6.7.1(9), 6.7.3.1(2) to 6.7.3.1(4) and6.7.5.2(1), and has already been shown to have £ 2, so that it is within the scope of thesimplified method of clause 6.7.3.

The relationship between the analysis of a frame and the stability of individual members isdiscussed in the comments on clauses 5.2.2(3) to 5.2.2(7). Conventionally, the stability ofmembers is checked by analysis of individual members, using end moments and forces fromglobal analysis of the frame. Figure 6.36 follows this procedure, giving in more detail theprocedures outlined in the lower part of the flow chart for global analysis (see Fig. 5.1(a)). Itis assumed that the slenderness of the column, determined according to clause 5.3.2.1(2), issuch that member imperfections have been neglected in the global analysis. Comments arenow given in the sequence of Fig. 6.36, rather than clause sequence. If bending is biaxial, thechart is followed for each axis in turn, as noted. It is assumed that loading is applied to thecolumn only at its ends.

The starting point is the output from the global analysis, listed at the top of Fig. 6.36. Thedesign axial compression is the sum of the forces from the two frames of which the column isassumed to be a member. If, at an end of the column (e.g. the top) the joints to beams in theseframes are at a different level, they could conservatively be assumed both to be at the upperlevel, if the difference is small. The flow chart does not cover situations where the differenceis large (e.g. a storey height). The axial force NEd is normally almost constant along thecolumn length. Where it varies, its maximum value can conservatively be assumed to beapplied at the upper end.

Clause 6.7.3.4For most columns, the method requires a second-order analysis in which explicit account

is taken of imperfections (clause 6.7.3.4). However, for a member subject only to endcompression, clause 6.7.3.5(2) enables buckling curves to be used. For columns that qualify,this is a useful simplification because these curves allow for member imperfections. Thereduction factor χ depends on the non-dimensional slenderness . The buckling curves arealso useful as a preliminary check for columns with end moment; if the resistance to thenormal force NEd is not sufficient, the proposed column is clearly inadequate.

108

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

λλ

λ

λ

λ

λ

120Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:56

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 117: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

109

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Known, for both the y and z axes: NEd, Npl, Rd, L, (EI)eff, II and the bending moments at both ends of the column. Find the axial compression: NEd = NEd, y + NEd, z

Is the column in axial compression only? (Clause 6.7.3.5(2))

Note 1: Until Note 2, the chart is for both the y and z planes, separately, and the y or z subscript is not given

Find l to clause 6.7.3.3(2), then c to clause 6.7.3.5(2). Is NEd £ cNpl, Rd?

Find Vpl, a, Rd to clause 6.2.2.2(2). Is VEd > 0.5Vpl, a, Rd? (Clause 6.7.3.2(3))

Find Mpl, a, Rd and Mpl, Rd, and hence Va, Ed and Vc, Ed from clause 6.7.3.2(4). Is Va, Ed > 0.5Vpl, a, Rd?

Find r from clause 6.2.2.4(2) and hence reduced fyd from clause 6.7.3.2(3)

Find interaction curve or polygon for the cross-section (clauses 6.7.3.2(2) and 6.7.3.2(5))

From clause 6.7.3.4(5): find

Ncr, eff = p2(EI)eff, II/L2

find b for end moments MEd, top and MEd, bot to Table 6.4, and hence k (= k1); find k2 for b = 1; find the design moment for the column,

MEd, max = k1MEd + k2NEde0 ≥ MEd, top ≥ MEd, bot

Apply bow imperfection to clause 6.7.3.4(4); max. bow e0

Can first-order member analysis be used, because the member satisfies clause 5.2.1(3), based on stiffness to clause 6.7.3.4?

Find MEd , the maximum first-order bending moment within the column length. If MEd, 1 = MEd, 2 it is

MEd, max = MEd, 1 + NEde0

No

Find MEd, max by second-order analysis of the pin-ended column length with force NEd and end moments MEd, 1 and MEd, 2

Either Or

Note 2: For biaxial bending, repeat steps since Note 1 for the other axis

From NEd and the interaction diagrams, find mdy and mdz from clause 6.7.3.7(1). Check that the cross-section can resist My, Ed, max and Mz, Ed, max from clause 6.7.3.7(2)

(END)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Column not strong enough

No

Column verified

(END)

(END)

Yes

NoYes

Fig. 6.36. Flow chart for verification of a column length

121Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:56

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 118: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Comment has already been made on the calculation of when used to check the scope ofthe method. When is used as the basis for resistance, calculation of this parameter may stillbe simplified, provided the result is conservative.

Columns without end moments are exceptional, and for most members the design processcontinues, as shown in Fig. 6.36. Columns with transverse shear exceeding half of the shearresistance of the steel element are rare; but shear is checked next, because if it is high theinteraction curve for the cross-section may be affected. Comment has been given earlier onclauses 6.7.3.2(3) and 6.7.3.2(4), on shear, and on the interaction curve or polygon.

Much of the remainder of the flow chart is concerned with finding the maximum bendingmoment to which the column will be subjected. In general, two calculations are necessary(clause 6.7.3.6(1)). The maximum bending moment may occur at one end, when the designmoment equals to the larger of the two end moments; or the maximum bending momentmay occur at an intermediate point along the member. This is because second-order effectsand lateral load within the length of the member and initial bowing affect the bendingmoment.

Clause 6.7.3.4(4)If member imperfections have been neglected in the global analysis, it is necessary to

include them in the analysis of the column. Clause 6.7.3.4(4) gives the member imperfectionsin Table 6.5 as proportional to the length L of the column between lateral restraints. Theimperfection is the lateral departure at mid-height of the column of its axis of symmetry fromthe line joining the centres of symmetry at the ends of the column. The values accountprincipally for truly geometric imperfections and for the effects of residual stresses. They donot depend on the distribution of bending moment along the column. The curved shape isusually assumed to be sinusoidal, but use of a circular arc would be acceptable. The curve isassumed initially to lie in the plane of the frame being analysed.

The next step is to ascertain whether second-order effects need to be considered withinthe member length. Clause 6.7.3.4(3) refers to clause 5.2.1(3). Second-order effects cantherefore be neglected if the load factor αcr for elastic instability of the member exceeds 10.Possible sway effects will have been determined by global analysis, and will already beincluded within the values for the end moments and forces. To calculate αcr, the ends of thecolumn are assumed to be pinned, and αcr is found using the Euler formula Ncr, eff = π2EI/L2,L being the physical length of the column. The flexural stiffness to use is (EI)eff, II (clause6.7.3.4(2)), with the modulus of elasticity for concrete modified to take account of long-termeffects (clause 6.7.3.3(4)). This flexural stiffness is lower than that defined in clause 6.7.3.3(3)because it is essentially a design value for ultimate limit states. The factor Ke, II allows forcracking. The factor Ko is from research-based calibration studies.

The neglect of second-order effects does not mean that increase in bending momentcaused by the member imperfection can also be ignored. The next box, on finding MEd, max,gives the example of a column in uniform single-curvature bending. If the end moments aredissimilar or of opposite sign, the maximum moment in the column, MEd, max, is likely to be thegreater end moment.

Clause 6.7.3.4(5)

In practice, most columns are relatively slender, and second-order effects will usually needto be included. This can be done by second-order analysis of the member, treated aspin-ended but subject to the end moments and forces given by the global analysis. Anyintermediate loads would also be applied. The analysis is to obtain the maximum moment inthe column, which is taken as the design moment, MEd, max. Formulae may be obtained fromthe literature. Alternatively, use may be made of the factor k given by clause 6.7.3.4(5).

It is assumed in Fig. 6.36 that the column is free from intermediate lateral loads. Twofactors are used, written as k1 and k2, because two moment distributions must be considered.The first gives the equivalent moment k1MEd in the ‘perfect’ column, where MEd is the largerend moment given by the global analysis. The definitions of MEd in clause 6.7.3.4(5) and Table6.4 may appear contradictory. In the text before equation (6.43), MEd is referred to as afirst-order moment. This is because it does not include second-order effects arising withinthe column length. However, Table 6.4 makes clear that MEd is to be determined by eitherfirst-order or second-order global analysis; the choice would depend on clause 5.2.

110

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

λλ

122Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:56

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 119: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

The multiplier β (from Table 6.4) allows for the shape of the bending-moment diagram.The condition β ≥ 0.44 in the table is to ensure sufficient protection against snap-throughbuckling in double-curvature bending.

The first-order moment from the imperfection, NEde0, has a distribution such that β = 1,from Table 6.4, so k2 normally differs from k1. The imperfection can be in any direction, sothe equivalent moment k2NEd e0 always has the same sign as k1MEd, when the two arecombined.

Equation (6.43) states that k must be greater than or equal to unity, and this is correct for asingle distribution of bending moment. However, for a combination of end moments andmember imperfection, it could be conservative to limit all values of k in this way. Atmid-length the component due to end moments depends on their ratio, r, and thereforecould be small. The appropriate component is therefore k1MEd without the limit k ≥ 1.0, andthe design moment within the column length is (k1MEd + k2NEd e0). In biaxial bending, theinitial member imperfection may be neglected in the less critical plane (clause 6.7.3.7(1)).The limit k ≥ 1.0 is intended to ensure that the design moment is at least the larger endmoment MEd.

Clause 6.7.3.6(1)

For uniaxial bending, the final step is to check that the cross-section can resist MEd, max withcompression NEd. The interaction diagram gives a resistance µd Mpl, Rd with axial load NEd, asshown in Fig. 6.18. This is unconservative, being based on rectangular stress blocks, asexplained in the comment on clause 3.1(1), so in clause 6.7.3.6(1) it is reduced, by the use of afactor αM that depends on the grade of structural steel. This factor allows for the increase inthe compressive strain in the cross-section at yield of the steel (which is adverse for theconcrete), when the yield strength of the steel is increased.

Biaxial bendingClause 6.7.3.7Where values of MEd, max have been found for both axes, clause 6.7.3.7 applies, in which they

are written as My, Ed and Mz, Ed. If one is much greater than the other, the relevant check foruniaxial bending, equation (6.46) will govern. Otherwise, the linear interaction given byequation (6.47) applies. If the member fails this biaxial condition by a small margin, it may behelpful to recalculate the less critical bending moment, omitting the member imperfection,as permitted by clause 6.7.3.7(1).

6.7.4. Shear connection and load introductionLoad introduction

Clause 6.7.4.1(1)PClause 6.7.4.1(2)P

The provisions for the resistance of cross-sections of columns assume that no significant slipoccurs at the interface between the concrete and structural steel components. Clauses6.7.4.1(1)P and 6.7.4.1(2)P give the principles for limiting slip to an ‘insignificant’ level in thecritical regions: those where axial load and/or bending moments are applied to the column.

Clause 6.7.4.1(3)

For any assumed ‘clearly defined load path’ it is possible to estimate stresses, includingshear at the interface. In regions of load introduction, shear stress is likely to exceed thedesign shear strength from clause 6.7.4.3, and shear connection is then required (clause6.7.4.2(1)). It is unlikely to be needed elsewhere, unless the shear strength τRd from Table 6.6is very low, or the member is also acting as a beam, or has a high degree of double-curvaturebending. Clause 6.7.4.1(3) refers to the special case of an axially loaded column.

Few shear connectors reach their design shear strength until the slip is at least 1 mm; butthis is not ‘significant’ slip for a resistance model based on plastic behaviour and rectangularstress blocks. However, a long load path implies greater slip, so the assumed path should notextend beyond the introduction length given in clause 6.7.4.2(2).

Where axial load is applied through a joint attached only to the steel component, the forceto be transferred to the concrete can be estimated from the relative axial loads in the twomaterials given by the resistance model. Accurate calculation is rarely practicable wherethe cross-section concerned does not govern the design of the column. In this partlyplastic situation, the more adverse of the elastic and fully plastic models gives a safe result

111

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

123Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:57

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 120: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Clause 6.7.4.2(1) (clause 6.7.4.2(1), last line). In practice, it may be simpler to provide shear connection basedon a conservative (high) estimate of the force to be transferred.

Where axial force is applied by a plate bearing on both materials or on concrete only, theproportion of the force resisted by the concrete gradually decreases, due to creep andshrinkage. It could be inferred from clause 6.7.4.2(1) that shear connection should beprovided for a high proportion of the force applied. However, models based on elastic theoryare over-conservative in this inherently stable situation, where large strains are acceptable.The application rules that follow are based mainly on tests.

Clause 6.7.4.2(3)Clause 6.7.4.2(4)

In a concrete-filled tube, shrinkage effects are low, for only the autogenous shrinkagestrain occurs, with a long-term value below 10–4, from clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1. Radialshrinkage is outweighed by the lateral expansion of concrete in compression, for its inelasticPoisson’s ratio increases at high compressive stress. Friction then provides significant shearconnection (clause 6.7.4.2(3)). Friction is also the basis for the enhanced resistance of studconnectors given in clause 6.7.4.2(4).

Clause 6.7.4.2(5)Clause 6.7.4.2(6)

Detailing at points of load introduction or change of cross-section is assisted by the highbearing stresses given in clauses 6.7.4.2(5) and 6.7.4.2(6). As an example, the following dataare assumed for the detail shown in Fig. 6.22(B), with axial loading:

• steel tube with external diameter 300 mm and wall thickness 10 mm• bearing plate 15 mm thick, with strength fy = fyd = 355 N/mm2

• concrete with fck = 45 N/mm2 and γC = 1.5.

Then, Ac = π × 1402 = 61 600 mm2; A1 = 15 × 280 = 4200 mm2. From equation (6.48),

σc, Rd /fcd = [1 + (4.9 × 10/300)(355/45)](14.7)0.5 = 8.8

and

σc, Rd = 8.8 × 30 = 260 N/mm2

This bearing stress is so high that the fin plate would need to be at least 180 mm deep to havesufficient resistance to vertical shear.

Clause 6.7.4.2(9) Figure 6.23 illustrates the requirement of clause 6.7.4.2(9) for transverse reinforcement,which must have a resistance equal to the force Nc1. If longitudinal reinforcement is ignored,this is given by

Nc1 = Ac2/2nA

where A is the transformed area of the cross-section 1–1 of the column in Fig. 6.23, given by

A = As + (Ac1 + Ac2)/n

and Ac1 and Ac2 are the unshaded and shaded areas of concrete, respectively, in section 1–1.

Transverse shearClause 6.7.4.3 Clause 6.7.4.3 gives application rules (used in Example 6.11) relevant to the principle of

clause 6.7.4.1(2), for columns with the longitudinal shear that arises from transverse shear.The design shear strengths τRd in Table 6.6 are far lower than the tensile strength of concrete.They rely on friction, not bond, and are related to the extent to which separation at theinterface is prevented. For example, in partially encased I-sections, lateral expansion ofthe concrete creates pressure on the flanges, but not on the web, for which τRd = 0; and thehighest shear strengths are for concrete within steel tubes.

Clause 6.7.4.3(4)Where small steel I-sections are provided, mainly for erection, and the column is mainly

concrete, clause 6.7.4.3(4) provides a useful increase to τRd, for covers up to 115 mm, moresimply presented as

βc = 0.2 + cz/50 £ 2.5

Clause 6.7.4.3(5)Concern about the attachment of concrete to steel in partially encased I-sections appears

again in clause 6.7.4.3(5), because under weak-axis bending, separation tends to developbetween the encasement and the web.

112

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

124Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:57

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 121: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

113

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

6.7.5. Detailing provisions

Clause 6.7.5.1(2)

If a steel I-section in an environment in class X0 to EN 1992-1-1 has links in contact with itsflange (permitted by clause 6.7.5.2(3)), the cover to the steel section could be as low as25 mm. For a wide steel flange, this thin layer of concrete would have little resistance tobuckling outwards, so the minimum thickness is increased to 40 mm in clause 6.7.5.1(2).

Clause 6.7.5.2(1)Minimum longitudinal reinforcement (clause 6.7.5.2(1)), is needed to control the width ofcracks, which can be caused by shrinkage even in columns with concrete nominally incompression.

Clause 6.7.5.2(4)Clause 6.7.5.2(4) refers to exposure class X0 of EN 1992-1-1. This is a ‘very dry’environment, with ‘no risk of corrosion or attack’. Buildings with ‘very low air humidity’ aregiven as an example, so some buildings, or spaces in buildings, would not qualify. Theminimum reinforcement provides robustness during construction.

Example 6.10: composite column with bending about one or both axesA composite column of length 7.0 m has the uniform cross-section shown in Fig. 6.37. Itsresistance to given action effects will be found. After checking that the column is withinthe scope of the simplified method, the calculations follow the sequence of the flow chartin Fig. 6.36. The properties of the steel member, 254 × 254 UC89, are taken from sectiontables, and given here in Eurocode notation. The properties of the materials, in the usualnotation, are as follows:

Structural steel: grade S355, fy = fyd = 355 N/mm2, Ea = 210 kN/mm2.Concrete: C25/30; fck = 25 N/mm2, fcd = 25/1.5 = 16.7 N/mm2,

0.85fcd = 14.2 N/mm2, Ecm = 31 kN/mm2, n0 = 210/31 = 6.77.Reinforcement: ribbed bars, fsk = 500 N/mm2, fsd = 500/1.15 = 435 N/mm2.

Geometrical properties of the cross-sectionIn the notation of Fig. 6.17(a),

bc = hc = 400 mm b = 256 mm h = 260 mmcy = 200 – 128 = 72 mm cz = 200 – 130 = 70 mm

These satisfy the conditions of clauses 6.7.3.1(2), 6.7.3.1(4) and 6.7.5.1(2), so all theconcrete casing is included in the calculations.

Area of reinforcement = 4 × 36π = 446 mm2

Area of concrete = 4002 – 11 400 – 446 = 148 150 mm2

260

Steel section: 254 × 254 UC89

Aa = 11 400 mm2

10–6Ia, y = 143.1 mm4

10–6Ia, z = 48.5 mm4

10–6Wpa, y = 1.228 mm3

10–6Wpa, z = 0.575 mm3

70

256

400

17.3

72

10.5

400

12 ∆

Fig. 6.37. Cross-section and properties of a composite column (dimensions in mm)

125Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:57

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 122: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

114

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

The reinforcement has area 0.301% of the concrete area, so clause 6.7.5.2(1) permits it tobe included in calculations. For simplicity, its small contribution will be ignored, so thevalues are

Aa = 11 400 mm2 Ac = 4002 – 11 400 = 148 600 mm2 As = 0

For the steel section:

10–6Ia, y = 143.1 mm4 10–6Ia, z = 48.5 mm4

Design action effects, ultimate limit stateFor the most critical load arrangement, global analysis gives these values:

NEd = 1800 kN, of which NG, Ed = 1200 kN

My, Ed, top = 380 kN m; Mz, Ed, top = 0

The bending moments at the lower end of the column and the lateral loading are zero.Later, the effect of adding Mz, Ed, top = 50 kN m is determined.

Properties of the column lengthFrom clause 6.7.3.2(1),

Npl, Rd = Aa fyd + 0.85Ac fcd = 11.4 × 355 + 148.6 × 14.2 = 4047 + 2109 = 6156 kN

From clause 6.7.3.3(1), the steel contribution ratio is

δ = 4047/6156 = 0.657

which is within the limits of clause 6.7.1(4).For to clause 6.7.3.3(2), with γC = 1.5,

Npl, Rk = 4047 + 1.5 × 2109 = 7210 kN

Creep coefficientFrom clause 6.7.3.3(4),

Ec = Ecm/[1 + (NG, Ed /NEd)ϕt] (6.41)

The creep coefficient ϕt is ϕ(t, t0) to clause 5.4.2.2. The time t0 is taken as 30 days, and t istaken as ‘infinity’, as creep reduces the stiffness, and hence the stability, of a column.

From clause 3.1.4(5) of EN 1992-1-1, the ‘perimeter exposed to drying’ is

u = 2(bc + hc) = 1600 mm

so

h0 = 2Ac/u = 297 200/1600 = 186 mm

Assuming ‘inside conditions’ and the use of normal cement, the graphs in Fig. 3.1 ofEN 1992-1-1 give

ϕ(•, 30) = 2.7 = ϕt

The assumed ‘age at first loading’ has little influence on the result if it exceeds about20 days. If, however, significant load were applied at age 10 days, ϕt would be increased toabout 3.3.

From equation (6.41),

Ec, eff = 31/[1 + 2.7(1200/1800)] = 11.1 kN/mm2

Elastic critical load, with characteristic stiffnessThe minor axis is the more critical, so is needed. From clause 6.7.3.3(3),

λ

126Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:58

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 123: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

115

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

(EI)eff = EaIa + KeEc, effIc (6.40)

For the concrete,

10–6Ic, z = 0.42 × 4002/12 – 48.5 = 2085 mm4

From equation (6.40),

10–6(EI)eff, z = 210 × 48.5 + 0.6 × 11.1 × 2085 = 24 070 kN mm2

In this example, the end conditions for the column are assumed to be such that lateralrestraint is provided, but no elastic rotational restraint, so the effective length is the actuallength, 7.0 m, and

Ncr, z = π2(EI)eff, z/L2 = 24 070π2/49 = 4848 kN

From equation (6.39),

= (Npl, Rk/Ncr, z)0.5 = (7210/4848)0.5 = 1.22

Similar calculations for the y-axis give

10–6Ic, y = 1990 mm4 10–6(EI)eff, y = 43 270 kN mm2

Ncr, y = 8715 kN = 0.91

The non-dimensional slenderness does not exceed 2.0, so clause 6.7.3.1(1) is satisfied.

Resistance to axial load, z-axisFrom clause 6.7.3.5(2), buckling curve (c) is applicable. From Fig. 6.4 of EN 1993-1-1, for

= 1.22,

χz = 0.43

From equation (6.44),

NEd £ χz Npl, Rd = 0.43 × 6156 = 2647 kN

This condition is satisfied.

Transverse shearFor My, Ed, top = 380 kN m, the transverse shear is

Vz, Ed = 380/7 = 54 kN

This is obviously less than 0.5Vpl, a, Rd, so clause 6.7.3.2(3) does not apply.

Interaction curvesThe interaction polygons corresponding to Fig. 6.19 are determined in Appendix C (seeExample C.1), and reproduced in Fig. 6.38. Clause 6.7.3.2(5) permits them to be used asapproximations to the N–M interaction curves for the cross-section.

First-order bending moments, y-axisThe distribution of the external bending moment is shown in Fig. 6.39(a). From clause6.7.3.4(4), the equivalent member imperfection is

e0, z = L/200 = 35 mm

The mid-length bending moment due to NEd is

NEd e0, z = 1800 × 0.035 = 63 kN m

Its distribution is shown in Fig. 6.39(b).

127Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:58

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 124: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

116

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

To check whether second-order moments can be neglected, a reduced value of Ncr isrequired, to clause 6.7.3.4(3). From equation (6.42),

(EI)y, eff, II = 0.9(EaIa + 0.5EcIc) = 0.9 × 106(210 × 143.1 + 0.5 × 11.1 × 1990)= 3.70 × 1010 kN mm2

Hence,

Ncr, y, eff = 37 000π2/72 = 7450 kN

This is less than 10NEd, so second-order effects must be considered.

Second-order bending moments, y-axisFrom clause 6.7.3.4(5), Table 6.4, for the end moments, r = 0, β = 0.66, and from equation(6.43),

k1 = β/(1 – NEd/Ncr, y, eff) = 0.66/(1 – 1800/7450) = 0.87

NRd (MN)

6

5

3

2

0600400200

4

1

1.80

2.482

MRd (kN m)

559

504

1.241

328

6.156

333

A

Minor axis

Major axis

B

C

D

414

534

Fig. 6.38. Interaction polygons for bending about the major and minor axes

My, Ed (kN m)

380

0 7.03.5x (m) x (m)

k1 = 0.87

(a)

M from initialbow (kN m)

63

3.5 7.0

(b)

83

k2 = 1.32

0

First order

0.66 × 3800.87 × 380

Fig. 6.39. Design second-order bending moments for a column of length 7.0 m

128Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:58

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 125: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

117

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

This is not increased to 1.0, as it will be combined with the effect of imperfections, so themajor-axis bending moments are as shown in Fig. 6.39(a).

For the bending moment from the member imperfection, β = 1.0. From equation(6.43),

k2 = 1/(1 – 1800/7450) = 1.32

thus increasing Nede0, z to 83 kN m (Fig. 6.39(b)).The total mid-length bending moment is

331 + 83 = 414 kN m

This exceeds the greater end moment, 380 kN m, and so governs.The point (NEd, My, Ed, max) is (1800, 414) on Fig. 6.38. From the values shown in the

figure,

My, Rd = 504 + (2482 – 1800) × 55/(2482 – 1241) = 534 kN m

This exceeds Mpl, y, Rd, so clause 6.7.3.6(2) is relevant.In this case, it makes no difference whether NEd and MEd are from independent actions

or not, because the point My, Rd lies on line CD in Fig. 6.38, not on line BD, so the‘additional verification’ to clause 6.7.1(7) would not alter the result.

The ratio

My, Ed, max /µd, yMpl, y, Rd = 414/534 = 0.78

This is below 0.9, so clause 6.7.3.6(1) is satisfied. The column is strong enough.

Biaxial bendingThe effect of adding a minor-axis bending moment Mz, Ed, top = 50 kN m is as follows. It ismuch smaller than My, Ed, so major-axis failure is assumed. From clause 6.7.3.7(1), there isassumed to be no bow imperfection in the x–y plane; but second-order effects have to beconsidered.

From equation (6.42),

(EI)z, eff, II = 0.9 × 106(210 × 48.5 + 0.5 × 11.1 × 2085) = 1.96 × 1010 kN mm2

Hence,

Ncr, z, eff = 19 600π2/49 = 3948 kN m

As before, β = 0.66, and from equation (6.43),

k1 = 0.66/(1 – 1800/3948) = 1.21

so

Mz, Ed, max = 1.21 × 50 = 60.5 kN m

From Fig. 6.38, for NEd = 1800 kN,

Mz, Rd = µd, zMpl, z, Rd = 330 kN m

From clause 6.7.3.7(2),

My, Ed, max /0.9My, Rd + Mz, Ed, max /0.9Mz, Rd = 414/(0.9 × 534) + 60.5/(0.9 × 330)= 0.861 + 0.204= 1.07

This exceeds 1.0, so the check is thus not satisfied, and the column cannot resist theadditional bending moment.

129Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:58

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 126: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

118

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Example 6.11: longitudinal shear outside areas of load introduction, for acomposite columnAll of the data for this example are given in Example 6.10 and Fig. 6.37, and are notrepeated here. The design transverse shear was found to be

Vz, Ed = 54 kN

The maximum shear that can be resisted without provision of shear connection is nowcalculated. The critical cross-section is B–B in Fig. 6.40.

Clause 6.7.4.3(2) permits the use of elastic analysis. Creep and cracking should beconsidered. Creep reduces the shear stress on plane B–B, so the modular ratio n0 = 6.77 isused. Uncracked section properties are used, and cracking is considered later.

The cover cz = 70 mm, so from equation (6.49) in clause 6.7.4.3(4), βc = 1.60. FromTable 6.6,

τRd = 0.30 × 1.6 = 0.48 N/mm2

From Example 6.10,

10–6Ia, y = 143.1 mm4 10–6Ic, y = 1990 mm4

so for the uncracked section in ‘concrete’ units,

10–6Iy = 1990 + 143.1 × 6.77 = 2959 mm4

The ‘excluded area’

Aex = 400 × 70 = 28 000 mm2

and its centre of area is

z = 200 – 35 = 165 mm

from G in Fig. 6.40. Hence,

Vz, Rd = τRd Iy bc/(Aexz) = 0.48 × 2959 × 400/(28 000 × 0.165) = 123 kN

This exceeds Vz, Ed, so no shear connection is needed. The margin is so great that there isno need to consider the effect of cracking.

Column section used as a beamThe shear strengths given in Table 6.6 are unlikely to be high enough to permit omission ofshear connection from a column member with significant transverse loading. As anexample, it is assumed that the column section of Fig. 6.40 is used as a simply-supportedbeam of span 8.0 m, with uniformly distributed loading.

B

cz = 70

400G

400

B

Fig. 6.40 Longitudinal shear on plane B–B in a column cross-section (dimensions in mm)

130Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:59

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 127: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

119

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Using elastic analysis of the cracked cross-section with n0 = 6.77 as before, but no axialload, the results are

10–6Iy, cracked = 1441 mm4 Vz, Rd = 79 kN

This corresponds to a design ultimate load of 19.7 kN/m, which is only 4.4 times theunfactored weight of the member.

6.8. Fatigue6.8.1. GeneralAlthough fatigue verification is mainly needed for bridges, these ‘general’ provisions findapplication in some buildings; for example, where travelling cranes or fork-lift trucks areused. They refer extensively to EN 1993-1-9,89 Fatigue Strength, which is also ‘general’. TheEurocode methods for fatigue are quite complex. There are supplementary provisions inEN 1994-2, Composite Bridges.

The only complete set of provisions on fatigue in EN 1994-1-1 is for stud shear connectors.Fatigue in reinforcement, concrete, and structural steel is covered mainly by cross-referenceto EN 1992 and EN 1993. Commentary will be found in the guides to those codes.6,7

Comments here are limited to design for a single cyclic loading: a defined number ofcycles, NE, of a loading event for which can be calculated, at a given point, either:

• a single range of stress, ∆σE(NE) or ∆τE(NE), or• several stress ranges, that can be represented as N* cycles of a single ‘damage equivalent

stress range’ (e.g. ∆σE, equ(N*)) by using the Palmgren–Miner rule for summation offatigue damage.

The term ‘equivalent constant-amplitude stress range’, defined in clause 1.2.2.11 ofEN 1993-1-9, has the same meaning as ‘damage equivalent stress range’, used here and inclause 6.8.5 of EN 1992-1-1.

Damage equivalent factors (typically λ, as used in bridge design) are not considered here.Reference may be made to guides in this series to Part 2 of Eurocodes 2, 3 and 4 (e.g.Designers’ Guide to EN 199490).

Clause 6.8.1(3)

Fatigue damage is related mainly to the number and amplitude of the stress ranges. Thepeak of the stress range has a secondary influence that can be, and usually is, ignored inpractice for peak stresses below about 60% of the characteristic strength. Ultimate loads arehigher than peak fatigue loads, and the use of partial safety factors for ultimate-load designnormally ensures that peak fatigue stresses are below this limit. This may not be so forbuildings with partial shear connection, so clause 6.8.1(3) limits the force per stud to 0.75PRd,or 0.6PRk for γV = 1.25.

Clause 6.8.1(4)Clause 6.8.1(4) gives guidance on the types of building where fatigue assessment maybe required. By reference to EN 1993-1-1, these include buildings with members subjectto wind-induced or crowd-induced oscillations. ‘Repeated stress cycles from vibratingmachinery’ are also listed, but these should in practice be kept out of the structure byappropriate mountings.

6.8.2. Partial factors for fatigue assessment

Clause 6.8.2(1)Resistance factors γMf may be given in National Annexes, so only the recommended valuescan be discussed here. For fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement, clause 6.8.2(1)refers to EN 1992-1-1, which recommends the partial factors 1.5 and 1.15, respectively. Forstructural steel, EN 1993-1-9 recommends values ranging from 1.0 to 1.35, depending on thedesign concept and consequence of failure. These apply, as appropriate, for a fatigue failureof a steel flange caused by a stud weld.

131Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:59

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 128: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Fatigue failure of a stud shear connector, not involving the flange, is covered byEN 1994-1-1. The value recommended in a note to clause 2.4.1.2(7)P, γMf, s = 1.0, correspondsto the value in EN 1993-1-9 for ‘damage tolerant design concept’ with ‘low consequence offailure’. From clause 3(2) of EN 1993-1-9, the use of the damage tolerant method should besatisfactory, provided that ‘a prescribed inspection and maintenance regime for detectingand correcting fatigue damage is implemented...’. A note to this clause states that thedamage tolerant method may be applied where ‘in the event of fatigue damage occurring aload redistribution between components of structural elements can occur’.

The second condition applies to stud connectors, but the first does not, for lack of accessprevents detection of small cracks by any simple method of inspection. The recommendationof EN 1994-1-1 is based on other considerations, as follows.

Fatigue failure results from a complex interaction between steel and concrete, commencingwith powdering of the highly stressed concrete adjacent to the weld collar. This displacesupwards the line of action of the shear force, increasing the bending and shear in the shank justabove the weld collar, and probably also altering the tension. Initial fatigue cracking furtheralters the relative stiffnesses and the local stresses. Research has found that the exponent thatrelates the cumulative damage to the stress range may be higher than the value, five, for otherwelds in shear. The value chosen for EN 1994-1-1, eight, is controversial, as discussed later.

As may be expected from the involvement of a tiny volume of concrete, tests show a widescatter in fatigue lives, which is allowed for in the design resistances. Studs are provided inlarge numbers, and are well able to redistribute shear between themselves.

The strongest reason for not recommending a value more conservative than 1.0 comesfrom experience with bridges, where stud connectors have been used for almost 50 years.Whenever occasion has arisen in print or at a conference, the first author has stated thatthere is no known instance of fatigue failure of a stud in a bridge, other than a few clearlyattributable to errors in design. This has not been challenged. Research has identified, butnot yet quantified, many reasons for this remarkable experience.91,92 Most of them (e.g. slip,shear lag, permanent set, partial interaction, adventitious connection from bolt heads, andfriction) lead to predicted stress ranges on studs lower than those assumed in design. With aneighth-power law, a 10% reduction in stress range more than doubles the fatigue life.

6.8.3. Fatigue strengthClause 6.8.3(3) The format of clause 6.8.3(3), as in EN 1993-1-9, uses a reference value of range of shear

stress at 2 million cycles, ∆τC = 90 N/mm2. It defines the slope m of the line through thispoint on the log–log plot of range of stress ∆τR against number of constant-range stresscycles to failure, NR (Fig. 6.25).

It is a complex matter to deduce a value for m from the mass of test data, which are ofteninconsistent. Many types of test specimen have been used, and the resulting scatter of resultsmust be disentangled from that due to inherent variability. Values for m recommended inthe literature range from 5 to 12, mostly based on linear-regression analyses. The method ofregression used (x on y, or y on x) can alter the value found by up to three.91

The value eight, which was also used in BS 5400: Part 10, may be too high. In design for aloading spectrum, its practical effect is that the cumulative damage is governed by thehighest-range components of the spectrum (e.g. by the small number of maximum-weightlifts made by a crane). A lower value, such as five, would give more weight to the much highernumber of average-range components.

While fatigue design methods for stud connectors continue to be conservative (for bridgesand probably for buildings too) the precise value for m is of academic interest. Any futureproposals for more accurate methods for prediction of stress ranges should be associatedwith re-examination of the value for m.

6.8.4. Internal forces and fatigue loadingsThe object of a calculation is usually to find the range or ranges of stress in a given material ata chosen cross-section, caused by a defined event; for example, the passage of a vehicle along

120

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

132Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:52:59

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 129: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Clause 6.8.4(1)

a beam. Loading other than the vehicle influences the extent of cracking in the concrete, and,hence, the stiffnesses of members. Cracking depends mainly on the heaviest previousloading, and so tends to increase with time. Clause 6.8.4(1) refers to a relevant clause inEurocode 2. This defines the non-cyclic loading assumed to co-exist with the design value ofthe cyclic load, Qfat: it is the ‘frequent’ combination, represented by

where the Qs are non-cyclic variable actions. Often, only one G and one Q are relevant, andthere is no prestress. The design combination is then

Gk + ψ1Qk + Qfat (D6.38)

Clause 6.8.4(2)Clause 6.8.4(2) defines symbols that are used for bending moments in clause 6.8.5.4. Thesign convention is evident from Fig. 6.26, which shows that MEd, max, f is the bending momentthat causes the greatest tension in the slab, and is positive. Clause 6.8.4(2) also refers tointernal forces, but does not give symbols. Analogous use of calculated tensile forces in aconcrete slab (e.g. NEd, max, f, etc.) may sometimes be necessary.

6.8.5. StressesClause 6.8.5.1(1)Clause 6.8.5.1(1) refers to a list of action effects in clause 7.2.1(1)P to be taken into account

‘where relevant’. They are all relevant, in theory, to the extent of cracking. However, this canusually be represented by the same simplified model, chosen from clause 5.4.2.3, that is usedfor other global analyses. They also influence the maximum value of the fatigue stress range,which is limited for each material (e.g. the limit for shear connectors in clause 6.8.1(3)). It isunusual for any of these limits to be reached in design for a building; but if there are highlystressed cross-sections where most of the variable action is cyclic, the maximum value shouldbe checked.

The provisions for fatigue are based on the assumption that the stress range caused by agiven fluctuation of loading, such as the passage of a vehicle of known weight, remainsapproximately constant after an initial shakedown period. ‘Shakedown’ here includes thechanges due to cracking, shrinkage and creep of concrete that occur mainly within the firstyear or two.

Most fatigue verifications are for load cycles with more than 104 repetitions. For thisnumber in a 50 year life, the mean cycle time is less than 2 days. Thus, load fluctuations slowenough to cause creep (e.g. from the use of a tank for storing fuel oil) are unlikely to benumerous enough to cause fatigue damage. This may not be so for industrial processes withdynamic effects, such as forging, or for the charging floor for a blast furnace, but otheruncertainties are likely to outweigh those from creep.

Clause 6.8.5.1(2)P

The short-term modular ratio should therefore be used when finding stress ranges fromthe cyclic action Qfat. Where a peak stress is being checked, creep from permanent loadingshould be allowed for, if it increases the relevant stress. This would apply, for example, formost verifications for the structural steel in a composite beam. The effect of tensionstiffening (clauses 6.8.5.1(2)P and 6.8.5.1(3)), is illustrated in Example 6.12, below.

Clause 6.8.5.1(3)The designer chooses a location where fatigue is most likely to govern. For a vehicletravelling along a continuous beam, the critical section for shear connection may be nearmid-span; for reinforcement, it is near an internal support.

The extent of a continuous structure that needs to be analysed depends on what is beingchecked. For a fatigue check on reinforcement it would be necessary to include at least twospans of the beam, and perhaps the two adjacent column lengths; but ranges of vertical shear,as the vehicle passes, are barely influenced by the rest of the structure, so for the shearconnection it may be possible to consider the beam in isolation.

For analysis, the linear-elastic method of Section 5 is used, from clause 6.8.4(1).Redistribution of moments is not permitted, clause 5.4.4(1). Calculation of range of stress, orof shear flow, from the action effects is based entirely on elastic theory, following clause 7.2.1.

121

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

k, 1, 1 k, 1 2, k,1 1

j i ij i

G P Q Qψ ψ≥ >

+ + +Â Â

133Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:00

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 130: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

Clause 6.8.5.1(4)For stresses in structural steel, the effects of tension stiffening may be included or

neglected (clause 6.8.5.1(4)).

ConcreteClause 6.8.5.2(1) For concrete, clause 6.8.5.2(1) refers to clause 6.8 of EN 1992-1-1, which provides (in clause

6.8.7) for concrete subjected to a damage equivalent stress range. For a building, fatigue ofconcrete is unlikely to influence design, so this clause is not discussed here.

Structural steelClause 6.8.5.3(1)Clause 6.8.5.3(2)

Clause 6.8.5.3(1) repeats, in effect, the concession in clause 6.8.5.1(4). Where the words ‘oronly MEd, min, f’ in clause 6.8.5.3(2) apply, MEd, max, f causes tension in the slab. The use of theuncracked section for MEd, max, f could then under-estimate the stress ranges in steel flanges.

ReinforcementFor reinforcement, clause 6.8.3(2) refers to EN 1992-1-1, where clause 6.8.4 gives theverification procedure. Its recommended value N* for straight bars is 106. This should not beconfused with the corresponding value for structural steel in EN 1993-1-9, 2 × 106, denotedNC, which is used also for shear connectors (clause 6.8.6.2(1)).

Using the γ values recommended in EN 1992-1-1, its equation (6.71) for verification ofreinforcement becomes

∆σE, equ(N*) £ ∆σRsk(N*)/1.15 (D6.39)

with ∆σRsk = 162.5 N/mm2 for N* = 106, from Table 6.4N.Where a range ∆σE(NE) has been determined, the resistance ∆σRsk(NE) can be found from

the S–N curve for reinforcement, and the verification is

∆σE(NE) £ ∆σRsk(NE)/1.15 (D6.40)

Clause 6.8.5.4(1) Clause 6.8.5.4(1) permits the use of the approximation to the effects of tension stiffeningthat is used for other limit states. It consists of adding to the maximum tensile stress in the‘fully cracked’ section, σs, 0, an amount ∆σs that is independent of σs, 0 and of the limit state.

Clause 6.8.5.4(2)Clause 6.8.5.4(3)

Clauses 6.8.5.4(2) and 6.8.5.4(3) give simplified rules for calculating stresses, withreference to Fig. 6.26, which is discussed using Fig. 6.41. This has the same axes, and alsoshows a minimum bending moment that causes compression in the slab. A calculated valuefor the stress σs in reinforcement, that assumes concrete to be effective, would lie on lineAOD. On initial cracking, the stress σs jumps from B to point E. Lines OBE are not shown inFig. 6.26 because clause 7.2.1(5)P requires the tensile strength of concrete to be neglected incalculations for σs. This gives line OE. For moments exceeding Mcr, the stress σs follows routeEFG on first loading. Calculation of σs using section property I2 gives line OC. At bendingmoment MEd, max, f the stress σs, 0 thus found is increased by ∆σs, from equation (7.5), as shownby line HJ.

Tension stiffening tends to diminish with repeated loading,93 so clause 6.8.5.4 defines theunloading route from point J as JOA, on which the stress σs, min, f lies. Points K and L givetwo examples, for MEd, min, f causing tension and compression, respectively, in the slab. Thefatigue stress ranges ∆σs, f for these two cases are shown.

Shear connectionClause 6.8.5.5(1)P

Clause 6.8.5.5(2)

The interpretation of clause 6.8.5.5(1)P is complex when tension stiffening is allowed for.Spacing of shear connectors near internal supports is unlikely to be governed by fatigue, so itis simplest to use uncracked section properties when calculating the range of shear flow fromthe range of vertical shear (clause 6.8.5.5(2)). These points are illustrated in Example 6.12.

6.8.6. Stress rangesClause 6.8.6.1 Clause 6.8.6.1 is more relevant to the complex cyclic loadings that occur in bridges than to

buildings, and relates to the provisions of EN 1992 and EN 1993. Where a spectrum

122

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

134Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:00

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 131: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

of loading is specified, the maximum and minimum stresses, as discussed above forreinforcement, are modified by the damage equivalent factor λ, a property of the spectrumand the exponent m (clause 6.8.3(3)). Comment and guidance will be found in the relevantguides in this series.

Clause 6.8.6.1(3)The need to combine global and local fatigue loading events (clause 6.8.6.1(3)), rarelyoccurs in buildings, and is outside of the scope of this guide.

Clause 6.8.6.2Where the design cyclic loading consists of a single load cycle repeated NE times, the

damage equivalent factor λv used in clause 6.8.6.2 on shear connection can be found using thePalmgren–Miner rule, as follows.

Let the load cycle cause a shear stress range ∆τ in a stud connector, for which m = 8.Then,

(∆τE)8NE = (∆τE, 2)8NC

where NC = 2 × 106 cycles. Hence,

∆τE, 2/∆τE = λv = (NE/NC)1/8 (D6.41)

6.8.7. Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress rangesClause 6.8.7.1Comment on the methods referred to from clause 6.8.7.1 will be found in other guides in this

series.Clause 6.8.7.2(1)For shear connectors, clause 6.8.7.2(1) introduces the partial factors. The recommended

value of γMf, s is 1.0 (clause 6.8.2(1)). For γFf, EN 1990 refers to the other Eurocodes. Therecommended value in EN 1992-1-1, clause 6.8.4(1), is 1.0. No value has been found inEN 1993-1-1 or EN 1993-1-9. Clause 9.3(1) of EN 1993-2 recommends 1.0 for bridges.

Clause 6.8.7.2(2)Clause 6.8.7.2(2) covers interaction between the fatigue failures of a stud and of the steelflange to which it is welded, when the flange is in tension. The first of expressions (6.57) is theverification for the flange, from clause 8(1) of EN 1993-1-9, and the second is for the stud,copied from equation (6.55). The linear interaction condition is given in expression (6.56).

It is necessary to calculate the longitudinal stress range in the steel flange that coexistswith the stress range for the connectors. The load cycle that gives the maximum value of∆σE, 2 in the flange will not, in general, be that which gives the maximum value of ∆τE, 2 in a

123

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

ss (tension)

D

C

G

0

L

Dss

ss, 0

ss, max, f

ss, min, f

B M

J

A

E

MEd, min, f

MEd, min, f MEd, max, f

F

Dss, f

K

H

Mcr

Fig. 6.41. Stress ranges in reinforcement in cracked regions

135Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:00

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 132: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

124

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

shear connector, because the first is caused by flexure and the second by shear. Also, both∆σE, 2 and ∆τE, 2 may be influenced by whether the concrete is cracked, or not.

It thus appears that expression (6.56) may have to be checked four times. In practice, it isbest to check first the conditions in expression (6.57). It should be obvious, for these, whetherthe ‘cracked’ or the ‘uncracked’ model is the more adverse. Usually, one or both of theleft-hand sides is so far below 1.0 that no check to expression (6.56) is needed.

Example 6.12: fatigue in reinforcement and shear connectionIt is assumed that the imposed floor load of 7.0 kN/m2 for the two-span beam in Examples6.7 and 7.1 is partly replaced by a cyclic load. The resistance to fatigue of thereinforcement at the internal support, point B in Figs 6.23 and 6.28, and of the shearconnection near the cyclic load are checked. All other data are as before.

Loading and global analysisThe cyclic load is a four-wheeled vehicle with two characteristic axle loads of 35 kN each.It travels at right angles to beam ABC, on a fixed path that is 2.0 m wide and free fromother variable loads. The axle spacing exceeds the beam spacing of 2.5 m, so eachpassage can be represented by two cycles of point load, 0–35–0 kN, applied at point Din Fig. 6.42(a). For a 25 year design life, 20 passages per hour for 5000 h/year givesNEd = 2.5 × 106 cycles of each point load. The partial factor γFf is taken as 1.0.

In comparison with Example 6.7, the reduction in static characteristic imposed load is7 × 2.5 × 2 = 35 kN, the same as the additional axle load, so previous global analyses forthe characteristic combination can be used. These led to the bending moments MEk atsupport B given in the four rows of Table 7.2. Those in rows 2 and 4 are unchanged, andMEk, B = 263 kN m for loading qk. Analysis for the load Qfat alone, with 15% of each spancracked, gave the results in Fig. 6.42(b), with 31 kN m at support B.

The frequent combination of non-cyclic imposed load is specified, for which ψ1 = 0.7.From Table 6.2, qk = 17.5 kN/m. Therefore, ψ1qk = 0.7 × 17.5 = 12.25 kN/m, acting onspan AB and on 10 m only of span BC, giving

MEk, B = 0.7 × (263 – 31) = 162 kN m

Table 6.5 gives

MEd, min, f = 18 + 162 + 120 = 300 kN m

12 4 1 1 6

Qfat = 35 kN

BA

0.7qk

D C

31

2.6 122.6 + 23

84

35

(b)

(a)

(c)

10.0 10.0

120

20.0

Fig. 6.42. Fatigue checks for a two-span beam. (a) Variable static and cyclic loads. (b) Design actioneffects, cyclic load. (c) Design action effects, shrinkage

136Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:01

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 133: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

125

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

From Fig. 6.42(b),

MEd, max, f = 300 + 31 = 331 kN m

Verification for reinforcement at cross-section BFrom equation (D7.5), the allowance for tension stiffening is ∆σs = 52 N/mm2. From σs, 0

given in Table 6.5,

σs, max, f = 201 + 52 = 253 N/mm2

From Fig. 6.41,

σs, min, f = 253 × 300/331 = 229 N/mm2

so

∆σs, f = 253 – 229 = 24 N/mm2

From clause 6.8.4 of EN 1992-1-1, for reinforcement,

m = 9 for NE > 106 N* = 106 ∆σRsk(N*) = 162.5 N/mm2

By analogy with equation (D6.41), the damage equivalent stress range for NEd = 5 × 106

cycles of stress range 24 N/mm2 is given by

249 × 5 × 106 = (∆σE, equ)9 × 106

whence

∆σE, equ = 29 N/mm2

Using equation (D6.40),

29 £ 162.5/1.15

so the reinforcement is verified.If the axle loads had been unequal, say 35 and 30 kN, the stress range for the lighter axle

would be a little higher than 24 × 30/35 = 20.6 N/mm2, because its line OJ in Fig. 6.41would be steeper. Assuming this stress range to be 21 N/mm2, the cumulative damagecheck, for γMf = 1.15, would be

2.5 × 106 × (249 + 219) £ (162.5/1.15)9 × 106

which is

8.6 × 1018 £ 2.25 × 1025

Verification for shear connection near point DVertical shear is higher on the left of point D in Fig. 6.42, than on the right. From Fig.6.42(b), ∆VEd, f = 23 kN for each axle load.

Table 6.5. Stresses in longitudinal reinforcement at support B

Action nLoad(kN/m)

MEk

(kN m)10–6Ws, cr

(mm3)σs, 0

(N/mm2)

Permanent, composite 20.2 1.2 18 1.65 11Variable, static (ψ1 = 0.7) 20.2 12.25 162 1.65 98Shrinkage 28.7 – 120 1.65 73Cyclic load 20.2 – 31 1.65 19

Totals 331 201

137Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:01

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 134: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:11

126

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

The maximum vertical shear at this point, including 10.0 kN from the secondary effectof shrinkage, Fig. 6.42(c), is 59.5 kN, Table 6.6. The shear forces VEd are found from theloads and values MEk in Table 6.5. The resulting maximum longitudinal shear flow, for theuncracked unreinforced composite section, is 110 kN/m, of which the cyclic part is43.2 kN/m.

Clause 6.8.1(3) limits the shear per connector under the characteristic combination to0.75PRd. For this combination, the shear flow from the non-cyclic variable action increasesby 19 from 44.7 to 44.7/0.7 = 63.9 kN/m, so the new total is 110 + 19 = 129 kN/m. Theshear connection (see Fig. 6.30), is 5 studs/m, with PRd = 51.2 kN/stud. Hence,

PEk/PRd = 129/(5 × 51.2) = 0.50

which is below the limit 0.75 in clause 6.8.1(3).The range of shear stress is

∆τE = 43 200/(5π × 9.52) = 30.5 N/mm2

The concrete is in density class 1.8. From clause 6.8.3(4),

∆τc = 90 × (1.8/2.2)2 = 60 N/mm2

From equation (D6.41),

∆τE, 2 = 30.5[5 × 106/(2 × 106)]1/8 = 34.2 N/mm2

As γMf, s = 1.0,

∆τc, d = 60 N/mm2

so the shear connection is verified.

Table 6.6. Fatigue of shear connectors near cross-section D

Action10–6Iy

(mm4)10–3Ac/n(mm2) z (mm) VEd (kN)

VEdAcz/nIy

(kN/m)

Permanent, composite 828 9.90 157 2.7 5.0Variable, static (ψ1 = 0.7) 828 9.90 157 23.8 44.7Shrinkage 741 6.97 185 10.0 17.4Cyclic load 828 9.90 157 23.0 43.2

Totals 59.5 110

138Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:01

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 135: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

CHAPTER 7

Serviceability limit states

This chapter corresponds to Section 7 of EN 1994-1-1, which has the following clauses:

• General Clause 7.1• Stresses Clause 7.2• Deformations in buildings Clause 7.3• Cracking of concrete Clause 7.4

7.1. GeneralSection 7 of EN 1994-1-1 is limited to provisions on serviceability that are specific tocomposite structures and are not in Sections 1, 2, 4, 5 (for global analysis) or 9 (for compositeslabs), or in Eurocodes 1990, 1991, 1992 or 1993. Some of these other, more generalprovisions are briefly referred to here. Further comments on them are in other chapters ofthis book, or in other handbooks in this series.

The initial design of a structure is usually based on the requirements for ultimate limitstates, which are specific and leave little to the judgement of the designer. Serviceability isthen checked. The consequences of unserviceability are less serious than those of reachingan ultimate limit state, and its occurrence is less easily defined. For example, a beam with animposed-load deflection of span/300 may be acceptable in some situations, but in others theclient may prefer to spend more on a stiffer beam.

The drafting of the serviceability provisions of the EN Eurocodes is intended to givedesigners and clients greater freedom to take account of factors such as the intended use of abuilding and the nature of its finishes.

The content of Section 7 was also influenced by the need to minimize calculations. Resultsalready obtained for ultimate limit states are scaled or re-used wherever possible. Experienceddesigners know that many structural elements satisfy serviceability criteria by wide margins.For these, design checks must be simple, and it does not matter if they are conservative. Forother elements, a longer but more accurate calculation may be justified. Some applicationrules therefore include alternative methods.

Clause 7.1(1)PClause 7.1(2)

Clauses 7.1(1)P and 7.1(2) refer to clause 3.4 of EN 1990. This gives criteria for placinga limit state within the ‘serviceability’ group, with reference to deformations (includingvibration), durability, and the functioning of the structure.

Serviceability verification and criteriaThe requirement for a serviceability verification is given in clause 6.5.1(1)P of EN 1990 as

Ed £ Cd

139Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:01

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 136: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

where Ed is the design value of the effects of the specified actions and the ‘relevant’combination, and Cd is the limiting design value of the ‘relevant’ criterion.

From clause 6.5.3 of EN 1990, the relevant combination is ‘normally’ the characteristic,frequent, or quasi-permanent combination, for serviceability limit states that are, respectively,irreversible, reversible or a consequence of long-term effects. The quasi-permanentcombination is also relevant for the appearance of the structure.

For buildings, these combinations are used with the partial safety factor 1.0, from clauseA1.4.1 of EN 1990, ‘unless differently specified’ in another Eurocode. There are no departuresfrom 1.0 in EN 1994-1-1. The same provision, with value 1.0, is given for partial safety factorsfor properties of materials, in clause 6.5.4(1) of EN 1990.

Clause A1.4.2 of EN 1990 refers to serviceability criteria relevant for buildings. These maybe defined in National Annexes, and should be specified for each project and agreed with theclient.

Clause A1.4.4 of EN 1990 says that possible sources of vibration and relevant aspects ofvibration behaviour should be considered for each project and agreed with the client and/orthe relevant authority. Further guidance may be found in the relevant Eurocode Part 2(bridges) and in specialized literature.

Comments on limits to crack width are given under clause 7.4.No serviceability limit state of ‘excessive slip of shear connection’ has been defined, but

the effect of slip is recognized in clause 7.3.1(4) on deflection of beams. Generally, it isassumed that design of shear connection for ultimate limit states ensures satisfactoryperformance in service, but composite slabs can be an exception. Relevant rules are given inclause 9.8.2.

No serviceability criteria are specified for composite columns, so, from here on, thischapter is referring to composite beams or, in some places, to composite frames.

7.2. StressesClause 7.2.1

Clause 7.2.2

Excessive stress is not itself a serviceability limit state, though stress calculations to clause7.2.1 are required for some verifications for deformation and cracking. For most buildings,no checks on stresses are required, clause 7.2.2. No stress limits for buildings are given inthe Eurocodes for concrete and steel structures, other than warnings in clause 7.2 ofEN 1992-1-1, with recommended stress limits in notes. The ‘bridge’ parts of these Eurocodesinclude stress limits, which may be applicable for buildings that have prestressing or fatigueloading.

7.3. Deformations in buildings7.3.1. DeflectionsGlobal analysisDeflections are influenced by the method of construction, and may govern design, especiallywhere beams designed as simpl- supported are built unpropped. For propped construction,props to beams should not be removed until all of the concrete that would then be stressedhas reached a strength equivalent to grade C20/25, from clause 6.6.5.2(4). Then, elasticglobal analysis to Section 5 is sufficient (clause 7.3.1(2)).

Clause 7.3.1(1)Where unpropped construction is used and beams are not designed as simply supported,

the analysis may be more complex than is revealed by the reference to EN 1993 in clause7.3.1(1). In a continuous beam or a frame, the deflection of a beam depends on how much ofthe structure is already composite when the slab for each span is cast. A simple and usuallyconservative method is to assume that the whole of the steel frame is erected first. Then, allof the concrete for the composite members is cast at once, its whole weight being carried bythe steelwork; but more realistic multi-stage analyses may be needed for a high-rise structureand for long-span beams.

128

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

140Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:02

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 137: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

Where falsework or re-usable formwork is supported from the steel beam, it will beremoved after the member becomes composite. The small locked-in stresses that result canusually be ignored in buildings, but not always in bridges.

Where first-order elastic global analysis was used for ultimate limit states (ULS), it maybe possible to obtain some of the results needed for serviceability limit states (SLS) bysimple scaling by the ratio of the relevant loads. This ratio will depend on the method ofconstruction, and also on which of the three serviceability load combinations is being usedfor the limit state considered.

As an example, suppose that for an unbraced frame at ULS, αcr = 8, so that second-orderglobal analysis was used, from clause 5.2.1(3). If most of the load on columns is fromsuspended floors, and these loads for SLS are 60% of those for ULS, the elastic critical loadwill be little altered, so for SLS, αcr ª 8/0.6 = 13. This exceeds 10, so first-order analysis canbe used.

Redistribution of moments is permitted for most framed structures at SLS by clause5.4.4(1), but the details in paragraphs (4) to (7) apply only to ULS. The relevant provisions inSection 7 are in clauses 7.3.1(6) and 7.3.1(7), discussed below.

Limits to deflection of beamsThe specification of a deflection limit for a long-span beam needs care, especially whereconstruction is unpropped and/or the steel beam is pre-cambered. Reference should bemade to the three components of deflection defined in clause A1.4.3 of EN 1990.

Clause 7.3.1(3)

Depending on circumstances, it may be necessary to set limits to any one of them, or tomore than one, related to a defined load level. Prediction of long-term values should takeaccount of creep of concrete, based on the quasi-permanent combination, and may need toallow for shrinkage. Where precast floor units are used, it must be decided whether theyshould be cambered to compensate for creep. Clause 7.3.1(3) relates to the use of falseceilings, which conceal the sagging of a beam due to dead loading.

Longitudinal slipClause 7.3.1(4)Clause 7.3.1(4) refers to the additional deflection caused by slip at the interface between

steel and concrete. Its three conditions all apply. Condition (b) relates to the minimum valueof the degree of shear connection, η, given as 0.4 in clause 6.6.1.2(1), and gives a higher limit,0.5.

For use where the design is such that 0.4 £ η < 0.5, ENV 1994-1-149 gave the followingequation for the additional deflection due to partial interaction:

δ = δc + α(δa – δc)(1 – η) (D7.1)

where α = 0.5 for propped construction and 0.3 for unpropped construction, δa is thedeflection of the steel beam acting alone, and δc is the deflection for the composite beam withcomplete interaction; both δa and δc are calculated for the design loading for the compositemember. The method comes from a summary of pre-1975 research on this subject,94 whichalso gives results of relevant tests and parametric studies. Other methods are also available.95

Cracking in global analysis

Clause 7.3.1(5)

Apart from the different loading, global analysis for serviceability differs little from that foran ultimate limit state. Clause 5.4.1.1(2) requires ‘appropriate corrections’ for cracking ofconcrete, and clause 7.3.1(5) says that clause 5.4.2.3 applies. Clause 5.4.2.3(2) permits the useof the same distribution of beam stiffnesses at SLS as for ULS. Clauses 5.4.2.3(3) to5.4.2.3(5) also apply, including the reference in clause 5.4.2.3(4) to a method given in Section6 for the effect of cracking on the stiffness of composite columns.

Clause 7.3.1(6)

In the absence of cracking, continuous beams in buildings can often be assumed to be ofuniform section within each span, which simplifies global analysis. Cracking reduces bendingmoments at internal supports to an extent that can be estimated by the method of clause

129

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

141Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:02

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 138: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

7.3.1(6), based on Stark and van Hove.95 The maximum deflection of a given span normallyoccurs when no imposed load acts on adjacent spans. The conditions for the use of curve A inFig. 7.1 are then not satisfied, and the method consists simply of reducing all ‘uncracked’moments at internal supports by 40%.

Using the new end moments, Mh1 and Mh2, say, the maximum deflection can be foundeither by elastic theory for the span, of uncracked flexural stiffness EaI1, or by an approximatemethod given in BS 5950-3-1.31 This consists of multiplying the deflection for the simply-supported span by the factor

1 – 0.6(Mh1 + Mh2)/M0 (D7.2)

where M0 is the maximum sagging moment in the beam when it is simply supported.

Yielding of steel

Clause 7.3.1(7)

In continuous beams built unpropped, with steel beams in Class 1 or 2, it is possible thatserviceability loading may cause yielding at internal supports. This is permitted for beams inbuildings, but it causes additional deflection, which should be allowed for. Clause 7.3.1(7)provides a method. The bending moments at internal supports are found by elastic analysis,with allowance for effects of cracking. The two values given in the clause for factors f2

correspond to different checks. The first is for dead load only: wet concrete on a steel beam.According to the UK’s draft National Annex to EN 1990,96 the load combination to be

used for the second check depends on the functioning of the structure. It may be thecharacteristic, frequent or quasi-permanent combination, with the load additional to that forthe first check acting on the composite beam. For each analysis, appropriate assumptions areneeded for the adjacent spans, on their loading and on the state of construction.

Local bucklingThis does not influence stiffnesses for elastic analysis except for Class 4 sections. For these,clause 5.4.1.1(6) refers to clause 2.2 in EN 1993-1-5, which gives a design rule.

Shrinkage

Clause 7.3.1(8)In principle, shrinkage effects appear in all load combinations. For SLS, clause 5.4.2.2(7)refers to Section 7, where clause 7.3.1(8) enables effects of shrinkage on deflections of beamsto be ignored for span/depth ratios up to 20. In more slender beams, shrinkage deflectionsare significantly reduced by provision of continuity at supports.

TemperatureClause 5.4.2.5(2), on neglect of temperature effects, does not apply. For buildings, neither ψ0

nor ψ1 is given as zero in clause A1.2.2 of EN 1990 (nor in the UK’s draft National Annex toBS EN 199096), so if temperature effects are relevant at ULS, they should be included in allSLS combinations except quasi-permanent.

Welded meshClause 5.5.1(6) gives conditions for the inclusion of welded mesh in the effective section,within the rules for classification of sections.

7.3.2. Vibration

Clause 7.3.2(1)

Limits to vibration in buildings are material-independent, and vibration is in clause A1.4.4of EN 1990, not in EN 1994. Composite floor systems are lighter and have less inherentdamping than their equivalents in reinforced concrete. During their design, dynamicbehaviour should be checked against the criteria in EN 1990 referred to from clause 7.3.2(1).These are general, and advise that the lowest natural frequency of vibration of the structureor member should be kept above a value to be agreed with the client and/or the relevantauthority. No values are given for either limiting frequencies or damping coefficients.

130

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

142Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:02

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 139: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

More specific guidance can be found in EN 1991-1-1 and the extensive literature on thissubject.97,98 These sources refer to several criteria that are likely to be specific to theindividual project, and, with other aspects, should be agreed with the client. A note to clause7.2.3 of EN 1993-1-1 says that limits to vibration of floors may be specified in a NationalAnnex.

7.4. Cracking of concrete7.4.1. GeneralIn the early 1980s it was found44,99 that for composite beams in hogging bending, thelong-established British methods for control of crack width were unreliable for initial cracks,which were wider than predicted. Before this, it had been found for reinforced concrete thatthe appropriate theoretical model for cracking caused by restraint of imposed deformationwas different from that for cracking caused by applied loading. This has led to the presentationof design rules for control of cracking as two distinct procedures:

• for minimum reinforcement, in clause 7.4.2, for all cross-sections that could be subjectedto significant tension by imposed deformations (e.g. by effects of shrinkage, which causehigher stresses than in reinforced concrete, because of restraint from the steel beam)

• for reinforcement to control cracking due to direct loading (clause 7.4.3).

The rules given in EN 1994-1-1 are based on an extensive and quite complex theory,supported by testing on hogging regions of composite beams.99,100 Much of the originalliterature is in German, so a detailed account of the theory has recently been publishedin English,101 with comparisons with results of tests on composite beams, additional tothose used originally. The paper includes derivations of the equations given in clause 7.4,comments on their scope and underlying assumptions, and procedures for estimating themean width and spacing of cracks. These are tedious, and so are not in EN 1994-1-1. Itsmethods are simple: Tables 7.1 and 7.2 give maximum diameters and spacings of reinforcingbars for three design crack widths: 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 mm.

Tables 7.1 and 7.2 are for ‘high-bond’ bars only. This means ribbed bars with properties asin clause 3.2.2(2)P of EN 1992-1-1. The use of reinforcement other than ribbed is outside thescope of the Eurocodes.

Clause 7.4.1(1)The references to EN 1992-1-1 in clause 7.4.1(1) give the surface crack-width limitsrequired for design. Concrete in tension in a composite beam or slab for a building willusually be in exposure class XC3, for which the recommended limit is 0.3 mm; however, forspaces with low or very low air humidity, Tables 4.1 and 7.1N of EN 1992-1-1 recommend alimit of 0.4 mm. The limits are more severe for prestressed members, which are not discussedfurther. The severe environment for a floor of a multistorey car park is discussed in Chapter4. All these limits may be modified in a National Annex.

Clause 7.4.1(2)Clause 7.4.1(2) refers to ‘estimation’ of crack width, using EN 1992-1-1. This rather longprocedure is rarely needed, and does not take full account of the following differencesbetween the behaviours of composite beams and reinforced concrete T-beams. The steelmember in a composite beam does not shrink or creep and has much greater flexuralstiffness than the reinforcement in a concrete beam. Also, the steel member is attachedto the concrete flange only by discrete connectors that are not effective until there islongitudinal slip, whereas in reinforced concrete there is monolithic connection.

Clause 7.4.1(3)Clause 7.4.1(3) refers to the methods developed for composite members, which are easierto apply than the methods for reinforced concrete members.

Uncontrolled crackingClause 7.3.1(4) of EN 1992-1-1 (referred to from clause 7.4.1(1)) permits crackingof uncontrolled width in some circumstances; for example, beams designed as simplysupported, with a concrete top flange that is continuous over ‘simple’ beam-to-column

131

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

143Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:02

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 140: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

Clause 7.4.1(4)

connections. These are flexible in bending, and rotate about a point that cannot bepredicted, as its position depends on tolerances and methods of erection of the steelwork. Itmay then be impossible to predict the widths of cracks. Where the environment is dry and theconcrete surface is concealed by a flexible finish, such as carpeting, crack widths exceeding0.4 mm may be acceptable. Even so, the minimum reinforcement required (for otherreasons) by EN 1992-1-1 may be inadequate to prevent the fracture of small-diameter barsnear internal supports, or the formation of very wide cracks. Minimum areas greater thanthose of EN 1992-1-1 are therefore specified in clause 7.4.1(4) and, for composite slabs, inclause 9.8.1(2).

The maximum thicknesses of slab that can be reinforced by one layer of standard weldedfabric, according to these rules, are given in Table 7.1. For composite slabs, the relevantthickness is that above the profiled steel sheeting.

The maximum spacing of flexural reinforcement permitted by clause 9.3.1.1(3) ofEN 1992-1-1 is 3h, but not exceeding 400 mm, where h is the total depth of the slab. This ruleis for solid slabs. It is not intended for slabs formed with profiled steel sheeting, for which amore appropriate rule is that given in clause 9.2.1(5): spacing not exceeding 2h (and£ 350 mm) in both directions, where h is the overall thickness of the slab, including ribs ofcomposite slabs.

7.4.2. Minimum reinforcement

Clause 7.4.2(1)

The only data needed when using Tables 7.1 and 7.2 are the tensile stresses in thereinforcement, σs. For minimum reinforcement, σs is the stress immediately after initialcracking. It is assumed that the curvature of the steel beam does not change, so all of thetensile force in the concrete just before cracking is transferred to the reinforcement, of areaAs. If the slab were in uniform tension, equation (7.1) in clause 7.4.2(1) would be

Asσs = Act fct, eff

The three correction factors in equation (7.1) are based on calibration work.102 These allowfor the non-uniform stress distribution in the area Act of concrete assumed to crack.‘Non-uniform self-equilibrating stresses’ arise from primary shrinkage and temperatureeffects, which cause curvature of the composite member. Slip of the shear connection alsocauses curvature and reduces the tensile force in the slab.

The magnitude of these effects depends on the geometry of the uncracked compositesection, as given by equation (7.2). With experience, calculation of kc can often be omitted,because it is less than 1.0 only where z0 < 1.2hc. Especially for beams supporting compositeslabs, the depth of the ‘uncracked’ neutral axis below the bottom of the slab (excluding ribs)normally exceeds about 70% of the slab thickness, and then, kc = 1.

For design, the design crack width and thickness of the slab, hc will be known. It will beevident whether there should be one layer of reinforcement or two. Two layers will oftenconsist of bars of the same size and spacing, which satisfies clause 7.4.2(3). For a chosen bardiameter φ, Table 7.1 gives σs, and equation (7.1) gives the bar spacing. If this is too high orlow, φ is changed.

132

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Table 7.1. Use of steel fabric as minimum reinforcement, to clause 7.4.1(4)

Bar size and spacingCross-sectional area(mm2 per m width)

Maximum thickness of slab (mm)

Unpropped, 0.2% Propped, 0.4%

6 mm, 200 mm 142 71 –7 mm, 200 mm 193 96 488 mm, 200 mm 252 126 63

144Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:03

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 141: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

A typical relationship between slab thickness hc, bar spacing s and bar diameter φ is shownin Fig. 7.1. It is for two similar layers of bars, with kc = 1 and fct, eff = 3.0 N/mm2. Equation(7.1) then gives, for a slab of breadth b,

(πφ2/4)(2b/s) = 0.72 × 3bhc/σs

Hence,

hc s = 0.727φ2σs (D7.3)

For each bar diameter and a given crack width, Table 7.1 gives φ2σs, so the product hcs isknown. This is plotted in Fig. 7.1, for wk = 0.3 mm, as curves of bar spacing for four slabthicknesses, which can of course also be read as slab thicknesses for four bar spacings. Theshape of the curves results partly from the use of rounded values of σs in Table 7.1. Theoptional correction to minimum reinforcement given in clause 7.4.2(2) is negligible here, andhas not been made. Figure 7.1 can be used for slabs with one layer of bars by halving the slabthickness.

The weight of minimum reinforcement, per unit area of slab, is proportional to φ2/s, whichis proportional to σs

–1, from equation (D7.3). This increases with bar diameter, from Table7.1, so the use of smaller bars reduces the weight of minimum reinforcement. This is becausetheir greater surface area provides more bond strength.

Clause 7.4.2(2)

The method of clause 7.4.2(1) is not intended for the control of early thermal cracking,which can occur in concrete a few days old, if the temperature rise caused by the heat ofhydration is excessive. The flanges of composite beams are usually too thin for this to occur.It would not be correct, therefore, to assume a very low value for fct, eff. The suggested value,3 N/mm2, was probably rounded from the mean 28 day tensile strength of grade C30/37concrete, given in EN 1992-1-1 as 2.9 N/mm2 – the value used as the basis for the optionalcorrection given in clause 7.4.2(2). The difference between 2.9 and 3.0 is obviously negligible.If there is good reason to assume a value for fct, eff such that the correction is not negligible, itis best used by assuming a standard bar diameter φ, calculating φ*, and then finding σs byinterpolation in Table 7.1.

133

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

100

200

300

400

0

hc = 100 mm150

200

300

5 6 8 10 12 16 20f (mm)

s (mm)

Fig. 7.1. Bar diameter and spacing for minimum reinforcement in two equal layers, for wk = 0.3 mmand fct, eff = 3.0 N/mm2

145Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:03

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 142: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

Reinforcement for encasement of a steel webClause 7.4.2(6) Clause 7.4.2(6) gives a minimum value of As/Act for encasement of the type shown in Fig. 6.1.

The maximum bar size is not specified. Detailing of this reinforcement is usually determinedby the requirements of clause 5.5.3(2) and of EN 1994-1-2, for fire resistance.

7.4.3. Control of cracking due to direct loadingClause 7.4.3(2) Clause 7.4.3(2) specifies elastic global analysis to Section 5, allowing for the effects of

cracking. The preceding comments on global analysis for deformations apply also to thisanalysis for bending moments in regions with concrete in tension.

Clause 7.4.3(3)

Paragraph (4) on loading should come next, but it is placed last in clause 7.4.3 because ofthe drafting rule that ‘general’ paragraphs precede those ‘for buildings’. It specifies thequasi-permanent combination. Except for storage areas, the values of factors ψ2 for floorloads in buildings are typically 0.3 or 0.6. The bending moments will then be much less thanfor the ultimate limit state, especially for cross-sections in Class 1 or 2 in beams builtunpropped. There is no need to reduce the extent of the cracked regions below that assumedfor global analysis, so the new bending moments for the composite members can be found byscaling values found for ultimate loadings. At each cross-section, the area of reinforcementwill be already known: that required for ultimate loading or the specified minimum, ifgreater; so the stresses σs, 0 (clause 7.4.3(3)) can be found.

Tension stiffeningA correction for tension stiffening is now required. At one time, these effects were not wellunderstood. It was thought that, for a given tensile strain at the level of the reinforcement,the total extension must be the extension of the concrete plus the width of the cracks, so thatallowing for the former reduced the latter. The true behaviour is more complex.

The upper part of Fig. 7.2 shows a single crack in a concrete member with a centralreinforcing bar. At the crack, the external tensile force N causes strain εs2 = N/AsEa in thebar, and the strain in the concrete is the free shrinkage strain εcs, which is negative, as shown.There is a transmission length Le each side of the crack, within which there is transfer ofshear between the bar and the concrete. Outside this length, the strain in both the steel andthe concrete is εs1, and the stress in the concrete is fractionally below its tensile strength.

134

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Le Le

N N

es2

esm

ec(x)

es(x)

x

es1

ecm

ecs

Tensile strain

0

Fig. 7.2. Strain distributions near a crack in a reinforced concrete tension member

146Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:03

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 143: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

Within the length 2Le, the curves εs(x) and εc(x) give the strains in the two materials, withmean strains εsm in the bar and εcm in the concrete.

It is now assumed that the graph represents the typical behaviour of a reinforcing bar in acracked concrete flange of a composite beam, in a region of constant bending moment suchthat the crack spacing is 2Le. The curvature of the steel beam is determined by the meanstiffness of the slab, not the fully cracked stiffness, and is compatible with the meanlongitudinal strain in the reinforcement, εsm.

Midway between the cracks, the strain is the cracking strain of the concrete,corresponding to a stress less than 30 N/mm2 in the bar. Its peak strain, at the crack, is muchgreater than εsm, but less than the yield strain, if crack widths are not to exceed 0.4 mm. Thecrack width corresponds to this higher strain, not to the strain εsm that is compatible with thecurvature, so a correction to the strain is needed. It is presented in clause 7.4.3(3) as acorrection to the stress σs, 0 because that is easily calculated, and Tables 7.1 and 7.2 are basedon stress. The strain correction cannot be shown in Fig. 7.1 because the stress σs, 0 iscalculated using the ‘fully cracked’ stiffness, and so relates to a curvature greater than thetrue curvature. The derivation of the correction101 takes account of crack spacings less than2Le, the bond properties of reinforcement, and other factors omitted from this simplifiedoutline.

The section properties needed for the calculation of the correction ∆σs will usually beknown. For the composite section, A is needed to find I, which is used in calculating σs, 0, andAa and Ia are standard properties of the steel section. The result is independent of themodular ratio. For simplicity, αst may conservatively be taken as 1.0, because AI > Aa Ia.

When the stress σs at a crack has been found, the maximum bar diameter or the maximumspacing are found from Tables 7.1 and 7.2. Only one of these is needed, as the known area ofreinforcement then gives the other. The correction of clause 7.4.2(2) does not apply.

Influence of profiled sheeting on the control of crackingThe only references to profiled steel sheeting in clause 7.4 are in clause 7.4.1(4), ‘… noaccount should be taken of any profiled steel sheeting’, and in the definition of hc in clause7.4.2(1), ‘… thickness … excluding any haunch or ribs’.

The effects of the use of profiled sheeting for a slab that forms the top flange of acontinuous composite beam are as follows:

• there is no need for control of crack widths at the lower surface of the slab• where the sheeting spans in the transverse direction, there is at present no evidence that

it contributes to the control of transverse cracks at the top surface of the slab• where the sheeting spans parallel to the beam, it probably contributes to crack control,

but no research on this subject is known to the authors.

For design, the definition of ‘effective tension area’ in clause 7.3.4(2) of EN 1992-1-1should be noted. A layer of reinforcement at depth c + φ/2 below the top surface of the slab,where c is the cover, may be assumed to influence cracking over a depth 2.5(c + φ/2) of theslab. If the depth of the concrete above the top of the sheeting, hc, is greater than this, itwould be reasonable to use the lower value, when calculating As from equation (7.1). Thisrecognizes the ability of the sheeting to control cracking in the lower half of the slab, and hasthe effect of reducing the minimum amount of reinforcement required, for the thickercomposite slabs

General comments on clause 7.4In regions where tension in concrete may arise from shrinkage or temperature effects, butnot from other actions, the minimum reinforcement required may exceed that provided inprevious practice.

Where unpropped construction is used for a continuous beam, the design loading forchecking cracking is usually much less than that for the ultimate limit state, so that thequantity of reinforcement provided for resistance to load should be sufficient to control

135

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

147Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:04

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 144: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

cracking. The main use of clause 7.4.3 is then to check that the spacing of the bars is not toogreat.

Where propped construction is used, the disparity between the design loadings for the twolimit states is smaller. If cracks are to be controlled to 0.3 mm, a check to clause 7.4.3 is morelikely to influence the reinforcement required.

For beams in frames, the preceding comments apply where semi-rigid or rigid connectionsare used. Where floors have brittle finishes or an adverse environment, simple beam-to-column joints should not be used, because effective control of crack width may notbe possible.

Example 7.1: two-span beam (continued) – SLSDetails of this beam are shown in Fig. 6.23. All of the design data and calculations for theultimate limit state are given in Examples 6.7 to 6.12. For data and results required here,reference should be made to:

• Table 6.2, for characteristic loads per unit length• Table 6.3, for elastic properties of the cross-sections at the internal support (B in

Fig. 6.23(c)) and at mid-span• Table 6.4, for bending moments at support B for uniform loading on both spans• Fig. 6.28, for bending-moment diagrams for design ultimate loadings, excluding the

effects of shrinkage.

The secondary effects of shrinkage are significant in this beam, and cause a hoggingbending moment at support B of 120 kN m (Example 6.7). Clause 7.3.1(8) does not permitshrinkage to be ignored for serviceability checks on this beam, because it does not refer tolightweight-aggregate concrete, which is used here.

StressesFrom clause 7.2.2(1), there are no limitations on stress; but stresses in the steel beam needto be calculated, because if yielding occurs under service loads, account should be taken ofthe resulting increase in deflections, from clause 7.3.1(7).

Yielding is irreversible, so, from a note to clause 6.5.3(2) of EN 1990, it should bechecked for the characteristic load combination. However, the loading for checkingdeflections depends on the serviceability requirement.96

The maximum stress in the steel beam occurs in the bottom flange at support B. Resultsfor the characteristic combination with variable load on both spans and 15% of each spancracked are given in Table 7.2. The permanent load, other than floor finishes, is assumedto act on the steel beam alone. Following clause 5.4.2.2(11), the modular ratio is taken as20.2 for all of the loading except shrinkage.

136

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Table 7.2. Hogging bending moments at support B and stresses in the steel bottom flange, for thecharacteristic load combination

Loadingw(kN/m)

Modularratio

10–6Iy, B

(mm4)MEk, B

(kN m)10–6Wa, bot

(mm3)σa, bot

(N/mm2)

(1) Permanent (onsteel beam)

5.78 – 337 104 1.50 69

(2) Permanent (oncomposite beam)

1.2 20.2 467 18 1.75 10

(3) Variable 17.5 20.2 467 263 1.75 150(4) Shrinkage – 28.7 467 120 1.75 69

148Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:04

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 145: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

The total bottom-flange compressive stress is

σEk, bot, a = 298 N/mm2 (= 0.84fy)

so no allowance is needed for yielding.

DeflectionsThe maximum deflection of span AB of the beam will occur at about 4.8 m from A (40%of the span), when variable load acts on span AB only. The additional deflection caused byslip of the shear connection is ignored, as clause 7.3.1(4)(a) is satisfied.

Calculated deflections at this point, with 15% of each span assumed to be cracked, aregiven in Table 7.3. The frequent combination is used, for which ψ1 = 0.7, so the variableloading is

0.7 × 17.5 = 12.3 kN/m

The following method was used for the shrinkage deflections. From Example 6.7 andFig. 6.27, the primary effect is uniform sagging curvature at radius R = 1149 m, withdeflection δ = 45.3 mm at support B. The secondary reaction at B is 20 kN. From thegeometry of the circle, the primary deflection at point E in Fig. 7.3(a) is

δ1, E = 45.3 – 5.42 × 1000 × (2 × 1149) = 33 mm

The upwards displacement at E caused by the 20 kN reaction at B that moves point B¢back to B was found to be 26 mm by elastic analysis of the model shown in Fig. 7.3(b), with15% of each span cracked. The total shrinkage deflection is only 7 mm, despite the highfree shrinkage strain, but would not be negligible in a simply-supported span.

The total deflection, 31 mm, is span/390. This ratio appears not to be excessive.However, the functioning of the floor may depend on its maximum deflection relative tothe supporting columns. It is found in Example 9.1 that the deflection of the compositeslab, if cast unpropped, is 15 mm for the frequent combination. This is relative to thesupporting beams, so the maximum floor deflection is

137

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

(a)

R

45.3

5.4

33E

1.810.2

B'

BA

A

26 mm

20 kN

10 kN10 kN

45.3 mm

BE

(b)

Fig. 7.3. Sagging deflection at point E caused by shrinkage

Table 7.3. Deflections at 4.8 m from support A, for the frequent combination

Load Modular ratio Deflection (mm)

Dead, on steel beam – 9Dead, on composite beam 20.2 1Imposed, on composite beam 20.2 14Primary shrinkage 27.9 33Secondary shrinkage 27.9 –26

149Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:04

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 146: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

31 + 15 = 46 mm

or span/260. For the characteristic combination, this increases to

37 + 16 = 53 mm

or span/230.The limiting deflections given in the UK’s draft National Annex to EN 199096 depend

on the serviceability requirement. For floors with partitions, they range from span/300to span/500. For this floor, some combination of using propped construction for thecomposite slabs and/or the beams, and cambering the beams, will be necessary.

Reducing the modular ratio for imposed loading to 10.1 makes little difference: thevalue 14 mm in Table 7.3 becomes 12 mm. The extensive calculations for shrinkage leadto a net deflection of only 7 mm, because the secondary effect cancels out most of theprimary effect. This benefit would not occur, of course, in a simply-supported span.

Control of crack widthClause 7.4 applies to reinforced concrete that forms part of a composite member. Inthe beam considered here, the relevant cracks are those near support B caused byhogging bending of the beam, and cracks along the beam caused by hogging bending ofthe composite slab that the beam supports. The latter are treated in Example 9.1 ona composite slab.

Clause 7.4.1(1) refers to exposure classes. From clause 4.2(2) of EN 1992-1-1, ClassXC3 is appropriate for concrete ‘inside buildings with moderate humidity’. For this class,a note to clause 7.3.1(5) of EN 1992-1-1 gives the design crack width as 0.3 mm. Themethod of clause 7.4.1(3) is followed, as clause 7.4.1(4) does not apply.

Minimum reinforcementThe relevant cross-section of the concrete flange is as shown in Fig. 6.23(a), except thateffective widths up to 2.5 m should be considered.

From clause 5.4.1.2, the effective width is assumed to increase from 1.6 m at support Bto 2.5 m at sections more than 3 m from B. It may be difficult to show that sections 3 mfrom B are never ‘subjected to significant tension’ (clause 7.4.2(1)). Calculations aretherefore done for both effective widths, assuming uncracked unreinforced concrete.From the definition of z0 in that clause, n0 = 10.1.

It is found for both of these flange widths that z0 is such that kc > 1, so, from equation(7.2), it is taken as 1.0.

A value is required for the strength of the concrete when cracks first occur. Asunpropped construction is used, there is at first little load on the composite member,so from clause 7.4.2(1), conservatively, fct, eff = 3.0 N/mm2. Assuming that 10 mm barsare used for the minimum reinforcement, Table 7.1 gives σs = 320 N/mm2. Then, fromequation (7.1),

100As/Act = 100 × 0.9 × 1 × 0.8 × 3.0/320 = 0.675%

However, clause 5.5.1(5) also sets a limit, as a condition for the use of plastic resistancemoments. For this concrete, flctm = 2.32 N/mm2, and fsk = 500 N/mm2. Hence, fromequation (5.8) with kc = 1.0,

100ρs = 100 × (355/235)(2.32/500) = 0.70% (D7.4)

This limit governs; so for a slab 80 mm thick above the sheeting the minimumreinforcement is

As, min = 7 × 80 = 560 mm2/m

One layer of 10 mm bars at 125 mm spacing provides 628 mm2/m.

138

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

150Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:04

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 147: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:14

Cracking due to direct loadingOnly the most critical cross-section, at support B, will be considered. Clause 7.4.3(4)permits the use of the quasi-permanent combination, for which the variable loading isψ2qk, with ψ2 = 0.6, from clause A1.2.2(1) of EN 1990.From Table 7.2, the bending moment at B that stresses the reinforcement is

ME, qp, B = 18 + 263 × 0.6 + 127 = 303 kN m

The neutral axis for the cracked section is 313 mm below the top of the slab (Table6.12), so the section modulus for reinforcement at depth 30 mm is

10–6Ws = 467/(313 – 30) = 1.65 mm3

Hence, from clause 7.4.3(3),

σs, 0 = 303/1.65 = 184 N/mm2

The correction for tension stiffening, equation (7.5), is now calculated, assumingthat the reinforcement used in Example 6.7, 12 mm bars at 125 mm spacing, will besatisfactory. This gives ρs = 0.0113.

Using values obtained earlier,

αst = AI/Aa Ia = 11 350 × 467/(9880 × 337) = 1.59

From equation (7.5),

∆σs = 0.4 × 2.32/(1.59 × 0.0113) = 52 N/mm2 (D7.5)

From equation (7.4),

σs = 184 + 52 = 236 N/mm2

From Table 7.1, φs £ 16 mm. From Table 7.2, the bar spacing £ 200 mm.The use of 12 mm bars at 125 mm spacing at support B satisfies both conditions.

Finding the cross-sections of the beam at which this reinforcement can be reduced to theminimum found above may require consideration of the bending-moment envelopes bothfor ultimate loads and for the quasi-permanent combination.

139

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

151Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:04

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 148: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

CHAPTER 8

Composite joints in frames forbuildings

This chapter corresponds to Section 8 of EN 1994-1-1, which has the following clauses:

• Scope Clause 8.1• Analysis, modelling and classification Clause 8.2• Design methods Clause 8.3• Resistance of components Clause 8.4

8.1. Scope

Clause 8.1(1)

Section 8 is based on relatively recent research on beam-to-column and beam-to-beam jointsof the types used in steel and composite frames for buildings, so its scope has been limited to‘frames for buildings’. The definition of composite joints to which clause 8.1(1) refersincludes joints with reinforced concrete members. These could occur, for example, in a towerblock with a concrete core and composite floors. However, no application rules are given forsuch joints.

Clause 8.1(2)As stated in clause 8.1(2), both Section 8 and Annex A are essentially extensions to theEurocode for joints between steel members, EN 1993-1-8.24 It is assumed that a user will befamiliar with this code, especially its Sections 5 and 6.

The only steel members considered in detail are I- and H-sections, which may haveconcrete-encased webs. Plate girders are not excluded.

The application rules of EN 1994-1-1 are limited to composite joints in whichreinforcement is in tension and the lower part of the steel section is in compression (Fig. 8.1and clause 8.4.1(1)). There are no application rules for joints where the axes of the membersconnected do not intersect, or do so at angles other than 90°; but the basic approach is moregeneral than the procedures prescribed in detail, and is capable of application in a widerrange of situations.

Many types of joint are in use in steelwork, so that EN 1993-1-8 is around 130 pages long.The majority of the calculations needed for composite joints are specified there, andexplained in the relevant guide in this series.103 The worked examples and much of thecomment in the present guide are limited to a single type of joint – the double-sidedconfiguration shown in Fig. 8.1 – but with an end plate, not a contact plate, and an uncasedcolumn, as shown on the left of Fig. 8.1 and in Fig. 8.8.

Commentary on the design of this joint will be found, as appropriate, in this chapter and itsexamples, and in Chapter 10 on Annex A.

Before the Eurocodes come into regular use, it is expected that tables of resistances andstiffnesses of a wide range of steel and composite joints will become available, based on

153Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:05

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 149: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

EN 1993 and EN 1994. The extensive calculations given here will rarely be needed. Many ofthem serve to show that a particular property of a joint does not govern its resistance.Experience will enable such checks to be omitted.

Detailed guidance on the Eurocode methods for composite joints appeared in 1998, in thecontext of design to British codes.104 An explanation of the provisions and approximations inthe Eurocodes, with worked examples, was then prepared, mainly by those who drafted thecodes. Its first edition39 refers to the draft codes as they were in 1998, so some differences,mainly in symbols, will be found between it and the published EN Eurocodes. With over 200pages, it provides much broader coverage than is possible here.

8.2. Analysis, including modelling and classificationClause 8.2.1(1) Clause 8.2.1(1) refers to Section 5 of EN 1993-1-8, which covers the same subjects as clause

8.2. Table 5.1 in clause 5.1 of EN 1993-1-8 defines the links between the three types of globalanalysis, elastic, rigid plastic, and elastic–plastic, and the types of models used for joints. Thisenables the designer to determine whether the stiffness of the joint, its resistance, or bothproperties, are relevant to the analysis.

Joints are classified in Section 5 by stiffness, as rigid, nominally pinned, or semi-rigid; andby strength as full-strength, nominally pinned, or partial-strength. This classification relatesthe property of the joint (stiffness or resistance) to that of the connected member, normallytaken as the beam.

Clause 8.2.2(1) This applies also to composite joints. The only modification, in clause 8.2.2(1), concernsthe rotational stiffness of a joint, Sj. This is bending moment per unit rotation, shown in Fig.8.2(b). The symbol φ is used for rotation, as well as for bar diameter.

The initial elastic stiffness, Sj, ini, is reduced at high bending moments to allow for inelasticbehaviour. For global analysis, it is divided by η, values of which, between 3.0 and 3.5, aretabulated in clause 5.1.2 of EN 1993-1-8 for various types of steel joint. These apply wherethe joint is composite. Clause 8.2.2(1) provides a further value, for contact-plate joints, asshown on the right of Fig. 8.1 and in Fig. 8.4.

Clause 8.2.3(2)

The classification of a composite joint may depend on the direction of the bendingmoment (e.g. sagging or hogging). This is unlikely in a steelwork joint, and so is referred to inclause 8.2.3(2).

Clause 8.2.3(3) The reference in clause 8.2.3(3) to neglect of cracking and creep applies only to theclassification of the joint according to stiffness. Its initial stiffness is to be compared with thatof the connected beam, using Fig. 5.4 of EN 1993-1-8. The stiffer the beam the less likely it isthat the joint can be classified as rigid.

A more precise calculation of beam stiffness is permitted by the use of ‘may’ in clause8.2.3(3). For example, a representative value of modular ratio, to clause 5.4.2.2(11), may beused. Account could also be taken of cracked and uncracked lengths within the beam

142

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

CBA

Lb

Nominally pinned joint

Semi-rigid joint

Fig. 8.1. Model for a two-span beam in a frame

154Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:05

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 150: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

in accordance with clause 5.4.2.3, but the additional calculation would not normally beworthwhile.

Outline of modelling of joints for global analysisIn global analysis, nominally pinned joints are represented by pins, and semi-rigid joints byrotational springs, as shown in Fig. 8.1 for a two-span beam of uniform depth, supported bythree columns in a braced frame. Joints to external columns are usually designed asnominally pinned, to reduce bending moments in the columns. The use of partial-strengthsemi-rigid joints at point B, rather than nominally pinned joints, has advantages in design:

• possible reduction in the section sizes for beams• reduction in the deflection of beams• reduction in crack widths near support B.

In comparison with full-strength rigid joints, the advantages are:

• beams less susceptible to lateral–torsional buckling• simpler construction and significant reduction in cost• lower bending moments in columns.

The stiffness of a rotational spring, Sj, is the slope of the moment–rotation relationship forthe joint (Fig. 8.2(a)). The stiffness class is determined by the ratio of the initial slope, Sj, ini, tothe stiffness EaIb/Lb of the beam adjacent to the joint, as shown.

The initial stiffness of a joint is assembled from the stiffnesses of its components,represented by elastic springs. Those for an end-plate joint with a single row of bolts intension, between beams of equal depth are shown in Fig. 8.3, in which all elements exceptsprings and pins are rigid. The notation for the spring stiffnesses ki is as in EN 1993-1-8 and inExamples 8.1 and 10.1, as follows:

k1 shear in column webk2 compression of column webk3 extension of column webk4 bending of column flange, caused by tension from a single row of boltsk5 bending of end plate, caused by tension from a single row of boltsk10 extension of bolts, for a single row of bolts.

Stiffnesses in EN 1994-1-1, but not in EN 1993-1-8, are:

ks, r extension of reinforcement (denoted k13 by ECCS TC1139)Ksc/Es slip of shear connection.

Each spring has a finite strength, governed by yield or buckling of the steel. The designmethod ensures that non-ductile modes, such as fracture of bolts, do not govern.

143

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

(1) Sj, ini ≥ 8EIb/Lb

(3) Sj, ini £ 0.5EIb/Lb

(2) Semi-rigid

0

tan–1 Sj, ini

Mj

0

Mj

Mj, Ed

Mj, Rd

2Mj, Rd

/3

fCd

(b)(a)

(3) Nominal pin

(1) Rigid

tan–1 Sj(Sj = Sj, ini/m)

(2)

ff

Fig. 8.2. Moment–rotation relationships for joints

155Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:05

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 151: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

For the tension region, the weakest of the springs numbered 3, 4, 5 and 10, and of thetension reinforcement, is found. This resistance is compared with the compressive resistanceof spring 2. The product of the lower of these resistances and the effective lever arm gives theplastic bending resistance of the joint. The resistance can be increased by strengthening theweakest link; for example, by the addition of column-web stiffeners.

Where the beams are of unequal depth, or MEd, 1 π MEd, 2 (Fig. 8.3), rotation at the joint isincreased by shearing deformation of the column web. For beams of equal depth, this is thearea ABCD in Fig. 8.3. Its deformation is resisted by the spring of stiffness k1. Dependingon the out-of-balance moment |MEd, 1 – MEd, 2|, the column web panel may govern theresistance of the joint.

8.3. Design methodsClause 8.3.1(1) Clause 8.3.1(1) refers to Section 6 of EN 1993-1-8, which is 40 pages long. It defines the ‘basic

components’ of a steelwork joint, their strengths and their elastic stiffnesses. It is shown howthese are assembled to obtain the resistances, rotational stiffness and rotation capacity ofcomplete joints.

A composite joint has these additional components:

• longitudinal slab reinforcement in tension• concrete encasement, where present, of the column web• steel contact plates, if used (not covered in EN 1993-1-8).

In addition, account is taken of the slip of shear connection, by modifying the stiffness of thereinforcement (Fig. 8.3).

Clause 8.3.1(2)Clause 8.3.1(3)

All the properties of components given in, or cross-referenced from, EN 1994-1-1 satisfythe condition of clause 8.3.1(2). The application of clause 8.3.1(3) to reinforcing bars isillustrated in Examples 8.1 and 10.1.

Clause 8.3.2(1)None of the additional components listed above influences resistance to vertical shear, so

this aspect of design is fully covered by EN 1993-1-8 (clause 8.3.2(1)).

144

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

k1

k2

k3

k4, 5, 10

ks, r

Ksc/Es

D

C

BA

MEd, 2

MEd, 1

Fig. 8.3. Model for an internal beam-to-column joint

156Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:06

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 152: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

Clause 8.3.2(2)

Composite joints in framed structures for buildings are almost always in regions ofhogging bending, for which full shear connection is normally required, to clauses 6.2.1.3(2)and 8.4.2.1(2). The reference to shear connection in clause 8.3.2(2) reminds the user that noprovisions are given for composite joints in regions with partial shear connection.

Clause 8.3.3(1)The use of Annex A (informative) for finding rotational stiffnesses satisfies clause 8.3.3(1),and is illustrated in Example 10.1.

Clause 8.3.3(2)The coefficient ψ, referred to in clause 8.3.3(2), is used in clause 6.3.1(6) of EN 1993-1-8 todefine the shape of the moment-rotation curve for a joint at bending moments Mj, Ed

that exceed 2Mj, Rd /3, as follows. Let Sj, ini be the stiffness at low bending moments. For2Mj, Rd /3 < Mj, Ed £ Mj, Rd, the stiffness is

Sj = Sj, ini /µ (D8.1)

(Fig. 8.2(b)), where

µ = (1.5Mj, Ed /Mj, Rd)ψ (D8.2)

This clause gives the value for ψ for a type of joint not included in Table 6.8 of EN 1993-1-8.The table is applicable to other types of composite joint.

The rotation capacity of composite joints, φCd in Fig. 8.2(b), has been extensivelyresearched.105 There are many relevant parameters. Analytical prediction is still difficult,and there are as yet no design rules sufficiently well established to be included inEN 1994-1-1.

Clause 8.3.4(2)

So-called ‘simple’ joints have been widely used in composite structures. Some of them willbe found to qualify as ‘partial-strength’ when Eurocode methods are used. The experiencereferred to in clause 8.3.4(2) is then available. It is rarely necessary in design to calculateeither the available rotation capacity or the rotation required of a composite joint. Furtherguidance is given by ECCS TC11.39

8.4. Resistance of components

Clause 8.4.2.1(1)This clause supplements clause 6.2 of EN 1993-1-8. The effective width of concrete flange intension is the same at a joint as for the adjacent beam (clause 8.4.2.1(1)). Longitudinal barsabove the beam should pass either side of the column.

Clause 8.4.2.1(4)Clause 8.4.2.1(4) applies at an external column with a partial- or full-strength joint. Thetensile force in the bars must be transferred to the column; for example, by being loopedround it. This applies also at internal columns where there is a change in the tension in thebars (Fig. 8.2, clause 8.4.2.1(3) and Example 8.2).

Clause 8.4.2.2(1)Clause 8.4.3(1)

Clauses 8.4.2.2(1) and 8.4.3(1) permit the same 45° spread of force in a contact plateas used in EN 1993-1-8 for an end plate. The force is assumed in EN 1993-1-8 to spread attan–1 2.5 (68°) through the flange and root radius of the column. Where the compressiveforce relied on in design exceeds the resistance of the steel bottom flange, the length of thecontact plate should allow for this (Fig. 8.4).

In EN 1994-1-1, the word ‘connection’ appears only in clause 8.4.3(1), clause A.2.3.2 andTable A.1. It means the set of components that connect a member to another member; forexample, an end plate, its bolts and a column flange. Thus, a ‘connection’ is part of a ‘joint’.

Clause 8.4.4.1(2)The model used in clause 8.4.4.1(2) is illustrated in Fig. 8.5. This figure shows an elevationof the concrete encasement of width h – 2tf (column depth less flange thicknesses) anddepth z, the lever arm between the resultant horizontal forces from the beam. A shearforce V is transferred through the encasement, which is of thickness bc – tw (columnwidth less web thickness). The concrete strut ABDEFG has width 0.8(h – 2tf)cos θ, wheretan θ = (h – 2tf)/z, so its area is

Ac = 0.8(h – 2tf)cos θ (bc – tw) (8.2)

145

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

157Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:06

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 153: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

146

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

45˚

68˚Contact plate

Column

Beam

Fig. 8.4. Detail of a contact plate between a beam bottom flange and a column

B

G

F E

D

q

q

h – 2tf0.4(h – 2tf)

0.8(h – 2tf)cos q

V

V

A

z

NEd

C

Fig. 8.5. Strut model for the shear resistance of the concrete encasement to a column web

teff, c

tf, c

tp

tf, b

0.2120

1.3

2.0

kwc, c

scom, c, Ed /fcd

(b)

45˚

68˚ End plate

Beam

Column

r

(a)

Fig. 8.6. Model for resistance to compression of the concrete encasement to a column web

158Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:07

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 154: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

Its compressive strength is 0.85νfcd, giving the force C in Fig. 8.5. For horizontal equilibriumat B and F, C sin θ = V. These are equations (8.1) to (8.3) in clause 8.4.4.1.

Clause 8.4.4.1(3)The shear strength of concrete is increased by compression. This is allowed for by the

factor ν in clause 8.4.4.1(3), which ranges from 0.55 for zero axial compression to 1.1 forNEd ≥ 0.55Npl, Rd.

Clause 8.4.4.2The contribution of concrete encasement to the resistance of a column web to horizontal

compression is given in clause 8.4.4.2. For an end-plate joint to a column flange, the depth ofencasement assumed to resist compression, teff, c, is shown in Fig. 8.6(a), with the 2.5:1dispersion, referred to above, extending through the root radius r.

The horizontal compressive strength of the concrete is 0.85 kwc, c fcd, where kwc, c depends onthe vertical compressive stress in the column, σcom, c, Ed, as shown in Fig. 8.6(b).

Example 8.1: end-plate joints in a two-span beam in a braced frameIn development work that followed the publication of ENV 1994-1-1, a set of applicationrules for composite joints was prepared, more detailed than those now given in Section 8and Annex A of EN 1994-1-1. These are published by ECCS39 as a model annex J. Theyprovide useful guidance in this example, and are referred to, for example, as ‘clause J.1.1of ECCS TC11’.

DataThe subject of Examples 6.7 and 7.1 is a two-span beam ABC continuous over its centralsupport (see Figs 6.23–6.28). It is now assumed that this beam is one of several similarbeams in a multistorey braced frame (Fig. 8.7). Its joints with the external columns arenominal pins. The spans of the composite-slab floors are 2.5 m, as before. For simplicity, inthe work on beams AB and BC, column EBF will be treated as fixed at nodes E and F. Thesebeams are attached to the column at B by the end-plate connections shown in Fig. 8.8, whichalso gives dimensions of the column section. Its other properties are as follows: HEB 240cross-section, Aa = 10 600 mm2, fy = 355 N/mm2, 10–6Iy = 112.6 mm4, 10–6Iz = 39.23 mm4.

The end plates are of mild steel, fy = 275 N/mm2, and relatively thin, 12 mm, to providethe plastic behaviour required. They are attached to the beam by 10 mm fillet welds to theflanges, and 8 mm welds to the web. They are each attached to the column by four Grade8.8 M20 bolts with properties: fub = 800 N/mm2, fyb = 640 N/mm2, net area at root ofthread As, b = 245 mm2 per bolt.

The only other change from the data used in Examples 6.7 and 7.1 on geometry,materials and loadings concerns the reinforcement in the slab.

Longitudinal reinforcement at support BThese partial-strength joints need rotation capacity. Its value cannot be found at thisstage, but it is known to increase with both the diameter of the reinforcing bars in the slab

147

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

CBA

12

3

3

12

D

F

E

Fig. 8.7. Model for a two-span beam ABC, with an internal column EBF

159Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:07

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 155: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

and the area of reinforcement provided. However, the amount of top reinforcementshould be limited, so that the whole of the compressive force across the joint can beresisted by the beam bottom flange and the unstiffened column web.

Detailed guidance is given in Couchman and Way.104 For a steel beam of depth 450 mmin S355 steel, the recommended minimum areas are 3000 mm2 for bars with 5%elongation and 860 mm2 for bars with 10% elongation. The recommended maximumamount depends on the size of the column and the details of the bolts in tension, and isabout 1200 mm2 for this example. The recommended bar diameters are 16 and 20 mm.

For these reasons, the previous reinforcement (13 No. 12 mm bars, As = 1470 mm2) isreplaced by six No. 16 mm hot-formed bars (minimum elongation 10%): As = 1206 mm2,fsk = 500 N/mm2.

Classification of the jointsIt is assumed initially that flexural failure of a joint will occur in a ductile manner, byyielding of the reinforcement in tension and the end-plate or column flange in bending;

148

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

160

383

m2 = 35.4 + 2

240

14.61012

450

25

200

6025

60

90

= =

A

9.4

A

230270130

800

240

17

10

21

100 mm

16 dia.30

100

Fig. 8.8. Details of the beam-to-column end-plate connections

(a) Elevation (b) Section A–A

(c) Column section (d) Slab reinforcement

160Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:07

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 156: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

and that at bottom-flange level the compressive resistance of the column web willbe sufficient. As the spans are equal, it is unlikely that shear of the column web will becritical.

The joint is expected to be ‘partial-strength’. This can be checked by comparing thetension resistance of the top two bolts, from Table 3.4 of EN 1993-1-8, with the force toyield the beam top flange:

FT, Rd, bolts = 2(k2 fub As/γM2) = 2 × 0.9 × 0.8 × 245/1.25 = 282 kN (D8.3)

FRd, flange = bf tf fyd = 190 × 14.6 × 0.355 = 985 kN

Thus, the resistance moment Mj, Rd for the joint will be much less than Mpl, Rd for the beam,and lateral buckling will be less critical than before.

There is no need to find the stiffness of the joint at this stage, because it is clearly either‘rigid’ or ‘semi-rigid’. Either type may be treated as ‘semi-rigid’.

Approximate global analysisTables in Appendix B of Couchman and Way104 enable a rough check to be made on thisinitial design, without much calculation. They give resistances Mj, Rd in terms of thecross-section of the steel beam, its yield strength, the thickness and grade of the end plate,the number and size of bolts in tension, and the area of reinforcement. Even though thebeam used here is an IPE section, it can be deduced that Mj, Rd is about 400 kN m.

For both spans fully loaded, it was found in Example 6.7 that MEd at B was 536 kN mfrom loading (see Fig. 6.28) plus 120 kN m from shrinkage. The flexural stiffness of thejoint is not yet known, but it will be between zero and ‘fully rigid’. If fully rigid, the jointwill obviously be ‘plastic’ under ultimate loading, and there will then be no secondaryshrinkage moment. At mid-span, for the total load of 35.7 kN/m (see Table 6.2), thesagging bending moment is then

357 ×122/8 – 400/2 = 443 kN m

If the joint acts as a pin, the mid-span moment is

443 + 200 = 643 kN m

It is recommended in Couchman and Way104 that mid-span resistances should be taken as0.85Mpl, Rd, to limit the rotation required at the joints. From Example 6.7, Mpl, Rd with fullshear connection is 1043 kN m, so the bending resistance of the beam is obviouslysufficient.

Vertical shearFor MEd = 400 kN m at B, the vertical shear at B is

Fv, Ed, B = 35.7 × 6 + 400/12 = 247 kN

The shear resistance of the four M20 bolts is now found, using Table 3.4 of EN 1993-1-8.Two of the bolts may be at yield in tension. The shear applied to these bolts must satisfy

Fv, Ed /Fv, Rd + Ft, Ed /(1.4Ft, Rd) £ 1.0 (D8.4)

The net shear area of each bolt is As, b = 245 mm2, so from Table 3.4 of EN 1993-1-8,

Fv, Rd = 0.6fub As, b/γM2 = 0.6 × 800 × 0.245/1.25 = 94.1 kN

From equation (D8.3) with Ft, Ed = Ft, Rd,

Fv, Ed £ (1 – 1/1.4)Fv, Rd = 27 kN

For four bolts,

Fv, Rd = 2 × (94.1 + 27) = 242 kN (D8.5)

149

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

161Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:08

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 157: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

This shows that it may be necessary to add a second pair of bolts in the compression regionof the joint.

Bending resistance of the joint, excluding reinforcementUnpropped construction was used in Example 6.7. From Table 6.2, the design ultimateload for the steel beam is 7.8 kN/m. For the construction phase, this is increased to9.15 kN/m, to allow for the higher density of fresh concrete and the construction imposedloading. For rigid joints at the internal support between two 12 m spans,

MEd, B = wL2/8 = 9.15 × 122/8 = 165 kN m

The plastic resistance of the joint during construction is required. An upper limit is easilyobtained. The lever arm from the top bolts to the centre of the bottom flange is

zbolts = 450 – 60 – 7.3 = 383 mm (D8.6)

The resistance cannot exceed

FT, Rd, bolts zbolts = 282 × 0.383 = 108 kN m (D8.7)

so the previous hogging bending moment of 165 kN m cannot be reached. It is assumedthat the stiffness of the joint is sufficient for its plastic resistance, found later to be83 kN m, to be reached under the factored construction loading.

Resistance of T-stubs and bolts in tensionThe calculation of the bending resistance consists of finding the ‘weakest links’ in bothtension and compression. In tension, the column flange and the end plate are eachmodelled as T-stubs, and prying action may occur. Some of the dimensions required areshown in Fig. 8.9. From Fig. 6.8 of EN 1993-1-8, the dimensions m overlap with 20% of thecorner fillet or weld. Thus, in Fig. 8.9(a), for the end plate:

m = 45 – 4.7 – 0.8 × 8 = 33.9 mm (D.8.8)

It is evident from the geometry shown in Fig. 8.9 that the end plate is weaker than thecolumn flange, so its resistance is now found.

150

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

tp = 12

tf = 17

0.8rc = 16.8m = 23.2

e = 75

rc = 21

m = 33.955 8

m2 = 37.4

55 33.9

Fig. 8.9. Dimensions of T-stubs, and the yield line pattern

(a) Plan details of T-stubs

(b) Yield line pattern in end plate

162Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:08

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 158: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

Clause 6.2.4.1 of EN 1993-1-8 gives three possible failure modes:

(1) yielding of the plate(2) a combination of (1) and (3)(3) failure of the bolts in tension.

Yield line theory is used for bending of the plate. The critical mechanism in this casewill be either that shown in Fig. 8.9(b) or a circular fan, for which the perimeter is

leff, cp = 2πm

from Table 6.6 in clause 6.2.6.5 of EN 1993-1-8.For the non-circular pattern, dimension m2 in Fig. 8.8(a) is also relevant, and

leff, nc = αm £ 2πm

where α is given by Fig. 6.11 in EN 1993-1-8 or in Fig. 4.9 of Couchman and Way.104 In thiscase, α = 6.8, so the circular pattern governs for mode (1), and

leff, 1 = 2πm = 6.28 × 33.9 = 213 mm

The plastic resistance per unit length of plate is

mpl, Rd = 0.25tf2 fy /γM0 = 0.25 × 122 × 0.275/1.0 = 9.90 kN m/m (D8.9)

From equation (D8.3), the tensile resistance of a pair of bolts is 282 kN.

Mode 1. For mode 1, yielding is confined to the plate. From Table 6.2 of EN 1993-1-8, theequation for this mode is

FT, 1, Rd = 4Mpl, 1, Rd /m

with

Mpl, 1, Rd = 0.25leff, 1tf2 fy /γM0 = leff, 1mpl, Rd = 0.213 × 9.9 = 2.11 kN m

From equation (D8.8) for m,

FT, 1, Rd = 4 × 2.11/0.0339 = 249 kN

Mode 2. This mode is more complex. The equation for the tension resistance FT, 2, Rd isnow explained. The effective length of the perimeter of the mechanism is leff, 2, and thework done for a rotation θ at its perimeter is 2mpl, Rdleff, 2θ, from yield line theory. Witheach bolt failing in tension, the work equation is

151

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

Ft, Rd

FT, 2, Rd

Q/2

mn

q

Fig. 8.10. Plan of a T-stub, showing failure mode 2

163Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:08

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 159: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

FT, 2, Rd(m + n)θ = nSFt, Rdθ + 2mpl, Rd leff, 2θ (D8.10)

where n is shown in Fig. 8.10.In Table 6.2 of EN 1993-1-8 there is the further condition that

n £ 1.25m = 1.25 × 33.9 = 42.4 mm

The effective length

leff, 2 = αm = 6.8 × 33.9 = 231 mm

from Table 6.6 of EN 1993-1-8. For two bolts, SFt, Rd = 282 kN, from equation (D8.3).Substituting in equation (D8.10):

FT, 2, Rd = (2mpl, Rdleff, 2 + nSFt, Rd)/(m + n)= (2 × 9.9 × 231 + 42.4 × 282)/76.3 = 217 kN (D8.11)

Mode 3. Failure of the bolts – mode 3 – has

FT, 3, Rd = 282 kN

from equation (D8.3), so mode 2 governs. From Fig. 8.10, the prying force is

Q = 282 – 217 = 65 kN

Beam web in tensionThe equivalent T-stub in Fig. 8.10 applies a tensile force of 217 kN to the web of the beam.Its resistance is given in clause 6.2.6.8 of EN 1993-1-8 as

Ft, wb, Rd = beff, t, wb twb fy, wb /γM0

(equation (6.22) of EN 1993-1-8), and beff, t, wb is taken as the effective length of the T-stub,leff, 2 = 231 mm. Hence,

Ft, wb, Rd = 231 × 9.4 × 0.355/1.0 = 771 kN (D8.12)

so this does not govern.

Column web in tensionThe effective width of the column web in tension, to clause 6.2.6.3 of EN 1993-1-8, is thelength of the T-stub representing the column flange. The resistance is

Ft, wc, Rd = ωbeff, t, wc twc fy, wc /γM0

where ω is a reduction factor to allow for shear in the column web. In this case, the shear iszero, and ω = 1. The column web is thicker than the beam web, so from result (D8.12), itsresistance does not govern.

Column web in transverse compressionThe resistance is given in clause 6.2.6.2 of EN 1993-1-8. It depends on the plate slendernessλp and the width of the column web in compression, which is

beff, c, wc = tf, b + 2÷2ap + 5(tfc + s) + sp

(equation (6.11) of EN 1993-1-8), where ap is the throat thickness of the bottom-flangewelds, so ÷2ap = 10 mm here; sp allows for 45° dispersion through the end plate, and is24 mm here; and s is the root radius of the column section (s = rc = 21 mm). Hence,

beff, c, wc = 14.6 + 20 + 5 × (17 + 21) + 24 = 248 mm

For web buckling, the effective compressed length is

dwc = hc – 2(tfc + rc) = 240 – 2 × (17 + 21) = 164 mm

152

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

164Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:09

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 160: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

The plate slenderness is

= 0.932(beff, c, wcdwc fy, wc /Eatwc2)0.5

= 0.932 × [248 × 164 × 0.355/(210 × 100)]0.5 = 0.773

The reduction factor for plate buckling is

ρ = ( – 0.2)/ 2 = 0.573/0.7732 = 0.96

The factor ω for web shear is 1.0, as before.It is assumed that the maximum longitudinal compressive stress in the column is less

than 0.7fy, wc, so from clause 6.2.6.2(2) of EN 1993-1-8, the reduction factor for this, kwc, is1.0. From equation (6.9) in EN 1993-1-8,

Fc, wc, Rd = ωkwcρbeff, c, wctwc fy, wc /γM1

= 0.96 × 248 ×10 × 0.355/1.0 = 845 kN (D8.13)

Clearly, the tensile force of 217 kN governs the resistance of the steel connection.

Bending resistance of the steel joint, for both beams fully loadedFrom equation (D8.5), the lever arm is 383 mm, so the resistance, excluding thereinforcement, is

Mj, Rd, steel = 217 × 0.383 = 83 kN m (D8.14)

governed by bending of the end plate. The critical mode 2 includes failure of the top rowof bolts in tension. However, the joint is closely based on a type given in Couchman andWay,104 which is confirmed by ECCS TC1139 as having ‘ductile’ behaviour.

From Example 6.7, the plastic bending resistance of the steel beam, an IPE 450 section,is

Mpl, a, Rd = 1.702 × 355 = 604 kN m

This exceeds four times Mj, Rd, so clause 5.2.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-8 permits this joint to beclassified as ‘nominally pinned’ for the construction stage.

Resistance of the composite jointFor the composite joint, the reinforcement is at yield in tension. Its resistance is

Ft, s, Rd = 1206 × 0.500/1.15 = 524 kN

This increases the total compressive force to

Fc = 217 + 524 = 741 kN (D8.15)

This is less than the compressive resistance of 845 kN, found above. The bars act at a leverarm of 543 mm (Fig. 8.8(a)), so the bending resistance of the composite joint is

Mj, Rd, comp = 83 + 524 × 0.543 = 83 + 284 = 367 kN m (D8.16)

Check on vertical shearFor the maximum design beam load of 35.7 kN/m and a hogging resistance moment at Bof 367 kN m, the vertical shear in each beam at B is 244 kN, which just exceeds the shearresistance found earlier, 242 kN. It will probably be found from elastic–plastic globalanalysis that the vertical shear at B is reduced by the flexibility of the joints. If necessary,two extra M20 bolts can be added in the lower half of each end plate. This has no effect onthe preceding results for resistance to bending.

Maximum load on span BC, with minimum load on span ABThis loading causes maximum shear in the column web. There is an abrupt change in thetension in the slab reinforcement at B. The load acting on the steel members is equal for

153

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

pλ pλ

165Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:09

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 161: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

the two spans, and is assumed to cause a hogging bending moment at node B equal to theresistance of the joints, 83 kN m from equation (D8.11). The ultimate loads on thecomposite member are 1.62 kN/m on AB and 27.9 kN/m on BC (see Table 6.2).

The flexibility of the joints and cracking of concrete both reduce hogging bendingmoments, so both are neglected in these checks on shear in the column web andanchorage of the reinforcement. The moment on the composite joint at B in span BC istaken as the additional resistance provided by the slab reinforcement, which is 284 kN m(equation (D8.16)). For the other three members meeting at node B, elastic analysisgives the bending moments shown in Fig. 8.11(a). The total bending moments at B,including construction, are shown in Fig. 8.11(b). The shear forces in columns DB andBE are

(75 + 37.5)/3 = 37.5 kN

If the end plate in span AB is plastic under ultimate construction loading, the whole ofthe difference between the beam moments shown is caused by change of tension in thereinforcement. Thus, the relevant lever arm, z, is 543 mm.

From clause 5.3(3) of EN 1993-1-8, the shear force on the web panel is

Vwp, Ed = (Mb1, Ed – Mb2, Ed)/z – (Vc1, Ed – Vc2, Ed)/2

= (367 – 217)/0.543 – [37.5 – (–37.5)]/2 = 276.2 – 37.5 = 239 kN

The sign convention used here is given in Fig. 5.6 of EN 1993-1-8. It is evident from Fig.8.11(b) and the equation above that the web shear from the beams, 276 kN, is reduced bythe shear forces in the column. The change of force in the reinforcement is 276 kN.

Shear resistance of the column webFrom clause 6.2.6.1(1) of EN 1993-1-8, the shear resistance of an unstiffened column webpanel is

Vwp, Rd = 0.9fy, wc Avc/(÷3γM0)

where Avc is the shear area of the column web. This is given in EN 1993-1-1, and is3324 mm2 here. Hence,

Vwp, Rd = 0.9 × 0.355 × 3324/(÷3× 1.0) = 613 kN (> Vwp, Ed)

This load arrangement therefore does not govern the design of the joint.

154

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

z

134 + 83

37.5

75

D

CBA

284

37.5

75

E

12

3134

12

37.5

75

284 + 831.62 kN/m 27.9 kN/m

Fig. 8.11. Analyses for unequal design loadings (ultimate limit state) on spans AB and BC

(a) Bending-moment diagram (kN m) (b) Action affects on joint (kN and kN m)

166Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:09

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 162: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

Anchorage of the force from the reinforcementThe force of 276 kN (above) has to be anchored in the column. The strut-and-tie modelshown in Fig. 8.2 requires transverse reinforcement to resist the force Ftq shown in thefigure, and the force depends on the directions chosen for the struts.

The mean distance of the three 16 mm bars shown in Fig. 8.8(d) from the centre-line ofthe column is 420 mm. The two concrete struts AB and AD shown in Fig. 8.12 can, forcalculation, be replaced by line AC. Resolution of forces at point A gives the strut force as184 kN. The depth of concrete available is 80 mm. With fck = 25 N/mm2, the total width ofthe struts is

bc = (184 × 1.5)/(0.08 × 0.85 × 25) = 163 mm

This width is shown to scale in Fig. 8.12, and is obviously available.The existing transverse reinforcement (Example 6.7) is 12 mm bars at 200 mm spacing.

Insertion of three more bars (As = 339 mm2) at 200 mm spacing provides an extraresistance

TRd = 339 × 0.5/1.15 = 147 kN

which exceeds the tie force of 122 kN shown in Fig. 8.12. Three extra bars are provided oneach side of the column.

The available area of column flange to resist bearing stress is

80 × (120 + 115) = 18 800 mm2

so the mean stress is

155

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

120

420

50

A

300 120

B C

184 kN

163

138 kN

D

3 No. 12 bars at 200 mm

122 kN

Fig. 8.12. Strut-and-tie model for anchorage of unbalanced tension in slab reinforcement

Table 8.1. Initial stiffnesses of joints, Sj, ini (kN m/mrad)

No shearJoint BA,with shear

Joint BC,with shear

Steel joint 61.1 – –Composite joint, elastic 146 118 48.8Composite joint, no top bolts 110 118 38.6

167Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:09

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 163: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

(276/2)/18.8 = 7.34 N/mm2

well below the design compressive strength of the concrete.

Stiffness of the joints and rotation capacity, ultimate limit stateThe initial stiffnesses of these joints are calculated in Example 10.1, and are given in Table8.1. In the preceding global analyses, the joints were assumed to be rigid until theirresistance Mj, Rd was reached, and to act as hinges for further loading. This neglect of theelastic rotation of the joints at moments below Mj, Rd leads to overestimation of thehogging bending moments at the joints. The mid-span moments therefore exceed thosecalculated. This method is safe for the verification of the joints, and is appropriate wherethere is ample bending resistance at mid-span, as in this example.

There is little inelastic curvature in the regions of sagging moment, so the rotation atthe joints is much less than that required for the development of mid-span plastic hinges.The typical joint details given in Couchman and Way,104 which were used here, wereshown to have adequate rotation capacity by a calculation method19 supported by tests(clause 8.3.4(3)) or are those ‘which experience has proved have adequate properties’ (clause8.3.4(2)), so no further verification of rotation capacity is required.

Serviceability checksThe preceding analyses are inadequate for serviceability checks on deflections or crackwidth. Account must be taken of the flexibility of each joint, as given by equations(D8.1) and (D8.2). From clause 6.3.1(6) of EN 1993-1-8 or clause J.4.1(5) of ECCSTC11,39 Ψ = 2.7 for bolted end-plate joints. Thus, where Mj, Ed = Mj, Rd, from equation(D8.2),

µ = 1.52.7 = 2.99 (D8.17)

This dependence of the joint stiffness Sj on Mj, Ed leads to iterative analysis, sosimplifications are given in clause 5.1.2 of EN 1993-1-8 and in section 9.5 of ECCS TC1139

for use in elastic frame analysis, as follows:

• for a composite beam-to-column joint with a flush end-plate connection, and ‘usualcases’, a nominal stiffness Sj = Sj, ini/2 may be used, for moments up to Mj, Rd (i.e.µ = 2)

• where joints are required to behave within their elastic range, the stiffness Sj, ini shouldbe used, and Mj, Ed should not exceed 2Mj, Rd/3.

Here, the joints are included in conventional elastic analyses as follows. From Fig. 8.8, apair of joints (see Fig. 8.1) has an overall length of 240 + 2 × 12 = 264 mm, so each jointis represented by a beam-type member of length Lj = 132 mm and second moment ofarea Ij. For a bending moment Mj, the rotation is

φ = Mj/Sj

For the ‘beam’, it is

φ = MjLj/EaIj

Eliminating φ/Mj,

Ij = (Lj/Ea)Sj

Hence,

10–6Ij = (132/210)Sj = 0.63Sj (D8.18)

with Ij in units of mm4 and Sj in units of kN m/mrad.

156

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

168Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:10

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 164: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

Maximum deflection, with imposed load on span BC onlySeparate calculations are required for the steel joints and the composite joints. The loadat the end of construction, 5.78 kN/m, is applied to both spans. From Table 8.1 andequation (D8.18), with µ = 2,

10–6Ij = 0.63 × 61.1/2 = 19.2 mm4

For the beam,

10–6Iay = 337.4 mm4

so the calculation model for the steel joints is as shown in Fig. 8.13, with I in units of mm4.The results are:

• bending moment in the connection in span BC: 67.7 kN m, which is 82% of Mj, Rd, steel

• maximum deflection of span BC: 13.8 mm.

The calculation model for the composite phase takes account of cracking, and uses themodular ratio n = 20.2. The floor finishes, 1.2 kN/m, act on both spans, and the frequentvalue of the imposed load, 0.7 × 17.5 = 12.3 kN/m, acts on span BC only.

For the joint in span BC, µ = 2. There is a little unused tensile resistance fromthe steel connection. If this is neglected, then for the composite joint in span BC,Sj, ini = 39.6 kN m/mrad (Table 8.1) and

10–6Ij, BC = 0.63 × 39.6/2 = 12.5 mm4

(The effect of including the full stiffness of the steel joint (Sj, ini = 48.8 kN m/mrad, not38.6 kN m/mrad) is small; it reduced the deflection by less than 1 mm.)

The moment in the connection in span BA is low, so µ = 1. From Table 8.1,

10–6Ij, BA = 0.63 × 118 = 74 mm4

For the column,

10–6Iy = 113 mm4

The calculation model is shown in Fig. 8.14, with I in units of mm4. The results are:

157

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

Mj,Ek

132

337.419.2

5.78 kN/m

11 868

CB10–6I

Fig. 8.13. Analysis for steel beams, serviceability limit state

132

82812.2

13.5 kN/m

10 200

CA

1668

467828 467 74

1.2 kN/m

12 000

10–6I

10–6I 113

Fig. 8.14. Analysis for composite beams, serviceability limit state

169Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:10

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 165: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

• bending moment at B in span BC: 70.2 kN m• maximum deflection of span BC: 17.9 mm.

The total deflection of span BC is therefore

13.8 + 17.9 = 31.7 mm

or span/380. These two components exceed the values found for the fully continuousbeam (see Table 7.3) by 4.8 and 2.9 mm, respectively.

The imposed-load deflection is about 17 mm, or span/700, for the frequent loading.The modular ratio used allows for some creep. The additional deflection of the compositeslabs, relative to that of the beams, is discussed in Example 7.1.

The effect of shrinkage of concrete.Accurate calculation is difficult where semi-rigid joints are used, but estimates can bemade, as follows. The primary shrinkage deformations for the 24 m length of beamare shown in Fig. 6.27(b). Calculations in Example 6.7 found that R = 1149 m andδ = 45.3 mm. The most conservative assumption is that the flexibility of the joints reducesthe secondary shrinkage moment (which reduces deflections) to zero. Fig. 8.15 shows thesame primary curvature as in Fig. 6.27(b), but with compatibility restored by rotation ofthe joint at B, rather than by secondary bending of the beam. From the geometry of Fig.8.15, this rotation is found to be 3.8 mrad for each joint. The mid-span shrinkagedeflection is then about 15 mm. The direction shown for δ is consistent with that in Fig.6.1(b), and is not important, as these angles of slope are very small.

The preceding calculation for the composite joint found Mj, Ek = 70 kN m, and usedSj = 38.6/2 = 19.3 kN m/mrad, giving a rotation of 70/19.3 = 3.6 mrad. Thus, shrinkageimposes a significant increase of rotation on each joint, and the resulting increase ofhogging moment at B, while far less than the 120 kN m found for the fully continuousbeam, will decrease the 15 mm deflection found above. The result for the fullycontinuous beam was 7 mm (see Table 7.3). It is concluded that the shrinkage deflectionlies in the range 10–12 mm, additional to the 31.7 mm found above.

Cracking of concreteElastic analysis of the composite frame for service (frequent) loading acting on bothspans, otherwise similar to those outlined above, found the hogging bending moment at Bto be 133 kN m. The lever arm for the reinforcement, of area 1206 mm2, is 543 mm (Fig.8.8(a)), so the tensile stress is

σs = 133/(0.543 × 1.206) = 203 N/mm2

158

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

180010 200

R

C

d

B

3.8 mrad

15 mm

Fig. 8.15. Primary shrinkage deformation of span BC

170Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:10

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 166: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:18

The mean spacing of the 16 mm bars is about 250 mm (see Fig. 8.8(d)), which happens tobe the limiting value for a crack width of 0.3 mm given in Table 7.2 of EN 1994-1-1. Thealternative condition in Table 7.1 is satisfied by a wide margin.

However, the strain field in the slab is disturbed locally by the column and by theconcentrated rotations associated with the joints. The values in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 take noaccount of this situation. It can be concluded that the top reinforcement is unlikely toyield in service, and that very wide cracks will not occur.

159

CHAPTER 8. COMPOSITE JOINTS IN FRAMES FOR BUILDINGS

171Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:10

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 167: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

CHAPTER 9

Composite slabs with profiledsteel sheeting for buildings

This chapter corresponds to Section 9 of EN 1994-1-1, which has the following clauses:

• General Clause 9.1• Detailing provisions Clause 9.2• Actions and action effects Clause 9.3• Analysis for internal forces and moments Clause 9.4• Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shuttering for ultimate limit states Clause 9.5• Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shuttering for serviceability limit

states Clause 9.6• Verification of composite slabs for ultimate limit states Clause 9.7• Verification of composite slabs for serviceability limit states Clause 9.8

9.1. GeneralScope

Clause 9.1.1The form of construction and the scope of Section 9 are defined in clause 9.1.1. The shape ofthe steel profile, with ribs running in one direction, and its action as tensile reinforcement forthe finished floor, result in a system that effectively spans in one direction only. The slab canalso act as the concrete flange of a composite beam spanning in any direction relative to thatof the ribs. Provision is made for this in the clauses on design of beams in Sections 5, 6 and 7.

Clause 9.1.1(2)PThe ratio of the gap between webs to the web spacing, br/bs in clause 9.1.1(2)P, is animportant property of a composite slab. This notation is as in Fig. 9.2 and Fig. A.1 inAppendix A. If the troughs are too narrow, the shear strength of stud connectors placedwithin them is reduced (clause 6.6.4), and there may be insufficient resistance to verticalshear. If the web spacing is too wide, the ability of the slab to spread loads across several websmay be inadequate, especially if the thickness of the slab above the sheeting is minimized, tosave weight.

Such a wide range of profiles is in use that it was necessary to permit the limit to br/bs to bedetermined nationally. It should probably be a function of the thickness of the slab above thesheeting. As a guide, it should normally be less than about 0.6.

No account is taken of any contribution from the top flange of the sheeting to resistance totransverse bending.

The design methods for composite slabs given in Section 9 are based on test proceduresdescribed in clause B.3. Although the initial loading is cyclic, the test to failure is under staticloading. Thus, if dynamic effects are expected, the detailed design for the particular project

173Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:11

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 168: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

Clause 9.1.1(3)PClause 9.1.1(4)P

must ensure that the integrity of the composite action is maintained (clauses 9.1.1(3)P and9.1.1(4)P).

Clause 9.1.1(5) Guidance on the degree of lateral restraint provided to steel beams (clause 9.1.1(5)) isavailable in EN 1993-1-1 and elsewhere.106 Inverted U-frame action relies also on flexuralrestraint. This subject is covered in comments on clause 6.4.2.

Because of the wide range of profiles used, resistance to longitudinal shear has alwaysbeen based on tests. Slabs made with some profiles have a brittle mode of failure, which ispenalized in clause B.3.5(1).

Types of shear connectionClause 9.1.2.1 As for other types of composite member, bond is not accepted in clause 9.1.2.1 as a reliable

method of shear connection. Sheeting without local deformations of profile is permittedwhere the profile is such that some lateral pressure will arise from shrinkage of the concrete(Fig. 9.1(b)). Here, the distinction between ‘frictional interlock’ and ‘bond’ is, in effect, thatthe former is what remains after the 5000 cycles of loading specified in clause B.3.4.

The quality of mechanical interlock is sensitive to the height or depth of the small localdeformations of the sheeting, so tight tolerances (clause B.3.3(2)) should be maintained onthese during manufacture, with occasional checking on site.

Clause 9.1.2.2These two standard forms of interlock are sometimes insufficient to provide full shear

connection, as defined in clause 9.1.2.2. They can be augmented by anchorages at the ends ofeach sheet, as shown in Fig. 9.1, or design can be based on partial shear connection.

9.2. Detailing provisionsClause 9.2.1.(1)PClause 9.2.1(2)P

The limits to thickness given in clauses 9.2.1(1)P and 9.2.1(2)P are based on satisfactoryexperience of floors with these dimensions. No limits are given for the depth of the profiledsheeting. Its minimum depth will be governed by deflection. For a slab acting compositelywith a beam, the minimum depths are increased (clause 9.2.1(2)P) to suit the detailing rulesfor stud connectors, such as the length of stud that extends above the sheeting and theconcrete cover. A slab used as a diaphragm is treated similarly.

Clause 9.2.1(4)

Where a slab spans onto a hogging moment region of a composite beam, the minimumreinforcement transverse to its span is governed by the rules for the flange of the beam (e.g.Table 7.1), not by the lower amount given in clause 9.2.1(4).

Clause 9.2.3 The minimum bearing lengths (clause 9.2.3) are based on accepted good practice. Thelengths for bearing onto steel or concrete are identical to those given in BS 5950: Part 4.107

9.3. Actions and action effectsProfiled sheeting

Clause 9.3.1(2)P Where props are used for profiled sheeting (clause 9.3.1(2)P), care should be taken to setthese at the correct level, taking account of any expected deflection of the surface thatsupports them. If verification relies on the redistribution of moments in the sheeting due tolocal buckling or yielding, this must be allowed for in the subsequent check on deflection ofthe completed floor; but this is, of course, less likely to be critical where propping is used.

Clause 9.3.2(1) For the loading on the profiled sheeting, clause 9.3.2(1) refers to clause 4.11 ofEN 1991-1-6.108 For working personnel and small site equipment, a note to clause 4.11.1(3)proposes a characteristic distributed load of 1 kN/m2. Further guidance may be given in theNational Annex.

For the weight density of normal-weight concrete, Annex A of EN 1991-1-19 recommends24 kN/m3, increased by 1 kN/m3 for ‘normal’ reinforcement and by another 1 kN/m3 forunhardened concrete. In addition to self-weight, clause 4.11 of EN 1991-1-6 specifies animposed load of 10% of the weight of the concrete, but not less than 0.75 kN/m2 (which

162

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

174Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:11

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 169: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

usually governs), applied to a working area of 3 × 3 m, and 0.75 kN/m2 outside this area.This corresponds to a layer of normal-weight concrete about 35 mm thick, to allow for themounding that occurs during delivery of fresh concrete. Guidance on the avoidance ofoverload during construction is available elsewhere.109

Partial factors for ultimate limit states are recommended in Table A1.2(B) of EN 1990, as1.35 for permanent actions and 1.5 for variable actions. It would be reasonable to use 1.35 forthe whole of the weight density of 26 kN/m3, explained above, even though the extra 1 kN/m3

for unhardened concrete is not strictly ‘permanent’.Sometimes, to increase the speed of construction, the profiled sheeting is not propped. It

then carries all these loads. This condition, or the check on the deflection of the finishedfloor, normally governs its design.

For the serviceability limit state, the deflection of the sheeting when the concrete hardensis important, for use when checking the total deflection of the floor in service. Theconstruction load and the extra loading from mounding are not present at this time, so thedeflection is from permanent load only, and the ψ factors for serviceability, given in TableA.1 of EN 1991-1-6, are not required.

Clause 9.3.2(2)Clause 9.3.2(1) refers to ‘ponding’, and clause 9.3.2(2) gives a condition for its effects to beignored. Where profiled sheeting is continuous over several supports, this check should bemade using the most critical arrangement of imposed load.

Composite slab

Clause 9.3.3(2)

The resistances of composite slabs are determined by plastic theory or by empirical factorsbased on tests in which all of the loading is resisted by the composite section (clauseB.3.3(6)). This permits design checks for the ultimate limit state to be made under the wholeof the loading (clause 9.3.3(2)).

9.4. Analysis for internal forces and momentsProfiled steel sheeting

Clause 9.4.1(1)Clause 9.4.1(2)

Clause 9.4.1(1) refers to EN 1993-1-3,25 which gives no guidance on global analysis ofcontinuous members of light-gauge steel. Clause 9.4.1(2) rules out plastic redistributionwhere propping is used, but not where the sheeting extends over more than one span, asis usual. Subsequent flexure over a permanent support will be in the same direction(hogging) as during construction, whereas at the location of a prop it will be in the oppositedirection.

Elastic global analysis can be used, because a safe lower bound to the ultimate resistance isobtained. Elastic moments calculated for uniform stiffness are normally greatest at internalsupports, as shown in Fig. 9.1 for a two-span slab under distributed loading. The reduction instiffness due to parts of the cross-section yielding in compression will be greatest in theseregions, which will cause redistribution of moment from the supports to mid-span. In atechnical note from 1984,110 and in a note to clause 5.2 of BS 5950-4,107 the redistribution isgiven as between 5 and 15%. This suggests that redistribution exceeding about 10% shouldnot be used in absence of supporting evidence from tests.

163

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

0.125wL2

0.070wL2

L L

Fig. 9.1. Bending moments for a two-span beam or slab for uniform loading; elastic theory withoutredistribution

175Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:11

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 170: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

Composite slab

Clause 9.4.2(3)

As the steel sheets are normally continuous over more than one span, and the concrete is castover this length without joints, the composite slab is in reality continuous. If elastic globalanalysis is used based on the uncracked stiffness, the resulting moments at internal supportsare high, as in the example in Fig. 9.1. To resist these moments may require heavyreinforcement. This can be avoided by designing the slab as a series of simply-supportedspans (clause 9.4.2(5)), provided that crack-width control is not a problem. Other approachesthat reduce the quantity of hogging reinforcement needed are the use of redistribution ofmoments (clause 9.4.2(3)), and of plastic analysis (clause 9.4.2(4)).

Clause 9.4.2(4) Numerical and experimental research on continuous slabs has been reported.111 Withtypical relative values of moment resistance at internal supports and at mid-span, themaximum design loads calculated by elastic analysis with limited redistribution were foundto be less than those obtained by treating each span as simply supported. This arises becausethe large resistance to sagging moment is not fully utilized.

If the slab is to be treated as continuous, plastic analysis is more advantageous. The studiesshowed that no check on rotation capacity need be made provided the conditions given inclause 9.4.2(4) are satisfied.

Effective width for concentrated point and line loads

Clause 9.4.3The ability of composite slabs to carry masonry walls or other heavy local loads is limited.The rules of clause 9.4.3 for the effective widths bm, bem and bev are important in practice.They are based on a mixture of simplified analysis, test data and experience,107 and arefurther discussed, with a worked example, in Johnson.81 The effective width depends on theratio between the longitudinal and transverse flexural stiffnesses of the slab. The nature ofthese slabs results in effective widths narrower than those given in BS 811017 for solidreinforced concrete slabs.

Clause 9.4.3(5) The nominal transverse reinforcement given in clause 9.4.3(5) is not generous for a pointload of 7.5 kN, and should not be assumed to apply for the ‘largely repetitive’ loads to whichclause 9.1.1(3)P refers.

9.5–9.6. Verification of profiled steel sheeting as shutteringClause 9.5(1) The design checks before composite action is established are done to EN 1993-1-3. Clause

9.5(1) refers to the loss of effective cross-section that may be caused by deep deformations ofthe sheeting. This loss and the effects of local buckling are both difficult to determinetheoretically. Design recommendations provided by manufacturers are based in part on theresults of loading tests on the sheeting concerned.

Clause 9.6(2) The maximum deflection of L/180 given in the note to clause 9.6(2) is accepted goodpractice. Deflection from ponding of wet concrete is covered in clause 9.3.2(2).

9.7. Verification of composite slabs for the ultimate limitstates9.7.1. Design criterionNo comment is needed.

9.7.2. FlexureClause 9.7.2(3) The rules in clause 9.7.2 are based on research reported in Stark and Brekelmans.111 Clause

9.7.2(3) says that deformed areas of sheeting should be ignored in calculations of sectionproperties, unless tests show otherwise. No guidance on relevant testing is given. Test resultsare also influenced by local buckling within the flat parts of the steel profile, and by theenhanced yield strength at cold-formed corners.

164

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

176Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:11

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 171: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

For a composite slab in sagging bending, tests can be done in which the shear span is longenough, or the end anchorage is sufficient, for flexural failure to occur. If the strengths of thematerials are known, the effective area of the sheeting, when in tension, can be calculatedfrom the moment resisted, and may be close to the gross area of the sheeting.

For a composite slab in hogging bending, the contribution from the sheeting is usuallyignored, because it may not be continuous. Where it is continuous, the area of tensilereinforcement is usually small compared with the effective area of the sheeting, so that aconservative estimate of the latter (e.g. excluding embossed areas) may reduce only slightlythe calculated resistance to bending. Alternatively, a value found from a bending test on thesheeting alone could be used.

Clause 9.7.2(4)The effective widths in clause 9.7.2(4) for local buckling take account of the restraintprovided to one side of the sheeting by the concrete.

Clause 9.7.2(5)Bending resistances of composite slabs are based on rectangular stress blocks (clauses9.7.2(5) to 9.7.2(7)). In design of reinforced concrete beams, the compressive strain inconcrete is limited, to prevent premature crushing of the concrete before the reinforcementyields. There is no similar restriction for composite slabs. The design yield strength of theprofiled sheeting, typically between 280 and 420 N/mm2 (lower than that of reinforcement),and its own bending resistance make composite slabs less sensitive to premature crushing ofconcrete. However, it could be a problem where stronger sheeting is used.

Clause 9.7.2(6)

For stress in concrete, the 0.85 factor is included, as discussed in comments on clause3.1(1). When the neutral axis is within the sheeting, theory based on stress blocks as in Fig.9.6 becomes very complex for some profiles so simplified equations are given in clause9.7.2(6). Their derivation is on record.111 As shown in Fig. 9.6, the bending resistance is

MRd = Mpr + Nc, f z (D9.1)

where z and Mpr are given by equations (9.5) and (9.6).The concrete in compression within the trough is neglected. When

Nc, f = Ape fyp, d

and the sheeting is entirely in tension, the neutral axis is at its top edge. Equation (9.5) thencorrectly gives the lever arm as

z = h – hc/2 – e.

9.7.3. Longitudinal shear for slabs without end anchorage

Clause 9.7.3(2)

Design of composite slabs for longitudinal shear is based on the results of tests. Thespecification for these involves a compromise between exploring interactions between themany relevant parameters and limiting the cost of testing to a level such that the use of newprofiles is not prevented. The tests on composite slabs are defined in clause B.3, on whichcomments are given in Chapter 11 of this guide. The tests are suitable for finding the designresistance to longitudinal shear by either of the methods referred to in clause 9.7.3(2).

The m–k method, and existing testsAn empirical ‘m–k method’ has long been established. It is difficult to predict the effect ofchanges from test conditions using this method, because of the lack of analytical models,especially for slabs with ‘non-ductile’ behaviour. A model for ductile behaviour is given inAppendix B. The m–k test is included in EN 1994-1-1 in a modified form, to providecontinuity with earlier practice; but values of m and k, determined in accordance with codessuch as BS 5950: Part 4,107 cannot be used in design to EN 1994-1-1, as explained incomments on clause B.3.5. Subject to sufficient test data being available, it may be possible toconvert the former values to ‘Eurocode’ values.

A study for the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork112 found manydifferences between methods of testing used. Conversion can be difficult, both for the m–k

165

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

177Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:12

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 172: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

method and for the partial-connection method, and the range of applicability of the valuesfound may be uncertain. Further details are given in Examples 11.1 and 11.2.

Clause 9.7.3(4) For the m–k method, resistance to longitudinal shear is presented in clause 9.7.3(4) interms of vertical shear because of the way in which m and k are defined. Shear–bond failure ischaracterized by the formation of a major crack in the slab at between one-quarter andone-third of the span from a support, as shown in Fig. 9.2. It is over the length AC from thispoint to the end of the sheeting that significant slip occurs between the concrete and thesheeting, so this is the length over which the resistance to longitudinal shear is mobilized.

Clause 9.7.3(5)

The location of point C is unknown, and the finite widths of both the applied load and thesupport are further complications. The definition of ‘shear span’ Ls for use with the m–kmethod is treated in clause 9.7.3(5), which gives values for common load arrangements. Forthe two-point loading in Fig. 9.2, it is the length BD. For the partial-interaction method,calculation of the mean shear strength τu is based on the length Ls + L0.

Clause 9.7.3(6)In clauses 9.7.3(3) and 9.7.3(5), L is the span of a simply-supported test specimen, which

differs from its use in clause 9.7.3(6). In clause 9.7.3(6), the ‘isostatic span’ is the approximatelength between points of contraflexure in a continuous span of length L between supports.

The partial connection methodTo avoid the risk of sudden failure, profiled sheeting should have ductile behaviour inlongitudinal shear. For plain sheeting, the ultimate shear resistance is not significantlygreater than that for initial slip. Such behaviour is not ‘ductile’ to clause 9.7.3(3), and isreferred to as ‘brittle’ in clause B.3.5(1). The partial shear connection method is notapplicable to slabs with this behaviour (clause 9.7.3(2)). The m–k method may still be used,but with an additional partial safety factor of 1.25, expressed by the reduction factor 0.8 inclause B.3.5(1).

For profiles with deformations, the expected ultimate behaviour involves a combinationof friction and mechanical interlock after initial slip, giving a relationship between load anddeflection that should satisfy the definition of ‘ductile’ in clause 9.7.3(3).

Clause 9.7.3(7) Design data from test results should be found by the partial connection method of clauses9.7.3(7) to 9.7.3(10). The analytical model, now given, is similar to that used for compositebeams, clause 6.2.1.3, and has been verified for slabs by full-scale tests.113,114 It is used inExample 11.2.

For an assumed flexural failure at a cross-section at a distance Lx from the nearest support,the compressive force Nc in a slab of breadth b is assumed to be given (equation (9.8)) by

Nc = τu, Rd bLx (D9.2)

where the design shear strength τu, Rd is found by testing, to clause B.3. Its derivation takesaccount of the difference between the perimeter of a cross-section of sheeting and its overallbreadth, b. By its definition in equation (9.8), force Nc cannot exceed the force for fullinteraction, Nc, f. Hence, there are two neutral axes, one of which is within the steel profile.

In clause B.3.6(2) the degree of shear connection is defined as

166

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

L/4L/4 L/2

AB C D

L0 Ls

Fig. 9.2. Shear spans for a composite slab with two-point loading

178Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:12

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 173: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

η = Nc/Nc, f (D9.3)

The longitudinal forces that determine the partial-interaction bending resistance MRd areall known, for given η, but calculation of the resistance moment by the method used forpartial interaction in composite beams is difficult. The line of action of the longitudinal forcein the sheeting (shown in Fig. 11.5) depends on its complex geometry.

Clause 9.7.3(8)A simplified method is given in clause 9.7.3(8). It consists of using equation (9.5) of clause9.7.2(6), with Nc, f replaced by ηNc, f and 0.5hc replaced by 0.5xpl, to determine the lever arm z:

z = h – 0.5xpl – ep + (ep – e)ηNc, f/Ape fyp, d (9.9)

The reason for these changes is that where xpl is much less than hc, the method gives too low avalue for MRd, because equation (9.5) assumes that the line of action of the force Nc in the slab is atdepth hc/2. The correct value is ηxpl/2, where xpl is the full-interaction value as shown in Fig. 9.5.

It is not clear in EN 1994-1-1 whether the symbol xpl in equation (9.9) means thefull-interaction value, or the reduced value, which in this guide is written ηxpl. The reducedvalue corresponds to the model used, gives the higher value for z, and is recommended.

The value of the last two terms in equation (9.9) increases from –ep to –e as η is increasedfrom 0 to 1. For profiled sheeting, the plastic neutral axis is usually above the centroidal axis(i.e. ep > e), and (ep – e) = z. It can then be assumed, for simplicity, that the force Nc in thesheeting acts at height ep above its bottom fibre, giving a lever arm that is correct for η = 0,and slightly too low for η < 1.

With these changes, equation (9.9) becomes

z = h – 0.5ηxpl – ep (D9.4)

The bending resistance MRd of the slab, not stated in clause 9.7.3, can be deduced from Fig.9.6 (and Fig. 11.5 in this guide). It is

MRd = Mpr + Nc z (D9.5)

Calculations for a range of values of Lx thus give the curve relating resistance MRd to thedistance to the nearest support. The design is satisfactory for longitudinal shear if thecorresponding curve for MEd lies entirely within the one for MRd, as shown in Example 9.1 andFig. 9.12.

Clause 9.7.3(9)

In tests, the resistance to longitudinal shear is increased by the friction associated with thereaction at the adjacent end support. If this is allowed for when calculating τu, Rd, a lowervalue is obtained. Clause 9.7.3(9) provides compensation by using the same effect in thestructure being designed, µREd, to contribute to the shear resistance required. The valuerecommended for the coefficient of friction µ is based on tests.

Additional reinforcement

Clause 9.7.3(10)

Reinforcing bars may be provided in the troughs of the profiled sheeting, and thisreinforcement may be taken into account when calculating the resistance of the slab by thepartial connection method, clause 9.7.3(10).

The analytical model assumes that the total resistance is that from composite action of theconcrete with both the sheeting and the bars, as for reinforced concrete, determined byplastic analysis of the cross-section. The value of τu, Rd is obtained, as before, by testing ofspecimens without additional reinforcement, clause B.3.2(7).

If the m–k method were to be used, reinforcement in troughs would be an additionalvariable, which would require a separate test series (clause B.3.1(3)), with evaluation basedon measured strength of the reinforcement.

9.7.4. Longitudinal shear for slabs with end anchorageClause 9.7.4Clause 9.7.4 refers to the two types of end anchorage defined in clause 9.1.2.1. The anchorage

provided by studs is ductile. It is preferable to that provided by deformed ribs of re-entrantprofiles, where poor compaction of concrete may occur.

167

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

179Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:12

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 174: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

Clause 9.7.4(2)Clause 9.7.4(3)

In the partial-connection method, the anchorage force is used as a contribution to thetotal force Nc (clause 9.7.4(2)). For through-deck-welded studs it can be calculated, to clause9.7.4(3). The model is based on the weld collar pulling through the end of the sheeting.Further comments are given in clause 6.6.6.4. It is not clear how a contribution fromdeformed ribs should be determined, as end anchorage is not used in the test specimens(clause B.3.2(7)).

For the m–k method, end anchorage of either type may be included in the test specimens,but each type is an additional variable (clause B.3.1(3)), and would require a separate testseries.

9.7.5. Vertical shearClause 9.7.5 Clause 9.7.5 refers to EN 1992-1-1, where resistance to vertical shear depends on the

effective depth d of the section. In a composite slab, where the sheeting is the reinforcement,d is the distance dp to the centroid of the profile, shown in Fig. 9.6.

9.7.6. Punching shearClause 9.7.6(1) The critical perimeter for punching shear (clause 9.7.6(1)) has rounded corners, as does

that used in EN 1992-1-1. It is therefore shorter than the rectangular perimeter used inBS 5950: Part 4. It is based on dispersion at 45° to the centroidal axis of the sheeting in thedirection parallel to the ribs, but only to the top of the sheeting in the less stiff transversedirection.

Clause 6.4.4 of EN 1992-1-1 gives the shear resistance as a stress, so one needs to know thedepth of slab on which this stress is assumed to act. For a concrete slab this would be theappropriate effective depth in each direction. For a composite slab, no guidance is given.BS 5950-4107 takes the effective depth in both directions as that of the concrete above the topof the profiled steel sheeting, to be used in conjunction with BS 8110.17

9.8. Verification of composite slabs for serviceability limitstates9.8.1. Cracking of concrete

Clause 9.8.1(1) Clause 9.8.1(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1, where, from clause 7.3.1(4),

Cracks may be permitted to form without any attempt to control their width, provided that theydo not impair the functioning of the structure.

Clause 9.8.1(2)For this situation, the provisions for minimum reinforcement above internal supports ofcomposite slabs (clause 9.8.1(2)) are the same as those for beams in clause 7.4.1(4), wherefurther comment is given. Crack widths should always be controlled above supports of slabssubjected to travelling loads. The methods of EN 1992-1-1 are applicable, neglecting thepresence of the sheeting.

9.8.2. DeflectionClause 9.8.2(1) Clause 9.8.2(1) refers to EN 1990, which lists basic criteria for the verification of

deformations.Clause 9.8.2(2) For the construction phase, clause 9.8.2(2) refers to EN 1993-1-3, where clause 7.3(2) says

that elastic theory should be used, with the characteristic load combination (clause 7.1(3)).This corresponds to an ‘irreversible’ limit state, which is appropriate for the deflection ofsheeting due to the weight of the finished slab. Where it can be assumed that when the slabhardens, the imposed load on it is negligible, the remaining deflection of the sheeting due toconstruction loads should also be negligible; but this assumption, if made, should be basedon relevant experience.

The prediction of construction loads may also be difficult. If in doubt, the deflection of thesheeting at this time should be determined for the characteristic combination, even thoughthe less adverse frequent combination is permitted for reversible deflections.

168

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

180Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:13

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 175: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

Clause 7.3.(4) of EN 1993-1-3 refers to a clause in EN 1993-1-1 which says that limits todeflection of sheeting ‘should be agreed’, and may be given in a National Annex. Furthercomment is given under clause 9.3.2, and in Examples 7.1 and 9.1.

Clause 9.8.2(3)For the composite member, clause 9.8.2(3) refers to Section 5 for global analysis, where thecomments made on continuous beams apply. Restraint of bending of slabs from the torsionalstiffness of supporting members is usually ignored, but situations arise where it could causecracking.

Clause 9.8.2(4)The rules in clause 9.8.2(4) permit calculation of deflections to be omitted if twoconditions are satisfied. The first refers to limits to the ratio of span to effective depth givenin EN 1992-1-1. These are 20 for a simply-supported slab, 26 for an external span of acontinuous slab and 30 for an internal span. The effective depth should be that given in thecomment on clause 9.7.5.

Clause 9.8.2(6)The second condition, clause 9.8.2(6), applies to external spans only, and relates to theinitial slip load found in tests – information which may not be available to the designer.Two-point loading is used for testing, so the ‘design service load’ must be converted to apoint load. This can be done by assuming that each point load equals the end reaction for asimply-supported span under service loading.

Clause 9.8.2(7)Where the initial slip load in the tests is below the limit given in clause 9.8.2(6), clause9.8.2(7) provides a choice. Either the slip should be allowed for, which means estimating thedeflection from the test results, or ‘end anchors should be provided’. There is no guidance onhow much end anchorage is required. Its effectiveness would have to be found by testing andanalysis by the m–k method, because clause B.3.2(7) does not permit end anchors to be usedin tests for the partial-connection method.

Tied-arch modelClause 9.8.2(8)The situation that is covered by clause 9.8.2(8) seems likely to arise only where:

• a high proportion of the shear connection is provided by welded studs• its amount is established by calculation to clause 9.7.4• no test data are available.

If the end anchorage is provided by deformed ribs, then experimental verification isessential, and the slip behaviour will be known.

In the tied-arch model proposed, the whole of the shear connection is provided by endanchorage. Accurate calculation of deflection is difficult, but the arch will be so shallow thatthe following simplified method is quite accurate.

The tie shown in Fig. 9.3(a) consists of the effective area of the steel sheeting. Line ABdenotes its centroid. The thickness hc of the arch rib must be such that at the relevantbending moment its compressive stress at mid-span is not excessive. There is interactionbetween its assumed thickness hc and the lever arm ha, so a little trial-and-error is needed.Longitudinal forces at mid-span are now known, and the strains εc and εt in the concrete andsteel members can be found, taking appropriate account of creep. In Fig. 9.3(b), curve CBrepresents the arch rib. The ratio L/ha is unlikely to be less than 20, so both the curve lengthand the chord length CB can be taken as L/2, and

cosec α ª cot α = L/2ha

As shown in the figure, the changes in length of the members are

et = εtL/2

and

ec = εcL/2

so the deflection δ is given by

169

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

181Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:13

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 176: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

δ/L = (εt + εc)(L/4ha) (D9.6)

with both strains taken as positive numbers.

Example 9.1: two-span continuous composite slabDataDetails of the geometry assumed for this composite slab are shown in Fig. 9.4(a). Theproperties of the concrete and reinforcement are as used in the worked example on atwo-span beam in Chapters 6 and 7, where further information on them is given. Thespacing of the supporting composite beams is different, 3.0 m rather than 2.5 m. Theirtop-flange width is 190 mm.

The cross-section assumed for the sheeting satisfies the condition of clause 9.1.1 for‘narrowly spaced webs’. It provides shear connection by embossments, in accordance withclause 9.1.2.1(a). Its dimensions hc and hp in Fig. 9.2 are defined in clause 1.6. From Fig.9.4(a), they are hc = 75 mm (concrete above the ‘main flat surface’ of the sheeting) andhp = 70 mm (‘overall depth’ of the sheeting). Thus, for profiles of this type, the thicknessof the slab, 130 mm here, is less than hc + hp. For flexure of the composite slab, hc is theappropriate thickness, but for flexure of the composite beam supporting the sheeting, orfor in-plane shear in the slab, the relevant thickness is, for this sheeting, hc – 15 mm. Someof the design data used here have been taken from the relevant manufacturer’s brochure.

For simplicity, it is assumed that the reinforcement above the supporting beams, whichaffects the properties of the composite slab in hogging bending, is not less than thatdetermined in Example 6.7 on the two-span beam, as follows:

• in regions where the beam resists hogging bending, as determined by resistance todistortional lateral buckling: As = 565 mm2/m and 12 mm bars at 200 mm spacing

• in other regions, as determined by resistance to longitudinal shear: As ≥ 213 mm2/m.

It is assumed that A252 mesh is provided (As = 252 mm2/m), resting on the sheeting. Thishas 8 mm bars at 200 mm spacing, both ways.

These details satisfy all the requirements of clause 9.2.1.At the outset, two assumptions have to be made that affect the verification of a

composite slab:

• whether construction will be unpropped or propped• whether the spans are modelled as simply supported or continuous.

Here, it will be assumed that unpropped construction will be used wherever possible. Thesheeting is provided in 6 m lengths, so no 3 m span can have sheeting continuous at bothends. For a building 9 m wide, there will also be spans where 3 m lengths of sheeting areused, so several end-of-span conditions will be considered.

170

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

C

A B

hc

ha et cot a

et cosec a

C

Aa

d

ecet

L/2

B

(b)(a)

Fig. 9.3. Tied-arch model for deflection of a composite slab with an end anchorage

182Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:13

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 177: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

Some of the design checks on a composite slab are usually satisfied by wide margins.These checks will be simplified here by making conservative assumptions.

Properties of materials and profiled sheetingLightweight-aggregate concrete: grade LC25/28; ρ £ 1800 kg/m3; 0.85fcd = 14.2 N/mm2;Elctm = 20.7 kN/mm2; n0 = 10.1; flctm = 2.32 N/mm2.

Creep is allowed for by using n = 20.2 for all loading (clause 5.4.2.2(11)).Reinforcement: fsk = 500 N/mm2, fsd = 435 N/mm2.Profiled sheeting: nominal thickness including zinc coating, 0.9 mm; bare-metal

thickness, 0.86 mm; area, Ap = 1178 mm2/m; weight, 0.10 kN/m2; second moment of area,10–6Iy, p = 0.548 mm4/m; plastic neutral axis, ep = 33 mm above bottom of section (see Fig.9.6); centre of area, e = 30.3 mm above bottom of section; Ea = 210 kN/mm2; yieldstrength, fyk, p = 350 N/mm2, γM, p = 1.0; plastic moment of resistance in hogging andsagging bending, Mpa = 6.18 kN m/m – this value is assumed to take account of the effectof embossments (clause 9.5(1)).Composite slab: 130 mm thick; volume of concrete, 0.105 m3/m2.

Loading for profiled sheetingFrom clause 11.3 of EN 1992-1-1, the design density of the reinforced concrete is1950 kg/m3, which is assumed to include the sheeting. The dead weight of the floor is

gk1 = 1.95 × 9.81 × 0.105 = 2.01 kN/m2

From Note 2 to clause 4.11.1(7) of EN 1991-1-6:108 for fresh concrete the weight densityshould be increased by 1 kN/m3, so for initial loading on the sheeting,

gk1 = 2.01 × 20.5/19.5 = 2.11 kN/m2

171

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

30.3

412 kN

0.85fcd

29

(a) (b)

1178

x

51

49

100

e = 30

(c)

48

27

28

2751.4

x

27

162

252

(d)

200

4860

55

15

2626

164 136

A252 mesh

0.9(nom.)

Fig. 9.4. Composite slab. (a) Dimensions. (b) Mpl, Rd, sagging. (c) Second moment of area, sagging.(d) Second moment of area, hogging

183Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:14

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 178: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

For construction loading, clause 9.3.2(1) refers to clause 4.11.2 of EN 1991-1-6. Clause4.11.2(1) of EN 1991-1-6 gives the actions from personnel and equipment, qk, as ‘10% ofthe self weight of the concrete, but not less than 0.75 and not more than 1.5 kN/m2’.EN 12812115 may also be relevant.

The mounding of concrete during placing is referred to in clause 9.3.2(1), but not inEN 1991-1-6, although its clause 4.11.1(2) refers to ‘storage of materials’. Here, todemonstrate the method of calculation, qk will be taken as 1.0 kN/m2. The National Annexmay specify a different value.

Loading for composite slabFloor finish (permanent): gk2 = 0.48 kN/m2.Variable load (including partitions, services, etc.): qk = 7.0 kN/m2.

The loads per unit area are summarized in Table 9.1, using γF, g = 1.35 and γF, q = 1.5.

Verification of sheetingUltimate limit stateFrom clause 9.2.3(2), the minimum width of bearing of the sheeting on a steel top flange is50 mm. Assuming an effective support at the centre of this width, and a 190 mm steelflange, the effective length of a simply-supported span is

3.0 – 0.19 + 0.05 = 2.86 m

Hence,

MEd = 4.35 × 2.862/8 = 4.45 kN m/m

This is only 72% of Mpl, Rd, so there is no need to consider bending moments in thecontinuous slab, or to check rotation capacity to clause 9.4.2.1(1)(b).

Excluding effects of continuity, for vertical shear:

VEd = 4.35 × 1.43 = 6.22 kN/m

There are 6.7 webs of depth 61 mm per metre width of sheeting, at an angle cos–1 55/61 tothe vertical. In the absence of buckling, their shear resistance is given by EN 1993-1-3 as

(61/55)VRd = 6.7 × 61 × 0.9 × 0.350/÷3

whence

VRd = 74.3 kN/m

172

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Table 9.1. Loadings per unit area of composite slab (kN/m2)

Type of loadCharacteristic,maximum

Characteristic,minimum

Ultimate,maximum

Ultimate,minimum

During concretingSheeting and concrete 2.11 0.10 2.85 0.13Imposed load 1.00 0 1.50 0

Total 3.11 0.10 4.35 0.13

For composite slabSlab and floor finish 2.01 + 0.48 2.49 3.36 3.36Imposed load 7.00 0 10.5 0

Total 9.49 2.49 13.9 3.36

For deflection ofcomposite slab(frequent)

0.7 × 7 + 0.48 = 5.38 0.48 NA NA

184Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:14

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 179: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

The slenderness of each web is 61/0.9 = 68, which is close to the limit at which bucklingmust be considered; but VEd is so far below VRd, as is usual for the construction stage, thatno calculation is needed.

DeflectionA note to clause 9.6(2) recommends that the deflection should not exceed span/180. Theworst case is where a span is simply-supported. Then,

δ = 5wL4/(384EaIy) = 5 × 2.01 × 2.864 × 1000/(384 × 210 × 0.548) = 15.2 mm

For fresh concrete, this is increased to

15.2 × 20.5/19.5 = 16.0 mm

From clause 9.3.2(1), allowance should be made for ponding if the deflection exceeds1/10th of the slab thickness (13 mm), as it does here. The specified thickness of theadditional concrete is 0.7δ. Its weight, for fresh concrete, is

0.7 × 0.016 × 20.5 = 0.23 kN/m2

This increases the deflection to

16 × 2.34/2.01 = 17.7 mm

which is span/161, and so exceeds span/180.It follows that where the sheeting is not continuous at either end of a 3 m span,

propping should be used during construction.The effects of continuity at one end of a span are now considered. The most adverse

condition occurs when the concrete in one span hardens (with no construction loadpresent) before the other span is cast. The loadings are then 2.01 kN/m on one span and0.10 kN/m on the other. The spans should be taken as slightly longer than 2.84 m, to allowfor the hogging curvature over the width of the central support. The appropriate length is

(2.86 + 3.0)/2 = 2.93 m

It can be shown by elastic analysis of a continuous beam of uniform section, withuniformly distributed loading, that the deflection δ at the centre of a span is

δ = δ0[1 – 0.6 (M1 + M2)/M0)]

where the hogging end moments are respectively M1 and M2, and δ0 and M0 are thedeflection and mid-span moment of the span when the end moments are zero.

From elastic analysis for a span of 2.93 m, M0 = 2.16 kN m, M1 = 1.13 kN m, M2 = 0and δ0 = 16.7 mm. Hence,

δ = 16.7[1 – 0.6 × (1.13/2.16)] = 11.5 mm

When the other span is cast, this deflection is reduced; but if the concrete in the first spanhas already hardened, the reduction is small. The deflection is less than span/180.

Properties of the composite slabPlastic resistance momentFor sagging bending, the plastic neutral axis is likely to be above the sheeting, so clause9.7.2(5) applies. The tensile force in the sheeting, when at yield, is

Fy, p = Ap fyp, d = 1178 × 0.35 = 412 kN/m (D9.7)

The depth of slab in compression is

412/14.2 = 29 mm (D9.8)

The lever arm is

173

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

185Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:14

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 180: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

130 – 30.3 – 29/2 = 85 mm

(Fig. 9.4(b)), so

Mpl, Rd = 412 × 0.085 = 35 kN m/m (D9.9)

Second moments of areaFor sagging bending, the transformed width of concrete is 1000/20.2 = 49 mm/m. For anelastic neutral axis at depth x (Fig. 9.4(c)), first moments of area give

1178(100 – x) = 49x2/2

whence x = 49 mm. Hence

10–6Iy = 0.548 + 1178 × 0.0512 + 49 × 0.492/3= 5.53 mm4/m

For hogging bending with sheeting present, each trough in the sheeting is replaced by arectangle of width 162 mm. There is one trough per 300 mm, so the transformed width ofconcrete is

49 × 162/300 = 27 mm/m

For a neutral axis at height x above the bottom of the slab (Fig. 9.4(d)),

252(82 – x) = 1178(x – 30) + 27 x (x/2)

whence x = 30.6 mm. Thus, the neutral axis almost coincides with the centre of area of thesheeting, and

10–6Iy = 0.548 + (252 × 51.42 + 27 × 30.63/3) × 10–6 = 1.47 mm4/m

Verification of the composite slabDeflectionThis is considered first, as it sometimes governs the design. Clause 9.8.2(4) givesconditions under which a check on deflection may be omitted. It refers to clause 7.4 ofEN 1992-1-1. Table 7.4 in that clause gives the limiting ratio of span to effective depth foran end span as 26. The depth to the centroid of the sheeting is 100 mm, so the ratio is2.93/0.1 = 29.3, and the condition is not satisfied.

Deflection is a reversible limit state, for which a note to clause 6.5.3(2) of EN 1990recommends use of the frequent combination. The ψ1 factor for this combination dependson the floor loading category. From Table A1.1 in EN 1990, it ranges from 0.5 to 0.9, andis here taken as 0.7, the value for ‘shopping’ or ‘congregation’ areas. From Table 9.1,the maximum and minimum loadings are 5.38 and 0.48 kN/m, respectively. For asimply-supported loaded span of 2.93 m, with Iy = 5.53 × 106 mm4/m, the deflection is4.4 mm. The region above the central support is likely to be cracked. A more accuratecalculation for the two-span slab, assuming 15% of each span to be cracked, and with0.48 kN/m on the other span, gives the deflection of the fully loaded span as 3.5 mm.Hence, the total deflection of the slab, if cast unpropped, is

δtotal = 11.5 + 3.5 = 15 mm

which is span/195. This value is not the total deflection, as it is relative to the levels of thesupporting beams. In considering whether it is acceptable, account should also be taken oftheir deflection (Example 7.1). If it is found to be excessive, propped construction shouldbe used for the composite slab.

Ultimate limit states: flexureFrom Table 9.1, the maximum loading is 13.9 kN/m. For a simply-supported span,

MEd = 13.9 × 2.932/8 = 14.9 kN m

174

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

186Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:14

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 181: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

This is so far below the plastic moment of resistance, 35 kN m/m, that there is no need, forthis check, to consider continuity or the resistance to hogging bending.

Where it is necessary to consider continuity, clause 9.4.2 on global analysis and clause9.7.2(4) on resistance to hogging bending are applicable.

Longitudinal shear by the m–k methodFor longitudinal shear, it is assumed that there is no end anchorage, so that clause 9.7.3is applicable. The shear properties of this sheeting are determined and discussed inExamples 11.1 and 11.2 and Appendix B.

It is assumed that tests have shown that the sheeting provides ‘ductile’ shear connectionto clause 9.7.3(3), and that the values for use in the m–k method are m = 184 N/mm2 andk = 0.0530 N/mm2. From clause 9.7.3(4), the design shear resistance is

Vl, Rd = bdp /γVS[(mAp/bLs) + k]

where dp is the depth to the centroidal axis of the sheeting, 100 mm; Ap is thecross-sectional area of breadth b of the sheeting, 1178 mm2/m; Ls is span/4, or 0.73 m,from clause 9.7.3(5); and γVS is the partial safety factor, with a recommended value of 1.25.These values give: Vl, Rd = 28.0 kN/m, which must not be exceeded by the vertical shear inthe slab.

For a simply-supported span,

VEd ª 1.5 × 13.9 = 20.9 kN/m

For the two-span layout, it will be a little higher at the internal support, but clearly will notexceed 28 kN/m.

Vertical shearClause 9.7.5 refers to clause 6.2.2 of EN 1992-1-1. This gives a formula for the resistance interms of the ‘area of tensile reinforcement’, which is required to extend a certain distancebeyond the section considered. The sheeting is unlikely to satisfy this condition at an endsupport, but its anchorage has already been confirmed by the check on longitudinal shear.Treating the sheeting as the ‘reinforcement’, the clause gives the resistance to verticalshear as 49 kN/m, which far exceeds VEd, found above.

Serviceability limit state – crackingClause 9.8.1(1) is for ‘continuous’ slabs. This slab can be assumed to satisfy the conditionof clause 9.8.1(2): to have been designed as simply supported in accordance with clause9.4.2(5). To control cracking above intermediate supports, that clause requires theprovision of reinforcement to clause 9.8.1.

The amount required, for unpropped construction, is 0.2% of the area of concrete ‘ontop of the steel sheet’. For this purpose, the mean concrete thickness is relevant. This isclose to 75 mm, so the area required is 150 mm2/m, and the A252 mesh used here issufficient.

However, if any spans are constructed propped, to reduce deflections, then the requiredarea is doubled, and A252 mesh is not sufficient.

Longitudinal shear resistance by the partial-connection methodIn Example 11.2 it is deduced from tests on slabs with the sheeting used here that itsdesign shear strength was

τu, Rd = 0.144 N/mm2 (D9.10)

Other conditions for the use of this result in design to EN 1994-1-1, based on clauseB.3.1(4), are now compared with the data for this example, which are given inparentheses, with 3 indicating compliance:

175

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

187Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:14

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 182: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

(a) thickness of sheeting ≥ 0.9 mm, including coating (t = 0.86 mm, plus coating; 3)(b) concrete strength, fck ≥ 0.8fcm = 0.8 × 29.8 = 23.8 N/mm2 (C25/30 concrete; 3)(c) steel yield strength, fyp ≥ 0.8 fyp, m = 0.8 × 376 = 301 N/mm2 (fyp = 350 N/mm2; 3)(d) concrete density, measured 1.5 h after mixing: 1944 kg/m3 (design density

£ 1800 kg/m3; ?)(e) slab thickness, h = 170 mm, as in tests 1 to 4 (h = 130 mm; 7).

Clause B.3.1(3) defines concrete density and slab thickness as ‘variables to beinvestigated’. Section 9 gives no guidance on what allowance should be made, if any, fordifferences between test and design values of these variables.

The density, measured at an early age, takes no account of subsequent loss of moisture.The concrete strength, item (b), is acceptable, and the difference of density, item (d), issmall, so its effects can be ignored.

The difference in slab thickness, item (e), is significant. Its effect is discussed moregenerally in Appendix B. The test results on thinner slabs led to a higher value of τu, Rd, forreasons explained in Example 11.2. It is assumed that the value for τu, Rd given in equation(D9.7) can be used here.

Design partial-interaction diagramTo satisfy clause 9.7.3(7) it is necessary to show that throughout the span (coordinate x)the curve of design bending moment, MEd(x), nowhere lies above the curve of designresistance, MRd(x), which is a function of the degree of shear connection, η(x). These twocurves are now constructed.

From Table 9.1, the design ultimate load for the slab is 13.9 kN/m2, assumed to act onthe composite member. The verification for flexure assumed simply-supported spans of2.93 m, which gives MEd, max as 14.9 kN m/m, at mid-span. The parabolic bending-momentdiagram is plotted, for a half span, in Fig. 9.5.

From equation (9.8) in clause 9.7.3(8), the compressive force in the slab at distance x mfrom an end support (i.e. with Lx = x) is

Nc = τu, Rdbx = 0.144 × 1000x = 144x kN/m

From equation (D9.4),

Nc, f = Ap fyp, d = 412 kN/m

The length of shear span needed for full interaction is therefore

176

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

0

20

10

0.5 1.0 1.5

E

B

D

x (m)

M (kN m/m)

MEd

A

CMRd

Mpa = 6.18 1.27MEd

Fig. 9.5. Design partial-interaction diagram

188Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:15

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 183: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:37

Ls, f = 412/144 = 2.86 m

This exceeds span/2 (1.47 m), so full interaction is not achieved in a span of this length.From equation (D9.5), the depth of the full-interaction stress block in the slab isxpl = 29 mm. With partial interaction, this value gives a slightly conservative result for z,and is used here for simplicity.

With h = 130 mm, ep = 33 mm and e = 30.3 mm, as before, equation (9.9) for the leverarm gives

z = 130 – 29/2 – 33 + (33 – 30.3) × 144x/412 = 82 + 1.05x mm

The reduced bending resistance of the composite slab is given by equation (9.6) with Nc, f

replaced by Nc and Mpa = 6.18 kN m/m, as before:

Mpr = 1.25 × 6.18 × (1 – 144x/412) = 7.72 – 2.7x £ 6.18

so

x ≥ 1.54/2.7 = 0.570 m

From Fig. 9.6, the plastic resistance is

MRd = Ncz + Mpr = 0.144x × (82 + 1.05x) + 7.72 – 2.7x= 7.72 + 9.11x + 0.151x2 for 0.57 £ x £ 1.47 m

For x < 0.57 m,

MRd = 0.144x × (82 + 1.05x) + 6.18 = 6.18 + 11.8x + 0.151x2

The curve MRd (x) is plotted as AB in Fig. 9.5. It lies above the curve 0C for MEd at allcross-sections, showing that there is sufficient resistance to longitudinal shear.

This result can be compared with that from the m–k method, as follows. Curve 0C isscaled up until it touches curve AB. The scale factor is found to be 1.27 (curve 0DE), withcontact at x = 1.0 m. Shear failure thus occurs along a length of 1.0 m adjacent to an endsupport. The vertical reaction at that support is then

VEd = 1.27 × 13.9 × 2.93/2 = 25.9 kN/m

This is 8% lower than the 28 kN/m found by the m–k method. It is concluded in Example11.2 that its result for τu, Rd is probably too low because the test span was too long. The twomethods therefore give consistent results, for this example. No general comparison ofthem is possible, because the partial shear-connection method involves the bending-moment distribution, while the m–k method does not.

The calculations summarized in this example illustrate provisions of EN 1994-1-1 thatare unlikely to be needed for routine design. They are relevant to the preparation ofdesign charts or tables for composite slabs using sheeting of a particular thicknessand profile. These are normally prepared by specialists working on behalf of themanufacturer.

177

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE SLABS WITH PROFILED STEEL SHEETING FOR BUILDINGS

189Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:15

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 184: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:40

CHAPTER 10

Annex A (Informative). Stiffnessof joint components in buildings

This chapter corresponds to Annex A in EN 1994-1-1, which has the following clauses:

• Scope Clause A.1• Stiffness coefficients Clause A.2• Deformation of the shear connection Clause A.3

Annex A is needed for the application of clause 8. It is ‘informative’ because the‘component’ approach to the design of steel and composite joints continues to be developed.Its content is based on the best available research, much of which is recent. It is informed byand generally consistent with two reports prepared on behalf of the steel industry.39,104

A.1. Scope

Clause A.1(1)

Clause A.1(2)

This annex supplements the provisions on stiffness of steel joints in clause 6.3 ofEN 1993-1-8.24 Its scope is limited (clause A.1(1)). It covers conventional joints in regionswhere the longitudinal slab reinforcement is in tension, and the use of steel contact plates incompression. As in EN 1993-1-8, stiffness coefficients ki are determined (clause A.1(2)), withdimensions of length, such that when multiplied by Young’s elastic modulus for steel, theresult is a conventional stiffness (force per unit extension or compression). For a knownlever arm z between the tensile and compressive forces across the joint, the rotationalstiffness is easily found from these coefficients.

As in EN 1993-1-8, stiffnesses of components are combined in the usual way, for example:

k = k1 + k2 (for two components in parallel)

1/k = 1/k1 + 1/k2 (for two components in series)(D10.1)

Clause A.1(3)

Stiffness coefficients k1 to k16 are defined in Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8. Those relevant tocomposite joints are listed in Section 8.2 of this guide. Of these, only k1 and k2 are modifiedhere, to allow for steel contact plates and for the encasement of a column web in concrete(clause A.1(3)).

A.2. Stiffness coefficients

Clause A.2.1.1(1)The background to this clause is available.116 The coefficients have been calibrated againsttest results. For longitudinal reinforcement in tension, clause A.2.1.1(1) gives formulae forthe coefficient ks, r in terms of the bending moments MEd, 1 and MEd, 2, shown in Fig. A.1 and

191Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:15

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 185: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:40

Fig. 8.3. Subscripts 1 and 2 are used here also for the properties of the connections on whichthese moments act. The concrete slab is assumed to be fully cracked.

The transformation parameters β1 and β2 allow for the effects of unequal bendingmoments applied to the pair of connections on either side of a column. They are givenin clause 5.3(9) of EN 1993-1-8, with simplified values in clause 5.3(8). The latter arediscontinuous functions of MEd, 2/MEd, 1, as shown in Fig. 10.1(a). The sign convention inEN 1993-1-8 is that both moments are positive when hogging, with MEd, 1 ≥ MEd, 2. The rangecovered by EN 1993-1-8 is

–1 £ MEd, 2/MEd, 1 £ 1

However, the stiffness coefficients ks, r in Table A.1 are based on reinforcement in tension,and composite joints with MEd, 2 < 0 are outside the scope of EN 1994-1-1.

A typical stiffness coefficient is

ks, r = As, r/λh (D10.2)

where h is the depth of the steel section of the column, and λ1 and λ2 (for the connections onsides 1 and 2 of the column) are functions of β1 and β2, respectively. Based on both theprecise and the simplified values for the βs given in EN 1993-1-8, they are plotted against themoment ratio M2/M1 (using this notation for MEd, 2 and MEd, 1) in Fig. 10.1(b). For thesimplified βs, they are discontinuous at M2/M1 = 0 and 1.

It is the extension of a length λh of reinforcement that is assumed to contribute to theflexibility of the joint. The figure shows that when M2 = M1, this length for connection 1 ish/2, increasing to 3.6h when M2 = 0. This is the value in Table A.1 for a single-sided joint. Theflexibility 1/ks, r for connection 2 becomes negative for M2 < 0.5M1.

Clause A.2.1.2 The ‘infinite’ stiffness of a steel contact plate (clause A.2.1.2) simply means that one termin an equation of type (D10.1) is zero.

Clause A.2.2.1 In clause A.2.2.1, the stiffness of a column web panel in shear is reduced below the value inEN 1993-1-8 because the force applied by a contact plate may be more concentrated thanwould occur with other types of end-plate connection.

Clause A.2.2.2 Similarly, the stiffness for a web in transverse compression has been reduced in clauseA.2.2.2, where the value 0.2 replaces 0.7 in EN 1993-1-8.

Concrete encasementEncasement in concrete increases the stiffness of the column web in shear, which is given foran uncased web in EN 1993-1-8 as

k1 = 0.38Avc/βz

180

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

2

1

10–1M2/M1

M2/M1

(b)(a)

b1 and b2, b1 and b2,approx. precise

For precise b

For approx. b

l2

5

10

0.5

3.6

l1

lb

Fig. 10.1. Flexibility of reinforcement. (a) Transformation parameter, β. (b) Flexibility ofreinforcement, represented by λ1 and λ2, for M1 ≥ M2

192Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:16

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 186: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:40

Clause A.2.3.1(1)The addition to k1 given in clause A.2.3.1(1) has a similar form:

k1, c = 0.06(Ecm/Ea)bc hc/βz

where Ecm/Ea is the modular ratio and bc hc is the area of concrete.Clause A.2.3.2For the column web in compression (clause A.2.3.2), the relationship with the stiffness of

the steel web is similar to that for the web in shear. The coefficient in the additional stiffnessk2, c is 0.5 for an end plate, but reduces to 0.13 for a contact plate, because of the moreconcentrated force.

A.3. Deformation of the shear connectionClause A.3The background to the rather complex provisions of clause A.3 is given in Appendix 3 of

ECCS TC1139 and in COST-C1.117 They are based on linear partial-interaction theory for theshear connection. Equations (A.6) to (A.8) are derived as equations (7.26) and (7.28) inAribert.118

Equation (A.5) in clause A.3(2) can be rearranged as follows:

1/kslip ks, r = (Ksc + Es ks, r)/Ksc ks, r = Es/Ksc + 1/ks, r

This format shows that the flexibility Es/Ksc has been added to that of the reinforcement,1/ks, r, to give the combined stiffness, kslip ks, r. It also shows that, unlike the ki, Ksc is aconventional stiffness, force per unit extension.

Clause A.3(3)The definition of the stiffness of a shear connector in clause A.3(3) assumes that the meanload per connector will be a little below the design strength, PRk/γVS (typically 0.8PRk). Wherethe slab is composite, the tests should ideally be ‘specific push tests’ to clause B.2.2(3). Inpractice, the approximate value given in clause A.3(4) for 19 mm studs, 100 kN/mm, may bepreferred. Its use is limited to slabs in which the reduction factor kt (clause 6.6.4.2) is unity. Itmay not apply, therefore, to pairs of studs in each trough, as used in Example 6.7.

In fact, this stiffness, the connector modulus, can vary widely. Johnson and Buckby37 referto a range from 60 kN/mm for 16 mm studs to 700 kN/mm for 25 mm square bar connectors;and an example in Johnson81 uses 150 kN/mm for 19 mm studs. The value 100 kN/mm is ofthe correct magnitude, but designs that are sensitive to its accuracy should be avoided.

Further comments on stiffnessThese are found in Chapter 8 and in the following example.

Example 10.1: elastic stiffness of an end-plate jointThe rotational stiffness Sj, ini, modified to give Sj, is needed for elastic or elastic–plasticglobal analysis, both for finding the required rotation of the joint, and for checkingdeflection of the beams. The stiffnesses ki shown in Fig. 8.3 are now calculated. Formulaefor the steel components are given in Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8. Dimensions are shown inFigs 8.8 and 8.9.

Column web in shearFrom Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8,

k1 = 0.38Avc/βz

It was shown in Example 8.1 that the relevant lever arm, z, is 543 mm. This stiffness isrelevant only for unequal beam loading, for which the transformation parameter β is 1.0(Fig. 10.1). The shear area of the column web is 3324 mm2, so

k1 = 0.38 × 3324/543 = 2.33 mm (D10.3)

181

CHAPTER 10. ANNEX A (INFORMATIVE). STIFFNESS OF JOINT COMPONENTS IN BUILDINGS

193Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:16

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 187: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:40

Column web in compression, unstiffenedFrom Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8,

k2 = 0.7beff, c, wc twc/dc

From Example 8.1, the width of the web, beff, c, wc, is 248 mm; twc = 10 mm, and

dc = 240 – 2 × (21 + 17) = 164 mm

so

k2 = 0.7 × 248 × 10/164 = 10.6 mm

Column web in tension, unstiffenedFrom Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8,

k3 = 0.7beff, t, wc twc /dc

where beff, t, wc is the smallest of the effective lengths leff found for the column T-stub. Theseare given in Table 6.4 of EN 1993-1-8. The smallest is 2πm, with m = 23.2 mm (Fig. 8.9),so leff = 146 mm. Hence,

k3 = 0.7 × 146 × 10/164 = 6.22 mm

Column flange in bendingFrom Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8,

k4 = 0.9leff (tfc /m)3

where leff = 2πm as above, so

k4 = 0.9 × 146 × (17/23.2)3 = 51.7 mm

End plate in bendingFrom Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8,

k5 = 0.9leff (tp /m)3

The smallest leff for the end plate was 213 mm (Example 8.1), and from Fig. 8.9,m = 33.9 mm. Hence,

k5 = 0.9 × 213 × (12/33.9)3 = 8.50 mm

Bolt in tensionFrom Table 6.11 of EN 1993-1-8,

k10 = 1.6As /Lb

where Lb is the grip length (29 mm) plus an allowance for the bolt head and nut; total44 mm. The tensile stress area is 245 mm2, so

k10 = 1.6 × 245/44 = 8.91 mm

per row of two bolts.

Slab reinforcement in tensionLet λh be the length of reinforcing bar assumed to contribute to the flexibility of the joint.There are two cases:

(a) beams equally loaded, for which λ1 = λ2 = 0.5, from Fig. 10.1(b) beams unequally loaded, for which λ1 = 3.6 and λ2 = 0.

From equation (D10.2),

182

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

194Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:16

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 188: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:40

ks, r = As, r /λh

where As, r = 1206 mm2 and h = 240 mm. It follows that

ks, r(a) = 1206/(0.5 × 240) = 10.05 mm

for both joints,

ks, r(b) = 1206/(3.6 × 240) = 1.40 mm

for the joint in span BC and

ks, r(b) Æ •

for the joint in span AB. This result is revised later.

Deformation of the shear connectionIn the notation of clause A.3:

• hogging length of beam: l = 0.15 × 12 = 1.80 m• distance of bars above centre of compression: hs = 543 mm from Fig. 8.8(a)• distance of bars above centroid of steel beam: ds = 325 mm from Fig. 8.8• second moment of area of steel beam: 10–6Ia = 337 mm4.

Allowance will be made for the possible reduced stiffness of pairs of studs in a trough ofsheeting by taking N, the number in length l, as the equivalent number of single studs. InExample 6.7, 19.8 equivalent studs were spread along a 2.4 m length of beam each side ofsupport B (see Fig. 6.30). In Example 8.1, the area of tension reinforcement was reducedfrom 1470 to 1206 mm2, but the shear connection is now assumed to be as before.

For l = 1.8 m,

N = 19.8 × 1.8/2.4 = 14.85 studs

From equation (A.8),

ξ = Ea Ia /ds2Es As = 210 × 337/(0.3252× 200 × 1206) = 2.778

From equation (A.7),

ν = [(1 + ξ)Nksclds2/EaIa]

1/2

= [3.778 × 14.85 × 0.100 × 1.8 × 3252/(210 × 337)]1/2 = 3.88

From equation (A.6),

Ksc = Nksc /[ν – (ν – 1)(hs/ds)/(1 + ξ)]= 14.85 × 100/[3.88 – 2.88 × (543/325)/3.778] = 570 kN/mm

From equation (A.5), the reduction factor to be applied to ks, r is

kslip = 1/(1 + Es ks, r/Ksc) = 1/(1 + 210ks, r /570)

The symbol ks, red is used for the reduced value. For ks, r = 10.05 mm, kslip = 0.213, whence

ks, red = ks, r kslip = 2.14 mm

for beams equally loaded. For ks, r = 1.40 mm, kslip = 0.660, whence

ks, red = 0.924 mm (D10.4)

for joint 1, unequal loading. For ks, r Æ •, kslip = 0. Hence, ks, red is indeterminate. This is ananomaly in the code. Research has found that the steel tension zone of the joint thatresists the lower bending moment should be treated as rigid, so in this case, for joint BA,

ks, red Æ ∞ (D10.5)

183

CHAPTER 10. ANNEX A (INFORMATIVE). STIFFNESS OF JOINT COMPONENTS IN BUILDINGS

195Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:16

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 189: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:40

Stiffness of joints, for both beams fully loadedThe rules for assembly of stiffnesses in Table 6.10 of EN 1993-1-8 are extended on p. B3.7of ECCS TC1139 to allow for the slab reinforcement.

Stiffness in tensionStiffnesses 3, 4, 5 and 10 are in series (see Fig. 8.3). For these,

1/kt = 1/6.22 + 1/51.7 + 1/8.5 + 1/8.91 = 0.410 mm–1

kt = 2.44 mm

The lever arm for kt is z2 = 0.383 m. The lever arm for the reinforcement is z1= 0.543 m,and ks, red = 2.14 mm. The equivalent lever arm is

zeq = (ks, red z12 + kt z2

2)/(ks, red z1 + kt z2)= 0.989/2.096 = 0.472 m (D10.6)

The equivalent stiffness in tension is

keq = (ks, red z1 + kt z2)/zeq

= 2.096/0.472 = 4.44 mm (D10.7)

Stiffness in compressionOnly the stiffness for the column web is required: k2 = 10.6 mm.

Stiffness of jointsFrom clause 6.3.1 of EN 1993-1-8, the initial stiffness of each composite joint is

Sj, ini = Ea zeq2/(1/keq+ 1/k2)

= 210 × 0.4722/(1/4.44 + 1/10.6) = 146 kN m/mrad (D10.8)

If, during construction, the end plates yield in tension, the stiffness represented by kt isineffective for actions on the composite member. Then, for the stiffness of the compositejoint, kt = 0, zeq = z1 and keq = ks, red = 2.14 mm, and equation (D10.8) becomes

Sj, ini = Ea z12/(1/ks, red + 1/k2)

= 210 × 0.5432/(1/2.14 + 1/10.6) = 110 kN m/mrad (D10.9)

For each joint during construction, ks, red = 0, z = z2 and keq = kt, so

Sj, ini, steel = 210 × 0.3832/(1/2.44 + 1/10.6) = 61.1 kN m/mrad (D10.10)

Stiffness of joints, for imposed load on span BC onlyThe flexibility of the column web in shear, 1/k1 (equation (D10.3)), must now be included,and the values of ks, red are different for the two joints. There are two cases: either the endplate is elastic, or it has yielded in the tension zone, so that kt = 0.

For the connection in span BC, with z1 and z2 as above, from equations (D10.6) and(D10.7),

zeq = (0.924 × 0.5432 + 2.44 × 0.3832)/(0.924 × 0.543 + 2.44 × 0.383)= 0.630/1.436 = 0.439 m

keq = 1.436/0.439 = 3.27 mm

Including 1/k1 in equation (D10.8),

Sj, ini, BC = 210 × 0.4392/(1/2.33 + 1/10.6 +1/3.27) = 48.8 kN m/mrad (D10.11)

If kt = 0, then from equations (D10.6) and (D10.7), zeq = z1, and keq = ks, red = 0.924 mm.From equation (D10.8),

Sj, ini, BC = 210 × 0.5432/(1/2.33 + 1/10.6 +1/0.924) = 38.6 kN m/mrad (D10.12)

184

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

196Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:17

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 190: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:40

For the joint in span AB, with ks, red Æ •, then zeq = z1 and keq Æ •, and equation(D10.8) gives

Sj, ini, BA = 210 × 0.5432/(1/2.33 + 1/10.6) = 118 kN m/mrad (D10.13)

This use of equation (D10.8) where there is shear in the web panel includes anapproximation that leads to a small overestimate of the deflection of span BC. The sheardeformation of the column web panel, of stiffness k1 (2.33 mm here), causes clockwiserotation of end B of span AB, and hence increases the hogging bending moment atthis point. The effective stiffness Sj, ini, BA therefore exceeds 118 kN m/rad. The resultingincrease in the hogging moment at B in span BC is small, and so is the associated decreasein the mid-span deflection.

Results (D10.8) to (D10.13) are repeated in Table 8.1, for use in Example 8.1.

185

CHAPTER 10. ANNEX A (INFORMATIVE). STIFFNESS OF JOINT COMPONENTS IN BUILDINGS

197Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:17

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 191: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

CHAPTER 11

Annex B (Informative). Standardtests

B.1. GeneralAnnex B is ‘informative’, not ‘normative’, because test procedures for products are strictlyoutside the scope of a design code. From the note to clause B.1(1), they should be given in aEuropean standard or in guidelines for European technical approvals, which are not yetavailable.

One of the objectives of standard tests is to provide guidance to designers in situationswhere calculation models are not sufficient. This commonly occurs for two components ofcomposite structures: shear connectors and profiled steel sheeting. Existing design rules forboth shear connection and composite slabs are based mainly on test data obtained over manydecades using various procedures and types of test specimen, for which there has been nointernational standard.

There are many national standards, and there is some international consensus on detailsof the m–k test for resistance of composite slabs to longitudinal shear. However, evidencehas accumulated over the past 20 years that both this test and the UK’s version of the pushtest for shear connectors have significant weaknesses. These restrict the development of newproducts, typically by giving results that are over-conservative (push test) or misleading (m–ktest). A full set of m–k tests for a new profile is also expensive and time-consuming.

When the specification for an existing test is changed, past practice should, in principle, bere-evaluated. This is one reason why the UK’s push test has survived so long in its presentform. The new push test (clause B.2) has been in drafts of Eurocode 4 for 15 years, and wasbased on research work in the preceding decade. Almost all non-commercial push tests sincethat time have used slabs wider than the 300 mm of the specimen that is defined, forexample, in BS 5400: Part 5.82

The new test generally gives higher results, and so does not raise questions about pastpractice. It costs more, but gives results that are more consistent and relevant to thebehaviour of connectors in composite beams and columns.

For profiled sheeting, most research workers have concluded that the empirical m–k testprocedure should be phased out. This method, as given in BS 5950: Part 4,107 does notdistinguish sufficiently between profiles that fail in a ductile manner and those that failsuddenly, and does not exploit the use of end anchorage or the ability of many modernprofiles to provide partial shear connection.113,119 However, its use has been the principalbasis world-wide for the design of composite slabs for longitudinal shear. Re-testing ofthe scores (if not hundreds) of types of composite slabs used in existing structures isimpracticable.

199Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:17

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 192: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

Clause B.3 therefore sets out in detail a method of testing that can be used with what isessentially the existing m–k procedure, though with a tighter specification relating to themode of failure, and other changes based on recent experience of its use. The test method isintended also for use with the more rational partial-interaction design of composite slabs,which is to be preferred for reasons given in comments on clauses 9.7 and B.3.

Properties of materialsIdeally, the strengths of the materials in a test specimen should equal the characteristicvalues specified for the application concerned. This is rarely possible in compositetest specimens that include three different materials. It is therefore necessary to adjustresistances found by testing, or to limit the range of acceptable measured strengths of amaterial so that any adjustment would be negligible. Relevant provisions are given withinclauses B.2 and B.3.

The influence of cracking of concrete may be assumed to be allowed for in the testprocedures. Tests that fully reproduce the effects of shrinkage and creep of concrete arerarely practicable; but these effects can normally be predicted once the behaviour in ashort-term test has been established, and have little influence on ultimate strength except inslender composite columns.

B.2. Tests on shear connectorsGeneralThe property of a shear connector that is needed for design is a curve that relateslongitudinal slip, δ, to shear force per connector, P, of the type shown in Fig. B.2. No reliablemethod has been found for deducing such curves from the results of tests on compositebeams, mainly because bending resistance is insensitive to the degree of shear connection, asshown by curve CH in Fig. 6.4(a).

Clause B.2.2(1)Clause B.2.2(2)

Almost all the load-slip curves on which current practice is based were obtained from pushtests, which were first standardized in the UK in 1965, in CP117: Part 1. A metricated versionof this test is given in BS 5400: Part 5,82 and referred to in clause 5.4.3 of BS 5950: Part 3.131

without comment on the need to modify it when profiled sheeting is present. This test hastwo variants, because the slab and reinforcement ‘should be either as given in [the code] ... oras in the beams for which the test is designed’. This distinction is maintained in EN 1994-1-1(clause B.2.2(1)). A ‘standard’ specimen is specified in clause B.2.2(2) and Fig. B.1, and aspecimen for ‘specific push tests’ is defined in more general terms in clause B.2.2(3). Theprincipal differences between the ‘standard’ tests of EN 1994-1-1 and BS 5400 (the ‘BS test’)are summarized below, with reference to Fig. 11.1, and reasons for the changes are given.

The standard test is intended for use

where the shear connectors are used in T-beams with a concrete slab of uniform thickness, or withhaunches complying with 6.6.5.4. … In other cases, specific push tests should be used.

It can be inferred from clause B.2.2(1) that separate ‘specific’ push tests should be done todetermine the resistance of connectors in columns and in L-beams, which commonly occur atexternal walls of buildings and adjacent to large internal holes in floors. This is rarely, if ever,done, although a connector very close to a free edge of a slab is likely to be weaker and haveless slip capacity than one in a T-beam.79 This problem can be avoided by appropriatedetailing, and is the reason for the requirements of clauses 6.6.5.3 (on longitudinal splitting)and 6.6.5.4 (on the dimensions of haunches).

Push tests to clause B.2, compared with the BS testWelded headed studs are the only type of shear connector for which large numbers of testshave been done in many countries, so all reported studies of push testing (e.g. see Johnsonand Oehlers,67 Stark and van Hove72 and Oehlers120) are based on these tests. It has been

188

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

200Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:17

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 193: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

found that the results of the tests are widely scattered.76 To obtain realistic characteristicvalues, it is necessary to separate inherent variability from that due to differences in the testspecimens, the methods of casting and testing, and the ultimate tensile strength of theconnectors.

The BS specimen was probably designed to give results at the lower edge of the bandof uncertainty that existed 40 years ago, because it has very small slabs, prone to splitlongitudinally because the mild steel reinforcement is light and poorly anchored. It hasconnectors at only one level, which in effect prevents redistribution of load from one slab tothe other92 and so gives the resistance of the weaker of the two pairs of connectors. Thechanges from this test are as follows:

(1) The slabs have the same thickness, but are larger (650 × 600 mm, cf. 460 × 300 mm).This enables reinforcement to be better anchored, and so avoids low results due tosplitting. The bond properties of the reinforcement are more important than the yieldstrength, which has little influence on the result. Limits are given in Fig. B.1.

(2) The transverse reinforcement is 10 high-yield ribbed bars per slab, instead of four mildsteel bars of the same diameter, 10 mm, so the transverse stiffness provided by the bars isat least 2.5 times the previous value. In T-beams, the transverse restraint from thein-plane stiffness of the slab is greater than in a push specimen. The reinforcement isintended to simulate this restraint, not to reproduce the reinforcement provided in abeam.

(3) Shear connectors are placed at two levels in each slab. This enables redistribution ofload to occur, so that the test gives the mean resistance of eight stud connectors, andbetter simulates the redistribution that occurs within the shear span of a beam.

(4) The flange of the steel section is wider (> 250 mm, cf. 146 mm), which enables widerblock or angle connectors to be tested; and the lateral spacing of pairs of studs isstandardized. The HE 260B section (Fig. B.1) is 260 × 260 mm, 93 kg/m.

Clause B.2.3(1)(5) Each concrete slab must be cast in the horizontal position, as it would be in practice

(clause B.2.3(1)). In the past, many specimens were cast with the slabs vertical, with therisk that the concrete just below the connectors would be poorly compacted.

189

CHAPTER 11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). STANDARD TESTS

Cover 15

150 150

35

35 Recess optional

30

150

150

100

150 150260

200 200 200

180 180 180

Bedded in mortar or gypsum

Reinforcement: ribbed bars, ∆ 10 mm, resultingin a high bond with 450 £ fsk £ 550 N/mm2

Steel section: HE 260 B or 254 × 254 × 89 kg U.C.

250

250

600100

P

Fig. 11.1. Test specimen for the standard push test (dimensions in mm)

201Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:17

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 194: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

Clause B.2.3(3)Clause B.2.3(4)

(6) Unlike the BS test, details of concrete curing are specified, in clauses B.2.3(3) andB.2.3(4).

(7) The strength of the concrete measured at the time the push test is done must satisfy

0.6 £ fcm /fck £ 0.8 (D11.1)

where fck is the specified strength in practice (clause B.2.3(5)). The corresponding rulefor the BS test is

0.86 £ fcm /fcu £ 1.2

where fcu is ‘the cube strength of the concrete in the beams’. For both codes, the twostrength tests must be done using the same type of specimen, cylinder or cube.

Condition (D11.1) is now explained. It is essentially

fcm = 0.7fck

The resistance of a stud is usually found from equation (6.19):

PRd = 0.29αd2(fck Ecm)0.5/γV

In the push test, fck is in effect replaced by 0.7fck. Then,

PRd = 0.29αd2(0.7fck Ecm)0.5/γV = 0.29αd2( fck Ecm)0.5/1.5 (D11.2)

when γV = 1.25. This shows that the purpose of condition (D11.1) is to compensate forthe use of a γV factor of 1.25, lower than the value 1.5 normally used for concrete, and thelikelihood that the quality of the concrete in the laboratory may be higher than on site.

Clause B.2.4(1) (8) The loading is cycled 25 times between 5 and 40% of the expected failure load (clauseB.2.4(1)). The BS test does not require this. Stresses in concrete adjacent to shearconnectors are so high that, even at 40% of the failure load, significant local crackingand inelastic behaviour could occur. This repeated loading ensures that if the connectortested is susceptible to progressive slip, this will become evident.

Clause B.2.4(3)Clause B.2.4(4)

(9) Longitudinal slip and transverse separation are measured (clauses B.2.4(3) and B.2.4(4)),to enable the characteristic slip and uplift to be determined, as explained below. The BStest does not require this.

Evaluation of results of push tests

Clause B.2.5(1)

Normally, three tests are conducted on nominally identical specimens to determine thecharacteristic resistance PRk for concrete and connector material of specified strengths fck

and fu, respectively. Let Pm be the mean and Pmin the lowest of the three measured resistancesper connector, and fut be the measured ultimate strength of the connector material. If allthree results are within 10% of Pm, then, from clause B.2.5(1),

PRk = 0.9Pmin (D11.3)

Clause B.2.5(2) refers to Annex D of EN 1990 (Informative) for the procedure to befollowed if the scatter of results exceeds the 10% limit.

A method to clause D.8 of EN 1990 for the deduction of a characteristic value from a smallnumber of test results, which took no account of prior knowledge, would severely penalize athree-test series. It is necessary to rely also on the extensive past experience of push testing.Clause D.8.4 is relevant. For three tests it sets the condition that all results must be within10% of the mean, Pm. This appears in clause B.2.5(1). Clause D.8.4 then gives the characteristicresistance as a function of Pm and of Vr, ‘the maximum coefficient of variation observed inprevious tests’, in which the ‘10% from the mean’ condition was satisfied.

Most of the previous results were from research programmes, with many different types oftest specimen. The results for studs in profiled sheeting, for example, have been found to besamples from seven different statistical populations.76 It has not been possible to establishthe value of Vr. The method of clause B.2.5(1), of reducing the lowest of the three results by10%, is mainly based on previous practice. It can be deduced from clause D.8.4 that for a set

190

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

202Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:18

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 195: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

of three results with the lowest 10% below the mean, the method of clause B.2 implies thatVr = 11%.

Clause B.2.5(1) gives a penalty that applies when fut > fu. This is appropriate where theresistance of a connector is governed by its own material, usually steel, but in practicethe resistance of a connector can depend mainly on the strength of the concrete, especiallywhere lightweight aggregate is used. The correction then seems over-conservative, becausefu is limited to 500 N/mm2 by clause 6.6.3.1(1), and the strength of the material can exceed600 N/mm2 for studs.

In the BS test, a ‘nominal’ strength Pu is calculated from

Pu = (fck /fc)Pmin

and, then,

PRd = Pu /1.4

It so happens that 1.25/0.9 = 1.4, so from equation (D11.3) the two methods give a similarrelationship between Pmin and PRd, except that the Eurocode result is corrected for thestrength of the steel, and the BS result is corrected for the strength of the concrete. This isprobably because the results of the BS test are rarely governed by the strength of the steel, asthe slabs are so likely to split.

Clause B.2.5(3)Clause B.2.5(3) finds application for connectors such as blocks with hoops, where theblock resists most of the shear, and the hoop resists most of the uplift.

Clause B.2.5(4)The classification of a connector as ductile (clause 6.6.1.1(5)) depends on its characteristic

slip capacity, which is defined in clause B.2.5(4). From the definition of PRk (clause B.2.5(1)),all three test specimens will have reached a higher load, so the slips δu in Fig. B.2 are all takenfrom the falling branches of the load–slip curves. It follows that a push test should not beterminated as soon as the maximum load is reached.

B.3. Testing of composite floor slabsGeneralThe most usual mode of failure of a composite slab is by longitudinal shear, loss of interlockoccurring at the steel–concrete interface. Resistance to longitudinal shear is difficult topredict theoretically. The pattern and height of indentations or embossments and the shapeof the sheeting profile all have significant effect. There is no established method to calculatethis resistance, so the methods of EN 1994-1-1 rely on testing.

Clause B.3.1(1)

Tests are needed for each new shape of profiled sheet. They are normally done by or forthe manufacturer, who will naturally be concerned to minimize their cost. Their purpose(clause B.3.1(1)) is to provide values for either the factors m and k for the ‘m–k method’, orthe longitudinal shear strength required for the partial shear connection method. Theseprocedures for verifying resistance to longitudinal shear are given in clauses 9.7.3 and 9.7.4.Comments on them are relevant here.

Clause B.3.1(2)The tests also determine whether the shear connection is brittle or ductile (clauseB.3.1(2)). There is a 20% penalty for brittle behaviour (clause B.3.5(1)). In view of thepurpose of the tests, failure must be in longitudinal shear (clauses B.3.2(6) and B.3.2(7)).

Number of testsClause B.3.1(3)Clause B.3.1(4)

The list of relevant variables in clause B.3.1(3) and the concessions in clause B.3.1(4) definethe number of tests required. As an example, it is assumed that a manufacturer seeks todetermine shear resistance for a new profile, as the basis for design data for a range of sheetthicknesses, slab thicknesses and spans, and concrete strengths, with both lightweight andnormal-weight concrete. How many tests are required?

In view of the penalty for brittle behaviour (clause B.3.5(1)), it is assumed that the newprofile is found to satisfy clause 9.7.3(3) on ductility. The partial-connection method is more

191

CHAPTER 11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). STANDARD TESTS

203Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:18

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 196: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

versatile than the m–k method, and is recommended. Its calculations are straightforward ona spreadsheet. From clause B.3.2(7), its tests are done in groups of four. The variables arenow considered in turn, to find the minimum number of values needed for each one, and,hence, the number of tests needed for a full set.

(a) Thickness of sheeting: test the thinnest sheeting. As interlock is dependent on the localbending of individual plate elements in the sheeting profile, the results may not beapplied to thinner or significantly weaker sheets, which would be more flexible . . . (1)

(b) Type of sheeting, meaning the profile, including any overlap details, and the specificationof embossments and their tolerances. Ensure that the embossments on sheets testedsatisfy clause B.3.3(2), and standardize the other details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

(c) Steel grade: test the highest and lowest grades to be used. The materials standards listedin clause 3.5 include several nominal yield strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

(d) Coating: this should be standardized, if possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)(e) Density of concrete: test the lowest and highest densities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)(f) Grade of concrete: test with a mean strength not exceeding 1.25 times the lowest value of

fck to be specified (see clause B.3.1(4)). The results will be slightly conservative forstronger concretes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

(g) Slab thickness: test the thinnest and thickest slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)The use of a single thickness is not permitted because the effectiveness of shear

connection may depend on the stiffness of the concrete component. Conclusions from atheoretical model for the effect of slab thickness, given in Appendix B of this guide, aresummarized below.

(h) Shear span: account is taken of this in the provisions for use of the test results.

This gives a total of

4 × 14 × 23 = 32 tests

If it is suspected that the results for parameters (a) and (g) will be over-conservative forthick sheets and strong concrete, respectively, even more tests would be needed. If analternative coating is to be offered, it should be possible to compare its performance withthat of the standard coating in a few tests, rather than another full set.

For the m–k method, tests are in groups of six, so the number rises from 32 to 48.The main conclusions from Appendix B of this guide are as follows;

• for the partial-interaction method, interpolation between results from tests on slabs ofthe same shear span and two thicknesses is valid for slabs of intermediate thickness

• for the m–k method, results from tests on two shear spans are applicable for shear spansbetween those tested.

The status of Annex B, and use of fewer testsAnnex B is informative. From notes to clauses 9.7.3(4) and 9.7.3(8), its test methods ‘may beassumed to meet the basic requirements’ of the relevant design method for longitudinal shear.These requirements are not defined; they have to be inferred, mainly from Annex B.

This implies that where the testing does not conform to the extensive scheme outlinedabove, some independent body, such as the relevant regulatory authority or its nominee,must be persuaded that the evidence presented does satisfy the ‘basic requirements’ of oneor both of the two design methods. Where this is done, the design can presumably claim to bein accordance with Eurocode 4, in this respect; but that would not apply internationally.

Annex B may eventually be superseded by a European standard on the determinationof the shear resistance of composite slabs. Until then, the situation is unsatisfactory.Development of better theoretical models would help. At present, research workers cannotvalidate these because manufacturers rarely release their detailed test results.

Where a new profile is a development from an existing range, it should be possible to usethe results of earlier tests to predict the influence of some of the parameters, and so reducethe number of new tests required.

192

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

204Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:18

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 197: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

Testing arrangement

Clause B.3.2(2)Loading is applied symmetrically to a simply-supported slab of span L, at points distant L/4from each support (clause B.3.2(2)). Crack inducers are placed beneath the loads (clauseB.3.3(3)), to reduce the effect of local variations in the tensile strength of the concrete. Thefailure loading is much heavier than the slabs, so the shear spans Ls (Fig. B.3) are subjected toalmost constant vertical shear. This differs from the test details in BS 5950: Part 4, in whichvertical shear is not constant over the length between a crack inducer and the nearer support.

Clause B.3.2(6)As the shear span is a fixed proportion of the span, specimens for regions such as A and B

for the m–k method (clause B.3.2(6) and Fig. B.4) are obtained by altering the span L. As thismethod is empirical, it is good practice to ensure that the tests also encompass the range ofspans required for use in practice.107

Clause B.3.2(7)

For sheeting with ductile behaviour and where design will use the partial-interactionmethod, the number of tests in a series, for specimens of given thickness ht, can be reducedfrom six to four (clause B.3.2(7)).

Clause B.3.3(1)Clause B.3.3(2)

Clauses B.3.3(1) and B.3.3(2) are intended to minimize the differences between theprofiled sheeting used in the tests and that used in practice. The depth of embossments hasbeen found to have a significant effect on the resistance.

Clause B.3.3(6)Propped construction increases the longitudinal shear. It is required for the test specimens

to enable the results to be used with or without propping (clause B.3.3(6)).Clause B.3.3(8)Clause B.3.3(9)

From clause B.3.3(8), the specimens for the determination of concrete strength, defined inclause B.3.3(9), should be cured under the same conditions as the test slabs. This cannot ofcourse be the curing under water normally used for standard cubes and cylinders. Whendeviation of strength from the mean is significant, the concrete strength is taken as themaximum value (clause B.3.3(9)).This causes the applicability of the test results to be morerestricted (clause B.3.1(4)).

Clause B.3.3(10)The test procedure for the strength of the profiled sheeting (clause B.3.3(10)) is givenelsewhere.121

Clause B.3.4(3)Clause B.3.4(4)

The initial loading test is cyclic (clauses B.3.4(3) and B.3.4(4)), to destroy any chemicalbond between the sheeting and the concrete, so that the subsequent test to failure gives atrue indication of the long-term resistance to variations of longitudinal shear. The number ofcycles, 5000, is fewer than that required by BS 5940: Part 4, but has been judged to beadequate for these purposes.

Design values for m and kClause B.3.5(1)Clause B.3.5(1) gives a design rule for the possibility that the two end reactions may differ

slightly, and applies an additional factor of safety of 1.25 to compensate for brittle behaviour,in the form of a reduction factor of 0.8.

Clause B.3.5(2)

Clause B.3.5(3)

The method of clause B.3.5(2) is applicable to any set of six or more test results,irrespective of their scatter. An ‘appropriate statistical model’ will penalize both the scatterand the number of results, if small, and may be that given in EN 1990, to which clause B.3.5(3)refers.

Where a series consists of six tests and the results are consistent, clause B.3.5(3) provides asimple method for finding the design line shown in Fig. B.4, and hence values for m and k.These are in units of N/mm2.

These methods differ from that of BS 5950: Part 4, both in the determination of the linethat gives the values of m and k (see Fig. 11.3) and in their definition. In BS 5950, k isproportional to the square root of the concrete strength, which causes complications withunits, and the two sets of three results could be from slabs with different concrete strengths.It has been found that the deliberate use of very different strengths for the specimens inregions A and B in Fig. 11.3 can lead to unsafe applications of the method, when m and k aredefined as in BS 5950: Part 4. All the results in a diagram such as Fig. B.4 are required byclause B.3.3(8) to be from specimens with nominally identical concrete, so there is no need toinclude concrete strength in the functions plotted in this figure.

193

CHAPTER 11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). STANDARD TESTS

205Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:18

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 198: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

The formula for vertical shear in clause 9.7.3(4) and the definitions of m and k in clauseB.3.5 are dimensionally correct, and can be used with any consistent set of units. However,analyses of a given set of test results by the Eurocode method give values for m and kdifferent to those found by the BS method, and k even has different dimensions. Theconversion of BS values to Eurocode values is illustrated in Example 11.1. The applicabilityof sets of test results not in accordance with Annex B are discussed in Appendix B of thisguide.

Design values for τu, Rd

Clause B.3.6(1) Clause B.3.6(1) refers to the partial-interaction curve shown in Fig. B.5. This is for saggingbending, and is determined for a group of tests on specimens with nominally identicalcross-sections as follows:

(a) The measured values of the required dimensions and strengths of materials aredetermined, and used to calculate the full-interaction plastic moment of resistance of atest specimen, Mp, Rm and the corresponding compressive force in the concrete slab, Nc, f.

(b) A value is chosen for η (= Nc/Nc, f), which determines a value Nc, the partial-interactioncompressive force in the slab at the section where flexural failure is assumed to occur.The corresponding value of the bending resistance M is then calculated from

M = Mpr + Nc z

with Mpr from equation (9.6), with Nc replacing Nc, f, and z from equation (9.9). This givesa single point on the curve in Fig. B.5, which assumes that an undefined slip can occur atthe interface between the sheeting and the concrete. This necessitates ductile behaviour.

(c) By repeating step (b) with different values of η, sufficient points are found to define thepartial-interaction curve.

Clause B.3.6(2) From clause B.3.6(2), a bending moment M is found from each test. This is Mtest in Fig. B.5,and leads to a value ηtest, and hence τu from equation (B.2).

For the test arrangement shown in Fig. B.3, there will be an overhang L0 beyond the shearspan Ls, along which slip will occur. This is allowed for in equation (B.2), which assumes thatthe shear strength is uniform along the total length (Ls + L0). In reality, the strength includesa contribution from friction at the interface between the sheeting and the concrete, arisingfrom the transmission of the vertical load across the interface to the support. In clauseB.3.6(2), this effect is included in the value found for τu.

Clause B.3.6(3) A more accurate equation for τu is given in clause B.3.6(3), for use with the alternativemethod of clause 9.7.3(9), where relevant comment is given.

Clause B.3.6(4)

From clause B.3.2(7), a group of four tests on specimens of given span and slab thicknessgives three values of τu, and evidence on ductility (clause B.3.2(7)). All the values of τu areused in a single calculation of the lower 5% fractile value, to clause B.3.6(4). This is dividedby γVS to obtain the design value used in clause 9.7.3(8).

The shape of the partial-interaction curve depends on the slab thickness, so a separate oneis needed for each thickness. The need for tests at different thicknesses is discussed at theend of Appendix B of this guide.

Example 11.1: m–k tests on composite floor slabsIn this example, values of m and k are determined from a set of tests not in accordancewith clause B.3, ‘Testing of composite floor slabs’. These tests, done in accordance with therelevant Netherlands standard, RSBV 1990, were similar to ‘specific tests’ as specified inclause 10.3.2 of ENV 1994-1-1, which has been omitted from EN 1994-1-1.

This set of tests on eight simply-supported composite slabs has been fully reported.122

The cross-section of the profiled sheeting is shown in Fig. 9.4. The values of m and k

194

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

206Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:19

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 199: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

determined here are used in Example 9.1, ‘Two-span continuous composite slab’, whichincludes the results of tests on the non-composite sheeting.

Test specimens and procedureAll of the composite slabs had the same breadth, 915 mm, which satisfies clause B.3.3(5),and were cast using the same mix of lightweight-aggregate concrete, with proppedconstruction (clause B.3.3(6)). (Where a clause number is given without comment, ashere, it means that the clause was complied with.) The tests to failure were done betweenthe ages of 27 and 43 days, when the strengths of test specimens stored with slabs (clauseB.3.3(8)) were as given in Table 11.1. Steel mesh with 6 mm bars at 200 mm spacing wasprovided in each slab (clause B.3.3(7)).

For specimens 1–4, the overall thickness and span were ht = 170 mm andL = 4500 mm, where the notation is as in Fig. B.3. For specimens 5–8, ht = 120 mmand L = 2000 mm. The distance between the centre-line of each support and the adjacentend of each slab was 100 mm (clause B.3.2(4)). The surfaces of the sheeting were notdegreased (clause B.3.3(1)).

The tensile strength and the yield strength of the sheeting were found from coupons cutfrom its top and bottom flanges (clause B.3.3(10)). The mean values were fu = 417 N/mm2

and fy, 0.2 = 376 N/mm2. The stress 376 N/mm2, measured at the 0.2% proof strain, issignificantly higher than the yield strength found in another series of tests,123 which was320 N/mm2. The nominal yield strength for this sheeting, now 350 N/mm2, was then280 N/mm2, which is only 74% of 376 N/mm2, so clause B.3.1(4) is not complied with. Thisis accepted, because small changes of yield strength have little influence on resistance tolongitudinal shear.

There is a similar ‘80%’ rule in clause B.3.1(4) for the strength of the concrete. Applyingit to the mean cube strength for this series, 34.4 N/mm2, gives a cube strength of27.5 N/mm2, which is below the value used in Example 9.1, so the rule is satisfied.

The slabs were tested under four-point loading, as shown in Fig. 11.2, and crackinducers were provided at distances L/8 each side of mid-span. This is not in accordancewith Fig. B.3; clause B.3.2(3) specifies two-point loading. An appropriate value of Ls hasto be found, for use in the determination of m and k. A shear–force diagram fortwo-point loading is found (the dashed line in Fig. 11.2) that has the same area as the

195

CHAPTER 11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). STANDARD TESTS

= == = = = = =

L

0

Vertical sheardue to appliedloading

Ls

W/2

W/4 W/4 W/4 W/4

Crack inducers

Fig. 11.2. Loading used in the tests on composite slabs

207Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:19

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 200: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

actual shear–force diagram, and the same maximum vertical shear. Here, Ls = L/4, as itis in Annex B.

Cyclic loadingClause B.3.4 specifies 5000 cycles of loading between 0.2Wt and 0.6Wt, where Wt is a staticfailure load. In these tests, Wt for specimen 1 was 75.5 kN, and the range of loading in tests2–4, for 10 000 cycles, was from 0.13Wt to 0.40Wt. For specimens 5–8, with a mean failureload of 94.4 kN, the fatigue loading in tests 6–8 ranged from 0.19Wt to 0.57Wt, close to therange specified. These divergences are not significant.

Results of tests to failureTo satisfy clause 9.7.3(3) on ductility, it is necessary to record the total load on thespecimen, including its weight, at a recorded end slip of 0.1 mm, at a deflection (δ) ofspan/50, and at maximum load. These are given in Table 11.1.

The failure load, as defined in clause 9.7.3(3), is for all these tests the value when L/50.These loads all exceed the load at a slip of 0.1 mm by more than 10%, the least excessbeing 13%. All failures are therefore ‘ductile’. From clause B.3.5(1), the representativevertical shear force Vt is taken as half the failure load.

Determination of m and kIn the original report122 the axes used for plotting the results were similar to those inBS 5950: Part 4 (Fig. 11.3(a)). They are

X = Ap /[bLs(0.8 fcu)0.5] Y = Vt /[bdp(0.8fcu)

0.5] (D11.4)

where fcu is the measured cube strength. The other symbols are in Eurocode notation.Values of X and Y were calculated from the results and are given in Table 11.1. Fromthese, the following values were determined:

m = 178 N/mm2 k = 0.0125 N0.5 mm (D11.5)

For m and k as defined in EN 1994-1-1, the relevant axes (Fig. 11.3(b)) are

x = Ap /bLs y = Vt /bdp

so that

x = X(0.8fcu)0.5 y = Y(0.8fcu)

0.5 (D11.6)

Approximate values for m and k to EN 1994-1-1 can be found by assuming that m toBS 5950: Part 4 is unchanged, and k is (0.8fcu, m)0.5 times the BS value, given above, wherefcu, m is the mean cube strength for the series. These values are

196

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Table 11.1. Results of tests on composite floor slabs

TestNo.

fcu

(N/mm2)

Load at0.1 mmslip (kN)

Load atδ = L/50(kN)

Maximumload (kN)

103X((1/N0.5)mm)

103Y(N0.5mm)

103x 103y(N/mm2)

1 31.4 63.3 75.5 75.5 0.222 58.6 1.115 2942 30.4 65.3 75.5 75.5 0.226 59.6 1.115 2943 32.1 64.3 73.9 73.9 0.220 56.7 1.115 2874 34.2 66.8 75.4 75.4 0.213 56.1 1.115 2935 35.3 52.2 94.0 94.2 0.472 108.2 2.51 5756 37.4 54.2 90.9 94.0 0.459 104.9 2.51 5747 37.2 52.2 91.7 93.9 0.460 105.0 2.51 5738 36.9 56.2 94.7 95.4 0.462 107.2 2.51 582

208Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:19

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 201: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

m = 178 N/mm2 k = 0.066 N/mm2 (D11.7)

These results are approximate because fcu is different for each test, and the procedureof Annex B for finding characteristic values differs from the BS procedure. The correctmethod is to calculate x and y for each test, plot a new diagram, and determine m and kfrom it in accordance with clause B.3.5, as follows.

The values of x and y for these tests, from equations (D11.6), are given in Table 11.1.The differences within each group of four are so small that, at the scale of Fig. 11.4, eachplots as a single point: A and B. Clause B.3.5(3), on variation within each group, issatisfied. Using the simplified method of that clause, the characteristic line is taken to bethe line through points C and D, which have y coordinates 10% below the values forspecimens 3 and 7, respectively. This line gives the results

m = 184 N/mm2 k = 0.0530 N/mm2 (D11.8)

which are used in Example 9.1.For these tests, the approximate method gives a small error in m, –3%, and a larger

error in k, +25%. From clause 9.7.3(4), the design shear resistance is

197

CHAPTER 11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). STANDARD TESTS

Shear-bond failureregression line

Design line(reduction of 15%)

Ap/bLs

Vt/bdp

Ap/bLsfcm0.5

Vt/bdpfcm0.5

Design line (minimumvalues reduced by 10%)

(a) (b)

A

B

Fig. 11.3. Evaluation of the results of tests on composite slabs. (a) BS 5950: Part 4. (b) EN 1994-1-1

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.001

1.0

m = 184 N/mm2

B

D

C

A

Ap/bLs

V/bdp (N/mm2)

0.002 0.0030

k = 0.053 N/mm2

Fig. 11.4. Determination of m and k

209Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:20

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 202: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

Vl, Rd = (bdp /γVS)[(mAp /bLs) + k] (D11.9)

The second term in square brackets is much smaller than the first, and in this example theerrors in m and k almost cancel out. In Example 9.1, Vl, Rd was found to be 28.0 kN/m.Using the approximate values of equations (D11.7) for m and k changes it only to28.3 kN/m.

Similar comparisons are needed with other sets of test results, before any generalconclusion can be drawn about the accuracy of the approximate method of calculation.

Note on the partial-interaction methodA composite slab using sheeting of the type tested was designed in Example 9.1. The m–kmethod was used for the verification for longitudinal shear, with values of m and k calculatedfrom test results, as shown in Example 11.1.

To illustrate the partial-interaction method of clauses 9.7.3(7) to 9.7.3(9), an attempt willbe made in the following Example 11.2 to use it in an alternative verification of the samecomposite slab, using the same set of test results.122 It is assumed that the reader is familiarwith the two examples referred to. Example 11.2 illustrates potential problems in using thismethod with existing test data, shows that a procedure given in ENV 1994-1-1,49 and omittedfrom EN 1994-1-1, can give unconservative results, and proposes a method to replace it.

Example 11.2: the partial-interaction methodIt is shown in Example 11.1 that in the eight tests reported,122 the behaviour of the slabswas ‘ductile’ to clause 9.7.3(3). For the partial-interaction method, clause B.3.2(7) thenrequires a minimum of four tests on specimens of the same overall depth ht: three with along shear span, to determine τu, and one with a short shear span, but not less than 3ht.The tests available satisfy the 3ht condition, but not that for uniform depth. The fourlong-span slabs were all thicker than the four short-span slabs. The purpose of the singleshort-span test is to verify ductility, which is satisfactory here.

The maximum recorded end slips in the long-span tests (Nos. 1 to 4), only 0.3 mm,reveal a problem. These tests were discontinued when the deflections reached span/50, soit is unlikely that the maximum longitudinal shear was reached. The specimens had thehigh span/depth ratio of 26.5, and probably failed in flexure, not longitudinal shear. This isconfirmed by the results that follow: the shear strength from tests 1–4 is about 30% lowerthan that from the short-span tests 5–8, where the end slips at maximum load were from 1to 2 mm and the span/depth ratio was 16.7.

Clause B.3.2(7) requires the shear strength to be determined from the results for thelong-span slabs. Its condition for a shear span ‘as long as possible while still providingfailure in longitudinal shear’ was probably not satisfied here, so that the final design valueτu, Rd is lower than it would have been if a shorter span had been used for tests 1–4. In theabsence of guidance from previous tests, this condition is difficult to satisfy when planningtests.

Other aspects of these tests are compared with the provisions of Annex B in Example11.1.

The partial-interaction diagramMeasured cube strengths and maximum loads for the eight tests are given in Table 11.1.The mean measured yield strength and cross-sectional area of the sheeting were376 N/mm2 and 1145 mm2/m, respectively.122 For full shear connection, the plastic neutralaxes are above the sheeting, so clause 9.7.2(5) applies.

The longitudinal force for full interaction is

Nc, f = Ap fyp = 1145 × 0.376 = 431 kN/m (D11.10)

198

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

210Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:20

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 203: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

and the stress blocks are as shown in Fig. 11.5(b). The mean cube strength for specimens5–8, 36.7 N/mm2, corresponds to a cylinder strength fcm of 29.8 N/mm2, so that the depth ofthe concrete stress block is

xpl = 431/(0.85 × 29.8) = 17.0 mm (D11.11)

With full interaction, the force Nc, f in the sheeting acts at its centre of area, 30 mm aboveits bottom surface, so the lever arm is

z = 120 – 17/2 – 30 = 81.5 mm

and

Mp, Rm = 431 × 0.0815 = 35.1 kN m/m

The method of calculation for the partial-interaction diagram is now considered,following clause B.3.6(1). The stress blocks in Fig. B.5 correspond to those used in clauses9.7.2(5) and 9.7.2(6) modified by clause 9.7.3(8). It follows from equation (D11.11) thatfor any degree of shear connection η (= Nc/Nc, f), the stress block depth is 17η mm, with aline of action 8.5η mm below the top of the slab (Fig. 11.5(c)).

For any assumed value for η, the lever arm z is given by equation (9.9). For typicaltrapezoidal sheeting, where the profile is such that ep > e (these symbols are shown in Fig.9.6), the simplification given in equation (D9.4) should for this purpose be replaced by

z = ht – 0.5ηxpl – e (D11.12)

where ht is the thickness of the slab tested. The use of e in place of ep is because anapproximation to the mean resistance MRm should over-estimate it. This moves curve FGin Fig. 11.6 upwards. For a given test resistance M, following the route ABC then gives alower value for ηtest, and, hence, a lower predicted τu, from equation (B.2).

Curve FG is found by calculations for a set of values for η that covers the range ofM/Mp, Rm found in the tests. The mean bending resistance is given by

MRm = Mpr + ηNc, f z (D11.13)

(based on equation (D9.5)). The reduced plastic resistance of the sheeting, Mpr, whichequals Np zp in Fig. 11.5(c), is found from equation (9.6).

Calculations for the partial-interaction diagram and τu

For η ≥ 0.2, equation (9.6) and equation (D11.13) give

MRm = ηNc, f z + 1.25Mp, a(1 – η) (D11.14)

Assuming η = 0.7, for example, equation (D11.12) gives for specimens 5–8

z = 120 – 0.7 × 8.5 – 30 = 84.0 mm

199

CHAPTER 11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). STANDARD TESTS

Ncf = 431

431

65

e = 30

81.5

55

8.5Nc = 431

8.5h

z

Np zp

Np

Nc

(b) (c)(a)

Fig. 11.5. Stress blocks for bending resistance of composite slab with partial interaction (dimensionsin mm)

211Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:21

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 204: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

From the tests,122 Mp, a = 5.65 kN m/m, with ep = 33 mm, so e – ep = 3 mm, much less thanz. From equation (D11.14),

MRm = 0.7 × 431 × 0.084 + 1.25 × 5.65 × 0.3 = 27.48 kN m/m

and

MRm /Mp, Rm = 27.48/35.1 = 0.783

For specimens 1–4, ht = 170 mm and Mp, Rm = 56.7 kN m/m. For η = 0.7,

z = 170 – 0.7 × 8.5 – 30 = 134 mm

MRm = 0.7 × 431 × 0.134 + 1.25 × 5.65 × 0.3 = 42.5 kN m/m

MRm /Mp, Rm = 42.5/56.7 = 0.750

Similar calculations for other degrees of shear connection give curves DE for the short-span slabs 5–8 and FG for slabs 1–4.

In clause B.3.6(2), the bending moment M is defined as being ‘at the cross-section underthe point load’, on the assumption that two-point loading is used in the tests. Here,four-point loading was used (see Fig. 11.2). At failure, there was significant slip throughoutthe length of 3L/8 between each inner point load and the nearer support, so, for thesetests, M was determined at an inner point load, and Ls was taken as 3L/8.

The calculation of Mtest for specimen 5 is now explained. From Table 11.1, the maximumload was 94.2 kN. This included 2.2 kN that was, in effect, applied to the composite slab bythe removal of the prop that was present at mid-span during concreting.122 The loads onthe composite member were thus as shown inset on Fig. 11.6, and the bending moment atpoint J was

Mtest = 47.1 × 0.75 – 23.0 × 0.5 = 23.83 kN m

This is for a slab of width 0.915 m, so that

Mtest/Mp, Rm = 23.83/(0.915 × 35.1) = 0.742

From Fig.11.6, ηtest = 0.646.

200

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.60.90.80.70.6

G

A

D

F

E

M/Mp, Rm

B

htest = 0.83

h = Nc/Ncf

C

0.86

0.742

htest = 0.646

Tests 1 to 4

Tests 5 to 8

46.0

47.1 H

2.2

250 500 250

J

Tests 5 to 8

Fig. 11.6. Partial-interaction diagram from tests (units: mm and kN)

212Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:21

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 205: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:30:45

Corresponding results for tests 1–4 are given in Table 11.2.Clause B.3.6(4) defines τu, Rk as the 5% lower fractile, based on the results for tests 1–4.

There may be other evidence on the variance of such results. Here, it is assumed that thisenables a value 10% below the mean to be used, as for the m–k method.

The values of η for tests 1–4 are so close that τu can be found from their mean value,0.83. From clause B.3.6(2),

τu = ηNc, f /[b(Ls + L0)] (D11.15)

For tests 1–4, Ls = 3 × 4.5/8 = 1.69 m. For all tests, Ncf = 431 kN/m, L0 = 0.1 m, and b istaken as 1.0 m. Hence,

τu = 0.83 × 431/1790 = 0.200 N/mm2

From clause B.3.6(6), with γVS taken as 1.25,

τu, Rd = 0.9 × 0.200/1.25 = 0.144 N/mm2

The interaction curve DE for specimens 5–8 is slightly higher than FG in Fig. 11.6. Itsvalue at η = 0, Mp, a /Mp, Rm, is higher because, for these thinner slabs (ht = 120 mm), Mp, Rm

is lower, at 35 kN m/m. Using the preceding method for these results givesτu, Rd = 0.24 N/mm2. This much higher result confirms the suspicion, noted above, thatlongitudinal shear failure was not reached in specimens 1–4.

CommentsWhere the test data are in accordance with the specification in Annex B, determination ofτu, Rd is straightforward, as values of η can be found by replacing the graphical method(used here for illustration) by direct calculation. However, where tests are being planned,or other data are being used, as here, the work requires understanding of the basis of theprovisions of Annex B. It is of particular importance to ensure that longitudinal shearfailures occur in the tests.

201

CHAPTER 11. ANNEX B (INFORMATIVE). STANDARD TESTS

Table 11.2. Degree of shear connection, from tests on composite slabs

Test No. Maximum load (kN) Mtest (kN m) Mtest /Mp, Rm η

1 75.5 44.8 0.863 0.8352 75.5 44.8 0.863 0.8353 73.9 43.9 0.846 0.8144 75.4 44.7 0.862 0.8335 94.2 23.83 0.742 0.646

213Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:21

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 206: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

APPENDIX A

Lateral–torsional buckling ofcomposite beams for buildings

This appendix supplements the comments on clause 6.4.

Simplified expression for ‘cracked’ flexural stiffness of acomposite slabThe ‘cracked’ stiffness per unit width of a composite slab is defined in clause 6.4.2(6)as the lower of the values at mid-span and at a support. The latter usually governs, becausethe profiled sheeting may be discontinuous at a support. It is now determined for thecross-section shown in Fig. A.1 with the sheeting neglected.

It is assumed that only the concrete within the troughs is in compression. Its transformedarea in ‘steel’ units is

Ae = b0 hp /nbs (a)

where n is the modular ratio. The position of the elastic neutral axis is defined by thedimensions a and c, so that

Aec = Asa and a + c = z (b)

where As is the area of top reinforcement per unit width of slab, and

z = h – ds – hp /2 (c)

hp/2

ds

b0

br

bs

As

zhc

a

Fig. A.1. Model for stiffness of a composite slab in hogging bending

215Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:21

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 207: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

Assuming that each trough is rectangular, the second moment of area per unit width is

I = As a2 + Ae(c2 + hp2/12) (d)

Using equations (b) to (d), the flexural stiffness is

(EI)2 = Ea [As Ae z2/(As + Ae) + Ae hp2/12] (DA.1)

This result is used in Example 6.7.

Flexural stiffness of beam with encased webFor a partially encased beam the model used for the derivation of equation (6.11) for theflexural stiffness k2 is as shown in Fig. A.2(a). A lateral force F applied to the steel bottomflange causes displacement δ. The rotation of line AB is φ = δ/hs. It is caused by a bendingmoment Fhs acting about A. The stiffness is

k2 = M/φ = Fhs2/δ

The force F is assumed to be resisted by vertical tension in the steel web and compression in aconcrete strut BC, of width bc/4. Elastic analysis gives equation (6.11).

Maximum spacing of shear connectors for continuous U-frameactionA rule given in ENV 1994-1-1 is derived. It is assumed that stud connectors are provided atspacing s in a single row along the centre of the steel top flange (Fig. A.2(b)). The tendencyof the bottom flange to buckle laterally causes a transverse moment Mt per unit length, whichis resisted by a tensile force T in each stud. From Fig. A.2,

Mt s = 0.4bT (a)

The initial inclination from the vertical of the web, θ0 in Fig. 6.9(b), due to the tendency ofthe bottom flange to buckle sideways, would be resisted by a moment ksθ0, from thedefinition of ks in clause 6.4.2(6). For a design longitudinal moment MEd at the adjacentinternal support, θ0 is assumed to be increased to

204

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

0.4b

T

T

Mt

C

A

B

dF

hs

bc/4

bc/4

(a) (b)

Fig. A.2. Resistance to transverse bending in an inverted U-frame. (a) Flexural stiffness of encasedweb. (b) Spacing of shear connectors

216Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:22

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 208: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

θ0[(MEd /Mcr)/(1 – MEd /Mcr)]

where Mcr is the elastic critical buckling moment. This deformation causes a transversebending moment per unit length

Mt = ksθ0[(MEd /Mcr)/(1 – MEd /Mcr)] (b)

where ks is the stiffness defined in clause 6.4.2(6).The design procedure of clause 6.4.2(1) is such that MEd £ χLT MRd. Here, MRd is taken as

approximately equal to the characteristic resistance MRk. From clause 6.4.2(4),= MRk/Mcr, so that equation (b) becomes

Mt = ksθ0[(χLT )/(1 – χLT )] (c)

It is assumed that the resistance of the studs to longitudinal shear, PRd, must not bereduced, and that this is achieved if

T £ 0.1PRd (d)

The initial slope θ0 is taken as L/400 h, where h is the depth of the steel section. A typicalL/h ratio is 20, giving θ0 = 0.05. From these results,

(DA.2)

This upper limit to the spacing of studs reduces as the slenderness increases.It can be evaluated where the conditions of clause 6.4.3 for simplified verification are

satisfied, because the value = 0.4 can be assumed. From Table 6.5 of EN 1993-1-1,buckling curve c should be used for rolled I-sections with a depth/breadth ratio exceeding2.0. For = 0.4 it gives χLT = 0.90. For a typical 19 mm stud, the resistance PRd is about75 kN. The combined stiffness of the slab and the web, ks, depends mainly on the stiffness ofthe web, and is here taken as 0.9k2 where k2, the stiffness of the web, is given by equation(6.10) as

k2 = Eatw3/[4(1 – νa

2)hs] (DA.3)

For a typical I-section, hs ª 0.97 h. With Ea = 210 kN/mm2 and ν = 0.3, substitution intoequation (DA.2) gives

s £ 6.66(b/tw)(h/tw)(1/tw) (e)

For rolled sections, the closest stud spacing is thus required for relatively thick webs.Examples are given in Table A.1. For studs in two rows, these spacings can be doubled,because the assumed lever arm for the moment Mt would increase from 0.4b (Fig. A.2) toabout 0.8b. For web-encased beams, ENV 1994-1-1 required the maximum spacings to behalved.

This check is not required by EN 1994-1-1. The results show that it would not govern innormal practice, but could do so where there was a need for wide spacing of studs (e.g.because precast concrete floor slabs were being used) on a beam with a relatively thick web,or where web encasement was used.

205

APPENDIX A. LATERAL–TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS FOR BUILDINGS

2LTλ

2LTλ 2

LTλ

LTλ

LTλ

LTλ

2Rd LT LT

2t s LT LT

0.04 (1 )0.40.05Ps T

b M kχ λ

χ λ-

= £

Table A.1. Maximum spacings for 19 mm studs, and minimum top reinforcement

Serial size Mass (kg/m) Web thickness (mm) smax (mm) 100As, min/ds

762 × 267 UB 197 15.6 362 0.06610 × 305 UB 238 18.6 204 0.12610 × 229 UB 101 10.6 767 0.02IPE 600 122 12.0 509 0.03HEA 700 204 14.5 452 0.05

217Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:22

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 209: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

Top transverse reinforcement above an edge beamWhere the concrete flange of a beam is continuous on one side only, as in Fig. 6.9(a), toptransverse reinforcement (AB) is required to prevent lateral buckling by anticlockwiserotation of the steel section, in the plane of the diagram. The preceding results for spacing ofstud connectors can be used to estimate the amount required.

The reinforcement will be light, so the lever arm for transverse bending can be taken as0.9ds (notation as in Fig. 6.9(a)), even where concrete in the lower half of the slab is presentonly in the troughs of sheeting. From expression (d) above, the force T per unit length is0.1PRd/s; so from equation (a) the transverse bending moment is

Mt = 0.4bT/s = 0.04bPRd /s = As fsd(0.9ds)

where As is the area of top transverse reinforcement per unit length along the beam, at itsdesign yield stress fsd. Using expression (e) for s,

0.9As fsd ds ≥ 0.0060PRd tw3/h

Assuming PRd = 75 kN and fsd = 500/1.15 = 435 N/mm2:

100As /ds ≥ 115tw3/ds

2h

The area As is thus greatest for a thin slab, so an effective depth ds = 100 mm is assumed,giving

100As /ds ≥ 0.0115tw3/h (f)

These values are given in the last row of Table A.1. They show that although top reinforcementis required for U-frame action, the amount is small. Clause 6.6.5.3, on local reinforcement inthe slab, does not refer to this subject, and could be satisfied by bottom reinforcement only.The requirements for minimum reinforcement of clause 9.2.1(4) and of EN 1992-1-1 couldalso be satisfied by bottom reinforcement, whereas some should be placed near the uppersurface.

Derivation of the simplified expression for λLTThe notation is as in the comments on clause 6.4 and in this appendix, and is not redefinedhere.

Repeating equation (D6.11):

Mcr = (kcC4/L)[(Ga Iat + ks L2/π2)EaIafz]1/2 (D6.11)

From clause 6.4.2(4),

= (MRk /Mcr)0.5 (a)

It is on the safe side to neglect the term GaIat in equation (D6.11), which in practice is usuallyless than 0.1ksL

2/π2. Hence,

Mcr = (kcC4 /π)(ks Ea Iafz)1/2 (b)

It is assumed that the stiffness of the concrete slab k1 is at least 2.3 times the stiffness of thesteel web, k2. The combined stiffness ks, given by equation (6.8) in clause 6.4.2, then alwaysexceeds 0.7k2, so ks in equation (b) can be replaced by 0.7k2. This replacement would not bevalid for an encased web, so these are excluded.

For a steel flange of breadth bf and thickness tf,

Iafz = bf3tf /12 (c)

The stiffness k2 is given by equation (6.10) in clause 6.4.2. Using it and the equations above,

(d)

206

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

LTλ

2 2 24 s aRk

LT 2 3 3 2c a w f f 4

48 (1 )0.7

hMk E t b t C

υλ

Ê ˆ -= Á ˜Ë ¯

π

218Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:22

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 210: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

For sections in Class 1 or Class 2, MRk = Mpl, Rk. It can be shown that Mpl, Rk is givenapproximately by

Mpl, Rk = kc Mpl, a, Rk(1 + tw hs /4bf tf) (e)

For double-symmetrical steel I-sections, the plastic resistance to bending is givenapproximately by

Mpl, a, Rk = fy hs bf tf (1 + tw hs /4bf tf) (f)

From equations (d) to (f), with υa = 0.3,

(D6.14)

as given in Annex B of ENV 1994-1-1.

207

APPENDIX A. LATERAL–TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS FOR BUILDINGS

0.75 0.50.25yw s s f

LTf f w f a 4

5.0 14

ft h h tb t t b E C

λÊ ˆ Ê ˆÊ ˆ Ê ˆ

= +Á ˜ Á ˜Á ˜ Á ˜Ë ¯ Ë ¯Ë ¯ Ë ¯

43.0

y

yM0yM0

M0 is the bending moment at midspanwhen both ends are simply supported

yM0

yM0 yM0

yM0

yM0

y Æ •

y Æ •

yM0

0.5yM0

0.75yM0

2.01.00.4

30

20

10

C4

Fig. A.3. Values of the factor C4 for uniformly distributed and centre point loading

219Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:23

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 211: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

Effect of web encasement on λLTThe reduction in relative slenderness achieved by encasing a steel web to clause 5.5.3(2)can be estimated as follows. The subscript e is used for properties of the section afterencasement.

From equations (6.10) and (6.11),

The modular ratio n rarely exceeds 12, and bf /tw is at least 15 for rolled or welded I-sections.With these values, and νa = 0.3,

k2, e /k2 = 12.2

Assuming, as above, that k1 > 2.3k2 and using equation (6.8), the change in ks is

It was found above that ks can be replaced by 0.7k2, so ks, e is now replaced by2.78 × 0.7k2 = 1.95k2. Thus, the divisor 0.7 in equation (d) above is replaced by 1.95. Hence,

208

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

2 22, e a f

22 w f w

(1 )4(1 4 / )

k bk nt b t

υ-=

+

s, e 2, e 1 2

s 1 2, e 2

12.2 (2.3 1)2.78

2.3 12.2

k k k kk k k k

+ ¥ += > =

+ +

4

y

Uniform loading

No transverse loading

Lc/L = 0.25

Lc/L = 0.50

Lc/L = 1.00

Lc/L = 0.75

LcL

yM0

yM

yM

M0

M

M

1.00.50

30

20

10

C4

Fig. A.4. Values of the factor C4 for cantilevers, and for spans without transverse loading

220Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:23

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 212: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

= (0.7/1.95)0.25 = 0.77 (DA.4)

Factor C4 for the distribution of bending momentThe tables that were given in ENV 199449 relate to distributions of bending moment betweenpoints at which the steel bottom flange is laterally restrained, not necessarily to completespans. The more commonly used values for distributed loading on internal spans are plottedin Fig. A.3. For values of ψ exceeding 3.0, values corresponding to ψ Æ • can conservativelybe used. These are also shown.

The dashed lines in Fig. A.3 are for point loads at mid-span. Two other sets of values areplotted in Fig. A.4. The solid lines apply for lateral buckling of a cantilever of length Lc,where both it and the adjacent span of length L have the same intensity of distributedloading. The dashed lines are for an unloaded span with one or both ends continuous.

Criteria for verification of lateral–torsional stability withoutdirect calculationUnlike UB steel sections, the basic sets of IPE and HEA sections have only one size for eachoverall depth, h. Plots of their section properties F, from equation (D6.15), against h lie onstraight lines, as shown in Fig. A.5. This enables limits on F to be presented in Table 6.1of clause 6.4.3 as limits to overall depth. From equation (D6.14), Flim for given isproportional to fy

–0.5. From this, and the qualifying sections, it can be deduced that the valuesof Flim used in EN 1994-1-1 for the various grades of steel are as given in Table A.2.

209

APPENDIX A. LATERAL–TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF COMPOSITE BEAMS FOR BUILDINGS

LTλ

LT, e LT/λ λ

300 800700600500400

HEA sections

900

F

Depth, h (mm)

8

14

12

10

16457 × 152 UB Flim for uncased section, S 235

S 420, S 460

S 355

S 275

IPE sections

457 × 191 UB

533 × 210 UB

610 × 305 UB

610 × 229 UB

Does not qualify forgrades S 420 and S 460

Fig. A.5. Property F (equation (D6.15)) for some IPE, HEA and UB steel sections

221Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:24

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 213: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:06

The IPE and HEA sections shown qualify for all steel grades that have Flim above theirplotted value of F. The only exception is HEA 550, which plots just below the S420 and S460line, but does not qualify according to Table 6.1.

For UB sections, crosses in Fig. A.5 represent the 10 sections listed in Table 6.1. Theentries ‘Yes’ in that table correspond to the condition F £ Flim. It is not possible to give aqualifying condition in terms of depth only; equation (D6.15) should be used.

Web encasementFrom equation (DA.4), the effect of web encasement is to increase Flim by a factor of at least1/0.77 = 1.29. These values are given in Tables 6.1 and A.2. The additional depths permittedby clause 6.4.3(1)(h) are a little more conservative than this result.

210

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Table A.2. Limiting section parameter Flim, for uncased and web-encased sections

Nominal steel grade S235 S275 S355 S420 and S460

Flim, uncased 15.1 13.9 12.3 10.8Flim, encased web 19.5 18.0 15.8 13.9

222Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:24

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 214: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:08

APPENDIX B

The effect of slab thickness onresistance of composite slabs tolongitudinal shear

SummaryA mechanical model based on ductile shear connection has been applied to the m–k andpartial connection methods of Section 9 for design of composite slabs for longitudinal shear.For the m–k method it was shown124 that:

• where the assumptions of the model apply, the two sets of tests from which m and k arederived can be done on sets of slabs of different thickness but similar concrete strength

• two widely different shear spans should be used• predictions by the m–k method of EN 1994-1-1 for degrees of shear connection between

those corresponding to the shear spans tested, are conservative• predictions for degrees of shear connection outside this range are unconservative• the percentage errors can be estimated.

For the partial-connection method it was found124 that:

• where tests are done on slabs of one thickness only, the model gives no help in predictingthe effect of slab thickness on ultimate shear strength τu

• slabs of at least two different thicknesses should be tested, preferably with the sameshear span.

The modelThe notation and assumptions are generally those of clauses 9.7.3 and B.3, to which referenceshould be made.

Figure B.1 shows the left-hand shear span of a composite slab of breadth b and effectivedepth dp, at failure in a test in accordance with clause B.3. The self-weight of the slab isneglected in comparison with Vt, the value of each of the two point loads at failure.

The shear connection is assumed to be ductile, as defined in clause 9.7.3(3), with ultimateshear strength τu, as would be found by the procedure of clause B.3.6 (except that all valueshere are mean values, with no partial safety factors).

The sheeting and the slab are shown separated in Fig. B.1, and the longitudinal shear forcebetween them is

223Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:24

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 215: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:08

ηNc, f = τubLs (DB.1)

where η is the degree of shear connection, £ 1. The value of τu is assumed to be independentof the shear span, so that

Ls = ηLsf (DB.2)

where Lsf is the length of shear span at which the longitudinal force Nc, f equals the tensilestrength of the sheeting, Npl. In the absence of a partial safety factor for strength of concrete,the rectangular stress block is quite shallow, and is assumed to lie within the concrete slab. Itsdepth is ηxpl, where xpl is the depth for full shear connection.

Let the plastic bending resistance of the sheeting be Mp, a, reduced to Mpr in the presence ofan axial force N, as shown by the stress blocks in Fig. B.1. The resistance Mpr is assumed to begiven by

Mpr = (1 – η2)Mp, a (DB.3)

The bilinear relationship given in clause 9.7.2(6) is an approximation to this equation, whichis also approximate, but accurate enough for the present work.

For equilibrium of the length Ls of composite slab,

Vt Ls = ηNcf (dp – ηxpl /2) + Mpr

Hence,

Vt = [ηNcf (dp – ηxpl /2) + (1 – η2)Mp, a]/(ηLsf) (DB.4)

For a typical profiled sheeting, Mp, a ª 0.3hpNpl. This is assumed here. The conclusions do notdepend on the accuracy of the factor 0.3. Hence,

Vt = (Ncf /ηLsf)[ηdp – η2 xpl /2 + 0.3 hp(1 – η2)] (DB.5)

For a particular sheeting and strength of concrete, it may be assumed that Ncf, Lsf, xpl and hp

are constant. The independent variables are the slab thickness, represented by dp, and theshear span in a test, represented by the degree of shear connection, η. The dependentvariable is the vertical shear resistance, Vt.

The m–k methodThe use of test results as predictorsThe properties m and k are determined from the graph shown in Fig. B.2, by drawing a linethrough two test results. The line is

y = mx + k

For a single result, (x1, y1), say,

y1 = mx1 + k

212

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

dp

hp

Vt

Vt

hNcf

hNcf

hNcf

dp – hxpl/2

hxpl

L = hLsf

Mpr

e

Fig. B.1. Shear span of composite slab, and stress blocks at failure in longitudinal shear

224Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:24

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 216: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:08

From the definitions of x and y, shown in Fig. B.2, and for this test result,

Vt1 = bdp1(mAp /bLs1 + k)

This is equation (9.7) in clause 9.7.3(4).Thus, the m–k method predicts exactly the first testresult. This is so also for the second test result, even if the slab thickness and shear span aredifferent. Two test results ‘predict’ themselves. The basic assumption of the m–k method isthat other results can be predicted by assuming a straight line through the two known results.It has been shown that it is in fact curved, so that other predictions are subject to error.

Shape of function y(x)The slope of the curve y(x) was found for a set of tests done with different shear spans andconstant slab thickness. It was shown, by differentiation of equation (DB.5), that the curvethrough the two points found in tests is convex upwards, as shown in Fig. B.2.

For some degree of shear connection between those used in two tests on slabs of the samethickness, from which the m–k line was predicted, the method gives the result Vpred, shown inFig. B.2. This is less than the resistance given by equation (DB.5), Vtrue, so the method is safe,according to the model.

For a degree of shear connection outside this range, the m–k method is unsafe.

Estimate of errors of predictionAs an example, suppose that for a set of tests with dp /hp = 2.0 the sheeting and concrete aresuch that when the shear span is Lsf, the depth xpl of the concrete stress block is given byxpl /hp = 0.4. Equation (DB.5) then becomes

Vt = (Nc, f hp /Lsf)(0.3/η + 2 – 0.5η) (DB.6)

Suppose that four otherwise identical tests are done with shear spans such that η = 0.4, 0.5,0.7 and 1.0. The (assumed) true results for Vt Lsf /Nc, f hp are calculated and plotted against1/η. They lie on a convex-upwards curve, as expected. By drawing lines through any two of thepoints, values for the other two tests predicted by the m–k method are obtained. Comparisonwith the plotted points gives the error from the m–k method, as a percentage. Typical resultsare given in Table B.1, for which the m–k line is drawn through the results for η1 and η2, andused to predict the shear resistance for a slab with η = η3. The values in columns 4 and 5 ofthe table are proportional to Vt, so the percentage values are correct.

213

APPENDIX B. SLAB THICKNESS AND RESISTANCE TO LONGITUDINAL SHEAR

y = Vt/bdp

x = Ap/bhLsf

Vpred

Vtrue

0

Fig. B.2. Determination of m and k from two sets of test results

225Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 217: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:08

Conclusion for the m–k methodTwo sets of tests should be done, with shear spans as widely different as possible, subject toobtaining the correct failure mode. The slab thickness should be roughly central within therange of application, and can differ in the two sets; but the concrete strengths should be thesame. The m–k results are applicable within the range of shear spans tested, and probably fora short distance outside it.

The partial-connection methodFrom Fig. B.1, the ultimate bending moment at the end of the shear span is

M = VtηLsf (DB.7)

The overhang L0 (clause B.3.6(2) and Fig. 9.2) is much less than Lsf. For simplicity it isassumed that Lsf + L0 ª Lsf, so that equation (B.2) in clause B.3.6 becomes

τu = ηNc, f /bLsf (DB.8)

From equations (DB.5) and (DB.7),

M/Mp, Rm = (Nc, f /Mp, Rm)[ηdp – η2xpl /2 + 0.3hp(1 – η2)] (DB.9)

where Mp, Rm is the plastic resistance moment with full shear connection.For any assumed value for η, an ultimate bending moment M can be calculated from

equation (DB.9). Thus, an M–η curve (Fig. B.5 of EN 1994-1-1) can be found. If safety factorsare omitted, the same curve is used to find ηtest from a measured value Mtest, and hence τu

from equation (DB.8).Equation (DB.9) is independent of shear span because ductile behaviour is assumed. It

gives no information on the rate of change of η with slab thickness or shear span, so a singlegroup of four tests gives no basis for predicting τu for slabs of different thickness from thosetested.

Assuming that the fourth test, with a short shear span (clause B.3.2(7)), shows ductilebehaviour, the effect of thickness can be deduced from results of a further group of threetests. The specimens and shear span should be identical with those in tests 1–3 in the firstgroup, except for slab thickness. The thicknesses for the two groups should be near the endsof the range to be used in practice.

Let the ratios dp/hp for these two series be denoted v1 and v2, with v2 > v1, leading to thecorresponding degrees of shear connection η1 and η2. It is likely that η2 > η1, because thelongitudinal strain across the depth of the embossments will be more uniform in the thickerslabs; but the difference may be small.

Assuming that over this range the relationship between test bending resistance M andratio v is linear, it can be shown124 that the η–v curve is convex upwards. Hence, interpolationfor η is conservative for slab thicknesses between those tested, and may be unconservativeoutside this range.

Conclusion for the partial-connection methodFor this method, further tests at constant thickness but different shear span would onlyprovide a check on the presence of ductile behaviour. Information on the effect of slab

214

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

Table B.1. Errors in prediction of Vt by the m–k method

η1 η2 η3

Prediction fromm–k line Plotted value

Error of prediction(%)

0.4 1.0 0.7 2.00 2.08 – 40.4 0.5 1.0 1.98 1.80 +100.7 1.0 0.4 2.78 2.55 + 9

226Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 218: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:08

thickness is best obtained from tests at constant shear span and two thicknesses. It canbe shown that values of degree of shear connection for intermediate thicknesses can beobtained by linear interpolation between the values for the thicknesses tested.

215

APPENDIX B. SLAB THICKNESS AND RESISTANCE TO LONGITUDINAL SHEAR

227Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 219: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:13

APPENDIX C

Simplified calculation methodfor the interaction curve forresistance of composite columncross-sections to compressionand uniaxial bending

Scope and methodEquations are given for the coordinates of points B, C and D in Fig. 6.19, also shown in Fig.C.1. They are applicable to cross-sections of columns where the structural steel, concrete andreinforcement are all doubly symmetric about a single pair of axes. The steel section shouldbe an I- or H-section or a rectangular or circular hollow section. Examples are shown inFig. 6.17.

0 Mpl, Rd MMmax, Rd

N

A

Npm, Rd/2

Npm, Rd

Npl, Rd

B

C

D

Fig. C.1. Polygonal interaction curve

229Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:25

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 220: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:13

Plastic analysis is used, with rectangular stress blocks for structural steel, reinforcement,and concrete in accordance with clauses 6.7.3.2(2) to 6.7.3.2(6). For filled tubes of circularsection, the coefficient ηc in clause 6.7.3.2(6) has conservatively been taken as zero.

In this annex, the compressive stress in concrete in a rectangular stress block is denoted fcc,where generally, fcc = 0.85fcd. However, for concrete-filled steel sections, the coefficient 0.85may be replaced by 1.0, following clause 6.7.3.2(1).

Resistance to compressionThe plastic resistance Npl, Rd is given by clause 6.7.3.2. The resistance Npm, Rd is calculated asfollows.

Figure C.2(a) represents a generalized cross-section of structural steel and reinforcement(shaded area), and of concrete, symmetrical about two axes through its centre of area G.For bending only (point B) the neutral axis is line BB which defines region (1) of thecross-section, within which concrete is in compression. The line CC at the same distance hn

on the other side of G is the neutral axis for point C in Fig. C.1. This is because the areas ofstructural steel, concrete and reinforcement in region (2) are all symmetrical about G, sothat the changes of stress when the axis moves from BB to CC add up to the resistanceNpm, Rd, and the bending resistance is unchanged. Using subscripts 1 to 3 to indicateregions (1) to (3),

Npm, Rd = Rc2 + 2|Ra2| (C.1)

where Rc2 is the resistance of the concrete in region (2), and Ra2 is the resistance of the steel inregion (2).

In the notation of clause 6.7.3.2(1),

Rc2 = Ac2 fcc

Ra2 = Aa2 fyd + As2 fsd

where compressive forces and strengths fcc, fsd and fyd are taken as positive.From symmetry,

Ra1 = |Ra3|

Rc1 = Rc3

(C.2)

218

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

D

B

C

hn

hn

D

(1)

B

C

(1)

(2)

(b)

b

h

ey

tw

tf

cy cy

cz

cz

bc

hc

ez

z

y

(a)

G

Fig. C.2. Composite cross-sections symmetrical about two axes

230Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 221: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:13

When the neutral axis is at BB, N = 0, so that

Ra1 + Rc1 = |Ra2| + |Ra3| (C.3)

From eqs (C.2) and (C.3), |Ra2| = Rc1 = Rc3. Substituting in equation(C.l),

Npm, Rd = Rc2 + Rc1 + Rc3 = Rc (C.4)

where Rc is the compressive resistance of the whole area of concrete, which is easilycalculated.

Position of neutral axisEquations for hn depend on the axis of bending, the type of cross section and the cross sectionproperties. The equations are derived from equations (C.1) and (C.4), and are given belowfor some cross sections.

Bending resistancesThe axial resistance at point D in Fig. C.1 is half that at point C, so the neutral axis for pointD is line DD in Fig. C.2(a).

The bending resistance at point D is

Mmax, Rd = Wpa fyd + Wps fsd + Wpc fcc /2 (C.5)

where Wpa, Wps and Wpc are the plastic section moduli for the structural steel, the reinforcementand the concrete part of the section (for the calculation of Wpc the concrete is assumed tobe uncracked), and fyd, fsd and fcc are the design strengths for the structural steel, thereinforcement and the concrete.

The bending resistance at point B is

Mpl, Rd = Mmax, Rd – Mn, Rd (C.6)

with

Mn, Rd = Wpa, n fyd + Wps, n fsd + Wpc, n fcc /2 (C.7)

where Wpa, n, Wps, n and Wpc, n are the plastic section moduli for the structural steel, thereinforcement and the concrete parts of the section within region (2) of Fig. C.2(a).

Equations for the plastic section moduli of some cross-sections are given below.

Interaction with transverse shearIf the shear force to be resisted by the structural steel is considered according to clause6.7.3.2(4) the appropriate areas of steel should be assumed to resist shear alone. The methodgiven here can be applied using the remaining areas.

Neutral axes and plastic section moduli of some cross-sectionsGeneralThe compressive resistance of the whole area of concrete is

Npm, Rd = Ac fcc (C.8)

The value of the plastic section modulus of the total reinforcement is given by

219

APPENDIX C. RESISTANCE OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS TO COMPRESSION AND UNIAXIAL BENDING

231Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 222: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:13

(C.9)

where ei are the distances of the reinforcement bars of area As, i to the relevant middle line(y-axis or z-axis).

The equations for the position of the neutral axis hn are given for selected positions in thecross-sections. The resulting value hn should lie within the limits of the assumed region.

Major-axis bending of encased I-sectionsThe plastic section modulus of the structural steel may be taken from tables, or be calculatedfrom

(C.10)

and

(C.11)

For the different positions of the neutral axes, hn and Wpa, n are given by:

(a) Neutral axis in the web, hn £ h/2 – tf:

(C.12)

Wpa, n = tw hn2 (C.13)

where Asn is the sum of the area of reinforcing bars within the region of depth 2hn.(b) Neutral axis in the flange, h/2 – tf < hn < h/2:

(C.14)

(C.15)

(c) Neutral axis outside the steel section, h/2 £ hn £ hc/2:

(C.16)

Wpa, n = Wpa (C.17)

The plastic modulus of the concrete in the region of depth from 2hn then results from

Wpc, n = bc hn2 – Wpa, n – Wps, n (C.18)

with

(C.19)

where Asn, i are the areas of reinforcing bars within the region of depth 2hn, and ez, i are thedistances from the middle line.

Minor-axis bending of encased I-sectionsThe notation is given in Fig. C.2(b).

The plastic section modulus of the structural steel may be taken from tables or becalculated from

220

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

2f w

pa f f

( 2 )( )

4h t t

W bt h t-

= + -

2c c

pc pa ps4b h

W W W= - -

pm, Rd sn sd ccn

c cc w yd cc

(2 )

2 2 (2 )

N A f fh

b f t f f

- -=

+ -

pm, Rd sn sd cc w f yd ccn

c cc yd cc

(2 ) ( )( 2 )(2 )

2 2 (2 )

N A f f b t h t f fh

b f b f f

- - + - - -=

+ -2

2 w fpa, n n

( )( 2 )4

b t h tW bh

- -= -

pm, Rd sn sd cc a yd ccn

c cc

(2 ) (2 )

2

N A f f A f fh

b f

- - - -=

ps, n sn, z,1

| |n

i ii

W A e=

= Â

ps s,1

| |n

i ii

W A e=

= Â

232Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:26

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 223: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:13

(C.20)

and

(C.21)

For the different positions of the neutral axes, hn and Wpa, n are given by:

(a) Neutral axis in the web, hn £ tw/2:

(C.22)

Wpa, n = hhn2 (C.23)

(b) Neutral axis in the flanges, tw/2 < hn < b/2:

(C.24)

(C.25)

(c) Neutral axis outside the steel section, b/2 £ hn £ bc/2

(C.26)

Wpa, n = Wpa (C.27)

The plastic modulus of the concrete in the region of depth 2hn then results from

Wpc, n = hc hn2 – Wpa, n – Wps, n (C.28)

with Wps, n according to equation (C.19), changing the subscript z to y.

Concrete-filled circular and rectangular hollow sectionsThe following equations are derived for rectangular hollow sections with bending about they-axis of the section (see Fig. C.3). For bending about the z-axis the dimensions h and b are tobe exchanged as well as the subscripts z and y. Equations (C.29) to (C.33) may be used forcircular hollow sections with good approximation by substituting

h = b = d and r = d/2 – t

(C.29)

with Wps according to equation (C.9).Wpa may be taken from tables, or be calculated from

(C.30)

(C.31)

Wpc, n = (b – 2t)hn2 – Wps, n (C.32)

Wpa, n = bhn2 – Wpc, n – Wps, n (C.33)

with Wps, n according to equation (C.19).

221

APPENDIX C. RESISTANCE OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS TO COMPRESSION AND UNIAXIAL BENDING

pm, Rd sn sd ccn

c cc yd cc

(2 )

2 2 (2 )

N A f fh

h f h f f

- -=

+ -

pm, Rd sn sd cc w f yd ccn

c cc f yd cc

(2 ) (2 )(2 )

2 4 (2 )

N A f f t t h f fh

h f t f f

- - + - -=

+ -

23 2

pa pc ps2

( ) ( ) (4 )(0.5 )4 3

bhW r t r t h t r W W= - + - + - - - - -π

23 2

pc ps

( 2 )( 2 ) 2(4 )(0.5 )

4 3b t h t

W r r h t r W- -

= - - - - - -π

pm, Rd sn sd cc a yd ccn

c cc

(2 ) (2 )

2

N A f f A f fh

h f

- - - -=

22 f w

pa, n f n

( 2 )2

4h t t

W t h-

= +

pm, Rd sn sd ccn

cc yd cc

(2 )

2 4 (2 )

N A f fh

bf t f f

- -=

+ -

2c c

pc pa ps4h b

W W W= - -

2 2f w f

pa

( 2 ) 24 4

h t t t bW

-= +

233Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 224: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:13

Example C.1: N–M interaction polygon for a column cross-sectionThe method of Appendix C is used to obtain the interaction polygon given in Fig. 6.38 forthe concrete-encased H section shown in Fig. 6.37. The small area of longitudinalreinforcement is neglected. The data and symbols are as in Example 6.10 and Figs 6.37,C.1 and C.2.

Design strengths of the materials: fyd = 355 N/mm2; fcd = 16.7 N/mm2.Other data: Aa = 11 400 mm2; Ac = 148 600 mm2; tf = 17.3 mm; tw = 10.5 mm; bc = hc =

400 mm; b = 256 mm; h = 260 mm; 10–6Wpa, y = 1.228 mm3; 10–6Wpa, z = 0.575 mm3; Npl, Rd =6156 kN.

Major-axis bendingFrom equation (C.8),

Npm, Rd = 148.6 × 16.7 = 2482 kN

From equation (C.12),

hn = 2482/[0.8 × 16.7 + 0.021 × (710 – 16.7)] = 89 mm

so the neutral axis is in the web (Fig. C.4(a)), as assumed. From equation (C.11), theplastic section modulus for the whole area of concrete is

10–6Wpc = 43/4 – 1.228 = 14.77 mm3

From equation (C.13),

10–6Wpa, n = 10.5 × 0.0892 = 0.083 mm3

From equation (C.18),

10–6Wpc, n = 400 × 0.0892 – 0.083 = 3.085 mm3

From equation (C.5),

Mmax, Rd = 1.228 × 355 + 14.77 × 16.7/2 = 559 kN m

From equations (C.6) and (C.7),

Mpl, Rd = 559 – (0.083 × 355 + 3.085 × 16.7/2) = 504 kN m

The results shown above in bold type are plotted on Fig. 6.38.

222

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

r

b

(a)

hy

z

ey

ezez

eyt

(b)

y

z

t

Fig. C.3. Concrete-filled (a) rectangular and (b) circular hollow sections, with notation

234Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 225: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:13

Minor-axis bendingFrom equation (C.4), Npm, Rd is the same for both axes of bending. Thus,

Npm, Rd = 2482 kN

Assuming that the neutral axis B–B intersects the flanges, from equation (C.24),

hn = [2482 – 0.0105 × (260 – 34.6) × (710 – 16.7)]/[0.8 × 16.7+ 0.0692 × (710 – 16.7)] = 13.7 mm

so axis B–B does intersect the flanges (Fig. C.4(b)). From equation (C.21),

10–6Wpc = 43/4 – 0.575 = 15.42 mm3

From equation (C.25),

10–6Wpa, n = 34.6 × 0.01372 + 0.01052 × (260 – 34.6)/4 = 0.0127 mm3

From equation (C.28),

10–6Wpc, n = 400 × 0.01372 – 0.0127 = 0.0624 mm3

From equation (C.5),

Mmax, Rd = 0.575 × 355 + 15.42 × 16.7/2 = 333 kN m

From equation (C.7),

Mn, Rd = 0.0127 × 355 + 0.0624 × 16.7/2 = 5.03 kN m

From equation (C.6),

Mpl, Rd = 333 – 5 = 328 kN m

These results are plotted on Fig. 6.38, and used in Example 6.10.

223

APPENDIX C. RESISTANCE OF COMPOSITE COLUMNS TO COMPRESSION AND UNIAXIAL BENDING

89

B

D

B

89

C

D

C

(a)

BD

B

13.7

CD

C

13.7(b)

Fig. C.4. Neutral axes at points B, C and D on the interaction polygons

235Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 226: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:32

References

1. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures.Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. BSI, London, BS EN 1994 (inpreparation).

2. Gulvanessian, H., Calgaro, J.-A. and Holický, M. (2002) Designers’ Guide to EN 1990.Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. Thomas Telford, London.

3. British Standards Institution (2002) Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. BSI, London,BS EN 1990.

4. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1.1: GeneralRules and Rules for Buildings. BSI, London, BS EN 1992 (in preparation).

5. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Part 1.1: General Rulesand Rules for Buildings. BSI, London, BS EN 1993 (in preparation).

6. Beeby, A. W. and Narayanan, R. S. (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1992. Eurocode 2:Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. ThomasTelford, London (in preparation).

7. Nethercot, D. and Gardner, L. (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1993. Eurocode 3: Designof Steel Structures. Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Thomas Telford,London (in preparation).

8. European Commission (2002) Guidance Paper L (Concerning the Construction ProductsDirective – 89/106/EEC). Application and Use of Eurocodes. EC, Brussels.

9. British Standards Institution (2002) Actions on Structures. Part 1.1: Densities, Self Weightand Imposed Loads. BSI, London, BS EN 1991 [Parts 1.2, 1.3, etc., specify other types ofaction].

10. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. BSI,London, BS EN 1998 (in preparation).

11. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures.Part 2: Bridges. BSI, London, BS EN 1994 (in preparation).

12. International Organization for Standardization (1997) Basis of Design for Structures –Notation – General Symbols. ISO, Geneva, ISO 3898.

13. European Commission (1989) Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC. EC, Brussels,OJEC No. L40, 11 Feb.

14. British Standards Institution (2004) Geotechnical Design. BSI, London, BS EN 1997 (inpreparation).

15. Johnson, R. P. and Huang, D. J. (1994) Calibration of safety factors γM for compositesteel and concrete beams in bending. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:Structures and Buildings, 104, 193–203.

16. Johnson, R. P. and Huang, D. J. (1997) Statistical calibration of safety factors forencased composite columns. In: C. D. Buckner and B. M. Sharooz (eds), CompositeConstruction in Steel and Concrete III. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,pp. 380–391.

237Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:27

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 227: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:32

17. British Standards Institution (1997) Structural Use of Concrete. Part 1: Code of Practicefor Design and Construction. BSI, London, BS 8110.

18. Stark, J. W. B. (1984) Rectangular stress block for concrete. Technical paper S16, June.Drafting Committee for Eurocode 4 (unpublished).

19. Anderson, D., Aribert, J.-M., Bode, H. and Kronenburger, H. J. (2000) Design rotationcapacity of composite joints. Structural Engineer, 78, 25–29.

20. Morino, S. (2002) Recent developments on concrete-filled steel tube members inJapan. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S. Easterling and B. M. Shahrooz (eds),Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society of Civil Engineers,New York, pp. 644–655.

21. Wakabayashi, M. and Minami, K. (1990) Application of high strength steel to compositestructures. Symposium on Mixed Structures, including New Materials, Brussels. IABSE,Zurich. Reports, 60, 59–64.

22. Hegger, J. and Döinghaus, P. (2002) High performance steel and high performanceconcrete in composite structures. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S. Easterling andB. M. Shahrooz (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 891–902.

23. Hoffmeister, B., Sedlacek, G., Müller, Ch. and Kühn, B. (2002) High strength materialsin composite structures. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S. Easterling and B. M.Shahrooz (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society ofCivil Engineers, New York, pp. 903–914.

24. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-8: Design of Joints.BSI, London, BS EN 1993 (in preparation).

25. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-3: Cold FormedThin Gauge Members and Sheeting. BSI, London, BS EN 1993 (in preparation).

26. British Standards Institution (1998) Welding – Studs and Ceramic Ferrules for Arc StudWelding. BSI, London, BS EN 13918.

27. Trahair, N. S., Bradford, M. A. and Nethercot, D. A. (2001) The Behaviour and Designof Steel Structures to BS 5950, 3rd edn. Spon, London.

28. Johnson, R. P. and Chen, S. (1991) Local buckling and moment redistribution in Class 2composite beams. Structural Engineering International, 1, 27–34.

29. Johnson, R. P. and Fan, C. K. R. (1988) Strength of continuous beams designed toEurocode 4. Proceedings of the IABSE. IABSE, Zurich, P-125/88, pp. 33–44.

30. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-5: Plated StructuralElements. BSI, London, BS EN 1993 (in preparation).

31. British Standards Institution (1990) Code of Practice for Design of Simple and ContinuousComposite Beams. BSI, London, BS 5950-3-1.

32. Haensel, J. (1975) Effects of creep and shrinkage in composite construction. Report75-12. Institute for Structural Engineering, Ruhr-Universität, Bochum.

33. Johnson, R. P. and Hanswille, G. (1998) Analyses for creep of continuous steel andcomposite bridge beams, according to EC4: Part 2. Structural Engineer, 76, 294–298.

34. Johnson, R. P. (1987) Shrinkage-induced curvature in cracked composite flanges ofcomposite beams. Structural Engineer, 65B, 72–77.

35. British Standards Institution (2004) Actions on Structures. Part 1-5: Thermal Actions.BSI, London, BS EN 1991 (in preparation).

36. British Standards Institution (2002) Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. Annex A1:Application for Buildings. BSI, London, BS EN 1990.

37. Johnson, R. P. and Buckby, R. J. (1986) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete, 2ndedn, Vol. 2. Bridges. Collins, London.

38. Johnson, R. P. and Huang, D. J. (1995) Composite bridge beams of mixed-classcross-section. Structutural Engineering International, 5, 96–101.

39. ECCS TC11 (1999) Design of Composite Joints for Buildings. European Convention forConstructional Steelwork, Brussels. Reports, 109.

226

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

238Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 228: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:32

40. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Cracking in concrete tension flanges of composite T-beams –tests and Eurocode 4. Structural Engineer, 81, 29–34.

41. Ahmed, M. and Hosain, M. (1991) Recent research on stub-girder floor systems. In:S. C. Lee (ed.), Composite Steel Structures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 123–132.

42. Lawson, R. M. (1987) Design for Openings in the Webs of Composite Beams. SteelConstruction Institute, Ascot, Publication 068.

43. Lawson, R. M., Chung, K. F. and Price, A. M. (1992) Tests on composite beams withlarge web openings. Structural Engineer, 70, 1–7.

44. Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (1993) Designers’ Handbook to Eurocode 4. Part 1:Basis of Design. Thomas Telford, London.

45. Ansourian, P. (1982) Plastic rotation of composite beams. Journal of the StructuralDivision of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 108, 643–659.

46. Johnson, R. P. and Hope-Gill, M. (1976) Applicability of simple plastic theory tocontinuous composite beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 61,127–143.

47. Johnson, R. P. and Molenstra, N. (1991) Partial shear connection in composite beamsfor buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 91, 679–704.

48. Aribert, J. M. (1990) Design of composite beams with a partial shear connection [inFrench]. Symposium on Mixed Structures, including New Materials, Brussels. IABSE,Zurich. Reports, 60, 215–220.

49. British Standards Institution (1994) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures.Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. BSI, London, DD ENV 1994.

50. Johnson, R. P. and Willmington, R. T. (1972) Vertical shear in continuous compositebeams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 53, Sept., 189–205.

51. Allison, R. W., Johnson, R. P. and May, I. M. (1982) Tension-field action in compositeplate girders. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 73, 255–276.

52. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures.Part 1–2: Structural Fire Design. BSI, London, BS EN 1994 (in preparation).

53. Andrä, H.-P. (1990) Economical shear connection with high fatigue strength. Symposiumon Mixed Structures, including New Materials, Brussels. IABSE, Zurich. Reports, 60, 167–172.

54. Studnicka, J., Machacek, J., Krpata, A. and Svitakova, M. (2002) Perforated shearconnector for composite steel and concrete beams. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S.Easterling and B. M. Shahrooz (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV.American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 367–378.

55. Lindner, J. and Budassis, N. (2002) Lateral distortional buckling of partially encasedcomposite beams without concrete slab. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S. Easterlingand B. M. Shahrooz (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 117–128.

56. Johnson, R. P. and Fan, C. K. R. (1991) Distortional lateral buckling of continuouscomposite beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 91, 131–161.

57. British Standards Institution (2000) Design of Steel Bridges. BSI, London, BS 5400:Part 3.

58. Johnson, R. P. and Molenstra, N. (1990) Strength and stiffness of shear connections fordiscrete U-frame action in composite plate girders. Structural Engineer, 68, 386–392.

59. Hanswille, G. (2002) Lateral torsional buckling of composite beams. Comparison ofmore accurate methods with Eurocode 4. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S. Easterlingand B. M. Shahrooz (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 105–116.

60. Hanswille, G., Lindner, J. and Münich, N. D. (1998) Zum Biegedrillknicken vonStahlverbundträgern. Stahlbau, 7.

61. Roik, K., Hanswille, G. and Kina, J. (1990) Background to Eurocode 4 clause 4.6.2 andAnnex B. University of Bochum, Bochum, Report RSII 2-674102-88.17.

227

REFERENCES

239Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 229: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:32

62. Roik, K., Hanswille, G. and Kina, J. (1990) Solution for the lateral torsional bucklingproblem of composite beams [in German]. Stahlbau, 59, 327–332.

63. Lawson, M. and Rackham, J. W. (1989) Design of Haunched Composite Beams inBuildings. Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, Publication 060.

64. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Part 2: Bridges. BSI,London, BS EN 1993 (in preparation).

65. British Standards Institution (2000) Code of Practice for Design in Simple and ContinuousConstruction: Hot Rolled Sections. BSI, London, BS 5950-1.

66. Johnson, R. P. and Chen, S. (1993) Stability of continuous composite plate girders withU-frame action. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings,99, 187–197.

67. Johnson, R. P. and Oehlers, D. J. (1981) Analysis and design for longitudinal shear incomposite T-beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 71, 989–1021.

68. Li, A. and Cederwall, K. (1991) Push Tests on Stud Connectors in Normal and High-strength Concrete. Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg, Report 91:6.

69. Mottram, J. T. and Johnson, R. P. (1990) Push tests on studs welded through profiledsteel sheeting. Structural Engineer, 68, 187–193.

70. Oehlers, D. J. and Johnson, R. P. (1987) The strength of stud shear connections incomposite beams. Structural Engineer, 65B, 44–48.

71. Roik, K., Hanswille, G. and Cunze Oliveira Lanna, A. (1989) Eurocode 4, Clause 6.3.2:Stud Connectors. University of Bochum, Bochum, Report EC4/8/88.

72. Stark, J. W. B. and van Hove, B. W. E. M. (1991) Statistical Analysis of Pushout Testson Stud Connectors in Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. TNO Building andConstruction Research, Delft, Report BI-91-163.

73. British Standards Institution (1998) Welding – Arc Stud Welding of Metallic Materials.BSI, London, BS EN ISO 14555.

74. Kuhlmann, U. and Breuninger, U. (2002) Behaviour of horizontally lying studs withlongitudinal shear force. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S. Easterling and B. M.Shahrooz (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society ofCivil Engineers, New York, pp. 438–449.

75. Grant, J. A., Fisher, J. W. and Slutter, R. G. (1977) Composite beams with formedmetal deck. Engineering Journal of the American Institute of Steel Construction, 1, 27–42.

76. Johnson, R. P. and Yuan, H. (1998) Existing rules and new tests for studs in troughsof profiled sheeting. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures andBuildings, 128, 244–251.

77. Johnson, R. P. and Yuan, H. (1998) Models and design rules for studs in troughsof profiled sheeting. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures andBuildings, 128, 252–263.

78. Lawson, R. M. (1993) Shear connection in composite beams. In: W. S. Easterling andW. M. K. Roddis (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete II. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 81–97.

79. Johnson, R. P. and Oehlers, D. (1982) Design for longitudinal shear in compositeL-beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 73, 147–170.

80. Najafi, A. A. (1992) End-plate connections. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, Warwick.81. Johnson, R. P. (2004) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete: Beams, Columns,

Frames, and Applications in Building, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford.82. British Standards Institution (1987) Design of Composite Bridges. BSI, London, BS 5400:

Part 5.83. Lam, D., Elliott, K. S. and Nethercot, D. (2000) Designing composite steel beams with

precast concrete hollow core slabs. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:Structures and Buildings, 140, 139–149.

84. Roik, K. and Bergmann, R. (1990) Design methods for composite columns withunsymmetrical cross-sections. Journal of Constructional Steelwork Research, 15, 153–168.

228

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

240Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 230: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:32

85. Wheeler, A. T. and Bridge, R. Q. (2002) Thin-walled steel tubes filled with highstrength concrete in bending. In: J. F. Hajjar, M. Hosain, W. S. Easterling and B. M.Shahrooz (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society ofCivil Engineers, New York, pp. 584–595.

86. Kilpatrick, A. and Rangan, V. (1999) Tests on high-strength concrete-filled tubularsteel columns. ACI Structural Journal, 96-S29, 268–274.

87. May, I. M. and Johnson, R. P. (1978) Inelastic analysis of biaxially restrained columns.Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 65, 323–337.

88. Roik, K. and Bergmann, R. (1992) Composite columns. In: P. J. Dowling, J. L. Hardingand R. Bjorhovde (eds), Constructional Steel Design – An International Guide. Elsevier,London, pp. 443–469.

89. British Standards Institution (2004) Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-9: Fatigue Strengthof Steel Structures. BSI, London, BS EN 1993 (in preparation).

90. Atkins, W. S. and Partners (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1994. Eurocode 4: Design ofComposite Structures. Part 2: Bridges. Thomas Telford, London (in preparation).

91. Johnson, R. P. (2000) Resistance of stud shear connectors to fatigue. Journal ofConstructional Steel Research, 56, 101–116.

92. Oehlers, D. J. and Bradford, M. (1995) Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Members –Fundamental Behaviour. Elsevier, Oxford.

93. Gomez Navarro, M. (2002) Influence of concrete cracking on the serviceability limitstate design of steel-reinforced concrete composite bridges: tests and models. In: J.Martinez Calzon (ed.), Composite Bridges – Proceedings of the 3rd International Meeting.Spanish Society of Civil Engineers, Madrid, pp. 261–278.

94. Johnson, R. P. and May, I. M. (1975) Partial-interaction design of composite beams.Structural Engineer, 53, 305–311.

95. Stark, J. W. B. and van Hove, B. W. E. M. (1990) The Midspan Deflection of CompositeSteel-and-concrete Beams under Static Loading at Serviceability Limit State. TNO Buildingand Construction Research, Delft, Report BI-90-033.

96. British Standards Institution (2004) Draft National Annex to BS EN 1990: Eurocode:Basis of Structural Design. BSI, London (in preparation).

97. British Standards Institution (1992) Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibrationin Buildings. BSI, London, BS 6472.

98. Wyatt, T. A. (1989) Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors. Steel Construction Institute,Ascot, Publication 076.

99. Randl, E. and Johnson, R. P. (1982) Widths of initial cracks in concrete tension flangesof composite beams. Proceedings of the IABSE, P-54/82, 69–80.

100. Johnson, R. P. and Allison, R. W. (1983) Cracking in concrete tension flanges ofcomposite T-beams. Structural Engineer, 61B, 9–16.

101. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Cracking in concrete flanges of composite T-beams – tests andEurocode 4. Structural Engineer, 81, 29–34.

102. Roik, K., Hanswille, G. and Cunze Oliveira Lanna, A. (1989) Report on Eurocode 4,Clause 5.3, Cracking of Concrete. University of Bochum, Bochum, Report EC4/4/88.

103. Moore, D. B. (2004) Designers’ Guide to EN 1993. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures.Part 1-8: Design of Joints. Thomas Telford, London (in preparation).

104. Couchman, G. and Way, A. (1998) Joints in Steel Construction – Composite Connections.Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, Publication 213.

105. Bose, B. and Hughes, A. F. (1995) Verifying the performance of standard ductileconnections for semi-continuous steel frames. Proceedings of the Institution of CivilEngineers: Structures and Buildings, 110, November, 441–457.

106. Nethercot, D. A. and Lawson, M. (1992) Lateral Stability of Steel Beams and Columns –Common Cases of Restraint. Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, Publication 093.

107. British Standards Institution (1994) Code of Practice for Design of Floors with ProfiledSteel Sheeting. BSI, London, BS 5950-4.

229

REFERENCES

241Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:28

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 231: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:32

108. British Standards Institution (2004) Actions on Structures. Part 1-6: Actions DuringExecution. BSI, London, BS EN 1991 (in preparation).

109. Couchman, G. H. and Mullett, D. L. (2000) Composite Slabs and Beams Using SteelDecking: Best Practice for Design and Construction. Steel Construction Institute, Ascot,Publication 300.

110. Bryan, E. R. and Leach, P. (1984) Design of Profiled Sheeting as Permanent Formwork.Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, TechnicalNote 116.

111. Stark, J. W. B. and Brekelmans, J. W. P. M. (1990) Plastic design of continuouscomposite slabs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 15, 23–47.

112. ECCS Working Group 7.6 (1998) Longitudinal Shear Resistance of Composite Slabs:Evaluation of Existing Tests. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork,Brussels. Reports, 106.

113. Bode, H. and Storck, I. (1990) Background Report to Eurocode 4 (Continuation of ReportEC4/7/88). Chapter 10 and Section 10.3: Composite Floors with Profiled Steel Sheet.University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern.

114. Bode, H. and Sauerborn, I. (1991) Partial shear connection design of compositeslabs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference. Association for InternationalCooperation and Research in Steel–Concrete Composite Structures, Sydney, pp. 467–472.

115. British Standards Institution (1997) Falsework. Performance Requirements and GeneralDesign. Standard 97/102975DC. BSI, London, prEN 12812.

116. Huber, G. (1999) Non-linear Calculations of Composite Sections and Semi-continuousJoints. Ernst, Berlin.

117. COST-C1 (1997) Composite Steel–concrete Joints in Braced Frames for Buildings. Report:Semi-rigid Behaviour of Civil Engineering Structural Connections. Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

118. Aribert, J. M. (1999) Theoretical solutions relating to partial shear connection of steel–concrete composite beams and joints. In: Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Steel and Composite Structures. TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft,7.1-7.16.

119. Patrick, M. (1990) A new partial shear connection strength model for composite slabs.Steel Construction Journal, 24, 2–17.

120. Oehlers, D. J. (1989) Splitting induced by shear connectors in composite beams. Journalof the Structural Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 115, 341–362.

121. British Standards Institution (2001) Tensile Testing of Metallic Materials. Part 1: Methodof Test at Ambient Temperature. BSI, London, BS EN 10002.

122. van Hove, B. W. E. M. (1991) Experimental Research on the CF70/0.9 Composite Slab.TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, Report BI-91-106.

123. Elliott, J. S. and Nethercot, D. (1991) Non-composite Flexural and Shear Tests onCF70 Decking. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, ReportSR 91033.

124. Johnson, R. P. (2004) The m–k and partial-interaction models for shear resistance ofcomposite slabs, and the use of non-standard test data. In: Composite Construction inSteel and Concrete V [Proceedings of a Conference, Kruger National Park, 2004].American Society of Civil Engineers, New York (in preparation).

230

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

242Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 232: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:35

Index

Note: references to ‘beams’ and to ‘columns’ are to composite members

action effect see actions, effects ofactions 6

combinations of 32–3, 128, 130characteristic 33, 124–5, 136frequent 33, 121, 124, 174quasi-permanent 33, 91, 129, 134, 139

concentrated 36, 209effects of 6

independent 104, 117primary 9, 92secondary 9, 92second-order 22–3, 34

horizontal 27indirect 9see also fatigue

adhesives 17analysis, elastic, of cross-sections

see beams; columns; etc.analysis, global 6, 21–40, 121, 156

cracked 13, 36elastic 29–36, 90–1, 121, 128, 134, 156–7elastic–plastic 105first-order 22–3, 90for composite slabs 21, 164, 169for profiled sheeting 163non-linear 33–4of frames 23–4, 149rigid-plastic 33–4, 36–8second-order 22–4, 30, 32–4, 105, 108, 110uncracked 36see also cracking of concrete

analysis, types of 6, 27–8anchorage 76, 162, 167–9, 187

see also reinforcementAnnex, National see National Annexapplication rules 5axes 7, 106

beams 41–67bending resistance of 39, 44–54

hogging 45, 50–4, 88sagging 44–50, 88–9, 96–7

Class 1 or 2 9, 36, 38–9, 43, 45, 49, 68, 88, 130,134, 207

Class 3 9, 36, 39, 50, 56, 59, 67, 70Class 4 9, 28, 34, 36, 54, 58, 130concrete-encased 4, 32, 34, 43, 57, 180–1cross-sections of 41–2, 44

asymmetric 37–8classification of 28, 37–40, 52–3, 87–8critical 42–3, 69effective 43, 90elastic analysis of 44, 50, 54, 89–90non-uniform 43sudden change in 42see also slabs, composite; slabs, concrete

curved in plan 44design procedure for 47–8effective width of flanges of 28–9, 87, 138, 145flexural stiffness of 32haunched 73–4, 79, 81in frames 32L-section 72of non-uniform section 4, 31, 34shear connection for see shear connectionshear resistance of 89stresses in 136–7see also analysis; buckling; cantilevers;

cracking of concrete; deflections; fire,resistance to; imperfections; interaction;shear …; vibration; webs

bending momentselastic critical 58–65, 94–6in columns 34, 105, 110–11, 115redistribution of 15, 34–7, 39, 66, 129, 163–4

243Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 233: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:35

bolts, fracture of 143bolts, holes for 44bolts, stiffness of 182bond see shear connectionbox girders 4, 80bracing to bottom flanges 60, 63, 100breadth of flange, effective see beams; slabs,

compositebridges, beams in 68, 120British Standards 5

BS 5400 80, 120, 187–8BS 5950 34, 36–7, 39, 71, 74, 80, 130, 162–3,

165, 168, 187–8, 193, 196BS 8110 14–15, 164

buckling 22–4in columns 23, 105–6, 108, 113lateral–torsional 24, 34–6, 41, 45, 55, 57–66,

90, 93–6, 203–10local 24, 28, 37, 39–40, 67, 80, 130, 164

see also beams, cross-sections ofof reinforcement 44of webs in shear 24, 34, 55–7, 89see also loads, elastic critical

buildings, high-rise 104, 128

calibration 14–15, 71, 132cantilevers 58, 79, 93, 209CEN (Comité Européen Normalisation), 1, 3,

10Class of section see Beams, Class …Codes of Practice see British Standardscolumns 103–119, 128

bi-axial bending in 105, 108, 111, 117concrete-encased 4, 105–6, 112, 147, 220–3concrete-filled 14, 105–7, 112, 218, 221creep in 31, 114, 118cross-sections of

interaction diagram for 104, 106–7, 115,217–23

non-symmetrical 103–5section moduli for 219–21

design method for 105–11eccentricity of loading for 107effective length of 103effective stiffness of 28, 107, 110high-strength steel in 44load introduction in 104, 111–12moment–shear interaction in 107, 110, 115second-order effects in 110, 116–17shear in 112, 219slenderness of 107–8, 115squash load of 106steel contribution ratio for 104, 107, 114transverse loading on 24, 118see also buckling; bending moments;

imperfections; loads, elastic critical;shear connection; stresses, residual

compression members see columns

concretelightweight-aggregate 13, 15–16, 85, 91, 104,

136, 191, 195precast 80, 129, 205properties of 13–16, 119, 147strength classes for 13strength of 10stress block for 14–15see also cracking of concrete; creep of

concrete; elasticity, modulus of;shrinkage of concrete

connections see jointsconnector modulus see shear connection,

stiffness ofconstruction 3, 78, 168

loads 30, 162–3, 168, 172methods of 9propped 78, 136, 138, 193unpropped 13, 36–7, 39, 50, 59, 84, 128, 135

Construction Products Directive 10contraflexure, points of 42cover 19, 73, 77, 86, 106, 113crack inducers 193, 195cracking of concrete 121, 131–6, 158–9, 168

and global analysis 31–2, 90, 129–30control of

load-induced 134–5, 139restraint-induced 132–3, 138

early thermal 133uncontrolled 131–2

creep of concrete 15, 29–31, 49, 89, 91, 121in columns 108see also modular ratio; elasticity, modulus of

critical length 42cross-sections see beams; columnscurvature of beams 49

decking, metal see sheeting, profiled steeldefinitions 6deflections 128–30, 137–8

due to shrinkage 130, 137due to slip 137limits to 129, 137–8of beams 128, 157–8of composite slabs 168–70, 174of profiled sheeting 163–4, 173

deformation, imposed 9, 131design, basis of 9–11design, methods of see beams; columns; slabsDesigners’ Guides 1, 10ductility see reinforcement, fracture ofdurability 19, 86

effective length see columnseffective width see beams; slabs, compositeeffect of action see actions, effects ofeigenvalue see load, elastic criticalelasticity, modulus of

for concrete 14, 29, 108for steels 16, 29

232

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

244Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 234: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:35

EN 1090 80EN 1990 3, 91, 127–9, 131, 174, 190, 193EN 1991 3, 32, 131, 172EN 1992-1-1 5

and detailing 77, 132and materials 13–16, 49, 91and resistances 28, 81–2, 122, 128, 168, 175and serviceability 131, 174

EN 1993-1-1 21, 23, 39, 58, 63, 205EN 1993-1-3 16, 163–4, 168–9EN 1993-1-5 28, 55EN 1993-1-8 16, 22, 141–5, 150–4, 179–80EN 1993-1-9 119–20, 122EN 1993-2 123EN 1994-1-1, scope of 3–5, 15EN 1994-1-2 57, 134EN 1994-2 4, 72, 103, 119EN 1998 3EN ISO 14555 72ENV 1994-1-1 15, 60–2, 68, 80, 105, 194, 198,

204, 209equilibrium, static 11Eurocodes 1European Standard 5

see also EN …examples

bending and vertical shear 55–6composite beam, continuous 84–100, 136–9composite column 113–9, 222–3composite joint 147–59, 181–5composite slab 170–7, 194–201effective width 29elastic resistance to bending 101–3fatigue 124–6lateral–torsional buckling 66reduction factor for strength of stud 76resistance to hogging bending 50–4shear connection 69–70, 100–1transverse reinforcement 82

execution see constructionexposure classes 19, 86, 113, 131

factors, combination 32factors, conversion 10factors, damage equivalent 123factors, partial 2, 10, 119–20, 163, 190factors, reduction 58, 72–6, 96, 106, 108, 181fatigue 11, 34, 119–26finite-element methods 33fire, resistance to 57flanges, concrete see beams; slabsflow charts 25–7, 35, 38, 64–5, 109forces, internal 105formwork, re-usable 129

see also sheeting, profiled steelfoundations 11frame, inverted-U, 59–61, 162, 204–6frames, composite 6

braced 32, 147

unbraced 4, 32, 34, 108see also analysis, global; buckling;

imperfections

geometrical data 10see also imperfections

haunches see beams, haunchedhole-in-web method 38–9, 51–4

imperfections 21–2, 24–7, 90, 110, 115, 117interaction, full 44interaction, partial 43, 45–9, 129, 176–7

see also shear connectionISO standards 5–6

joints 16, 21–2, 28beam-to-column 108, 141–59bending resistance of 150–4classification of 142, 148–9contact-plate 142, 144–5, 180end-plate 141, 143, 147–59, 181full-strength 22, 143, 145modelling of 143–7nominally pinned 22, 136, 143, 145, 147, 153partial-strength 2, 34, 37, 143, 145, 149rigid 136, 142rotational stiffness of 142, 144–5, 156, 179–85rotation capacity of 144–5, 147, 156semi-continuous 22semi-rigid 22, 34, 136, 143, 149simple see nominally pinned

L-beams 78, 188length, effective 103limit states

serviceability 28, 33, 127–39ultimate 41–126

loadsdynamic 161–2elastic critical 23, 32, 103, 108, 114–15imposed, for fatigue 120see also actions

m–k method 165–9, 175, 177, 191–4, 211–14see also slabs, composite, tests on

materials, properties of 13–17see also concrete; steel

mesh, welded see reinforcement, welded meshmodular ratio 29–31, 89–91, 121modulus of elasticity see elasticity, modulus ofmoments see bending moments; torsion

nationally determined parameter 1, 34National Annexes 1–3, 5, 19, 22, 73, 128

and actions 32, 130, 162, 172and beams 61, 96and materials 14–17

233

INDEX

245Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 235: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:35

and partial factors 10, 58, 119and serviceability 131, 138, 169

notation see symbolsnotes, in Eurocodes 2, 10

partial factors 2, 9, 128γM, for materials and resistances 7, 10, 123,

175γF, for actions 123

plastic theory see analysis, global, rigid-plasticplate girders 80, 141

see also beamsplates, composite 4prestressing 4, 6, 13, 30, 33principles 5–6propping see construction, methods ofprying 150, 152push tests see shear connectors, tests on

redistribution see bending moments; shear,longitudinal

reference standards 5reinforcement 131, 182–3

anchorage of 42, 78–9, 155at joints 147–8fracture of, in joints 39, 45, 132in beams 52, 139

minimum area of 13, 36, 39, 131–5, 138spacing of 132–3transverse 68, 77, 81–3, 99–100, 162, 206

in columns 106, 112–13in compression 44in haunches see beams, haunchedstrain hardening in 45welded mesh (fabric), 15–16, 39, 45, 130see also cover; fatigue; slabs, composite

reinforcing steel 15–16, 119resistances 10, 27, 34

see also beams, bending resistance of; etc.rotation capacity 34–5, 37, 44, 164

see also joints

safety factors see partial factorssection modulus 7sections see beams; columns; etc.separation 6, 44, 67–8, 77, 80, 112, 190serviceability see limit statesshakedown 121shear see columns; shear, longitudinal; shear,

vertical; etc.shear–bond test see m–k testshear connection 42–3, 67–81, 122, 183

and execution 78by bond or friction 17, 67, 104, 112, 162,

166–7, 193–4degree of 46, 69, 97, 101–3, 129, 166–7, 176design of 44detailing of 76–81

for composite slabs 165–8full 45, 48, 145in columns 104, 111–2, 118, 188partial 43, 45–50, 57, 68–70, 119, 145

equilibrium method for 48–9interpolation method for 47

see also anchorage; fatigue; reinforcement, inbeams, transverse; shear connectors;slab, composite; slip, longitudinal

shear connectors 17, 57bi-axial loading of 76ductile 46, 50, 67–9, 79, 97, 103, 191flexibility of see stiffness ofnon-ductile 47, 49–50, 100–1, 103spacing of 47–8, 50, 58, 69, 77, 80, 98, 101,

204–5stiffness of 44, 60, 181tests on 181, 187–91types of 68see also studs, welded

shear flow 42–3, 81, 122shear heads 4shear lag see slabs, composite, effective width ofshear, longitudinal 21, 70–1, 81–4

in columns 112see also shear connection; slabs, composite

shear, punching see slabs, compositeshear, vertical 21, 54, 91–2, 144, 149, 153–4

and bending moment 55–7see also buckling; slabs, composite

sheeting, profiled steel 17, 72–6, 85, 161–2,171–3, 212

and cracking 135and shear connection 68, 80–1, 192as transverse reinforcement 83–4, 99bearing length for 162, 172depth of 162design of 162–4, 172–3effective area of 45embossments on (dimples in), 17, 162, 164,

191–3fixing of 83in compression 45loading on 162–3properties of 171, 193, 195see also buckling; deflection; durability; slabs,

compositeshrinkage of concrete 15

and cracking 15, 131–2, 134effects of 9, 30–1, 50, 89–93, 101, 112, 136–8,

158see also deflections

slabs, composite 161–77as diaphragms 162bending resistance of 165, 167, 173–4, 177brittle failure of 162, 165–6, 187, 191, 193concentrated loads on 164cracking in 168, 175effective thickness of 43, 170, 175

234

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-1-1

246Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:29

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 236: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:31:35

effective width of 43, 164–5flexural stiffness of 203–4longitudinal shear in 165–8, 191, 211–15partial-connection design of 166–8, 175–7,

188, 191–4, 198partial shear connection in 39, 191–201,

211–12, 214–15punching shear in 168reinforcement in 132, 164, 167–8serviceability of 168–70shear span for 166tests on 165–7, 169, 187–8, 191–8, 201thickness of 132, 162, 176, 211–15vertical shear in 166, 168, 172–3, 175see also anchorage; deflections; global

analysis; m–k method; sheeting, profiledsteel

slabs, concretereinforcement in 68, 79splitting in 72, 78–9, 81, 189see also concrete, precast; slabs, composite

slabs, form-reinforced see slabs, compositeslenderness ratios, limiting see beams,

cross-sections ofslenderness, relative 58, 96, 103, 107–8, 206–9slip, longitudinal 6, 23, 36, 44, 46, 49, 106, 111,

128, 144, 166, 188and deflections 129, 132available 46capacity 67–9, 190–1

slip strain 46software for EN 1994 23, 49, 105squash load see columns, squash load ofstandards see British Standards; EN …standards, harmonized 10steel see reinforcing steel; structural steels;

yielding of steelsteel contribution ratio see columnssteelwork, protection of see durabilitystiffness coefficient 179–185stiffness, flexural see beams; columns; etc.strength 10

see also resistancestresses

excessive 128

fatigue 121–4residual 22, 24see also beams, stresses in

stress range, damage equivalent 119, 122stress resultant see actions, effects ofstructural steels 16, 34, 44, 111stub girders 42studs, lying 79studs, welded 46

length after welding 71resistance of

in composite slabs 72–6, 81, 97–8, 161in solid slabs 70–2

tension in 72weld collar of 17, 68, 72, 99see also fatigue; shear connection, detailing of;

shear connectorssubscripts 7supports, friction at see shear connectionsway frames see frames, unbracedsymbols 6–7, 121, 143

temperature, effects of 9, 16, 32–3, 130, 132tension stiffening 45, 122, 125, 134–5, 139testing see shear connectors; slabs, compositethrough-deck welding see welding, through-decktorsion 44, 169trusses 24tubes, steel see columns, concrete-filled

U-frame see frame, inverted-Uuplift see separation

vibration 128, 130–1

webs 66–7, 180–4encased 4, 38–40, 60–1, 66, 134, 141, 204–10holes in 4, 44see also hole-in-web method; shear, vertical

web stiffeners 60welding, through-deck 72, 74, 83, 168width, effective see beams; slabs, compositeworked examples see examples

yielding of steel and deflections 130, 136–7yield line theory 151–2

235

INDEX

247Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-112 May 2004 11:53:30

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

Page 237: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
Page 238: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

DESIGNERS’ GUIDES TO THE EUROCODES

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF STEEL ANDCOMPOSITE STRUCTURES

PART 2: GENERAL RULES AND RULES FOR BRIDGES

Page 239: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Eurocode Designers’ Guide SeriesDesigners’ Guide to EN 1990. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. H. Gulvanessian, J.-A. Calgaro andM. Holicky. 0 7277 3011 8. Published 2002.

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. R. P. Johnson and D. Anderson. 0 7277 3151 3. Published 2004.

Designers’ Guide to EN 1997-1. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – General Rules. R. Frank, C. Bauduin,R. Driscoll, M. Kavvadas, N. Krebs Ovesen, T. Orr and B. Schuppener. 0 7277 3154 8. Published 2004.

Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. General Rules and Rules for Buildings.L. Gardner and D. Nethercot. 0 7277 3163 7. Published 2004.

Designers’ Guide to EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1992-1-2. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. General Rulesand Rules for Buildings and Structural Fire Design. A.W. Beeby and R. S. Narayanan. 0 7277 3105 X. Published2005.

Designers’ Guide to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-5. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance.General Rules, Seismic Actions, Design Rules for Buildings, Foundations and Retaining Structures. M. Fardis,E. Carvalho, A. Elnashai, E. Faccioli, P. Pinto and A. Plumier. 0 7277 3348 6. Published 2005.

Designers’ Guide to EN 1995-1-1. Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures. Common Rules and for Rules andBuildings. C. Mettem. 0 7277 3162 9. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-4. Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures. Wind Actions. N. Cook. 0 7277 3152 1.Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designers’ Guide to EN 1996. Eurocode 6: Part 1.1: Design of Masonry Structures. J. Morton. 0 7277 3155 6.Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-2, 1992-1-2, 1993-1-2 and EN 1994-1-2. Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures.Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Eurocode 4: Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. FireEngineering (Actions on Steel and Composite Structures). Y. Wang, C. Bailey, T. Lennon and D. Moore.0 7277 3157 2. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designers’ Guide to EN 1992-2. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Bridges. D. Smith and C. Hendy.0 7277 3159 9. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Bridges. C. Murphy and C. Hendy.0 7277 3160 2. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-2, 1991-1-1, 1991-1-3 and 1991-1-5 to 1-7. Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures.Traffic Loads and Other Actions on Bridges. J.-A. Calgaro, M. Tschumi, H. Gulvanessian and N. Shetty.0 7277 3156 4. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-1, EN 1991-1-3 and 1991-1-5 to 1-7. Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures. GeneralRules and Actions on Buildings (not Wind). H. Gulvanessian, J.-A. Calgaro, P. Formichi and G. Harding.0 7277 3158 0. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

www.eurocodes.co.uk

Page 240: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

DESIGNERS’ GUIDES TO THE EUROCODES

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF STEEL ANDCOMPOSITE STRUCTURES

PART 2: GENERAL RULES AND RULESFOR BRIDGES

C. R. HENDY and R. P. JOHNSON

Page 241: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD

URL: www.thomastelford.com

Distributors for Thomas Telford books are

USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400

Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103

Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria

First published 2006

Eurocodes Expert

Structural Eurocodes offer the opportunity of harmonized design standards for the European

construction market and the rest of the world. To achieve this, the construction industry needs to

become acquainted with the Eurocodes so that the maximum advantage can be taken of these

opportunities

Eurocodes Expert is a new ICE and Thomas Telford initiative set up to assist in creating a greater

awareness of the impact and implementation of the Eurocodes within the UK construction industry

Eurocodes Expert provides a range of products and services to aid and support the transition to

Eurocodes. For comprehensive and useful information on the adoption of the Eurocodes and their

implementation process please visit our website or email [email protected]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 0 7277 3161 0

# The authors and Thomas Telford Limited 2006

All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents

Act 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior

written permission of the Publishing Director, Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd,

1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.

This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statements

made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply that such

statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort

has been made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions expressed in this publication

provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the

authors or publishers.

Typeset by Academic þ Technical, Bristol

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin

Page 242: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Preface

EN 1994, also known as Eurocode 4 or EC4, is one standard of the Eurocode suite anddescribes the principles and requirements for safety, serviceability and durability of compo-site steel and concrete structures. It is subdivided into three parts:

. Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings

. Part 1.2: Structural Fire Design

. Part 2: General Rules and Rules for Bridges.

It is used in conjunction with EN 1990, Basis of Structural Design; EN 1991, Actions onStructures; and the other design Eurocodes.

Aims and objectives of this guideThe principal aim of this book is to provide the user with guidance on the interpretation anduse of EN 1994-2 and to present worked examples. It covers topics that will be encounteredin typical steel and concrete composite bridge designs, and explains the relationship betweenEN 1994-1-1, EN 1994-2 and the other Eurocodes. It refers extensively to EN 1992 (Design ofConcrete Structures) and EN 1993 (Design of Steel Structures), and includes the applicationof their provisions in composite structures. Further guidance on these and other Eurocodeswill be found in other Guides in this series.1�7 This book also provides backgroundinformation and references to enable users of Eurocode 4 to understand the origin andobjectives of its provisions.

The need to use many Eurocode parts can initially make it a daunting task to locateinformation in the sequence required for a real design. To assist with this process, flowcharts are provided for selected topics. They are not intended to give detailed proceduralinformation for a specific design.

Layout of this guideEN 1994-2 has a foreword, nine sections, and an annex. This guide has an introduction whichcorresponds to the foreword of EN 1994-2, Chapters 1 to 9 which correspond to Sections 1 to9 of the Eurocode, and Chapter 10 which refers to Annexes A and B of EN 1994-1-1 andcovers Annex C of EN 1994-2. Commentary on Annexes A and B is given in the Guide byJohnson and Anderson.5

The numbering and titles of the sections and second-level clauses in this guide also corre-spond to those of the clauses of EN 1994-2. Some third-level clauses are also numbered (forexample, 1.1.2). This implies correspondence with the sub-clause in EN 1994-2 of the samenumber. Their titles also correspond. There are extensive references to lower-level clause andparagraph numbers. The first significant reference is in bold italic type (e.g. clause 1.1.1(2)).

Page 243: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

These are in strict numerical sequence throughout the book, to help readers find commentson particular provisions of the code. Some comments on clauses are necessarily out ofsequence, but use of the index should enable these to be found.

All cross-references in this guide to sections, clauses, sub-clauses, paragraphs, annexes,figures, tables and expressions of EN 1994-2 are in italic type, and do not include‘EN 1994-2’. Italic is also used where text from a clause in EN 1994-2 has been directlyreproduced.

Cross-references to, and quotations and expressions from, other Eurocodes are in romantype. Clause references include the EN number; for example, ‘clause 3.1.4 of EN 1992-1-1’ (areference in clause 5.4.2.2(2)). All other quotations are in roman type. Expressions repeatedfrom EN 1994-2 retain their number. The authors’ expressions have numbers prefixed by D(for Designers’ Guide); for example, equation (D6.1) in Chapter 6.

Abbreviated terms are sometimes used for parts of Eurocodes (e.g. EC4-1-1 for EN 1994-1-18) and for limit states (e.g. ULS for ultimate limit state).

AcknowledgementsThe first author would like to thank his wife, Wendy, and two boys, Peter Edwin Hendy andMatthew Philip Hendy, for their patience and tolerance of his pleas to finish ‘just one moreparagraph’. He thanks his employer, Atkins, for providing both facilities and time for theproduction of this guide, and the members of BSI B525/10 Working Group 2 who providedcomment on many of the Eurocode clauses.

The second author is deeply indebted to the other members of the project and editorialteams for Eurocode 4 on which he has worked: David Anderson, Gerhard Hanswille,Bernt Johansson, Basil Kolias, Jean-Paul Lebet, Henri Mathieu, Michel Mele, Joel Raoul,Karl-Heinz Roik and Jan Stark; and also to the Liaison Engineers, National TechnicalContacts, and others who prepared national comments. He thanks the University ofWarwick for facilities provided for Eurocode work, and, especially, his wife Diana for herunfailing support.

Chris HendyRoger Johnson

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

vi

Page 244: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Contents

Preface v

Aims and objectives of this guide vLayout of this guide vAcknowledgements vi

Introduction 1

Additional information specific to EN 1994-2 2

Chapter 1. General 3

1.1. Scope 31.1.1. Scope of Eurocode 4 31.1.2. Scope of Part 1.1 of Eurocode 4 31.1.3. Scope of Part 2 of Eurocode 4 4

1.2. Normative references 51.3. Assumptions 71.4. Distinction between principles and application rules 71.5. Definitions 8

1.5.1. General 81.5.2. Additional terms and definitions 8

1.6. Symbols 8

Chapter 2. Basis of design 11

2.1. Requirements 112.2. Principles of limit states design 122.3. Basic variables 122.4. Verification by the partial factor method 12

2.4.1. Design values 122.4.2. Combination of actions 152.4.3. Verification of static equilibrium (EQU) 15

Chapter 3. Materials 17

3.1. Concrete 173.2. Reinforcing steel for bridges 193.3. Structural steel for bridges 213.4. Connecting devices 22

3.4.1. General 223.4.2. Headed stud shear connectors 22

Page 245: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

3.5. Prestressing steel and devices 233.6. Tension components in steel 23

Chapter 4. Durability 25

4.1. General 254.2. Corrosion protection at the steel–concrete interface in bridges 27

Chapter 5. Structural analysis 29

5.1. Structural modelling for analysis 295.1.1. Structural modelling and basic assumptions 295.1.2. Joint modelling 305.1.3. Ground–structure interaction 30

5.2. Structural stability 305.2.1. Effects of deformed geometry of the structure 315.2.2. Methods of analysis for bridges 33

5.3. Imperfections 345.3.1. Basis 345.3.2. Imperfections for bridges 35

5.4. Calculation of action effects 365.4.1. Methods of global analysis 36

Example 5.1: effective widths of concrete flange for shear lag 415.4.2. Linear elastic analysis 42

Example 5.2: modular ratios for long-term loading and for shrinkage 53Example 5.3: primary effects of shrinkage 54

5.4.3. Non-linear global analysis for bridges 565.4.4. Combination of global and local action effects 56

5.5. Classification of cross-sections 57Example 5.4: classification of composite beam section in hogging bending 60Flow charts for global analysis 62

Chapter 6. Ultimate limit states 67

6.1. Beams 676.1.1. Beams in bridges – general 676.1.2. Effective width for verification of cross-sections 68

6.2. Resistances of cross-sections of beams 686.2.1. Bending resistance 69

Example 6.1: plastic resistance moment in sagging bending 72Example 6.2: resistance to hogging bending at an internal support 73Example 6.3: elastic bending resistance of a Class 4 cross-section 77

6.2.2. Resistance to vertical shear 79Example 6.4: resistance of a Class 4 section to hogging bending andvertical shear 85Example 6.5: addition of axial compression to a Class 4 cross-section 866.3. Filler beam decks 89

6.3.1. Scope 896.3.2. General 906.3.3. Bending moments 906.3.4. Vertical shear 916.3.5. Resistance and stability of steel beams during execution 91

6.4. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams 916.4.1. General 916.4.2. Beams in bridges with uniform cross-sections in Class 1, 2

and 3 92

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

viii

Page 246: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.4.3. General methods for buckling of members and frames 93Example 6.6: bending and shear in a continuous composite beam 104Example 6.7: stiffness and required resistance of cross-bracing 1116.5. Transverse forces on webs 1136.6. Shear connection 114

6.6.1. General 114Example 6.8: shear resistance of a block connector with a hoop 116

6.6.2. Longitudinal shear force in beams for bridges 1186.6.3. Headed stud connectors in solid slabs and concrete

encasement 1216.6.4. Headed studs that cause splitting in the direction of the

slab thickness 1236.6.5. Detailing of the shear connection and influence of

execution 1246.6.6. Longitudinal shear in concrete slabs 127

Example 6.9: transverse reinforcement for longitudinal shear 130Example 6.10: longitudinal shear checks 131Example 6.11: influence of in-plane shear in a compressed flange onbending resistances of a beam 1346.7. Composite columns and composite compression members 136

6.7.1. General 1366.7.2. General method of design 1376.7.3. Simplified method of design 1386.7.4. Shear connection and load introduction 1446.7.5. Detailing provisions 145

Example 6.12: concrete-filled tube of circular cross-section 1456.8. Fatigue 150

6.8.1. General 1506.8.2. Partial factors for fatigue assessment of bridges 1516.8.3. Fatigue strength 1526.8.4. Internal forces and fatigue loadings 1526.8.5. Stresses 1536.8.6. Stress ranges 1556.8.7. Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress ranges 156

Example 6.13: fatigue verification of studs and reinforcement 1576.9. Tension members in composite bridges 161

Chapter 7. Serviceability limit states 163

7.1. General 1637.2. Stresses 1647.3. Deformations in bridges 166

7.3.1. Deflections 1667.3.2. Vibrations 166

7.4. Cracking of concrete 1677.4.1. General 1677.4.2. Minimum reinforcement 1687.4.3. Control of cracking due to direct loading 169

7.5. Filler beam decks 173Example 7.1: checks on serviceability stresses, and control ofcracking 173

Chapter 8. Precast concrete slabs in composite bridges 179

8.1. General 1798.2. Actions 180

ix

CONTENTS

Page 247: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

8.3. Design, analysis and detailing of the bridge slab 1808.4. Interface between steel beam and concrete slab 181

Chapter 9. Composite plates in bridges 183

9.1. General 1839.2. Design for local effects 1839.3. Design for global effects 1849.4. Design of shear connectors 185Example 9.1: design of shear connection for global effects at theserviceability limit state 187

Chapter 10. Annex C (informative). Headed studs that cause splitting forces in

the direction of the slab thickness 189

C.1. Design resistance and detailing 190C.2. Fatigue strength 191

Applicability of Annex C 191Example 10.1: design of lying studs 192

References 195

Index 201

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

x

Page 248: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:27:10

Introduction

The provisions of EN 1994-29 are preceded by a foreword, most of which is common to allEurocodes. This Foreword contains clauses on:

. the background to the Eurocode programme

. the status and field of application of the Eurocodes

. national standards implementing Eurocodes

. links between Eurocodes and harmonized technical specifications for products

. additional information specific to EN 1994-2

. National Annex for EN 1994-2.

Guidance on the common text is provided in the introduction to the Designers’ Guide toEN 1990. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design,1 and only background information relevantto users of EN 1994-2 is given here.

It is the responsibility of each national standards body to implement each Eurocode partas a national standard. This will comprise, without any alterations, the full text of the Euro-code and its annexes as published by the European Committee for Standardisation,CEN (from its title in French). This will usually be preceded by a National Title Page anda National Foreword, and may be followed by a National Annex.

Each Eurocode recognizes the right of national regulatory authorities to determine valuesrelated to safety matters. Values, classes or methods to be chosen or determined at nationallevel are referred to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). Clauses in which theseoccur are listed in the Foreword.

NDPs are also indicated by notes immediately after relevant clauses. These Notes giverecommended values. Many of the values in EN 1994-2 have been in the draft code forover a decade. It is expected that most of the 28 Member States of CEN (listed in the Fore-word) will specify the recommended values, as their use was assumed in the many calibrationstudies done during drafting. They are used in this guide, as the National Annex for the UKwas not available at the time of writing.

Each National Annex will give or cross-refer to the NDPs to be used in the relevantcountry. Otherwise the National Annex may contain only the following:10

. decisions on the use of informative annexes, and

. references to non-contradictory complementary information to assist the user to applythe Eurocode.

Each national standards body that is a member of CEN is required, as a condition of mem-bership, towithdraw all ‘conflicting national standards’ by a given date, that is at presentMarch2010. The Eurocodes will supersede the British bridge code, BS 5400,11 which should thereforebe withdrawn. This will lead to extensive revision of many sets of supplementary design rules,such as those published by the Highways Agency in the UK. Some countries have alreadyadopted Eurocode methods for bridge design; for example, Germany in 2003.12

Page 249: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 95.42.11.157

On: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:27:10

Additional information specific to EN 1994-2The information specific to EN 1994-2 emphasises that this standard is to be used with otherEurocodes. The standard includes many cross-references to particular clauses in EN 1990,13

EN 1991,14 EN 199215 and EN 1993.16 Similarly, this guide is one of a series on Eurocodes,and is for use with other guides, particularly those for EN 1991,2 EN 1992-1-1,6 EN 1993-1-1,7 EN 1992-23 and EN 1993-2.4

The Foreword refers to a difference between EN 1994-2 and the ‘bridge’ parts of the otherEurocodes. In Eurocode 4, the ‘general’ provisions of Part 1-1 are repeated word for word inPart 2, with identical numbering of clauses, paragraphs, equations, etc. Such repetitionbreaks a rule of CEN, and was permitted, for this code only, to shorten chains of cross-references, mainly to Eurocodes 2 and 3. This determined the numbering and location ofthe provisions for bridges, and led to a few gaps in the sequences of numbers.

The same policy has been followed in the guides on Eurocode 4. Where material in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1994-1-15 is as relevant to bridges as to buildings, it is repeatedhere, so this guide is self-contained, in respect of composite bridges, as is EN 1994-2.

A very few ‘General’ clauses in EN 1994-1-1 are not applicable to bridges. They havebeen replaced in EN 1994-2 by clearly labelled ‘bridge’ clauses; for example, clause 3.2,‘Reinforcing steel for bridges’.

The Foreword lists the 15 clauses of EN 1994-2 in which national choice is permitted. Fiveof these relate to values for partial factors, three to shear connection, and seven to provisionof ‘further guidance’. Elsewhere, there are cross-references to clauses with NDPs in othercodes; for example, partial factors for steel and concrete, and values that may depend onclimate, such as the free shrinkage of concrete.

Otherwise, the Normative rules in the code must be followed, if the design is to be ‘inaccordance with the Eurocodes’.

In EN 1994-2, Sections 1 to 9 are Normative. Only its Annex C is ‘Informative’, because itis based on quite recent research. A National Annex may make it normative in the countryconcerned, and is itself normative in that country, but not elsewhere. The ‘non-contradictorycomplementary information’ referred to above could include, for example, reference to adocument based on provisions of BS 5400 on matters not treated in the Eurocodes. Eachcountry can do this, so some aspects of the design of a bridge will continue to depend onwhere it is to be built.

2

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 250: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 1

General

This chapter is concerned with the general aspects of EN 1994-2, Eurocode 4: Design ofComposite Steel and Concrete Structures, Part 2: General Rules and Rules for Bridges. Thematerial described in this chapter is covered in Section 1, in the following clauses:

. Scope Clause 1.1

. Normative references Clause 1.2

. Assumptions Clause 1.3

. Distinction between principles and application rules Clause 1.4

. Definitions Clause 1.5

. Symbols Clause 1.6

1.1. Scope1.1.1. Scope of Eurocode 4The scope of EN 1994 (all three Parts) is outlined in clause 1.1.1. It is to be used with EN 1990,Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design, which is the head document of the Eurocode suite, andhas an Annex A2, ‘Application for bridges’. Clause 1.1.1(2) emphasizes that the Eurocodesare concerned with structural behaviour and that other requirements, e.g. thermal andacoustic insulation, are not considered.

The basis for verification of safety and serviceability is the partial factor method. EN 1990recommends values for load factors and gives various possibilities for combinations ofactions. The values and choice of combinations are set by the National Annex for thecountry in which the structure is to be constructed.

Eurocode 4 is also to be used in conjunction with EN 1991, Eurocode 1: Actions onStructures14 and its National Annex, to determine characteristic or nominal loads. Whena composite structure is to be built in a seismic region, account needs to be taken ofEN 1998, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance.17

Clause 1.1.1(3), as a statement of intention, gives undated references. It supplements thenormative rules on dated reference standards, given in clause 1.2, where the distinctionbetween dated and undated standards is explained.

The Eurocodes are concerned with design and not execution, but minimum standards ofworkmanship are required to ensure that the design assumptions are valid. For this reason,clause 1.1.1(3) lists the European standards for the execution of steel structures and theexecution of concrete structures. The standard for steel structures includes some requirementsfor composite construction – for example, for the testing of welded stud shear connectors.

1.1.2. Scope of Part 1.1 of Eurocode 4The general rules referred to in clause 1.1.2(1) appear also in EN 1994-2, so there is (ingeneral) no need for it to cross-refer to Part 1-1, though it does refer (in clause 6.6.3.1(4))

Clause 1.1.1

Clause 1.1.1(2)

Clause 1.1.1(3)

Clause 1.1.2(1)

Page 251: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

to Annex B of Part 1-1. The list of the titles of sections in clause 1.1.2(2) is identical to thatin clause 1.1.3, except for those of Sections 8 and 9. In Sections 1–7 of EN 1994-2, all ‘forbuildings’ clauses of EN 1994-1-1 are omitted, and ‘for bridges’ clauses are added.

1.1.3. Scope of Part 2 of Eurocode 4Clause 1.1.3(1) refers to the partial coverage of design of cable-stayed bridges. This is theonly reference to them in EN 1994-2. It was considered here, and in EC2 and EC3, thatfor this rapidly evolving type of bridge, it was premature to codify much more than thedesign of their components (e.g. cables, in EN 1993-1-11), although EN 1993-1-11 doescontain some requirements for global analysis. Composite construction is attractive forcable-stayed bridges, because the concrete deck is well able to resist longitudinal com-pression. There is an elegant example in central Johannesburg.18

Clause 1.1.3(2) lists the titles of the sections of Part 2. Those for Sections 1–7 are the sameas in all the other material-dependent Eurocodes. The contents of Sections 1 and 2 similarlyfollow an agreed model.

The provisions of Part 2 cover the design of the following:

. beams in which a steel section acts compositely with concrete

. concrete-encased or concrete-filled composite columns

. composite plates (where the steel member is a flat steel plate, not a profiled section)

. composite box girders

. tapered or non-uniform composite members

. structures that are prestressed by imposed deformations or by tendons.

Joints in composite beams and between beams and steel or composite columns appear inclause 5.1.2, Joint modelling, which refers to EN 1993-1-8.19 There is little detailed coverage,because the main clauses on joints in Part 1-1 are ‘for buildings’.

Section 5, Structural analysis concerns connected members and frames, both unbraced andbraced. The provisions define their imperfections and include the use of second-order globalanalysis and prestress by imposed deformations.

The scope of Part 2 includes double composite action, and also steel sections that are par-tially encased. The web of the steel section is encased by reinforced concrete, and shear con-nection is provided between the concrete and the steel. This is a well-established form ofconstruction in buildings. The primary reason for its choice is improved resistance in fire.

Fully-encased composite beams are not included because:

. no satisfactory model has been found for the ultimate strength in longitudinal shear of abeam without shear connectors

. it is not known to what extent some design rules (e.g. for moment–shear interaction andredistribution of moments) are applicable.

A fully-encased beam with shear connectors can usually be designed as if partly encasedor uncased, provided that care is taken to prevent premature spalling of encasement incompression.

Prestressing of composite members by tendons is rarely used, and is not treated in detail.Transverse prestress of a deck slab is covered in EN 1992-2.3

The omission of application rules for a type of member or structure should not prevent itsuse, where appropriate. Some omissions are deliberate, to encourage the use of innovativedesign, based on specialised literature, the properties of materials, and the fundamentalsof equilibrium and compatibility. However, the principles given in the relevant Eurocodesmust still be followed. This applies, for example, to:

. members of non-uniform section, or curved in plan

. types of shear connector other than welded headed studs.

EN 1994-2 has a single Informative annex, considered in Chapter 10 of this book.The three annexes in EN 1994-1-1 were not copied into EN 1994-2 because they are

‘Informative’ and, except for tests on shear connectors, are for buildings. They are:

Clause 1.1.2(2)

Clause 1.1.3(1)

Clause 1.1.3(2)

4

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 252: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. Annex A, Stiffness of joint components in buildings

. Annex B, Standard tests (for shear connectors and for composite slabs)

. Annex C, Shrinkage of concrete for composite structures for buildings.

In ENV 1994-1-1,20 design rules for many types of shear connector were given. All exceptthose for welded headed studs were omitted, clause 1.1.3(3), mainly in response to requestsfor a shorter code. The Note to this clause enables national annexes to refer to rules for anytype of shear connector. In the UK, this is being done for block connectors with hoops andfor channels, and in France for angle connectors, based on the rules in ENV 1994-1-1.Research on older types of connector and the development of new connectors continues.21�25

1.2. Normative referencesReferences are given only to other European standards, all of which are intended to be usedas a package. Formally, the Standards of the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) apply only if given an EN ISO designation. National standards for design and for pro-ducts do not apply if they conflict with a relevant EN standard.

As Eurocodes may not cross-refer to national standards, replacement of national stan-dards for products by EN or ISO standards is in progress, with a timescale similar to thatfor the Eurocodes.

During the period of changeover to Eurocodes and EN standards it is possible that anEN referred to, or its national annex, may not be complete. Designers who then seekguidance from national standards should take account of differences between the design phi-losophies and safety factors in the two sets of documents.

The lists in clause 1.2 are limited to standards referred to in the text of EN 1994-1-1 or1994-2. The distinction between dated and undated references should be noted. Any relevantprovision of the general reference standards, clause 1.2.1, should be assumed to apply.

EN 1994-2 is based on the concept of the initial erection of structural steel members, whichmay include prefabricated concrete-encased members. The placing of formwork (which mayor may not become part of the finished structure) follows. The addition of reinforcement andin situ concrete completes the composite structure. The presentation and content of EN 1994-2 therefore relate more closely to EN 1993 than to EN 1992. This may explain why this listincludes execution of steel structures, but not EN 13670, on execution of concrete structures,which is listed in clause 1.1.1.

Clause 1.1.3(3)

Clause 1.2

Clause 1.2.1

Table 1.1. References to EN 1992, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures

Title of Part Subjects referred to from EN 1994-2

EN 1992-1-1,General Rules and Rules for Buildings

Properties of concrete, reinforcement, and tendonsGeneral design of reinforced and prestressed concretePartial factors �M, including values for fatigueResistance of reinforced concrete cross-sections to bending and shearBond, anchorage, cover, and detailing of reinforcementMinimum areas of reinforcement; crack widths in concreteLimiting stresses in concrete, reinforcement and tendonsCombination of actions for global analysis for fatigueFatigue strengths of concrete, reinforcement and tendonsReinforced concrete and composite tension membersTransverse reinforcement in composite columnsVertical shear and second-order effects in composite platesEffective areas for load introduction into concrete

EN 1992-2,Rules for Bridges

Many subjects with references also to EN 1992-1-1 (above)Environmental classes; exposure classesLimitation of crack widthsVertical shear in a concrete flangeExemptions from fatigue assessment for reinforcement and concreteVerification for fatigue; damage equivalent factors

5

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL

Page 253: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The ‘other reference standards’ in clause 1.2.2 receive both general references, as in clause2.3.2(1) (to EN 1992-1-115), and specific references to clauses, as in clause 3.1(1), whichrefers to EN 1992-1-1, 3.1. For composite bridges, further standards, of either type, arelisted in clause 1.2.3.

For actions, the main reference is in clause 2.3.1(1), to ‘the relevant parts of EN 1991’,which include those for unit weights of materials, wind loads, snow loads, thermalactions, and actions during execution. The only references in clause 1.2 are to EN 1991-2,‘Traffic loads on bridges’,26 and to Annex A2 of EN 1990, which gives combination rulesand recommended values for partial factors and combination factors for actions forbridges. EN 1990 is also referred to for modelling of structures for analysis, and generalprovisions on serviceability limit states and their verification.

Cross-references from EN 1994-2 to EN 1992 and EN 1993The parts of EN 1992 and EN 1993 most likely to be referred to in the design of a steel andconcrete composite bridge are listed in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, with the relevant aspects of design.

Clause 1.2.2

Clause 1.2.3

Table 1.2. References to EN 1993, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures

Title of Part Subjects referred to from EN 1994-2

EN 1993-1-1,General Rules and Rules for Buildings

Stress–strain properties of steel; �M for steelGeneral design of unstiffened steelworkClassification of cross-sectionsResistance of composite sections to vertical shearBuckling of members and frames; column buckling curves

EN 1993-1-5,Plated Structural Elements

Design of cross-sections in slenderness Class 3 or 4Effects of shear lag in steel plate elementsDesign of beams before a concrete flange hardensDesign where transverse, longitudinal, or bearing stiffeners are presentTransverse distribution of stresses in a wide flangeShear buckling; flange-induced web bucklingIn-plane transverse forces on webs

EN 1993-1-8,Design of Joints

Modelling of flexible joints in analysisDesign of joints and splices in steel and composite membersDesign using structural hollow sectionsFasteners and welding consumables

EN 1993-1-9,Fatigue Strength of Steel Structures

Fatigue loadingClassification of details into fatigue categoriesLimiting stress ranges for damage-equivalent stress verificationFatigue verification in welds and connectors

EN 1993-1-10,Material Toughness andThrough-thickness Properties

For selection of steel grade (Charpy test, and Z quality)

EN 1993-1-11,Design of Structures with TensionComponents

Design of bridges with external prestressing or cable support, such ascable-stayed bridges

EN 1993-2,Rules for Bridges

Global analysis; imperfectionsBuckling of members and framesDesign of beams before a concrete flange hardensLimiting slenderness of web platesDistortion in box girders�M for fatigue strength; �F for fatigue loadingDamage equivalent factorsLimiting stresses in steel; fatigue in structural steelLimits to deformationsVibration

6

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 254: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Many references to EN 1992-227 and EN 1993-228 lead to references from them toEN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993-1-1, respectively. Unfortunately, the method of drafting ofthese two bridge parts was not harmonised. For many subjects, some of the clausesneeded are ‘general’ and so are located in Part 1-1, and others are ‘for bridges’ and will befound in Part 2. There are examples in clauses 3.2(1), 7.2.2(2) and 7.4.1(1).

Other Eurocode parts that may be applicable are:

EN 1993-1-7 Strength and Stability of Planar Plated Structures Transversely LoadedEN 1993-1-12 Supplementary Rules for High Strength SteelEN 1997 Geotechnical Design, Parts 1 and 2EN 1998 Design of Structures for Earthquake ResistanceEN 1999 Design of Aluminium Structures.

1.3. AssumptionsIt is assumed in EN 1994-2 that the general assumptions of ENs 1990, 1992, and 1993 will befollowed. Commentary on them will be found in the relevant Guides of this series.

Various clauses in EN 1994-2 assume that EN 1090 will be followed in the fabrication anderection of the steelwork. This is important for the design of slender elements, where themethods of analysis and buckling resistance formulae rely on imperfections from fabricationand erection being limited to the levels in EN 1090. EN 1994-2 should therefore not be usedfor design of bridges that will be fabricated or erected to specifications other than EN 1090,without careful comparison of the respective requirements for tolerances and workmanship.Similarly, the requirements of EN 13670 for execution of concrete structures should be com-plied with in the construction of reinforced or prestressed concrete elements.

1.4. Distinction between principles and application rulesClauses in the Eurocodes are set out as either Principles or Application Rules. As defined byEN 1990:

. ‘Principles comprise general statements for which there is no alternative and require-ments and analytical models for which no alternative is permitted unless specificallystated.’

. ‘Principles are distinguished by the letter ‘‘P’’ following the paragraph number.’

. ‘Application Rules are generally recognised rules which comply with the principles andsatisfy their requirements.’

There may be other ways to comply with the Principles, that are at least equivalent to theApplication Rules in respect of safety, serviceability, and durability. However, if these aresubstituted, the design cannot be deemed to be fully in accordance with the Eurocodes.

Eurocodes 2, 3 and 4 are consistent in using the verbal form ‘shall’ only for a Principle.Application rules generally use ‘should’ or ‘may’, but this is not fully consistent.

There are relatively few Principles in Parts 1.1 and 2 of ENs 1992 and 1994. Almost all ofthose in EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1993-2 were replaced by Application Rules at a late stage ofdrafting.

It has been recognized that a requirement or analytical model for which ‘no alternative ispermitted unless specifically stated’ can rarely include a numerical value, because most valuesare influenced by research and/or experience, and may change over the years. (Even thespecified elastic modulus for structural steel is an approximate value.) Furthermore, aclause cannot be a Principle if it requires the use of another clause that is an ApplicationRule; effectively that clause also would become a Principle.

It follows that, ideally, the Principles in all the codes should form a consistent set, referringonly to each other, and intelligible if all the Application Rules were deleted. This overridingprinciple strongly influenced the drafting of EN 1994.

7

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL

Page 255: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

1.5. Definitions1.5.1. GeneralIn accordance with the model specified for Section 1, reference is made to the definitionsgiven in clauses 1.5 of EN 1990, EN 1992-1-1, and EN 1993-1-1. Many types of analysisare defined in clause 1.5.6 of EN 1990. It should be noted that an analysis based on thedeformed geometry of a structure or element under load is termed ‘second-order’, ratherthan ‘non-linear’. The latter term refers to the treatment of material properties in structuralanalysis. Thus, according to EN 1990, ‘non-linear analysis’ includes ‘rigid-plastic’. This con-vention is not followed in EN 1994-2, where the heading ‘Non-linear global analysis forbridges’ (clause 5.4.3) does not include ‘rigid-plastic global analysis’. There is no provisionfor use of the latter in bridges, so relevant rules are found in the ‘buildings’ clause 5.4.5 ofEN 1994-1-1.

References from clause 1.5.1(1) include clause 1.5.2 of EN 1992-1-1, which defines pre-stress as an action caused by the stressing of tendons. This is not sufficient for EN 1994-2,because prestress by jacking at supports, which is outside the scope of EN 1992-1-1, iswithin the scope of EN 1994-2.

The definitions in clauses 1.5.1 to 1.5.9 of EN 1993-1-1 apply where they occur in clauses inEN 1993 to which EN 1994 refers. None of them uses the word ‘steel’.

1.5.2. Additional terms and definitionsMost of the 15 definitions in clause 1.5.2 include the word ‘composite’. The definition of‘shear connection’ does not require the absence of separation or slip at the interfacebetween steel and concrete. Separation is always assumed to be negligible, but explicit allow-ance may need to be made for effects of slip, for example in clauses 5.4.3, 6.6.2.3 and 7.2.1.

The definition of ‘composite frame’ is relevant to the use of Section 5. Where the behaviouris essentially that of a reinforced or prestressed concrete structure, with only a few compositemembers, global analysis should be generally in accordance with EN 1992.

These lists of definitions are not exhaustive, because all the codes use terms with precisemeanings that can be inferred from their contexts.

Concerning use of words generally, there are significant differences from British codes.These arose from the use of English as the base language for the drafting process, and theresulting need to improve precision of meaning, to facilitate translation into other Europeanlanguages. In particular:

. ‘action’ means a load and/or an imposed deformation

. ‘action effect’ (clause 5.4) and ‘effect of action’ have the same meaning: any deformationor internal force or moment that results from an action.

1.6. SymbolsThe symbols in the Eurocodes are all based on ISO standard 3898.29 Each code has its ownlist, applicable within that code. Some symbols have more than one meaning, the particularmeaning being stated in the clause. A few rarely-used symbols are defined only in clauseswhere they appear (e.g. Ac;eff in 7.5.3(1)).

There are a few important changes from previous practice in the UK. For example, an x–xaxis is along a member, a y–y axis is parallel to the flanges of a steel section (clause 1.7(2)of EN 1993-1-1), and a section modulus is W, with subscripts to denote elastic or plasticbehaviour.

This convention for member axes is more compatible with most commercially availableanalysis packages than that used in previous British bridge codes. The y–y axis generallyrepresents the major principal axis, as shown in Fig. 1.1(a) and (b). Where this is not aprincipal axis, the major and minor principal axes are denoted u–u and v–v, as shown inFig. 1.1(c). It is possible for the major axis of a composite cross-section to be the minoraxis of its structural steel component.

Clause 1.5.1(1)

Clause 1.5.2

8

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 256: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Wherever possible, definitions in EN 1994-2 have been aligned with those in ENs 1990,1992 and 1993; but this should not be assumed without checking the list in clause 1.6.Some quite minor differences are significant.

The symbol fy has different meanings in ENs 1992 and 1993. It is retained in EN 1994-2 forthe nominal yield strength of structural steel, though the generic subscript for that materialis ‘a’, based on the French word for steel, ‘acier’. Subscript ‘a’ is not used in EN 1993, wherethe partial factor for steel is not �A, but �M. The symbol �M is also used in EN 1994-2. Thecharacteristic yield strength of reinforcement is fsk, with partial factor �S.

The use of upper-case subscripts for � factors for materials implies that the values givenallow for two types of uncertainty: in the properties of the material and in the resistancemodel used.

Clause 1.6

yy

z

z

vy y

z

z

u

u

vz

z

y y

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1.1. Sign convention for axes of members

9

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL

Page 257: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 2

Basis of design

The material described in this chapter is covered in Section 2 of EN 1994-2, in the followingclauses:

. Requirements Clause 2.1

. Principles of limit states design Clause 2.2

. Basic variables Clause 2.3

. Verification by the partial factor method Clause 2.4

The sequence follows that of EN 1990, Sections 2 to 4 and 6.

2.1. RequirementsDesign is to be in accordance with the general requirements of EN 1990. The purpose ofSection 2 is to give supplementary provisions for composite structures.

Clause 2.1(3) reminds the user again that design is based on actions in accordance withEN 1991, combinations of actions and load factors at the various limit states in accordancewith EN 1990 (Annex A2), and the resistances, durability and serviceability provisions ofEN 1994 (through extensive references to EC2 and EC3).

The use of partial safety factors for actions and resistances (the ‘partial factor method’)is expected but is not a requirement of Eurocodes. The method is presented in Section 6of EN 1990 as one way of satisfying the basic requirements set out in Section 2 of thatstandard. This is why use of the partial factor method is given ‘deemed to satisfy’ status inclause 2.1(3). To establish that a design was in accordance with the Eurocodes, the userof any other method would normally have to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of theregulatory authority and/or the client, that the method satisfied the basic requirements ofEN 1990.

The design working life for bridges and components of bridges is also given in EN 1990.This predominantly affects calculations on fatigue. Temporary structures (that will not bedismantled and reused) have an indicative design life of 10 years, while bearings have alife of 10–25 years and a permanent bridge has an indicative design life of 100 years. Thedesign lives of temporary bridges and permanent bridges can be varied in project speci-fications and the National Annex respectively. For political reasons, the design life for per-manent bridges in the UK may be maintained at 120 years.

To achieve the design working life, bridges and bridge components should be designedagainst corrosion, fatigue and wear and should be regularly inspected and maintained.Where components cannot be designed for the full working life of the bridge, they need tobe replaceable. Further detail is given in Chapter 4 of this guide.

Clause 2.1(3)

Page 258: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

2.2. Principles of limit states designThe clause provides a reminder that it is important to check strength and stability through-out all stages of construction in addition to the final condition. The strength of bare steelbeams during pouring of the deck slab must be checked, as the restraint to the top flange pro-vided by the completed deck slab is absent in this condition.

A beam that is in Class 1 or 2 when completed may be in Class 3 or 4 during construction,if a greater depth of web is in compression. Its stresses must then be built up allowing for theconstruction history. For cross-sections that are in Class 1 or 2 when completed, finalverifications of resistances can be based on accumulation of bending moments and shearforces, rather than stresses, as plastic bending resistances can be used. The serviceabilitychecks would still necessitate consideration of the staged construction.

All resistance formulae for composite members assume that the specified requirements formaterials, such as ductility, fracture toughness and through-thickness properties, are met.

2.3. Basic variablesClause 2.3.1 on actions refers only to EN 1991. Its Part 2, ‘Traffic loads on bridges’, definesload patterns and leaves clients, or designers, much choice over intensity of loading. Loadsduring construction are specified in EN 1991-1-6, ‘Actions during execution’.30

Actions include imposed deformations, such as settlement or jacking of supports, andeffects of temperature and shrinkage. Further information is given in comments on clause2.3.3.

Clause 2.3.2(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1 for shrinkage and creep of concrete, where detailedand quite complex rules are given for prediction of free shrinkage strain and creepcoefficients. These are discussed in comments on clauses 3.1 and 5.4.2.2. Effects of creep ofconcrete are not normally treated as imposed deformations. An exception arises in clause5.4.2.2(6).

The classification of effects of shrinkage and temperature in clause 2.3.3 into ‘primary’ and‘secondary’ will be familiar to designers of continuous beams. Secondary effects are to betreated as ‘indirect actions’, which are ‘sets of imposed deformations’ (clause 1.5.3.1 ofEN 1990), not as action effects. This distinction is relevant in clause 5.4.2.2(7), whereindirect actions may be neglected in analyses for some verifications of composite memberswith all cross-sections in Class 1 or 2. This is because resistances are based on plasticanalysis and there is therefore adequate rotation capacity to permit the effects of imposeddeformations to be released.

2.4. Verification by the partial factor method2.4.1. Design valuesClause 2.4.1 illustrates the treatment of partial factors. Recommended values are given inNotes, in the hope of eventual convergence between the values for each partial factor thatwill be specified in the national annexes. This process was adopted because the regulatorybodies in the member states of CEN, rather than CEN itself, are responsible for settingsafety levels. The Notes are informative, not normative (i.e. not part of the precedingprovision), so that there are no numerical values in the principles, as explained earlier.

The Note below clause 2.4.1.1(1) recommends �P ¼ 1:0 (where subscript ‘P’ representsprestress) for controlled imposed deformations. Examples of these include jacking up atsupports or jacking down by the removal of packing plates. The latter might be done toincrease the reaction at an adjacent end support where there is a risk of uplift occurring.

The Notes to clause 2.4.1.2 link the partial factors for concrete, reinforcing steel and struc-tural steel to those recommended in EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993. Design would be moredifficult if the factors for these materials in composite structures differed from the valuesin reinforced concrete and steel structures. The reference to EN 1993, as distinct fromEN 1993-1-1, is required because some �M factors differ for bridges and buildings.

Clause 2.3.1

Clause 2.3.2(1)

Clause 2.3.3

Clause 2.4.1

Clause 2.4.1.1(1)

Clause 2.4.1.2

12

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 259: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The remainder of EN 1994-2 normally refers to design strengths, rather than to character-istic or nominal values with partial factors. Characteristic values are 5% lower fractiles foran infinite test series, predicted from experience and a smaller number of tests. Nominalvalues (e.g. the yield strength of structural steel) are used where distributions of testresults cannot be predicted statistically. They are chosen to correspond to characteristicvalues.

The design strength for concrete is given by:

fcd ¼ fck=�C ð2:1Þwhere fck is the characteristic cylinder strength. This definition is stated algebraically becauseit differs from that of EN 1992-2, in which an additional coefficient �cc is applied:

fcd ¼ �cc fck=�C ðD2:1ÞThe coefficient is explained in EN 1992-2 as taking account of long-term effects and ofunfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied. The value for �cc is to begiven in national annexes to EN 1992-2, and ‘should lie between 0.80 and 1.00’. The value1.00 has been used in EN 1994-2, without permitting national choice, for several reasons:

. The plastic stress block for use in resistance of composite sections, defined in clause6.2.1.2, consists of a stress 0.85fcd extending to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 2.1.The depth of the stress block in EN 1992-2 is only 80% of this distance. The factor0.85 is not fully equivalent to �cc; it allows also for the difference between the stressblocks.

. Predictions using the stress block of EN 1994 have been verified against test results forcomposite members conducted independently from verifications for concrete bridges.

. The EN 1994 block is easier to apply. The Eurocode 2 rule was not used in Eurocode 4because resistance formulae become complex where the neutral axis is close to or withinthe steel flange adjacent to the concrete slab.

. Resistance formulae for composite elements given in EN 1994 are based on calibrationsusing its stress block, with �cc ¼ 1:0.

The definition of fcd in equation (2.1) is applicable to verifications of all composite cross-sections, but not where the section is reinforced concrete only; for example, in-plane shear ina concrete flange of a composite beam. For reinforced concrete, EN 1992-2 applies, with �cc

in equation (D2.1) as given in the National Annex. It is expected that the rules in the UK’sAnnex will include:

�cc ¼ 0:85 for flexure and axial compression

This is consistent with EN 1994-2, as the coefficient 0.85 appears in the resistance formulaein clauses 6.2.1.2 and 6.7.3.2. In these cases, the values 0.85fcd in EN 1994-2 and fcd inEN 1992-2 are equal, so the values of symbols fcd are not equal. There is a risk of errorwhen switching between calculations for composite sections and for reinforced concreteelements such as a deck slab both for this reason and because of the different depth ofstress block.

Plasticneutral axis

Stress toEN 1994

0.85fck/γC αcc fck/γC

Stress to EN 1992,for fck ≤ 50 N/mm2

Strain

x 0.8x

εcu3

fyd fyd

Fig. 2.1. Rectangular stress blocks for concrete in compression at ultimate limit states

13

CHAPTER 2. BASIS OF DESIGN

Page 260: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Care is needed also with symbols for steels. The design strengths in EN 1994 are fyd forstructural steel and fsd for reinforcement, but reinforcement in EN 1992 has fyd, not fsd.

The recommended partial factors given in EN 1992-2 (referring to EN 1992-1-1) formaterials for ultimate limit states other than fatigue are repeated in Table 2.1. For service-ability limit states, the recommended value is generally 1.0, from clause 2.4.2.4(2).

The �M values for structural steel are denoted �M0 to �M7 in clause 6.1 of EN 1993-2. Thosefor ultimate limit states other than fatigue are given in Table 2.2. Further values are given inclauses on fatigue. No distinction is made between persistent, transient, and accidentaldesign situations, though it could be, in a national annex.

For simplicity, �M for resistances of shear connectors (denoted �V), given in a Note toclause 6.6.3.1(1), was standardised at 1.25, because this is the recommended value formost joints in steelwork. Where calibration led to a different value, a coefficient in the resis-tance formula was modified to enable 1.25 to be used.

Clause 2.4.1.3 refers to ‘product standards hEN’ and to ‘nominal values’. The ‘h’ standsfor ‘harmonised’. This term from the Construction Products Directive31 is explained in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1990.1

Generally, global analysis and resistances of cross-sections may be based on the ‘nominal’values of dimensions, which are given on the project drawings or quoted in product stan-dards. Geometrical tolerances as well as structural imperfections (such as welding residualstresses) are accounted for in the methods specified for global analyses and for bucklingchecks of individual structural elements. These subjects are discussed further in sections5.2 and 5.3, respectively, of this guide.

Clause 2.4.1.4, on design resistances to particular action effects, refers to expressions (6.6a)and (6.6c) given in clause 6.3.5 of EN 1990. Resistances in EN 1994-2 often need more thanone partial factor, and so use expression (6.6a) which is:

Rd ¼ Rfð�iXk;i=�M;iÞ; adg i � 1 ðD2:2Þ

Clause 2.4.1.3

Clause 2.4.1.4

Table 2.2. Partial factors from EN 1993-2 for materials, for ultimate limit states

Resistance type FactorRecommendedvalue

Resistance of members and cross-sections. Resistance of cross-sections to excessive yielding including local buckling �M0 1.00. Resistance of members to instability assessed by member checks �M1 1.10. Resistance to fracture of cross-sections in tension �M2 1.25

Resistance of joints. Resistance of bolts, rivets, pins and welds. Resistance of plates in bearing

�M2

�M2

1.251.25

. Slip resistance:– at an ultimate limit state– at a serviceability limit state

�M3

�M3;ser

1.251.10

. Bearing resistance of an injection bolt �M4 1.10

. Resistance of joints in hollow section lattice girders �M5 1.10

. Resistance of pins at serviceability limit state �M6;ser 1.00

. Pre-load of high-strength bolts �M7 1.10

Table 2.1. Partial factors from EN 1992-2 for materials, for ultimate limit states

Design situations �C, for concrete �S, reinforcing steel �S, prestressing steel

Persistent and transient 1.5 1.15 1.15Accidental 1.2 1.0 1.0

14

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 261: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

For example, clause 6.7.3.2(1) gives the plastic resistance to compression of a cross-section as the sum of terms for the structural steel, concrete and reinforcement:

Npl;Rd ¼ Aa fyd þ 0:85Ac fcd þ As fsd ð6:30Þ

In this case, there is no separate term ad for the influence of geometrical data on resistance,because uncertainties in areas of cross-sections are allowed for in the �M factors.

In terms of characteristic strengths, from clause 2.4.1.2, equation (6.30) becomes:

Npl;Rd ¼ Aa fy=�M þ 0:85Ac fck=�C þ As fsk=�S ðD2:3Þ

where:

– the characteristic material strengths Xk;i are fy, fck and fsk;– the conversion factors, �i in EN 1990, are 1.0 for steel and reinforcement and 0.85 for

concrete. These factors enable allowance to be made for the difference between thematerial property obtained from tests and its in situ contribution to the particularresistance considered. In general, it is also permissible to allow for this effect in thevalues of �M;i;

– the partial factors �M;i are written �M, �C and �S in EN 1994-2.

Expression (6.6c) of EN 1990 is:

Rd ¼ Rk=�M

It applies where characteristic properties and a single partial factor can be used; for example,in expressions for the shear resistance of a headed stud (clause 6.6.3.1). It is widely used inEN 1993, where only one material, steel, contributes to a resistance.

2.4.2. Combination of actionsClause 2.4.2 refers to the combinations of actions given in EN 1990. As in current practice,variable actions are included in a combination only in regions where they contribute to thetotal action effect considered.

For permanent actions and ultimate limit states, the situation is more complex. Normallythe same factor �F (favourable or unfavourable as appropriate) is applied throughout thestructure, irrespective of whether both favourable and unfavourable loading regions exist.Additionally, the characteristic action is a mean (50% fractile) value. Exceptions arecovered by clause 6.4.3.1(4)P of EN 1990:

‘Where the results of a verification are very sensitive to variations of the magnitude of a permanentaction from place to place in the structure, the unfavourable and the favourable parts of thisaction shall be considered as individual actions.’

A design permanent action is then �Ed;minGk;min in a ‘favourable’ region, and �Ed;maxGk;max

in an ‘unfavourable’ region. Recommendations on the choice of these values and theapplication of this principle are given in EN 1990, with guidance in the Designers’ Guideto EN 1990.1

2.4.3. Verification of static equilibrium (EQU)The preceding quotation from EN 1990 evidently applies to checks on static equilibrium,clause 2.4.3(1). It draws attention to the role of anchors and bearings in ensuring staticequilibrium.

The abbreviation EQU in this clause comes from EN 1990, where four types of ultimatelimit state are defined in clause 6.4.1:

. EQU for loss of static equilibrium

. FAT for fatigue failure

Clause 2.4.2

Clause 2.4.3(1)

15

CHAPTER 2. BASIS OF DESIGN

Page 262: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. GEO for failure or excessive deformation of the ground

. STR for internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure.

As explained above, the main feature of EQU is that, unlike STR, the partial factor �F forpermanent actions is not uniform over the whole structure. It is higher for destabilizingactions than for those relied on for stability. This guide mainly covers ultimate limit statesof types STR and FAT. Use of type GEO arises in design of foundations to EN 1997.32

16

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 263: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 3

Materials

This chapter concerns the properties of materials needed for the design of compositestructures. It corresponds to Section 3, which has the following clauses:

. Concrete Clause 3.1

. Reinforcing steel for bridges Clause 3.2

. Structural steel for bridges Clause 3.3

. Connecting devices Clause 3.4

. Prestressing steel and devices Clause 3.5

. Tension components in steel Clause 3.6

Rather than repeating information given elsewhere, Section 3 consists mainly ofcross-references to other Eurocodes and EN standards. The following comments relate toprovisions of particular significance for composite structures.

3.1. ConcreteClause 3.1(1) refers to EN 1992-1-1 for the properties of concrete. For lightweight-aggregateconcrete, several properties are dependent on the oven-dry density, relative to 2200 kg/m3.

Comprehensive sets of time-dependent properties are given in its clause 3.1 for normalconcrete and clause 11.3 for lightweight-aggregate concrete. For composite structures builtunpropped, with several stages of construction, simplification may be needed. A simplifica-tion for considerations of creep is provided in clause 5.4.2.2(2). Specific properties are nowdiscussed. (For thermal expansion, see Section 3.3 below.)

Compressive strengthStrength and deformation characteristics are summarized in EN 1992-1-1, Table 3.1 fornormal concrete and Table 11.3.1 for lightweight-aggregate concrete.

Strength classes for normal concrete are defined as Cx/y, where x and y are respectively thecylinder and cube compressive strengths in N/mm2 units, determined at age 28 days. Allcompressive strengths in design rules in Eurocodes are cylinder strengths, so an unsafeerror occurs if a specified cube strength is used in calculations. It should be replaced at theoutset by the equivalent cylinder strength, using the relationships given by the strengthclasses.

Most cube strengths in Table 3.1 are rounded to 5N/mm2. The ratios fck=fck;cube rangefrom 0.78 to 0.83, for grades up to C70/85.

Classes for lightweight concrete are designated LCx/y. The relationships between cylinderand cube strengths differ from those of normal concrete; for example, C40/50 and LC40/44.The ratios fck=fck;cube for the LC grades range from 0.89 to 0.92. Thus, cylinder strengths areabout 80% of cube strengths for normal-weight concrete and 90% for lightweight concrete.

Clause 3.1(1)

Page 264: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Comment on the design compressive strength, fcd ¼ fck=�C, is given at clause 2.4.1.2.

Tensile strengthEN 1992 defines concrete tensile strength as the highest stress reached under concentrictensile loading. Values for the mean axial tensile strength of normal-weight concrete at 28days, fctm, are given in Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1. They are based on the following formulae,in N/mm2 units:

fctm ¼ 0:30ð fckÞ2=3; fck � C50=60 ðD3:1Þfctm ¼ 2:12 ln½1þ ð fcm=10Þ�; fck > C50=60 ðD3:2ÞThis table also gives the 5% and 95% fractile values for tensile strength. The appropriate

fractile value should be used in any limit state verification that relies on either an adverse orbeneficial effect of the tensile strength of concrete. Tensile strengths for lightweight concreteare given in Table 11.3.1 of EN 1992-1-1.

Mean tensile stress, fctm, is used in several places in EN 1994-2 where the effects of tensionstiffening are considered to be important. These include:

. clause 5.4.2.3(2): rules on allowing for cracking in global analysis

. clause 5.4.2.8(6): calculation of internal forces in concrete tension members in bowstringarches

. clause 5.5.1(5): minimum area of reinforcement required in concrete tension flanges ofcomposite beams

. clause 7.4.2(1): rules on minimum reinforcement to ensure that cracking does not causeyielding of reinforcement in the cracked region

. clause 7.4.3(3): rules on crack width calculation to allow for the increase in stress in re-inforcement caused by tension stiffening.

Elastic deformationAll properties of concrete are influenced by its composition. The values for the mean short-term modulus of elasticity in Tables 3.1 and 11.3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 are given with a warningthat they are ‘indicative’ and ‘should be specifically assessed if the structure is likely to besensitive to deviations from these general values’.

The values are for concrete with quartzite aggregates. Corrections for other types ofaggregate are given in EN 1992-1-1, clause 3.1.3(2). All these are secant values; typically,0.4fcm/(strain at 0.4fcm), and so are slightly lower than the initial tangent modulus,because stress–strain curves for concrete are non-linear from the origin.

Table 3.1 in EN 1992-1-1 gives the analytical relation:

Ecm ¼ 22½ð fck þ 8Þ=10�0:3

with Ecm in GPa or kN/mm2 units, and fck in N/mm2. For fck ¼ 30, this gives Ecm ¼ 32:8kN/mm2, whereas the entry in the table is rounded to 33 kN/mm2.

A formula for the increase of Ecm with time, in clause 3.1.3(3) of EN 1992-1-1, gives thetwo-year value as 6% above Ecm at 28 days. The influence in a composite structure of sosmall a change is likely to be negligible compared with the uncertainties in the modellingof creep.

Clause 3.1(2) limits the scope of EN 1994-2 to the strength range C20/25 to C60/75for normal concrete and from LC20/22 to LC60/66 for lightweight concrete. The upperlimits to these ranges are lower than that given in EN 1992-2 (C70/85) because there islimited knowledge and experience of the behaviour of composite members with verystrong concrete. This applies, for example, to the load/slip properties of shear connectors,the redistribution of moments in continuous beams and the resistance of columns. The useof rectangular stress blocks for resistance to bending (clause 6.2.1.2(d)) relies on thestrain capacity of the materials. The relevant property of concrete in compression, "cu3 inTable 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1, is 0.0035 for classes up to C50/60, but then falls, and is only0.0026 for class C90/105.

Clause 3.1(2)

18

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 265: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

ShrinkageThe shrinkage of concrete referred to in clause 3.1(3) is (presumably) both the dryingshrinkage that occurs after setting and the autogenous shrinkage, but not the plasticshrinkage that precedes setting.

Drying shrinkage is associated with movement of water through and out of the concreteand therefore depends on relative humidity and effective section thickness as well as onthe concrete mix. It takes several years to be substantially complete. The mean dryingshrinkage strain (for unreinforced concrete) is given in clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1 as afunction of grade of concrete, ambient relative humidity, effective thickness of the concretecross-section, and elapsed time since the end of curing. It is stated that actual values have acoefficient of variation of about 30%. This implies a 16% probability that the shrinkage willexceed the prediction by at least 30%.

A slightly better predictor is given in Annex B of EN 1992-1-1, as the type of cement isincluded as an additional parameter.

Autogenous shrinkage develops during the hydration and hardening of concrete. It is thatwhich occurs in enclosed or sealed concrete, as in a concrete-filled steel tube, where no loss ofmoisture occurs. This shrinkage strain depends only on the strength of the concrete, and issubstantially complete in a few months. It is given in clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1 as afunction of concrete grade and the age of the concrete in days. The time coefficient givenis ½1� expð�0:2t0:5Þ�, so this shrinkage should be 90% complete at age 19 weeks. The90% shrinkage strain for a grade C40/50 concrete is given as 67� 10�6. It has little influenceon cracking due to direct loading, and the rules for minimum reinforcement (clause 7.4.2)take account of its effects.

The rules in EN 1992-1-1 become less accurate at high concrete strengths, especially if themix includes silica fume. Data for shrinkage for concrete grades C55/67 and above are givenin informative Annex B of EN 1992-2.

Section 11 of EN 1992-2 gives supplementary requirements for lightweight concretes.The shrinkage of reinforced concrete is lower than the ‘free’ shrinkage, to an extent that

depends on the reinforcement ratio. The difference is easily calculated by elastic theory, ifthe concrete is in compression. In steel–concrete composite bridges, restraint of reinforcedconcrete shrinkage by the structural steel leads to locked-in stresses in the compositesection. In indeterminate bridges, secondary moments and forces from restraint to the freedeflections also occur. Shrinkage, being a permanent action, occurs in every combinationof actions. It increases hogging moments at internal supports, often a critical region, andso can influence design.

The specified shrinkage strains will typically be found to be greater than that used inprevious UK practice, but the recommended partial load factor, in clause 2.4.2.1 ofEN 1992-1-1, is �SH ¼ 1:0, lower than the value of 1.2 used in BS 5400.

There is further comment on shrinkage in Chapter 5.

CreepIn EN 1994-2, the effects of creep are generally accounted for using an effective modulus ofelasticity for the concrete, rather than by explicit calculation of creep deformation. However,it is still necessary to determine the creep coefficient �ðt; t0Þ (denoted �t in EN 1994) fromclause 3.1.4 of EN 1992-1-1. Guidance on deriving modular ratios is given in section 5.4.2of this guide.

3.2. Reinforcing steel for bridgesFor properties of reinforcement, clause 3.2(1) refers to clause 3.2 of EN 1992-1-1, which inturn refers to its normative Annex C for bond characteristics. EN 1992 allows the use of bars,de-coiled rods and welded fabric as suitable reinforcement. Its rules are applicable to ribbedand weldable reinforcement only, and therefore cannot be used for plain round bars. Therules are valid for characteristic yield strengths between 400N/mm2 and 600N/mm2. Wirefabrics with nominal bar size 5mm and above are included. Exceptions to the rules for

Clause 3.1(3)

Clause 3.2(1)

19

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

Page 266: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

fatigue of reinforcement may be given in the National Annex, and could refer to the use ofwire fabric.

In this section 3.2, symbols fyk and fyd are used for the yield strengths of reinforcement, asin EN 1992, although fsk and fsd are used in EN 1994, to distinguish reinforcement fromstructural steel.

The grade of reinforcement denotes the specified characteristic yield strength, fyk. Thisis obtained by dividing the characteristic yield load by the nominal cross-sectional area ofthe bar. Alternatively, for products without a pronounced yield stress, the 0.2% proofstress, f0:2k may be used in place of the yield stress.

Elastic deformationFor simplicity, clause 3.2(2) permits the modulus of elasticity of reinforcement to be taken as210 kN/mm2, the value given in EN 1993-1-1 for structural steel, rather than 200 kN/mm2,the value in EN 1992-1-1. This simplification means that it is not necessary to ‘transform’reinforcement into structural steel or vice versa when calculating cracked section propertiesof composite beams.

DuctilityClause 3.2(3) refers to clause 3.2.4 of EN 1992-2; but provisions on ductility in Annex C ofEN 1992-1-1 also apply. Reinforcement shall have adequate ductility, defined by the ratio oftensile strength to the yield stress, ð ft=fyÞk, and the strain at maximum force, "uk. Therequirements for the three classes for ductility are given in Table 3.1, from EN 1992-1-1.

Clause 3.2.4(101)P of EN 1992-2 recommends that Class A reinforcement is not used forbridges, although this is subject to variation in the National Annex. The reason is that highstrain can occur in reinforcement in a reinforced concrete section in flexure before theconcrete crushes. Clause 5.5.1(5) prohibits the use of Class A reinforcement in compositebeams which are designed as either Class 1 or 2 for a similar reason: namely, that very highstrains in reinforcement are possible due to plastification of the whole composite section.

Class 3 and 4 sections are limited to first yield in the structural steel and so the reinforce-ment strain is limited to a relatively low value. The recommendations of EN 1992 andEN 1994 lead to some ambiguity with respect to ductility requirements for bars in reinforcedconcrete deck slabs forming part of a composite bridge with Class 3 or 4 beams. Where mainlongitudinal bars in the deck slab of a composite section are significantly stressed by localloading, it would be advisable to follow the recommendations of EN 1992 and not to useClass A reinforcement.

Stress–strain curvesThe characteristic stress–strain diagram and the two alternative design diagrams defined inclause 3.2.7 of EN 1992-1-1 are shown in Fig. 3.1. The design diagrams (labelled B in Fig. 3.1)have:

(a) an inclined top branch with a strain limit of "ud and a maximum stress of kfyk=�S at "uk(for symbols k and "uk, see Table 3.1), and

(b) a horizontal top branch without strain limit.

A value for "ud may be found in the National Annex to EN 1992-1-1, and is recommended as0.9"uk.

Clause 3.2(2)

Clause 3.2(3)

Table 3.1. Ductility classes for reinforcement

ClassCharacteristic strain atmaximum force, "uk (%)

Minimum valueof k ¼ ð ft=fyÞk

A �2.5 �1.05B �5 �1.08C �7.5 �1.15, <1.35

20

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 267: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

From clause 6.2.1.4, reinforcement diagram (a) is only relevant when the non-linearmethod for bending resistance is used. Elastic and plastic bending resistances assume thatthe reinforcement stress is limited to the design yield strength.

The minimum ductility properties of wire fabric given in Table C.1 of EN 1992-1-1 maynot be sufficient to satisfy clause 5.5.1(6), as this requires demonstration of sufficient ducti-lity to avoid fracture when built into a concrete slab. It has been found in tests on continuouscomposite beams with fabric in tension that the cross-wires initiate cracks in concrete, so thattensile strain becomes concentrated at the locations of the welds in the fabric.33

3.3. Structural steel for bridgesClause 3.3(1) refers to EN 1993-2, which in turn refers to EN 1993-1-1. This lists in its Table3.1 steel grades with nominal yield strengths up to 460N/mm2, and allows other steelproducts to be included in national annexes. The nominal values of material propertieshave to be adopted as characteristic values in all design calculations.

Two options for selecting material strength are provided. Either the yield strength andultimate strength should be obtained from the relevant product standard or the simplifiedvalues provided in Table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-1 should be used. The National Annex forEC3-1-1 may make this choice. In either case, the strength varies with thickness, and theappropriate thickness must be used when determining the strength.

The elastic constants for steel, given in clause 3.2.6 of EN 1993-1-1, are familiar values. Inthe notation of EN 1994, they are: Ea ¼ 210 kN/mm2, Ga ¼ 81 kN/mm2, and �a ¼ 0:3.

Moduli of elasticity for tension rods and cables of different types are not covered by thisclause and are given in EN 1993-1-11.

Clause 3.3(2) sets the same upper limit to nominal yield strength as in EN 1993-1-1,namely 460N/mm2, for use in composite bridges. EN 1993-1-12 covers steels up to gradeS700. A comprehensive report on high-performance steels appeared in 2005,34 and therehas been extensive research on the use in composite members of structural steels withyield strengths exceeding 355N/mm2.35�37 It was found that some design rules need modifi-cation for use with steel grades higher than S355, to avoid premature crushing of concrete.This applies to:

. plastic resistance moment (clause 6.2.1.2(2)), and

. resistance of columns (clause 6.7.3.6(1)).

DuctilityMany design clauses in EN 1994 rely on the ductile behaviour of structural steel after yield.Ductility is covered by the references in clause 3.3(1) to EN 1993.

The ductility characteristics required by clause 3.2.2 of EN 1993-1-1 are for a minimumratio fu=fy of the specified values; a minimum elongation; and a minimum strain at the

Clause 3.3(1)

Clause 3.3(2)

0

B

A – idealisedB – design

Aσkfyk

fyk

kfyk

kfyk /γS

fyd/Es εud εuk ε

fyd = fyk /γS

k = ( ft / fy)k

Fig. 3.1. Characteristic and design stress–strain diagrams for reinforcement (tension and compression)

21

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

Page 268: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

specified ultimate tensile strength, fu. Recommended values are given, all of which can bemodified in the National Annex. The steel grades in Table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-1 all providethe recommended level of ductility. It follows that the drafting of this part of a nationalannex to EN 1993-1-1 should consider both steel and composite structures.

Thermal expansionFor the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of steel, clause 3.2.6 of EN 1993-1-1 gives avalue of 12� 10�6 ‘per 8C’ (also written in Eurocodes as /K or K�1). This is followed bya Note that for calculating the ‘structural effects of unequal temperatures’ in compositestructures, the coefficient may be taken as 10� 10�6 per 8C, which is the value given fornormal-weight concrete in clause 3.1.3(5) of EN 1992-1-1. This avoids the need to calculatethe internal restraint stresses from uniform temperature change, which would result fromdifferent coefficients of thermal expansion for steel and concrete. Movement due tochange of uniform temperature (or force due to restraint of movement) should howeverbe calculated using � ¼ 12� 10�6 per 8C for all the structural materials (clause 5.4.2.5(3)).

Thermal expansion of reinforcement is not mentioned in EN 1992-1-1, presumablybecause it is assumed to be the same as that of normal-weight concrete. For reinforcementin composite members the coefficient should be taken as 10� 10�6 per 8C. This is not inEN 1994.

Coefficients of thermal expansion for lightweight-aggregate concretes can range from4� 10�6 to 14� 10�6 per 8C. Clause 11.3.2(2) of EN 1992-1-1 states that: ‘The differencesbetween the coefficients of thermal expansion of steel and lightweight aggregate concreteneed not be considered in design’, but ‘steel’ here means reinforcement, not structuralsteel. The effects of the difference from 10� 10�6 per 8C should be considered in design ofcomposite members for situations where the temperatures of the concrete and the structuralsteel could differ significantly.

3.4. Connecting devices3.4.1. GeneralReference is made to EN 1993, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-8: Design ofJoints19 for information relating to fasteners, such as bolts, and welding consumables. Provi-sions for ‘other types of mechanical fastener’ are given in clause 3.3 of EN 1993-1-3.38

Composite jointsComposite joints are defined in clause 1.5.2.8. In bridges, they are essentially steelwork jointsacross which a reinforced or prestressed concrete slab is continuous, and cannot be ignored.Composite joints are covered in Section 8 and Annex A of EN 1994-1-1, with extensivereference to EN 1993-1-8. These clauses are written ‘for buildings’, and so are not copiedinto EN 1994-2, though many of them are relevant. Commentary on them will be foundin Chapters 8 and 10 of the Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1.5

The joints classified as ‘rigid’ or ‘full-strength’ occur also in bridge construction. Wherebending resistances of beams in Class 1 or 2 are determined by plastic theory, joints inregions of high bending moment must either have sufficient rotation capacity, or be strongerthan the weaker of the members joined. The rotation capacity needed in bridges, whereelastic global analysis is always used, is lower than in buildings.

Tests, mainly on beam-to-column joints, have found that reinforcing bars of diameter upto 12mm may fracture. Clause 5.5.1 gives rules for minimum reinforcement that apply alsoto joints, but does not exclude small-diameter bars.

3.4.2. Headed stud shear connectorsHeaded studs are the only type of shear connector for which detailed provisions are given inEN 1994-2, throughout clause 6.6. Their use is referred to elsewhere; for example, in clause6.7.4.2(4). Their performance has been validated for diameters up to 25mm.39 Research on

22

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 269: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

larger studs is in progress. Studs attached to steel top flanges present a hazard duringconstruction, and other types of connector are sometimes used.23 These must satisfyclause 6.6.1.1, which gives the basis of design for shear connection. Research on perforatedplate connectors (known initially as ‘Perfobond’) of S355 and S460 steel in grade C50/60concrete has found slip capacities from 8–15mm, which is better than the 6mm found for22-mm studs.25 The use of adhesives on a steel flange is unlikely to be suitable. See alsothe comment on clause 1.1.3(3).

Clause 3.4.2 refers to EN 13918 Welding – Studs and Ceramic Ferrules for Arc StudWelding.40 This gives minimum dimensions for weld collars. Other methods of attachingstuds, such as spinning, may not provide weld collars large enough for the resistances ofstuds given in clause 6.6.3.1(1) to be applicable.

Shear connection between steel and concrete by bond or friction is permitted only in accor-dance with clause 6.7.4, for columns.

3.5. Prestressing steel and devicesProperties of materials for prestressing tendons and requirements for anchorage and cou-pling of tendons are covered in clauses 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, of EN 1992-1-1. Prestressingby tendons is rarely used for steel and concrete composite members and is not discussedfurther.

3.6. Tension components in steelThe scope of EN 1993-1-11 is limited to bridges with adjustable and replaceable steel tensioncomponents. It identifies three generic groups: tension rod systems, ropes, and bundles ofparallel wires or strands; and provides information on stiffness and other material properties.The analysis of cable-supported bridges, including treatment of load combinations and non-linear effects, is also covered. These are not discussed further here but some discussion can befound in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

Clause 3.4.2

23

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

Page 270: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 4

Durability

This chapter corresponds to Section 4, which has the following clauses:

. General Clause 4.1

. Corrosion protection at the steel–concrete interface in bridges Clause 4.2

4.1. GeneralAlmost all aspects of the durability of composite structures are covered by cross-referencesin clause 4.1(1) to ENs 1990, 1992 and 1993. Bridges must be sufficiently durable to remainserviceable throughout their design life. Clause 2.4 of EN 1990 lists ten factors to be takeninto account, and gives the following general requirement:

‘The structure shall be designed such that deterioration over its design working life does notimpair the performance of the structure below that intended, having due regard to its environmentand the anticipated level of maintenance.’

The specific provisions given in EN 1992 and EN 1993 focus on corrosion protection to re-inforcement, tendons and structural steel.

Reinforced concreteThe main durability provision in EN 1992 is the specification of concrete cover as a defenceagainst corrosion of reinforcement and tendons. The following outline of the procedure is forreinforcement only. In addition to the durability aspect, adequate concrete cover is essentialfor the transmission of bond forces and for providing sufficient fire resistance (which is ofless significance for bridge design). The minimum cover cmin to satisfy the durabilityrequirements is defined in clause 4.4.1.2 of EN 1992-1-1 by the following expression:

cmin ¼ maxfcmin;b; cmin;dur þ�cdur;� ��cdur;st ��cdur;add; 10mmg ðD4:1Þ

where: cmin;b is the minimum cover due to bond requirements and is defined in Table 4.2of EN 1992-1-1. For aggregate sizes up to 32mm it is equal to the bardiameter (or equivalent bar diameter for bundled bars),

cmin;dur is the minimum cover required for the environmental conditions,�cdur;� is an additional safety element which EC2 recommends to be 0mm,�cdur;st is a reduction of minimum cover for the use of stainless steel, which, if

adopted, should be applied to all design calculations, including bond. Therecommended value in EC2 without further specification is 0mm,

�cdur;add is a reduction of minimum cover for the use of additional protection. Thiscould cover coatings to the concrete surface or reinforcement (such asepoxy coating). EC2 recommends taking a value of 0mm.

Clause 4.1(1)

Page 271: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The minimum cover for durability requirements, cmin;dur, depends on the relevant‘exposure class’ taken from Table 4.1 of EN 1992-1-1.

There are 18 exposure classes, ranging from X0, ‘no risk of corrosion’, to XA3, ‘highlyaggressive chemical environment’. It should be noted that a particular element may havemore than one exposure class, e.g. XD3 and XF4. The XF and XA designations affect theminimum required concrete grade (via EN 1992-1-1 Annex E) and the chemical compositionof the concrete. The XC and XD designations affect minimum cover and crack widthrequirements, and XD, XF and XS affect a stress limit for concrete under the characteristiccombination, from clause 7.2(102) of EN 1992-2. The exposure classes most likely to beappropriate for composite bridge decks are:

. XC3 for a deck slab protected by waterproofing (recommended in clause 4.2(105) ofEN 1992-2)

. XC3 for a deck slab soffit protected from the rain by adjacent girders

. XC4 for other parts of the deck slab exposed to cyclic wetting and drying

. XD3 for parapet edge beams in the splash zone of water contaminated with de-icing salts;and also XF2 or XF4 if exposed to both freeze–thaw and de-icing agents (recommendedin clause 4.2(106) of EN 1992-2).

Informative Annex E of EN 1992-1-1 gives ‘indicative strength classes’ (e.g. C30/37) foreach exposure class, for corrosion of reinforcement and for damage to concrete.

The cover cmin;dur is given in Table 4.4N of EN 1992-1-1 in terms of the exposure class andthe structural class, and the structural class is found from Table 4.3N. These are reproducedhere as Tables 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. Table 4.2 gives modifications to the initial structuralclass, which is recommended (in a Note to clause 4.4.1.2(5) of EN 1992-1-1) to be class 4,assuming a service life of 50 years and concrete of the indicative strength.

Taking exposure class XC4 as an example, the indicative strength class is C30/37. Startingwith Structural Class 4, and using Tables 4.1 and 4.2:

. for 100-year life, increase by 2 to Class 6

. for use of C40/50 concrete, reduce by 1 to Class 5

. where the position of the reinforcement is not affected by the construction process, reduceby 1 to Class 4.

‘Special quality control’ (Table 4.2) is not defined, but clues are given in the Notes to Table4.3N of EN 1992-1-1. Assuming that it will not be provided, the Class is 4, and Table 4.1gives cmin;dur ¼ 30mm. Using the recommendations that follow equation (D4.1),

cmin ¼ 30mm

The cover to be specified on the drawings, cnom, shall include a further allowance for devia-tion (�cdev) according to clause 4.4.1.3(1)P of EN 1992-1-1, such that:

cnom ¼ cmin þ�cdev

Table 4.1. Minimum cover cmin;dur for reinforcement. (Source: based on Table 4.4N of EN 1992-1-115)

Environmental Requirements for cmin (mm)

Exposure Class (from Table 4.1 of EN 1992-1-1)

Structural Class X0 XC1 XC2/XC3 XC4 XD1/XS1 XD2/XS2 XD3/XS3

1 10 10 10 15 20 25 302 10 10 15 20 25 30 353 10 10 20 25 30 35 404 10 15 25 30 35 40 455 15 20 30 35 40 45 506 20 25 35 40 45 50 55

26

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 272: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The value of �cdev for buildings and bridges is defined in the National Annex and isrecommended in clause 4.4.1.3(2) of EN 1992-1-1 to be taken as 10mm. This value maybe reduced in situations where accurate measurements of cover achieved can be taken andnon-conforming elements rejected. This could apply to precast units.

Almost all the provisions on cover, but not the process to be followed, can be modified inthe National Annex to EN 1992-1-1.

Structural steelThe rules in Section 4 of EN 1993-1-1 cover the need for access for in-service inspection,maintenance, and possible reconstruction of parts susceptible to corrosion, wear orfatigue. Further provisions relevant to fatigue are given in Section 4 of EN 1993-2, and alist is given of parts that may need to be replaceable. Corrosion allowances for inaccessiblesurfaces may be given in the National Annex. Further discussion on durability of structuralsteel is presented in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

Access to shear connectors is not possible, so they must be protected from corrosion.Clause 4.1(2) refers to clause 6.6.5, which includes relevant detailing rules, for cover andfor haunches.

4.2. Corrosion protection at the steel–concrete interfacein bridgesThe side cover to stud connectors must be at least 50mm (clause 6.6.5.4(2)). Clause 4.2(1)requires provision of a minimum of 50mm of corrosion protection to each edge of a steelflange at an interface with concrete. This does not imply that the connectors must be pro-tected.

For precast deck slabs, the reference to Section 8 is to clause 8.4.2, which requires greatercorrosion protection to a steel flange that supports a precast slab without bedding. NormalUK practice when using ‘Omnia’ planks has been to extend the corrosion protection aminimum of 25mm beyond the plank edge and its seating material, with due allowance

Clause 4.1(2)

Clause 4.2(1)

Table 4.2. Recommended structural classification. (Source: based on Table 4.3N of EN 1992-1-115)

Structural Class

Exposure Class (from Table 4.1 of EN 1992-1-1)

Criterion X0 XC1 XC2/XC3 XC4 XD1 XD2/XS1 XD3/XS2/XS3

Service life of 100 years Increaseclass by 2

Increaseclass by 2

Increaseclass by 2

Increaseclass by 2

Increaseclass by 2

Increaseclass by 2

Increaseclass by 2

Strength Class (seenotes 1 and 2)

�C30/37Reduceclass by 1

�C30/37Reduceclass by 1

�C35/45Reduceclass by 1

�C40/50Reduceclass by 1

�C40/50Reduceclass by 1

�C40/50Reduceclass by 1

�C45/55Reduceclass by 1

Member with slabgeometry (position ofreinforcement notaffected by constructionprocess)

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Special Quality Controlof the concrete ensured

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Reduceclass by 1

Note 1: The strength class and water/cement ratio are considered to be related values. The relationship is subject to anational code. A special composition (type of cement, w/c value, fine fillers) with the intent to produce low permeability maybe considered.Note 2: The limit may be reduced by one strength class if air entrainment of more than 4% is applied.

27

CHAPTER 4. DURABILITY

Page 273: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

for placing tolerance. The connectors are not mentioned. They are usually surrounded byin situ concrete, whether bedding is used (as is usual) or not. Corrosion protection to theconnectors is not normally required. It is possible that a thick coating could reduce theirstiffness in shear.

28

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 274: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 5

Structural analysis

This chapter corresponds to Section 5 of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. Structural modelling for analysis Clause 5.1

. Structural stability Clause 5.2

. Imperfections Clause 5.3

. Calculation of action effects Clause 5.4

. Classification of cross-sections Clause 5.5

Structural analysis is performed at three levels: global analysis, member analysis and localanalysis. Section 5 of EN 1994-2 covers the structural idealization of bridges and the methodsof global analysis required in different situations to determine deformations and internalforces and moments. It also covers classification of cross-sections of members, for use indetermining resistances by methods given in Sections 6 of EN 1993-2 and EN 1994-2.Much reference has to be made to other parts of EC3, especially EN 1993-1-541 for theeffects of shear lag and plate buckling.

Wherever possible, analyses for serviceability and ultimate limit states use the samemethods. It is therefore more convenient to specify them in a single section, rather than toinclude them in Sections 6 and 7.

The division of material between Section 5 and Section 6 (Ultimate limit states) is notalways obvious. Calculation of vertical shear is clearly ‘analysis’, but longitudinal shear isin Section 6. For composite columns, ‘Methods of analysis and member imperfections’ isin clause 6.7.3.4. This separation of imperfections in frames from those in columns requirescare, and receives detailed explanation in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1.5

Two flow charts for global analysis, Figs 5.15 and 5.16, are given, with comments, at theend of this chapter. They include relevant provisions from Section 6.

5.1. Structural modelling for analysis5.1.1. Structural modelling and basic assumptionsThe clause of EN 1990 referred to in clause 5.1.1(1)P says, in effect, that models shallbe appropriate and based on established theory and practice and that the variables shallbe relevant.

The basic requirement is that analysis should realistically model the expected behaviour ofthe bridge and its constituent elements. For composite bridges, important factors in analysisare the effects on stiffness of shear lag and concrete cracking. For composite members,different rules for shear lag apply for concrete flanges and for the steel parts. The formeris dealt with in clause 5.4.1.2 and the latter in Section 3 of EN 1993-1-5. They are discussedin this Guide under clause 5.4.1.2.

The effects of cracking of concrete can be taken into account either by using crackedsection properties in accordance with clause 5.4.2.3 or, for filler-beam decks only, by

Clause 5.1.1(1)P

Page 275: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

redistributing the moments determined from an uncracked analysis away from the crackedsections in accordance with clause 5.4.2.9. For Class 4 sections, plate buckling effects, whichhave to be considered in accordance with clause 2.2 of EN 1993-1-5, can also lead to a reduc-tion in stiffness of cross-sections. This is discussed in this Guide under clause 5.4.1.1.

Global analysis can be significantly affected by flexibility at connections and by interactionof the bridge structure with the soil, particularly in fully integral bridges. Guidance onmodelling joints and ground–structure interaction are given in clauses 5.1.2 and 5.1.3,respectively.

Composite members and joints are commonly used in conjunction with others of structuralsteel. Clause 5.1.1(2) makes clear that this is the type of construction envisaged in Section 5.Significant differences between Sections 5 of EC3 and EC4 are referred to in this chapter.

5.1.2. Joint modellingIn analysis of bridges, it is generally possible to treat joints as either rigid or pinned, asappropriate. Clause 5.1.2(1) refers to ‘semi-continuous’ joints as an exception. They areneither ‘rigid’ nor ‘pinned’, and have sufficient flexibility to influence the bending momenttransmitted. This could occur, for example, from the flexure of thin end-plates in a boltedend-plate connection.

The three simplified joint models listed in clause 5.1.2(2) – simple, continuous and semi-continuous – are those given in EN 1993. Joints in steelwork have their own Eurocode part,EN 1993-1-8.19 Its design methods are for joints ‘subjected to predominantly static loading’(its clause 1.1(1)). Resistance to fatigue is covered in EN 1993-1-942 and in clause 6.8.

Clause 5.1.2(3) prohibits the use of semi-continuous composite joints (defined in clause1.5.2.8) in bridges. An example of such a prohibited joint might be a composite mainbeam joined together through end-plate connections. Semi-continuous non-compositejoints should also be avoided where possible, so that fatigue can be assessed using thedetail categories in EN 1993-1-9.

Semi-continuous joints may, in some situations, be unavoidable, such as end-plate connec-tions between composite cross-beams and main beam webs in some U-frame bridges, butthese would not be composite joints due to the lack of continuity of the slab reinforcement.The flexibility of such a joint would have to be considered in deriving the restraint providedto the compression flange by the U-frame. Design rules are given in EN 1993-1-8 and inEN 1994-1-1.

Another apparent exception to the above rule concerns the slip of bolts. This is discussedunder clause 5.4.1.1(7).

5.1.3. Ground–structure interactionClause 5.1.3(1)P refers to ‘deformation of supports’, so the stiffness of the bearings, piers,abutments and ground have to be taken into account in analysis. This also includes consid-eration of stiffness in determining effective lengths for buckling or resistance to buckling byanalysis. For further guidance on this, see Section 5.2 below.

The effects of differential settlement must also be included in analysis, although fromclause 5.1.3(3) they may be neglected in ultimate limit state checks. Similar considerationsapply to other indirect actions, such as differential temperature and differential creep.They are discussed in this Guide under clause 5.4.2.2(6).

5.2. Structural stabilityThe following comments refer to both entire bridges and isolated members. They assumethat the global analyses will be based on elastic theory. The exception in clause 5.4.3 isdiscussed later. All design methods must take account of:

. errors in the initial positions of joints (global geometric imperfections) and in the initialgeometry of members (member geometric imperfections)

Clause 5.1.1(2)

Clause 5.1.2(1)

Clause 5.1.2(2)

Clause 5.1.2(3)

Clause 5.1.3(1)P

Clause 5.1.3(3)

30

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 276: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. the effects of cracking of concrete and of any semi-rigid or nominally pinned joints

. residual stresses in compression members (structural imperfections).

The stage at which each of these is considered or allowed for can be selected by thedesigner, which leads to some complexity in clauses 5.2 to 5.4.

5.2.1. Effects of deformed geometry of the structureIn its clause 1.5.6, EN 1990 defines types of analysis. ‘First-order’ analysis is performed onthe initial geometry of the structure. ‘Second-order’ analysis takes account of the deforma-tions of the structure, which are a function of its loading. Clearly, second-order analysis mayalways be applied. With appropriate software increasingly available, second-order analysis isnow relatively straightforward to perform. The criteria for neglect of second-order effectsgiven in clauses 5.2.1(2)P and 5.2.1(3) need not then be considered. The analysis allowingfor second-order effects will usually be iterative but normally the iteration will take placewithin the software. Methods for second-order analysis are described in text books suchas that by Trahair et al.43

A disadvantage of second-order analysis is that the principle of superposition does notapply and entire load combinations must be applied to the bridge model. In this case, thecritical load combinations can still first be estimated using first-order analysis, influencelines (or surfaces) and superposition of load cases.

Second-order effects apply to both in-plane and out-of-plane modes of buckling, includinglateral–torsional buckling. The latter behaviour is more complex and requires a finite-element analysis using shell elements to model properly second-order effects and instability.A method of checking beams for out-of-plane instability while modelling only in-planesecond-order effects is given in clause 6.3.4 of EN 1993-1-1 and discussed in section 6.4.3of this guide. Out-of-plane second-order effects can only be neglected in bridge beamswhere there is sufficient lateral bracing present. In-plane second-order effects in the beamswill usually be negligible and lateral–torsional buckling may be checked using one of thesimplified methods permitted in clause 6.4. Integral bridges, with high axial load in thebeams caused by earth pressure, may be an exception.

Clause 5.2.1(3) provides a basis for the use of first-order analysis. The check is done for aparticular load combination and arrangement. The provisions in this clause are similar tothose for elastic analysis in the corresponding clause in EN 1993-2. Clause 5.2.1(3) is notjust for a sway mode. This is because clause 5.2.1 is relevant not only to complete framesbut also to the design of individual columns (see clause 6.7.3.4 for composite columns,and comments on it). Such members may be held in position against sway but still besubject to significant second-order effects due to bowing. Second-order effects in local andglobal modes are illustrated in Fig. 5.1.

In an elastic frame, second-order effects are dependent on the proximity of the design loadsto the elastic critical buckling load. This is the basis for expression (5.1), in which �cr isdefined as ‘the factor . . . to cause elastic instability’. This may be taken as the load factor atwhich bifurcation of equilibrium occurs. For a column or frame, it is assumed that thereare no member imperfections, and that only vertical loads are present, usually at theirmaximum design values. These are replaced by a set of loads that produce the same set ofmember axial forces without any bending. An eigenvalue analysis then gives the factor

Clause 5.2.1(2)PClause 5.2.1(3)

AB C

D

E F

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.1. Examples of local and global instability: (a) local second-order effects; (b) global second-ordereffects

31

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 277: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

�cr, applied to the whole of the loading, at which the system stiffness vanishes and elasticinstability occurs.

To sufficient accuracy, �cr may also be determined by a second-order load–deflectionanalysis. The non-linear load–deflection response approaches asymptotically to the elasticcritical value. This may be useful as some software will perform this analysis but not anelastic critical buckling analysis.

The use of expression (5.1) is one way of determining if first-order analysis will suffice.Clause 5.2.1(3) also states that second-order effects may be ignored where the increases ininternal actions due to the deformations from first-order analysis are less than 10%.Hence, for members braced against lateral buckling:

MI=�MI � 10 ðD5:1Þwhere MI is the moment from first-order analysis, including the effects of initial imperfec-tions, and �MI is the increase in bending moments calculated from the deflections obtainedfrom first-order analysis (the P–�moments). By convention, the symbols� or � are used fordeformations. They should not be confused with �, as used here in �MI.

Application of this criterion, in principle, avoids the need for elastic critical bucklinganalysis but its use has some problems as discussed below. For the case of a pin-endedstrut with sinusoidal bow of magnitude a0, expression (D5.1) is the same as expression(5.1). This can be shown as follows.

The extra deflection from a first-order analysis can easily be shown to be given by:

�a ¼ a0FEd=Fcr ðD5:2Þwhere FEd is the applied axial load and Fcr is the elastic critical buckling load. It follows thatthe extra moment from the first-order deflection is:

�MI ¼ FEdða0FEd=FcrÞ ðD5:3ÞPutting equation (D5.3) into equation (D5.1) gives expression (5.1):

MI=�MI ¼FEda0

FEdða0FEd=FcrÞ¼ Fcr

FEd

¼ �cr � 10

This direct equivalence is only valid for a pin-ended strut with a sinusoidal bow and hencesinusoidal curvature but it generally remains sufficiently accurate. (Note: It is found for astrut with equal end moments that:

MI=�MI ¼8

�2

�Fcr

FEd

For anything other than a pin-ended strut or statically determinate structure, it will not beeasy to determine �MI from the deflections found by first-order analysis. This is because inindeterminate structures, the extra moment cannot be calculated at all sections directly fromthe local ‘P–�’ because of the need to maintain compatibility.

In the example shown in Fig. 5.2, it would be conservative to assume that at mid-height,�MI ¼ N�. (This is similar to secondary effects of prestressing in prestressed structures.) Amore accurate value could be found from a further first-order analysis that models the first-order deflected shape found by the previous analysis. To avoid the problem that low ratiosMI=�MI can be obtained near points of contraflexure, the condition MI=�MI � 10 shouldbe applied only at the peak moment positions between each adjacent point of contraflexure.The maximum P–� bending moment in the member can again be used as a conservativeestimate of �MI.

Clause 5.2.1(4)P is a reminder that the analysis shall account for the reductions in stiffnessarising from cracking and creep of concrete and from possible non-linear behaviour ofthe joints. In general, such effects are dependent on the internal moments and forces, socalculation is iterative. Simplified methods are therefore given in clauses 5.4.2.2 and5.4.2.3, where further comment is given.

Manual intervention may be needed, to adjust stiffness values before repeating an analysis.It is expected however that advanced software will be written for EN 1994 to account

Clause 5.2.1(4)P

32

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 278: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

automatically for these effects. The designer may of course make assumptions, although careis needed to ensure these are conservative. For example, assuming that joints have zerorotational stiffness (resulting in simply-supported composite beams) could lead to neglectof the reduction in beam stiffness due to cracking. The overall lateral stiffness wouldprobably be a conservative value, but this is not certain.

Clause 6.7.3.4(2) gives an effective flexural stiffness for doubly symmetric columns whichmay be used to determine �cr (clause 6.7.3.4(3)) and which makes allowance for the stiffnessof the concrete, including the effects of cracking, and the reinforcement. The use of thisstiffness in checking composite columns is discussed in section 6.7.3 of this guide.

For asymmetric composite compression members in general, such as a composite bridgedeck beam in an integral bridge, the effective stiffness usually depends on the direction ofbowing of the member. This is influenced by the initial camber and by the deflectionunder the loading considered. The deflection under design ultimate load and after creepusually exceeds the initial camber. The direction of bow is then downwards.

A conservative possibility for determining �cr is to ignore completely the contribution ofthe concrete to the flexural stiffness, including reinforcement only; this is done in Example 6.6to determine the elastic critical buckling load under axial force. An even more conservativepossibility is to base the flexural stiffness on the steel section alone. If second-order analysis isnecessary, this simplification will not usually be satisfactory as the use of cracked propertiesthroughout the structure, irrespective of the sign of the axial force in the concrete, would notsatisfy the requirements of clause 5.4.2.3 regarding cracking. Generally the results of a first-order analysis can be used to determine which areas of the structure are cracked and thesection properties for second-order analysis can then be modified as necessary. The stiffnessof cracked areas can be based on the above simplification. The procedure can be iterative ifthe extent of cracked zones is significantly altered by the second-order analysis. An effectivemodulus of elasticity for compressed concrete is also required to calculate the flexuralstiffness of uncracked areas. Clause 6.7.3.3(4) provides a formula.

5.2.2. Methods of analysis for bridgesWhere it is necessary to take second-order effects and imperfections into account, EN 1993-2clause 5.2.2 provides the following three alternative methods by reference to EN 1993-1-1clause 5.2.2(3).

. Use of second-order analysis including both ‘global’ system imperfections and ‘local’member imperfections as discussed in section 5.3 below. If this method is followed, noindividual checks of member stability are required and members are checked for cross-section resistance only. An alternative method for bare steel members is discussed underclause 5.3.1(2). For each composite member, it is necessary to use an appropriate flexuralstiffness covering the effects of cracking and creep as discussed in section 5.2.1 above.

(a) (b)

∆ ∆<N

(c)

N N

N N

Fig. 5.2. Extra bending moments from deflection: (a) first-order moment due to imperfections; (b) first-order deflection; (c) additional moment from deflection

33

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 279: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

If lateral–torsional buckling is to be covered totally by second-order analysis,appropriate finite-element analysis capable of modelling the behaviour will be required.

. Use of second-order analysis including ‘global’ system imperfections only. For individualbare steel members, stability checks are then required according to EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.Since the member end forces and moments include second-order effects from globalbehaviour, the effective length of individual members is then based on the memberlength, rather than a greater effective length that includes the effects of global swaydeformations. Note that when clause 6.3.3 of EN 1993-1-1 is used for member checksof bare steel members, the member moments will be further amplified by the ‘kij’ par-ameters. Since the second-order analysis will already have amplified these moments,providing sufficient nodes have been included along the member in the analysis model,this is conservative and it would be permissible to set the ‘kij’ parameters equal tounity where they exceed unity. However, the imperfections within the members havenot been considered or amplified by the second-order analysis. These are included viathe first term in the equations in this clause:

NEd

�NRk=�M1

For composite members in compression and bending, buckling resistance curves cannotbe used, and the moments from member imperfections in the member length should beadded. Second-order effects within the member are accounted for by magnifying theresulting moments from the local imperfections within the length of the member accordingto clauses 6.7.3.4(4) and 6.7.3.4(5) using an effective length based on the member length,and then checking the resistance of cross-sections. Only the local member imperfectionsneed to be amplified if sufficient nodes have been included along the member in the analysismodel, as all other moments will then have been amplified by the second-order globalanalysis. Further comment and a flow chart are given under clause 6.7.3.4.

. Use of first-order analysis without modelled imperfections. For bare steel members, theverification can be made using clause 6.3 of EN 1993-2 with appropriate effective lengths.All second-order effects are then included in the relevant resistance formulae. This lattermethod will be most familiar to bridge engineers in the UK, as tables of effective lengthsfor members with varying end conditions of rotational and positional fixity havecommonly been used. The use of effective lengths for this method is discussed in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

For composite compression members, this approach is generally not appropriate. Themethod of clause 6.7.3 is based on calculation of second-order effects within members,followed by checks on resistance of cross-sections. No buckling resistance curves areprovided. Composite beams in bending alone can however be checked for lateral–torsional buckling satisfactorily following this method.

Second-order analysis itself can be done either by direct computer analysis that accountsfor the deformed geometry or by amplification of the moments from a first-order analysis(including the effects of imperfections) using clause 5.2.2(5) of EN 1993-2. Where eitherapproach is used, it should only be performed by experienced engineers because the guidanceon the use of imperfections in terms of shapes, combinations and directions of application isnot comprehensive in EC3 and EC4 and judgement must be exercised.

5.3. Imperfections5.3.1. BasisClause 5.3.1(1)P lists possible sources of imperfection. Subsequent clauses (and alsoclause 5.2) describe how these should be allowed for. This may be by inclusion in theglobal analyses or in methods of checking resistance, as explained above.

Imperfections comprise geometric imperfections and residual stresses. The term ‘geometricimperfection’ is used to describe departures from the intended centreline setting-out

Clause 5.3.1(1)P

34

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 280: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

dimensions found on drawings, which occur during fabrication and erection. This isinevitable as construction work can only be executed to certain tolerances. Geometricimperfections include lack of verticality, lack of straightness, lack of fit and minor jointeccentricities. The behaviour of members under load is also affected by residual stresseswithin the members. Residual stresses can lead to yielding of steel occurring locally atlower applied external load than predicted from stress analysis ignoring such effects. Theeffects of residual stresses can be modelled by additional geometric imperfections. Theequivalent geometric imperfections given in EC3 and EC4 cover both geometric imperfec-tions and residual stresses.

Clause 5.3.1(2) requires imperfections to be in the most unfavourable direction and form.The most unfavourable geometric imperfection normally has the same shape as the lowestbuckling mode. This can sometimes be difficult to find, but it can be assumed that this condi-tion is satisfied by the Eurocode methods for checking resistance that include effects ofmember imperfections (see comments on clause 5.2.2). Clause 5.3.2(11) of EN 1993-1-1covers the use of a unique global and local system imperfection based on the lowest bucklingmode. This can generally only be used for bare steel members as the imperfection parameter� is required and this is not provided for composite members. The method is discussed in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

5.3.2. Imperfections for bridgesGenerally, an explicit treatment of geometric imperfections is required for composite frames.In both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-1-1 the values are equivalent rather than measured values(clause 5.3.2(1)) because they allow for effects such as residual stresses, in addition toimperfections of shape.

Clause 5.3.2(2) covers bracing design. In composite bridges, the deck slab acts as planbracing. Compression flanges that require bracing occur in hogging regions of beam-and-slab bridges and in sagging regions of half-through bridges, bowstring arches and similarstructures. The bracing of compression flanges in sagging regions differs little from that inall-steel bridges, and is discussed in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

Steel bottom flanges in hogging regions of composite bridges are usually restrainedlaterally by continuous or discrete transverse frames. For deep main beams, plan bracingat bottom-flange level may also be used. Where the main beams are rolled I-sections, theirwebs may be stiff enough to serve as the vertical members of continuous inverted-Uframes, which are completed by the shear connection and the deck slab. These systems arediscussed under clause 6.4.2.

Discrete U-frame bracing can be provided at the location of vertical web stiffeners. Theseframes need transverse steel members. If these are provided just below the concrete deck,they should be designed as composite. Otherwise, design for shrinkage and temperatureeffects in the transverse direction becomes difficult. This problem is often avoided byplacing the steel cross-member at lower level, so creating an H-frame. Both types of frameprovide elastic lateral restraint at bottom-flange level, with a spring stiffness that is easilycalculated.

The design transverse forces for these frames, or for plan bracing, arise from lateralimperfections in the compressed flanges. For these imperfections, clause 5.3.2(2) refers toEN 1993-2, which in turn refers to clauses 5.3.2 to 5.3.4 of EN 1993-1-1. The design trans-verse forces, FEd, and a design method are given in clause 6.3.4.2 of EN 1993-2, though itrefers specifically only to U-frame restraints. Comments on these clauses are in the relevantGuides in this series.4;7

The relevant imperfections for analysis of the bracing system are not necessarily the sameas those for the bridge beams themselves.

In hogging regions of continuous beam-and-slab bridges, distortional lateral buckling isusually the critical mode. It should not be assumed that a point of contraflexure is alateral restraint, for the buckling half-wavelength can exceed the length of flange incompression.44

Clause 5.3.1(2)

Clause 5.3.2(1)

Clause 5.3.2(2)

35

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 281: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Where the restraint forces are to be transmitted to end supports by a system of planbracing, this system should be designed to resist the more onerous of the transverse forcesFEd from each restraint within a length equal to the half wavelength of buckling, and theforces generated by an overall flange bow in each flange according to clause 5.3.3 ofEN 1993-1-1.

For the latter case, the overall bow is given as e0 ¼ �mL=500, where �m is the reductionfactor for the number of interconnected beams (�m ¼ 0:866 for two beams), and L is thespan. The plan bracing may be designed for an equivalent uniformly-distributed force perbeam of 8NEdðe0 þ �qÞ=L, where �q is the deflection of the bracing, and NEd is themaximum compressive force in the flange.

For very stiff bracing, the total design lateral force for the bracing is:

8X

NEd=L� �

ð�mL=500Þ ¼X

NEd�m=62:5

Clause 5.3.2(2) should also be used for system imperfections for composite columns,although its scope is given as ‘stabilizing transverse frames’. Its reference to clause 5.3 ofEN 1993-2 leads to relevant clauses in EN 1993-1-1, as follows.

Initial out-of-plumb of a column is given in clause 5.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-1 which, althoughworded for ‘frames’, is applicable to a single column or row of columns. Where a steelcolumn is very slender and has a moment-resisting joint at one or both ends, clause5.3.2(6) of EN 1993-1-1 requires its local bow imperfection to be included in the second-order global analysis used to determine the action effects at its ends. ‘Very slender’ isdefined as:

��� > 0:5ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiAfy=NEd

q

It is advised that this rule should be used also for composite columns, in the form �cr < 4,with �cr as defined in clause 5.2.1(3). This is obtained by replacing Afy by Npl.

Clause 5.3.2(3) covers imperfections in composite columns and compression members(e.g. in trusses), which must be considered explicitly. It refers to material in clause 6.7.3,which appears to be limited, by clause 6.7.3(1), to uniform members of doubly symmetricalcross-section. Clause 6.7.2(9), which is of general applicability, also refers to Table 6.5 ofclause 6.7.3 for member imperfections; but the table only covers typical cross-sectionsof columns. Imperfections in compressed beams, which occur in integral bridges, appearto be outside the scope of EN 1994.

The imperfections for buckling curve d in Table 5.1 of EN 1993-1-1 could conservativelybe used for second-order effects in the plane of bending. For composite bridges with the deckslab on top of the main beams, lateral buckling effects can subsequently be included by acheck of the compression flange using the member resistance formulae in clause 6.3 ofEN 1993-1-1. Guidance on verifying beams in integral bridges in bending and axial load isdiscussed in section 6.4 of this guide.

Clause 5.3.2(4) covers global and local imperfections in steel compression members, byreference to EN 1993-2. Imperfections for arches are covered in Annex D of EN 1993-2.

5.4. Calculation of action effects5.4.1. Methods of global analysisEN 1990 defines several types of analysis that may be appropriate for ultimate limit states.For global analysis of bridges, EN 1994-2 gives three methods: linear elastic analysis, with orwithout corrections for cracking of concrete, and non-linear analysis. The latter is discussedin section 5.4.3 below, and is rarely used in practice.

Clause 5.4.1.1(1) permits the use of elastic global analysis even where plastic (rectangular-stress-block) theory is used for checking resistances of cross-sections. For resistance toflexure, these sections are in Class 1 or 2, and commonly occur in mid-span regions.

There are several reasons45�47 why the apparent incompatibility between the methods usedfor analysis and for resistance is accepted. It is essentially consistent with UK practice, but

Clause 5.3.2(3)

Clause 5.3.2(4)

Clause 5.4.1.1(1)

36

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 282: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

care should be taken with mixing section classes within a bridge when elastic analysis is used.An example is a continuous bridge, with a mid-span section designed in bending as Class 2and the section at an internal support as Class 3. The Class 3 section may become over-stressed by the elastic moments shed from mid-span while the plastic section resistancedevelops there and stiffness is lost.

There is no such incompatibility for Class 3 or 4 sections, as resistance is based on elasticmodels.

Mixed-class design has rarely been found to be a problem, as the load cases producingmaximum moment at mid-span and at a support rarely coexist, except where adjacentspans are very short compared to the span considered. A relevant design rule is given inclause 6.2.1.3(2).

If redistribution is required to be checked, the conservative method illustrated in Fig. 5.3may be used. In this example there is a Class 2 section at mid-span of the central span, andthe support sections are Class 3. A simplified load case that produces maximum saggingmoment is shown. Elastic analysis for the load P gives a bending moment at cross-sectionC that exceeds the elastic resistance moment, Mel;C. The excess moment is redistributedfrom section C, giving the distribution shown by the dashed line. In reality, the momentat C continues to increase, at a reduced rate, after the elastic value Mel;C is reached, so thetrue distribution lies between those shown in Fig. 5.3. The upper distribution thereforeprovides a safe estimate of the moments at supports B and D, and can be used to checkthat the elastic resistance moment is not exceeded at these points.

Elastic global analysis is required for serviceability limit states (clause 5.4.1.1(2)) to enableyielding of steel to be avoided. Linear elastic analysis is based on linear stress–strain laws, sofor composite structures, ‘appropriate corrections for . . . cracking of concrete’ are required.These are given in clause 5.4.2.3, and apply also for ultimate limit states.

Clause 5.4.1.1(3) requires elastic analysis for fatigue, to enable realistic ranges of fatiguestress to be predicted.

The effects of shear lag, local buckling of steel elements and slip of bolts must also beconsidered where they significantly influence the global analysis. Shear lag and local bucklingeffects can reduce member stiffness, while slip in bolt holes causes a localized loss of stiffness.Shear lag is discussed under clause 5.4.1.2, and plate buckling and bolt slip are discussedbelow.

Methods for satisfying the principle of clause 5.4.1.1(4)P are given for local buckling inclauses 5.4.1.1(5) and (6). These refer to the classification of cross-sections, the establishedmethod of allowing for local buckling of steel flanges and webs in compression. It determinesthe available methods of global analysis and the basis for resistance to bending. Theclassification system is defined in clause 5.5.

Plate bucklingIn Class 4 sections (those in which local buckling will occur before the attainment of yield),plate buckling can lead to a reduction of stiffness. The in-plane stiffness of perfectly flat platessuddenly reduces when the elastic critical buckling load is reached. In ‘real’ plates that haveimperfections, there is an immediate reduction in stiffness from that expected from the gross

Clause 5.4.1.1(2)

Clause 5.4.1.1(3)

Clause 5.4.1.1(4)PClause 5.4.1.1(5)Clause 5.4.1.1(6)

B DC

P

Moments with bendingmoment at C reduced to Mel,C

Moments from elastic analysis Mel,C

Mpl,C

Fig. 5.3. Effect of mixing section classes, and an approximate method for checking bending moments atinternal supports

37

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 283: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

plate area because of the growth of the bow imperfections under load. This stiffnesscontinues to reduce with increasing load. This arises because non-uniform stress developsacross the width of the plate as shown in Fig. 5.4. The non-uniform stress arises becausethe development of the buckle along the centre of the plate leads to a greater developedlength of the plate along its centreline than along its edges. Thus the shortening due tomembrane stress, and hence the membrane stress itself, is less along the centreline of theplate.

This loss of stiffness must be considered in the global analysis where significant. It canbe represented by an effective area or width of plate, determined from clause 2.2 ofEN 1993-1-5. This area or width is greater than that used for resistance, which is given inclause 4.3 of EN 1993-1-5.

The loss of stiffness may be ignored when the ratio of effective area to gross cross-sectionalarea exceeds a certain value. This ratio may be given in the National Annex. The recommendedvalue, given in a Note to clause 2.2(5) of EN 1993-1-5, is 0.5. This should ensure that platebuckling effects rarely need to be considered in the global analysis. It is only likely to be ofrelevance for the determination of pre-camber of box girders under self-weight and wetconcrete loads. After the deck slab has been cast, buckling of the steel flange plate will beprevented by its connection to the concrete flange via the shear connection.

Effects of slip at bolt holes and shear connectorsClause 5.4.1.1(7) requires consideration of ‘slip in bolt holes and similar deformations ofconnecting devices’. This applies to both first- and second-order analyses. There is asimilar rule in clause 5.2.1(6) of EN 1993-1-1. No specific guidance is given in EN 1993-2or EN 1994-2. Generally, bolt slip will have little effect in global analysis. It has oftenbeen practice in the UK to design bolts in main beam splices to slip at ultimate limitstates (Category B to clause 3.4.1 of EN 1993-1-8). Although slip could alter the momentdistribution in the beam, this is justifiable. Splices are usually near to the point of contra-flexure, so that slip will not significantly alter the distribution of bending moment. Also,the loading that gives maximum moment at the splice will not be fully coexistent with thatfor either the maximum hogging moment or maximum sagging moment in adjacent regions.

It is advised that bolt slip should be taken into account for bracing members in the analysisof braced systems. This is because a sudden loss of stiffness arising from bolt slip gives anincrease in deflection of the main member and an increased force on the bracing member,which could lead to overall failure. Ideally, therefore, bolts in bracing members should bedesigned as non-slip at ultimate limit state (Category C to EN 1993-1-8).

The ‘similar deformations’ quoted above could refer to slip at an interface between steeland concrete, caused by the flexibility of shear connectors. The provisions on shear connec-tion in EN 1994 are intended to ensure that slip is too small to affect the results of elasticglobal analysis or the resistance of cross-sections. Clause 5.4.1.1(8) therefore permits

Clause 5.4.1.1(7)

Clause 5.4.1.1(8)

Fig. 5.4. Stress distribution across width of slender plate

38

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 284: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

internal moments and forces to be determined assuming full interaction where shear con-nection is provided in accordance with EN 1994.

Slip of shear connectors can also affect the flexural stiffness of a composite joint. Arelevant design method is given in clause A.3 of EN 1994-1-1. It is mainly applicable tosemi-continuous joints, and so is not included in EN 1994-2.

An exception to the rules on allowing for cracking of concrete is given in clause 5.4.1.1(9),for the analysis of transient situations during erection stages. This permits uncracked globalanalysis to be used, for simplicity.

Effective width of flanges for shear lagShear lag is defined in clause 5.4.1.2(1) with reference to the ‘flexibility’ of flanges due toin-plane shear. Shear lag in wide flanges causes the longitudinal bending stress adjacentto the web to exceed that expected from analysis with gross cross-sections, while the stressin the flange remote from the web is much lower than expected. This shear lag also leadsto an apparent loss of stiffness of a section in bending which can be important in determiningrealistic distributions of moments in analysis. The determination of the actual distribution ofstress is a complex problem.

The Eurocodes account for both the loss of stiffness and localized increase in flangestresses by the use of an effective width of flange which is less than the actual availableflange width. The effective flange width concept is artificial but, when used with engineeringbending theory, leads to uniform stresses across the whole reduced flange width that areequivalent to the peak values adjacent to the webs in the true situation.

The rules that follow provide effective widths for resistance of cross-sections, and simplervalues for use in global analyses. The rules use the word ‘may’ because clause 5.4.1.2(1)permits ‘rigorous analysis’ as an alternative. This is not defined, but should take accountof the many relevant influences, such as the cracking of concrete.

Steel flangesFor ‘steel plate elements’ clause 5.4.1.2(2) refers to EN 1993-1-1. This permits shear lag to beneglected in rolled sections and welded sections ‘with similar dimensions’, and refers toEN 1993-1-5 for more slender flanges. In these, the stress distribution depends on the stif-fening to the flanges and any plasticity occurring for ultimate limit state behaviour. Theelastic stress distribution can be modelled using finite-element analysis with appropriateshell elements.

The rules in EN 1993-1-5 are not discussed further in this guide but are covered in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4 Different values of effective width apply for cross-sectiondesign for serviceability and ultimate limit states, and the value appropriate to the locationof the section along the beam should be used. Simplified effective widths, taken as constantthroughout a span, are allowed in the global analysis.

Concrete flangesEffective width of concrete flanges is covered in clauses 5.4.1.2(3) to (7). The behaviour iscomplex, being influenced by the loading configuration, and by the extent of cracking and ofyielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, both of which help to redistribute the stress acrossthe cross-section. The ability of the transverse reinforcement to distribute the forces is alsorelevant. The ultimate behaviour in shear of wide flanges is modelled by a truss analogysimilar to that for the web of a deep concrete beam.

The values for effective width given in this clause are simpler than those in BS 5400:Part 5,and similar to those in BS 5950:Part 3.1:1990.48 The effective width at mid-span and internalsupports is given by equation (5.3):

beff ¼ b0 þX

bei ð5:3Þ

where b0 is the distance between the outer shear connectors and bei is either be1 or be2, asshown in Fig. 5.5, or the available width b1 or b2, if lower.

Clause 5.4.1.1(9)

Clause 5.4.1.2(1)

Clause 5.4.1.2(2)

Clauses 5.4.1.2(3)to (7)

39

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 285: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Each width bei is limited to Le=8, where Le is the assumed distance between points of zerobending moment. It depends on the region of the beam considered and on whether thebending moment is hogging or sagging. This is shown in Fig. 5.5, which is based on Fig. 5.1.

The values are generally lower than those in EN 1992-1-1 for reinforced concrete T-beams.To adopt those would often increase the number of shear connectors. Without evidence thatthe greater effective widths are any more accurate, the established values for compositebeams have mainly been retained.

In EN 1992-1-1, the sum of the lengths Le for sagging and hogging regions equals the spanof the beam. In reality, points of contraflexure are dependent on the load arrangement.EN 1994, like EN 1993, therefore gives a larger effective width at an internal support. Insagging regions, the assumed distances between points of contraflexure are the same in allthree codes.

Although there are significant differences between effective widths for supports and mid-span regions, it is possible to ignore this in elastic global analysis (clause 5.4.1.2(4)). This isbecause shear lag has limited influence on the results. There can however be some smalladvantage to be gained by modelling in analysis the distribution of effective width alongthe members given in Fig. 5.5 or Fig. 5.1, as this will tend to shed some moment from thehogging regions into the span. It would also be appropriate to model the distribution ofeffective widths more accurately in cable-stayed structures, but Fig. 5.1 does not coverthese. Example 5.1 below illustrates the calculation of effective width.

Some limitations on span length ratios when using Fig. 5.1 should be made so that thebending-moment distribution within a span conforms with the assumptions in the figure.It is suggested that the limitations given in EN 1992 and EN 1993 are adopted. Theselimit the use to cases where adjacent spans do not differ by more than 50% of the shorterspan and a cantilever is not longer than half the adjacent span. For other span ratios ormoment distributions, the distance between points of zero bending moment, Le, should becalculated from the moment distribution found from an initial analysis.

Where it is necessary to determine a more realistic distribution of longitudinal stress acrossthe width of the flange, clause 5.4.1.2(8) refers to clause 3.2.2 of EN 1993-1-5. This might benecessary, for example, in checking a deck slab at a transverse diaphragm between main

Clause 5.4.1.2(8)

L1

Le = 0.85L1

for beff,1

Le = 0.70L2

for beff,1

Le = 0.25(L1 + L2)for beff,2

Le = 2L3for beff,2

L1/4 L1/4 L2/4 L2/2 L2/4L1/2

L2 L3

Centreline

beff,0 beff,1

be1 be2

b0

b1 b2

beff,1beff,2beff,2

Fig. 5.5. Symbols and equivalent spans, for effective width of concrete flange (Source: based on Fig. 5.1 ofEN 1994-2)

40

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 286: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

beams at a support, where the deck slab is in tension under global bending and also subjectedto a local hogging moment from wheel loads. The use of EN 1993-1-5 can be beneficial here,as often the greatest local effects in a slab occur in the middle of the slab between webs wherethe global longitudinal stresses are lowest.

Composite plate flangesClause 5.4.1.2(8) recommends the use of its stress distribution for both concrete and steelflanges. Where the flange is a composite plate, shear connection is usually concentratednear the webs, so this stress distribution is applicable. Effective widths of compositeplates in bridges are based on clause 5.4.1.2, but with a different definition of b0, given inclause 9.1(3).

Composite trussesClause 5.4.1.2(9) applies where a longitudinal composite beam is also a component of alarger structural system, such as a composite truss. For loading applied to it, the beam iscontinuous over spans equal to the spacing of the nodes of the truss. For the axial forcein the beam, the relevant span is that of the truss.

Clause 5.4.1.2(9)

Example 5.1: effective widths of concrete flange for shear lagA composite bridge has the span layout and cross-section shown in Fig. 5.6. The effectivewidth of top flange for external and internal beams is determined for the mid-span regionsBC and DE, and the region CD above an internal support.

L1 = 19.000 m L3 = 19.000 mL2 = 31.000 m

b1 b2

be1 be2 C/L

250

C/L

3100

3100 2000310031002000

250

A B C D E

Fig. 5.6. Elevation and typical cross-section of bridge for Example 5.1

The effective spans Le, from Fig. 5.5, and the lengths Le=8 are shown in Table 5.1. Foran external beam, the available widths on each side of the shear connection are:

b1 ¼ 1:875m; b2 ¼ 1:425m:

Table 5.1. Effective width of concrete flange of composite T-beam

External beam Internal beam

Region BC CD DE BC CD DE

Le (m) 16.15 12.50 21.70 16.15 12.50 21.70Le=8 (m) 2.019 1.563 2.712 2.019 1.563 2.712beff (m) 3.550 3.238 3.550 3.100 3.100 3.100

41

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 287: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

5.4.2. Linear elastic analysisCracking, creep, shrinkage, sequence of construction, and prestressing, listed in clause5.4.2.1(1), can all affect the distribution of action affects in continuous beams and frames.This is always important for serviceability limit states, but can in some situations beignored at ultimate limit states, as discussed under clause 5.4.2.2(6). Cracking of concreteis covered in clause 5.4.2.3.

Creep and shrinkage of concreteThe rules provided in clause 5.4.2.2 allow creep to be taken into account using a modularratio nL, that depends on the type of loading, and on the concrete composition and age atloading. This modular ratio is used both for global analysis and for elastic section analysis.It is defined in clause 5.4.2.2(2) by:

nL ¼ n0ð1þ L�ðt; t0ÞÞ ð5:6Þwhere n0 is the modular ratio for short-term loading, Ea=Ecm. The concrete modulus Ecm isobtained from EN 1992 as discussed in section 3.1 of this guide. The creep coefficient �ðt; t0Þis also obtained from EN 1992.

The creep multiplier L takes account of the type of loading. Its values are given in clause5.4.2.2(2) as follows:

. for permanent load, L ¼ 1:1

. for the primary and secondary effects of shrinkage (and also the secondary effects ofcreep, clause 5.4.2.2(6)), L ¼ 0:55

. for imposed deformations, L ¼ 1:5.

The reason for the factor L is illustrated in Fig. 5.7. This shows three schematic curves ofthe change of compressive stress in concrete with time. The top one, labelled S, is typical ofstress caused by the increase of shrinkage with time. Concrete is more susceptible to creepwhen young, so there is less creep ( L ¼ 0:55) than for the more uniform stress caused bypermanent loads (line P). The effects of imposed deformations can be significantly reducedby creep when the concrete is young, so the curve is of type ID, with L ¼ 1:5. The valuefor permanent loading on reinforced concrete is 1.0. It is increased to 1.1 for composite

Clause 5.4.2.1(1)

Clause 5.4.2.2

Clause 5.4.2.2(2)

The effective widths are the lower of these values and Le=8, plus the width of the shearconnection, as follows:

for BC and DE; beff ¼ 1:875þ 1:425þ 0:25 ¼ 3:550m

for CD; beff ¼ 1:563þ 1:425þ 0:25 ¼ 3:238m

For an internal beam, the available widths on each side of the shear connection are:

b1 ¼ b2 ¼ 1:425m

These available widths are both less than Le=8, and so govern. The effective widths are:

for BC, CD, and DE, beff ¼ 2� 1:425þ 0:25 ¼ 3:100m

Time

S

P

ID

0

1.0

σc/σc,0

Fig. 5.7. Time-dependent compressive stress in concrete, for three types of loading

42

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 288: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

members because the steel component does not creep. Stress in concrete is reduced by creepless than it would be in a reinforced member, so there is more creep.

These values are based mainly on extensive theoretical work on composite beams of manysizes and proportions.49

The factor L performs a similar function to the ageing coefficient found in Annex KK ofEN 1992-2 and in the calculation for loss of prestress in clause 5.10.6 of EN 1992-1-1.

The creep factor �ðt; t0Þ depends on the age of the concrete, t, at which the modular ratio isbeing calculated (usually taken as infinity) and the age of the concrete at first loading, t0. Forage t0, clauses 5.4.2.2(3) and (4)make recommendations for permanent load and shrinkage,respectively. Since most bridges will follow a concrete pour sequence rather than have allthe concrete placed in one go, this age at first loading could vary throughout the bridge.Clause 5.4.2.2(3) permits an assumed ‘mean’ value of t0 to be used throughout. This simpli-fication is almost a necessity as it is rare for the designer to have sufficient knowledge of theconstruction phasing at the design stage to be more accurate than this, but some estimate ofthe expected timings is still required.

‘First loading’ could occur at an age as low as a week, for example, from erection ofprecast parapets, but the mean age for a multi-span bridge is unlikely to be less than a month.

The creep coefficient depends also on the effective thickness of the concrete element consid-ered, h0. There is no moisture loss through sealed surfaces, so these are assumed to be at mid-thickness of the member. After striking of formwork, a deck slab of thickness, say, 250mm,has two free surfaces, and an effective thickness of 250mm. The application of waterproofingto the top surface increases this thickness to 500mm, which reduces subsequent creep. Thedesigner will not know the age(s) of the deck when waterproofed, and so must make assump-tions on the safe side.

Fortunately, the modular ratio is not sensitive to either the age of loading or the effectivethickness. As resistances are checked for the structure at an early age, it is on the safe side forthe long-term checks to overestimate creep.

As an example, let us suppose that the short-term modular ratio is n0 ¼ 6:36 (as found in asubsequent example), and that a concrete deck slab has a mean thickness of 250mm, withwaterproofing on one surface. The long-term modular ratio is calculated for t0 ¼ 7 daysand 28 days, and for h0 ¼ 250mm and 500mm. For ‘outdoor’ conditions with relativehumidity 70%, the values of �ð1; t0Þ given by Annex B of EN 1992-1-1 with L ¼ 1:1 areas shown in Table 5.2.

The resulting range of values of the modular ratio nL is from 18.8 to 23.7. A difference ofthis size has little effect on the results of a global analysis of continuous beams with all spanscomposite, and far less than the effect of the difference between n ¼ 6:4 for imposed load andaround 20 for permanent load.

For stresses at cross-sections of slab-on-top decks, the modular ratio has no influence inregions where the slab is in tension. In mid-span regions, compression in concrete is rarelycritical, and maximum values occur at a low age, where creep is irrelevant. In steel,bottom-flange tension is the important outcome, and is increased by creep. From Table5.2, h0 has little effect, and the choice of the low value of 7 days for age at first loading ison the safe side.

Modular ratios are calculated in Example 5.2 below.

Shrinkage modified by creepFor shrinkage, the advice in clause 5.4.2.2(4) to assume t0 ¼ 1 day rarely leads to a modularratio higher than that for permanent actions, because of the factor L ¼ 0:55. Both the

Clause 5.4.2.2(3)

Clause 5.4.2.2(4)

Table 5.2. Values of �0 ¼ �ð1; t0Þ and modular ratio nL

h0 ¼ 250mm h0 ¼ 500mm

t0 ¼ 7 days 2.48, 23.7 2.30, 22.4t0 ¼ 28 days 1.90, 19.6 1.78, 18.8

43

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 289: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

long-term shrinkage strain and the creep coefficient are influenced by the assumed effectivethickness h0.

For the preceding example, the 1-day rule gives the values in rows 1 and 2 of Table 5.3. Itshows that doubling h0 has negligible effect on nL, but reduces shrinkage strain by 10%.Increasing the assumed mean relative humidity (RH) by only 5% has the same effect onshrinkage strain as doubling h0, and negligible effect on nL. The error in an assumed RHmay well exceed 5%.

For this example, the ‘safe’ choices for shrinkage effects are h0 ¼ 250mm, and an estimatefor RH on the low side. As the concession in clause 5.4.2.2(3) (the use of a single time t0 forall creep coefficients) refers to ‘loads’, not to ‘actions’, it is not clear if shrinkage may beincluded. It is conservative to do so, because when t0 is assumed to exceed 1 day, the reliefof shrinkage effects by creep is reduced. Hence, a single value of nLð1; t0Þ may usually beused in analyses for permanent actions, except perhaps in special situations, to whichclause 5.4.2.2(5) refers.

Secondary effects of creepWhere creep deflections cause a change in the support reactions, this leads to thedevelopment of secondary moments. This might occur, for example, where there aremixtures of reinforced concrete and steel–composite spans in a continuous structure. Theredistribution arises because the ‘free’ creep deflections are not proportional everywhere tothe initial elastic deflections and therefore the ‘free’ creep deflection would lead to somenon-zero deflection at the supports. Other construction sequences could produce a similareffect but this does not affect normal steel–composite bridges to any significant extent.Clause 5.4.2.2(6) is however a prompt that the effects should be considered in the moreunusual situations.

Calculation of creep redistribution is more complex than for purely concrete structures,and is explained, with an example, in Ref. 50. The redistribution effects develop slowlywith time, so L ¼ 0:55.

Cross-sections in Class 1 or 2Clause 5.4.2.2(6) is one of several places in EN 1994-2 where, in certain global analyses,various ‘indirect actions’, that impose displacements and/or rotations, are permitted to beignored where all cross-sections are either Class 1 or 2. Large plastic strains are possiblefor beams where cross-sections are Class 1. Class 2 sections exhibit sufficient plastic strainto attain the plastic section capacity but have limited rotation capacity beyond this point.This is however normally considered adequate to relieve the effects of imposed deformationsderived from elastic analysis, and EN 1994 therefore permits such relief to be taken. Thecorresponding clause 5.4.2(2) in EN 1993-2 only permits the effects of imposed deformationsto be ignored where all sections are Class 1, so there is an inconsistency at present.

In EN 1994, the effects which can be neglected in analyses for ultimate limit states otherthan fatigue, provided that all sections are Class 1 or 2, are as follows:

. differential settlement: clause 5.1.3(3)

. secondary creep redistribution of moments: clause 5.4.2.2(6)

. primary and secondary shrinkage and creep: clause 5.4.2.2(7)

. effects of staged construction: clause 5.4.2.4(2)

. differential temperature: clause 5.4.2.5(2).

Clause 5.4.2.2(5)

Clause 5.4.2.2(6)

Table 5.3. Effects of shrinkage

h0 (mm) RH (%) 106"sh nL

250 70 340 18.8500 70 304 18.0250 75 305 19.2

44

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 290: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The further condition that there should not be any reduction of resistance due to lateral–torsional buckling is imposed in all of these clauses, and is discussed under clause 6.4.2(1).

Primary and secondary effects of creep and shrinkageClause 5.4.2.2(7) requires ‘appropriate’ account to be taken of both the primary andsecondary effects of creep and shrinkage of the concrete. The recommended partialfactor for shrinkage effects at ultimate limit states is �SH ¼ 1, from clause 2.4.2.1 ofEN 1992-1-1.

In a fully-restrained member with the slab above the steel beam, shrinkage effects can besplit into a hogging bending moment, an axial tensile force, and a set of self-equilibratedlongitudinal stresses, as shown in Example 5.3 below.

Where bearings permit axial shortening, there is no tensile force. In a statically deter-minate system, the hogging bending moment is released, causing sagging curvature. These,with the locked-in stresses, are the primary effects. They are reduced almost to zero wherethe concrete slab is cracked through its thickness.

In a statically indeterminate system, such as a continuous beam, the primary shrinkagecurvature is incompatible with the levels of the supports. It is counteracted by bendingmoments caused by changes in the support reactions, which increase at internal supportsand reduce at end supports. The moments and the associated shear forces are the secondaryeffects of shrinkage.

Clause 5.4.2.2(7) permits both types of effect to be neglected in some checks for ultimatelimit states. This is discussed under clause 5.4.2.2(6).

Clause 5.4.2.2(8) allows the option of neglecting primary shrinkage curvature in crackedregions.51 It would be reasonable to base this cracked zone on the same 15% of the spanallowed by clause 5.4.2.3(3), where this is applicable. The use of this option reduces thesecondary hogging bending at supports. These moments, being a permanent effect, enterinto all load combinations, and may influence design of what is often a critical region.

The long-term effects of shrinkage are significantly reduced by creep, as illustrated inclause 5.4.2.2(4). Where it is necessary to consider shrinkage effects within the first yearor so after casting, a value for the relevant free shrinkage strain can be obtained fromclause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1.

Primary effects of shrinkage are calculated in Example 5.3 below.The influence of shrinkage on serviceability verifications is dealt with in Chapter 7.For creep in columns, clause 5.4.2.2(9) refers to clause 6.7.3.4(2), which in turn refers to

an effective modulus for concrete given in clause 6.7.3.3(4). If separate analyses are to bemade for long-term and short-term effects, clause 6.7.3.3(4) can be used assuming ratiosof permanent to total load of 1.0 and zero, respectively.

Shrinkage effects in columns are unimportant, except in very tall structures.Clause 5.4.2.2(10) excludes the use of the preceding simplified methods for members

with both flanges composite and uncracked. The ‘uncracked’ condition is omitted fromclause 5.4.2.2(2), which is probably an oversight. This exclusion is not very restrictive, asnew designs of this type are unusual in the UK. It may occur in strengthening schemeswhere the resistance of the compression flange is increased by making it composite over ashort length.

Torsional stiffness of box girdersFor box girders with a composite top flange or with a concrete flange closing the top of anopen U-section, the torsional stiffness is usually calculated by reducing the thickness of thegross concrete flange on the basis of the appropriate long- or short-term modular ratio, andmaintaining the centroid of the transformed flange in the same position as that of the grossconcrete flange. From clause 5.4.2.2(11), the short-term modular ratio should be based onthe ratio of shear moduli, n0;G ¼ Ga=Gcm, where for steel, Ga ¼ 81:0 kN/mm2 from clause3.2.6 of EN 1993-1-1 and, for concrete:

Gcm ¼ Ecm=½2ð1þ cÞ�

Clause 5.4.2.2(7)

Clause 5.4.2.2(8)

Clause 5.4.2.2(9)

Clause 5.4.2.2(10)

Clause 5.4.2.2(11)

45

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 291: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 3.1.3(4) of EN 1992-1-1 gives Poisson’s ratio (c) as 0.2 or zero, depending on whetherthe concrete is uncracked or cracked. For this application it is accurate enough to assumec ¼ 0:2 everywhere. The method of clause 5.4.2.2(2) should be used for the modular ratio:

nL;G ¼ n0;Gð1þ L�ðt; t0ÞÞ

The calculation of the torsional second moment of area (in ‘steel’ units) then follows theusual procedure such that:

IT ¼ 4A20þ

ds

tðsÞwhere A0 is the area enclosed by the torsional perimeter running through the centreline ofthe box walls. This is shown in Fig. 5.8. For closed steel boxes, the location of the centroidof the composite flange can, for simplicity, be located on the basis of first moment of area.The integral

Þðds=tðsÞÞ is the summation of the lengths of each part of the perimeter divided

by their respective thicknesses. It is usual to treat the parts of the web projection into theflange as having the thickness of the steel web.

The torsional stiffness is also influenced by flexural cracking, which can cause a significantreduction in the in-plane shear stiffness of the concrete flange. To allow for this in regionswhere the slab is assumed to be cracked, clause 5.4.2.3(6) recommends a 50% reductionin the effective thickness of the flange.

Effects of cracking of concreteClause 5.4.2.3 is applicable to beams, at both serviceability and ultimate limit states. The flowchart of Fig. 5.15 below illustrates the procedure.

In conventional composite beams with the slab above the steel section, cracking ofconcrete reduces the flexural stiffness in hogging moment regions, but not in saggingregions. The change in relative stiffness needs to be taken into account in elastic globalanalysis. This is unlike analysis of reinforced concrete beams, where cracking occurs inboth hogging and sagging bending, and uncracked cross-sections can be assumedthroughout.

A draft of EN 1994-2 permitted allowance for cracking by redistribution of hoggingmoments from ‘uncracked’ analysis by up to 10%. Following detailed examination of itseffects,52 this provision was deleted.

Clause 5.4.2.3(2) provides a general method. This is followed in clause 5.4.2.3(3) by asimplified approach of limited application. Both methods refer to the ‘uncracked’ and‘cracked’ flexural stiffnesses EaI1 and EaI2, which are defined in clause 1.5.2. The flexuralrigidity EaI1 can usually be based on the gross concrete area excluding reinforcement withacceptable accuracy. In the general method, the first step is to determine the expectedextent of cracking in beams. The envelope of moments and shears is calculated for charac-teristic combinations of actions, assuming uncracked sections and including long-termeffects. The section is assumed to crack if the extreme-fibre tensile stress in concreteexceeds twice the mean value of the axial tensile strength given by EN 1992-1-1.

Clause 5.4.2.3

Clause 5.4.2.3(2)

Torsional perimeter

Transformed thickness:uncracked: hc /nL,Gcracked: 0.5hc /nL,G

hc

Fig. 5.8. Torsional stiffness of composite box girder

46

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 292: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The reasons for ‘twice’ in this assumption are as follows:

. The concrete is likely to be stronger than specified, although this is partly catered for bythe use of a mean rather than characteristic tensile strength.

. Test results for tensile strength show a wide scatter when plotted against compressivestrength.

. Reaching fctm at the surface may not cause the slab to crack right through, and even if itdoes, the effects of tension stiffening are significant at the stage of initial cracking.

. Until after yielding of the reinforcement, the stiffness of a cracked region is greater thanEaI2, because of tension stiffening between the cracks.

. The calculation uses an envelope of moments, for which regions of slab in tension aremore extensive than they are for any particular loading.

The global model is then modified to reduce the beam stiffness to the cracked flexuralrigidity, EaI2, over this region, and the structure is reanalysed.

Clause 5.4.2.3(3) provides a non-iterative method, but one that is applicable only to somesituations. These include conventional continuous composite beams, and beams in bracedframes. The cracked regions could differ significantly from the assumed values in a bridgewith highly unequal span lengths. Where the conditions are not satisfied, the generalmethod of clause 5.4.2.3(2) should be used.

The influence of cracking on the analysis of braced and unbraced frames is discussed in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1.5

For composite columns, clause 5.4.2.3(4) makes reference to clause 6.7.3.4 for thecalculation of cracked stiffness. The scope of the latter clause is limited (to double symmetry,etc.) by clause 6.7.3.1(1), where further comment is given. The reduced value of EI referredto here is intended for verifications for ultimate limit states, and may be inappropriate foranalyses for serviceability.

For column cross-sections without double symmetry, cracking and tension in columns arereferred to in clause 6.7.2(1)P and clause 6.7.2(5)P, respectively; but there is no guidance onthe extent of cracking to be assumed in global analysis.

The assumption in clause 5.4.2.3(5), that effects of cracking in transverse compositemembers may be neglected, does not extend to decks with only two main beams. Theirbehaviour is influenced by the length of cantilever cross-beams, if any, and the torsionalstiffness of the main beams. The method of clause 5.4.2.3(2) is applicable.

Clause 5.4.2.3(6) supplements clause 5.4.2.2(11), where comment on clause 5.4.2.3(6) isgiven.

For the effects of cracking on the design longitudinal shear for the shear connection atultimate limit states, clause 5.4.2.3(7) refers to clause 6.6.2.1(2). This requires uncrackedsection properties to be used for uncracked members and for members assumed to becracked in flexure where the effects of tension stiffening have been ignored in global analysis.

Where tension stiffening and possible over-strength of the concrete (using upper character-istic values of the tensile strength) have been explicitly considered in the global analysis, thenthe same assumptions may be made in the determination of longitudinal shear flow. Thereason for this is that tension stiffening can lead to a greater force being attracted to theshear connection than would be found from a fully cracked section analysis.

The simplest and most conservative way to consider this effect is to determine the longi-tudinal shear with an uncracked concrete flange. The same approach is required forfatigue where tension stiffening could again elevate fatigue loads on the studs according toclauses 6.8.5.4(1) and 6.8.5.5(2).

For longitudinal shear at serviceability limit states, clause 5.4.2.3(8) gives, in effect, thesame rules as for ultimate limit states, explained above.

Stages and sequence of constructionThe need to consider staged construction is discussed in section 2.2 of this guide. The reasonfor allowing staged construction to be ignored at the ultimate limit state, if the conditions ofclause 5.4.2.4(2) are met, is discussed under clause 5.4.2.2(6). However, it would not be

Clause 5.4.2.3(3)

Clause 5.4.2.3(4)

Clause 5.4.2.3(5)

Clause 5.4.2.3(6)

Clause 5.4.2.3(7)

Clause 5.4.2.3(8)

Clause 5.4.2.4(2)

47

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 293: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

common to do this, as a separate analysis considering the staged construction would then berequired for the serviceability limit state.

Temperature effectsClause 5.4.2.5(1) refers to EN 1991-1-553 for temperature actions. These are uniformtemperature change and temperature gradient through a beam, often referred to as differen-tial temperature. Differential temperature produces primary and secondary effects in asimilar way to shrinkage. The reason for allowing temperature to be ignored at the ultimatelimit state, if the conditions of clause 5.4.2.5(2) are met, is discussed under clause 5.4.2.2(6).

Recommended combination factors for temperature effects are given in Tables A2.1 toA2.4 of Annex A2 of EN 1990. If they are confirmed in the National Annex (as thefurther comments assume), temperature will be included in all combinations of actions forpersistent and transient design situations. In this respect, design to Eurocodes will differfrom previous practice in the UK. However, the tables for road bridges and footbridgeshave a Note which recommends that 0 for thermal actions ‘may in most cases be reducedto zero for ultimate limit states EQU, STR and GEO’. Only FAT (fatigue) is omitted. Itis unlikely that temperature will have much influence on fatigue life. The table for railwaybridges refers to EN 1991-1-5. The purpose may be to draw attention to its rules forsimultaneity of uniform and temperature difference components, and the need to considerdifferences of temperature between the deck and the rails.

With 0 ¼ 0, temperature effects appear in the ultimate and characteristic combinationsonly where temperature is the leading variable action. It will usually be evident whichmembers and cross-sections need to be checked for these combinations.

The factors 1 and 2 are required for the frequent and quasi-permanent combinationsused for certain serviceability verifications. The recommended values are 1 ¼ 0:6, 2 ¼ 0:5. Temperature will rarely be the leading variable action, as the following exampleshows.

For the effects of differential temperature, EN 1991-1-5 gives two approaches, from whichthe National Annex can select. The ‘Normal Procedure’ in Approach 2 is equivalent to theprocedure in BS 5400.11 If this is used, both heating and cooling differential temperaturecases tend to produce secondary sagging moments at internal supports where crack widthsare checked in continuous beams. These effects of temperature will not normally add toother effects.

Combinations of actions that involve temperatureA cross-section is considered where the characteristic temperature action effect is Tk, and theaction effect from traffic load model 1 (LM1) for road bridges is Qk. The recommendedcombination factors are given in Table 5.4.

The frequent combinations of variable action effects are:

. with load model 1 leading: 1Qk þ 2Tk ¼ ð0:75 or 0:40ÞQk þ 0:5Tk

. with temperature leading: 1Tk þ 2Qk ¼ 0:6Tk

The second of these governs only where 0:1Tk >(0.75 or 0.4)Qk.Thus, temperature should be taken as the leading variable action only where its action

effect is at least 7.5 times (for TS) or 4 times (for UD) that from traffic load model 1.

Clause 5.4.2.5(1)

Clause 5.4.2.5(2)

Table 5.4. Recommended combination factors for traffic load andtemperature according to EN 1990 Annex A2

Action effect from: 0 1 2

Tandem system (TS), from LM1 0.75 0.75 0Uniform loading (UD), from LM1 0.40 0.40 0Temperature (non-fire) 0.6 or zero 0.6 0.5

48

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 294: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The uncertainty about which variable action leads does not arise in quasi-permanentcombinations, because the combination factor is always 2. Temperature and constructionloads are the only variable actions for which 2 > 0 is recommended. Both the valuesand the combination to be used can be changed in the National Annex.

Prestressing by controlled imposed deformationsAs a principle, clause 5.4.2.6(1) requires that possible deviations from the intended amountof imposed deflection be considered, such as might occur due to the tolerance achievable withthe specified jacking equipment. The effect of variations in material properties on the actioneffects developed must also be considered. However, clause 5.4.2.6(2) permits these effects tobe determined using characteristic or nominal values, ‘if the imposed deformations arecontrolled’. The nature of the control required is not specified. It should take account ofthe sensitivity of the structure to any error in the deformation.

At the ultimate limit state, clause 2.4.1.1 recommends a load factor of 1.0 for imposeddeformations, regardless of whether effects are favourable or unfavourable. It is recom-mended here that where a structure is particularly sensitive to departures from the intendedamount of imposed deformation, tolerances should be determined for the proposed methodof applying these deformations and upper and lower bound values considered in the analysis.

Prestressing by tendonsPrestressing composite bridges of steel and concrete is uncommon in the UK and is thereforenot covered in detail here. Clause 5.4.2.6(1) refers to EN 1992 for the treatment of prestressforces in analysis. This is generally sufficient, although EN 1994 itself emphasises, inclause 5.4.2.6(2), the distinction between bonded and unbonded tendons. Essentially, thisis that while the force in bonded tendons increases everywhere in proportion to the localincrease of strain in the adjacent concrete, the force in unbonded tendons changes in accor-dance with the overall deformation of the structure; that is, the change of strain in the adja-cent concrete averaged over the length of the tendon.

Tension members in composite bridgesThe purpose of the definitions (a) and (b) in clause 5.4.2.8(1) is to distinguish between thetwo types of structure shown in Fig. 5.9, and to define the terms in italic print.

In Fig. 5.9(a), the concrete tension member AB is shear-connected to the steel structure,represented by member CD, only at its ends (‘concrete’ here means reinforced concrete).No design rules are given for a concrete member where cracking is prevented by prestressing.

Figure 5.9(b) shows a composite tension member, which has normal shear connection. Itsconcrete flange is the concrete tension member. In both cases, there is a tensile force N fromthe rest of the structure, shared between the concrete and steel components.

A member spanning between nodes in a sagging region of a composite truss with a deck atbottom-chord level could be of either type. The difference between members of types (a) and(b) is similar to that between unbonded and bonded tendons in prestressed concrete.

Clause 5.4.2.8(2) lists the properties of concrete that should be considered in globalanalyses. These influence the stiffness of the concrete component, and hence the magnitude

Clause 5.4.2.6(1)

Clause 5.4.2.6(2)

Clause 5.4.2.8(1)

Clause 5.4.2.8(2)

(a) (b) (c)

A B

C D

N

N

d

N

M

Aa

Ac As

zs

Ms

Ma

Ns

Naza

Fig. 5.9. Two types of tension member, and forces in the steel and concrete parts: (a) concrete tensionmember; (b) composite tension member; (c) action effects equivalent to N and M

49

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 295: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

of the force N, and the proportions of it resisted by the two components. ForceN is assumedto be a significant action effect. There will normally be others, arising from transverse loadingon the member.

The distribution of tension between the steel and concrete parts is greatly influenced bytension stiffening in the concrete (which is in turn affected by over-strength of the concrete).It is therefore important that an accurate representation of stiffness is made. This clauseallows a rigorous non-linear method to be used. It could be based on Annex L of ENV1994-2, ‘Effects of tension stiffening in composite bridges’.54 This annex was omitted fromEN 1994-2, as being ‘text-book material’. Further information on the theory of tensionstiffening and its basis in tests is given in Ref. 55, in its references, and below.

The effects of over-strength of concrete in tension can in principle be allowed for by usingthe upper 5% fractile of tensile strength, fctk;0:95. This is given in Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 as30% above the mean value, fctm. However, tension is caused by shrinkage, transverseloading, etc., as well as by force N, so simplified rules are given in clauses 5.4.2.8(5) to (7).

Clause 5.4.2.8(3) requires effects of shrinkage to be included in ‘calculations of theinternal forces and moments’ in a cracked concrete tension member. This means the axialforce and bending moment, which are shown as Ns and Ms in Fig. 5.9(c). The simplificationgiven here overestimates the mean shrinkage strain, and ‘should be used’ for the secondaryeffects. This clause is an exception to clause 5.4.2.2(8), which permits shrinkage in crackedregions to be ignored.

Clause 5.4.2.8(4) refers to simplified methods. The simplest of these, clause 5.4.2.8(5),which requires both ‘uncracked’ and ‘cracked’ global analyses, can be quite conservative.

Clause 5.4.2.8(6) gives a more accurate method for members of type (a) in Fig. 5.9. Thelongitudinal stiffness of the concrete tension member for use in global analysis is given byequation (5.6-1):

ðEAsÞeff ¼ EsAs=½1� 0:35=ð1þ n0sÞ� ð5:6-1Þwhere: As is the reinforcement in the tension member,

Ac is the effective cross-sectional area of the concrete, s ¼ As=Ac, andn0 is the short-term modular ratio.

This equation is derived from the model of Annex L of ENV 1994-2 for tension stiffening,shown in Fig. 5.10. The figure relates mean tensile strain, ", to tensile force N, in a concretetension member with properties As, Ac, s and n0, defined above. Lines 0A and 0B representuncracked and fully cracked behaviour, respectively.

Cracking first occurs at force Nc;cr, when the strain is "sr1. The strain at the crack atonce increases to "sr2, but the mean strain hardly changes. As further cracks occur, themean strain follows the line CD. If the local variations in the tensile strength of concreteare neglected, this becomes line CE. The effective stiffness within this ‘stage of singlecracking’ is the slope of a line from 0 to some point within CE. After cracking has stabilized,the stiffness is given by a line such as 0F. The strain difference ��"sr remains constant until

Clause 5.4.2.8(3)

Clause 5.4.2.8(4)Clause 5.4.2.8(5)Clause 5.4.2.8(6)

B

AN

Nc,cr

(EAs)eff

E

D

C

F

0 ε

β∆εsr

∆εsr

εsr2εsr1 εcr

Fig. 5.10. Normal force and mean strain for a reinforced concrete tension member

50

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 296: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

the reinforcement yields. It represents tension stiffening, the term used for the stiffness of theconcrete between the cracks.

It has been found that in bridges, the post-cracking stiffness is given with sufficientaccuracy by the slope of line 0E, with � � 0:35. This slope, equation (5.6-1), can bederived using Fig. 5.10, as follows.

At a force of Nc;cr the following strains are obtained:

fully cracked strain: "sr2 ¼ Nc;cr=EsAs

uncracked strain: "sr1 ¼ Nc;cr=ðEsAs þ EcAcÞ

Introducing s ¼ As=Ac and the short-term modular ratio n0 gives:

"sr1 ¼ Nc;crn0s=½EsAsð1þ n0sÞ�

From Fig. 5.10, the strain at point E is:

"cr ¼ "sr2 � �ð"sr2 � "sr1Þ ¼�Nc;cr

EsAs

��1� �

�1�

�n0s

ð1þ n0sÞ

��

This can also be expressed in terms of effective stiffness as

"cr ¼ Nc;cr=ðEsAsÞeffEliminating "cr from the last two equations and dividing by Nc;cr gives:

1=ðEsAsÞeff ¼ 1=ðEsAsÞ � �½1� n0s=ð1þ n0sÞ�=ðEsAsÞ

¼ ½1� 0:35=ð1þ n0sÞ�=ðEsAsÞ

which is equation (5.6-1).In Ref. 56, a study was made of the forces predicted in the tension members of a truss using

a very similar factor to that in equation (5.6-1). Comparison was made against predictionsfrom a non-linear analysis using the tension field model proposed in Annex L of ENV 1994-2.54 The two methods generally gave good agreement, with most results being closer to thosefrom a fully cracked analysis than from an uncracked analysis.

The forces given by global analysis using stiffness ðEAsÞeff are used for the design of thesteel structure, but not the concrete tension member. The tension in the latter is usuallyhighest just before cracking. For an axially loaded member it is, in theory:

NEd ¼ Ac fct;effð1þ n0sÞ ðD5:4Þ

with fct;eff being the tensile strength of the concrete when it cracks and other notation asabove. Usually, there is also tensile stress in the member from local loading or shrinkage.This is allowed for by the assumption that fct;eff ¼ 0:7fctm, given in clause 5.4.2.8(6).Equation (D5.4) is given in this clause with partial factors 1.15 and 1.45 for serviceabilityand ultimate limit states, respectively. These allow for approximations in the method.Thus, for ultimate limit states:

NEd;ult ¼ 1:45Acð0:7fctmÞð1þ n0sÞ ¼ 1:02fctm½Ac þ ðEs=EcÞAs� ðD5:5Þ

which is the design tensile force at cracking at stress fctm.Clause 5.4.2.8(7) covers composite members of type (b) in Fig. 5.9. The cross-section

properties are found using equation (5.6-1) for the stiffness of the cracked concrete flange,and are used in global analyses. As an example, it is assumed that an analysis for an ultimatelimit state gives a tensile forceN and a sagging momentM, as shown in Fig. 5.9(b). These areequivalent to action effects Na andMa in the steel component plus Ns andMs in the concretecomponent, as shown. This clause requires the normal force Ns to be calculated.

Equations for this de-composition ofN andM can be derived from elastic section analysis,neglecting slip, as follows.

The crosses in Fig. 5.9(b) indicate the centres of area of the cross-sections of the concreteflange (or the reinforcement, for a cracked flange) and the structural steel section. Let zs,

Clause 5.4.2.8(7)

51

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 297: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

za and d be as shown in Fig. 5.9(c) and I, Ia and Is be the second moments of area of thecomposite section, the steel component, and the concrete flange, respectively.

For M ¼ 0;Na;N þNs;N ¼ N; and Ns;Nzs ¼ Na;Nza; whence Ns;N ¼ Nðza=dÞ ðaÞ

For N ¼ 0; Ns;M ¼ �Na;M ðbÞ

Equating curvatures; M=I ¼ Ms=Is ¼ Ma=Ia ðcÞ

For equilibrium; M ¼ Ms þMa þNa;Mza �Ns;Mzs ðdÞ

From equations (b) to (d), with za þ zs ¼ d,

M ¼ MðIs=I þ Ia=IÞ �Ns;Md; whence Ns;Md ¼ MðIs þ Ia � IÞ=I ðeÞ

For N and M together, from equations (a), (c) and (e):

Ns ¼ Nðza=dÞ �MðI � Ia � IsÞ=Id ðD5:6Þ

Ms ¼ MIs=I ðD5:7ÞIn practice, Is � Ia, so Is, and hence Ms, can often be taken as zero. The area of reinforce-ment in the concrete tension member (As, not As;eff) must be sufficient to resist the greater offorce Ns (plus Ms, if not negligible) and the force NEd given by equation (D5.5).

Filler beam decks for bridgesThere are a great number of geometric, material and workmanship-related restrictions whichhave to be met in order to use the application rules for the design of filler beams. Theserestrictions are discussed in section 6.3, which deals with the resistances of filler beams,and are necessary because these clauses are based mainly in existing practice in the UK.There is very little relevant research.

The same restrictions apply in the use of clause 5.4.2.9(1), which allows the effects of slipat the concrete–steel interface and shear lag to be neglected in global analysis only if theseconditions are met. One significant difference from previous practice in the UK is thatfully-encased filler beams are not covered by EN 1994. This is because there are no widelyaccepted design rules for longitudinal shear in fully-encased beams without shear connectors.

Clause 5.4.2.9(2) covers the transverse distribution of imposed loading. Its option ofassuming rigid behaviour in the transverse direction may be applicable to a small single-track railway bridge, but generally, one of the methods of clause 5.4.2.9(3) will be used.These assume that there are no transverse steel members within the span. It is thereforeessential that continuous transverse reinforcement in both top and bottom faces of theconcrete is provided in accordance with the requirements of clause 6.3.

Clause 5.4.2.9(3) permits global analysis by non-linear methods to clause 5.4.3, butnormally orthotropic plate or grillage analysis will be used. For the longitudinal flexuralstiffness, ‘smearing of the steel beams’ involves calculating the stiffness of the whole widthof the deck, and hence finding a mean stiffness per unit width. It is inferred from clause5.4.2.9(4) that cracking may be neglected, though clause 5.4.2.9(7) provides an alternativefor some analyses for serviceability.

The flexural stiffness per unit width in the transverse direction is calculated for theuncracked concrete slab, neglecting reinforcement. The result is a plate with differentproperties in orthogonal directions, i.e. orthogonally anisotropic or orthotropic for short.

For grillage analysis, uncracked section properties should generally be used (as required byclause 5.4.2.9(4)) but it is permissible to account for the loss of stiffness in the transversedirection caused by cracking, by reducing the torsional and flexural stiffnesses of thetransverse concrete members by 50%. This can be advantageous, as it reduces the transversemoments, and hence the stresses in the reinforcement.

The longitudinal moments obtained from elastic analysis of an orthotropic slab or grillagemay not be redistributed to allow for cracking. This is because cracking can occur in bothhogging and sagging regions, and there is insufficient test evidence on which to base

Clause 5.4.2.9(1)

Clause 5.4.2.9(2)

Clause 5.4.2.9(3)

Clause 5.4.2.9(4)

52

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 298: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

design rules. However, clause 5.4.2.9(5) permits, for some analyses, up to 15% redistributionof hogging moments for beams in Class 1 at internal supports. This is less liberal than it mayappear, because clause 5.5.3, which covers classification, does not relax the normal rules forClass 1 webs or flanges to allow for restraint from encasement. The concrete does, however,reduce the depth of web in compression.

There are no provisions for creep of concrete at ultimate limit states, so clause 5.4.2.2applies in the longitudinal direction. In the transverse direction, clause 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1presumably applies. The modular ratios in the two directions may be found to be different,because of the L factors in EN 1994.

These comments on creep also apply for deformations, from clause 5.4.2.9(6). Shrinkagecan be neglected, because it causes little curvature where there is little difference between thelevels of the centroids of the steel and concrete cross-sections.

Clause 5.4.2.9(7) gives a simplified rule for the effects of cracking of concrete on deflec-tions and camber. Clause 5.4.2.9(8) permits temperature effects to be ignored, except incertain railway bridges.

Clause 5.4.2.9(5)

Clause 5.4.2.9(6)

Clause 5.4.2.9(7)Clause 5.4.2.9(8)

Example 5.2: modular ratios for long-term loading and for shrinkageFor the bridge of Example 5.1 (Fig. 5.6), modular ratios are calculated for:

. imposed load (short-term loading)

. superimposed dead load (long-term loading)

. effects of shrinkage (long-term).

Modular ratios for long-term loading depend on an assumed effective thickness forthe concrete deck slab and a mean ‘age at first loading’. The choice of these values isdiscussed in comments on clause 5.4.2.2. Here, it is assumed that superimposed deadload is applied when the concrete has an average age of 7 days, and that the effectivethickness of the deck slab is the value before application of waterproofing, which is itsactual thickness, 250mm. The deck concrete is grade C30/37 and the relative humidityis 70%.

Live loadFrom Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1, Ecm ¼ 33 kN/mm2

From clause 3.2.6 of EN 1993-1-1, Ea ¼ 210N/mm2

for structural steel,

The short-term modular ratio, n0 ¼ Ea=Ecm ¼ 210=33 ¼ 6:36

Superimposed dead load (long term), from Annex B of EN 1992-1-1From equation (B.1) of EN 1992-1-1, the creep coefficient �ðt; t0Þ ¼ �0�cðt; t0Þ, where�cðt; t0Þ is a factor that describes the amount of creep that occurs at time t. Whent ! 1, �c ¼ 1. The total creep is therefore given by:

�0 ¼ �RH�ð fcmÞ�ðt0Þ (B.2) in EN 1992-1-1

where �RH is a factor to allow for the effect of relative humidity on the notional creep co-efficient. Two expressions are given, depending on the size of fcm.

From Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1, fcm ¼ fck þ 8 ¼ 30þ 8 ¼ 38N/mm2

For fcm > 35MPa; �RH ¼�1þ 1� RH=100

0:1 �ffiffiffiffiffih0

3p � �1

� �2 (B.3b) in EN 1992-1-1

RH is the relative humidity of the ambient environment in percentage terms; here, 70%.The factors �1 and �2 allow for the influence of the concrete strength:

�1 ¼�35

fcm

0:7¼�35

38

0:7¼ 0:944

53

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 299: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

�2 ¼�35

fcm

0:2¼�35

38

0:2¼ 0:984 (B.8c) in EN 1992-1-1

From equation (B.3b) of EN 1992-1-1:

�RH ¼�1þ 1� 70=100

0:1�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2503

p � 0:944

� 0:984 ¼ 1:43

From equation (B.4) of EN 1992-1-1, the factor �ð fcmÞ, that allows for the effect ofconcrete strength on the notional creep coefficient, is:

�ð fcmÞ ¼16:8ffiffiffiffiffiffiffifcm

p ¼ 16:8ffiffiffiffiffi38

p ¼ 2:73

The effect of the age of the concrete at first loading on the notional creep coefficientis given by the factor �ðt0Þ according to equation (B.5) of EN 1992-1-1. For loading at7 days this gives:

�ðt0Þ ¼1

ð0:1þ t0:200 Þ¼ 1

ð0:1þ 70:20Þ¼ 0:63

This expression is only valid as written for normal or rapid-hardening cements.The final creep coefficient from equation (B.2) of EN 1992-1-1 is then:

�ð1; t0Þ ¼ �0 ¼ �RH�ð fcmÞ�ðt0Þ ¼ 1:43� 2:73� 0:63 ¼ 2:48

From equation (5.6), the modular ratio is given by:

nL ¼ n0ð1þ L�ðt; t0ÞÞ ¼ 6:36ð1þ 1:1� 2:48Þ ¼ 23:7

where L ¼ 1:1 for permanent load.

Effects of shrinkage, from Annex B of EN 1992-1-1The calculation of the creep factor is as above, but the age at loading is assumed to be oneday, from clause 5.4.2.2. For the factor �ðt0Þ this gives:

�ðt0Þ ¼1

ð0:1þ t0:200 Þ¼ 1

ð0:1þ 10:20Þ¼ 0:91

The final creep coefficient from equation (B.2) of EN 1992-1-1 is then:

�ð1; t0Þ ¼ �0 ¼ �RH�ð fcmÞ�ðt0Þ ¼ 1:43� 2:73� 0:91 ¼ 3:55

From equation (5.6), the modular ratio is given by:

nL ¼ n0ð1þ L�ðt; t0ÞÞ ¼ 6:36ð1þ 0:55� 3:55Þ ¼ 18:8

where L ¼ 0:55 for the primary and secondary effects of shrinkage.

Example 5.3: primary effects of shrinkageFor the bridge in Example 5.1 (Fig. 5.6) the plate thicknesses of an internal beam at mid-span of the main span are as shown in Fig. 5.11. The primary effects of shrinkage at thiscross-section are calculated. The deck concrete is grade C30/37 and the relative humidityis 70%.It is assumed that, for the majority of the shrinkage, the length of continuous concrete

deck is such that shear lag effects are negligible. The effective area of the concrete flange istaken as the actual area, for both the shrinkage and its primary effects. The secondaryeffects arise from changes in the reactions at the supports. For these, the effectivewidths should be those used for the other permanent actions.The free shrinkage strain is found first, from clause 3.1.4 of EN 1992-1-1. By inter-

polation, Table 3.2 of EN 1992-1-1 gives the drying shrinkage as "cd;0 ¼ 352� 10�6.

54

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 300: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The factor kh allows for the influence of the shape and size of the concrete cross-section.From Example 5.2, h0 ¼ 250mm. From Table 3.3 of EN 1992-1-1, kh ¼ 0:80.

The long-term drying shrinkage strain is 0:80� 352� 10�6 ¼ 282� 10�6.The long-term autogenous shrinkage strain is:

"cað1Þ ¼ 2:5ð fck � 10Þ � 10�6 ¼ 2:5� ð30� 10Þ � 10�6 ¼ 50� 10�6

250

1225

400 × 30

400 × 20

1175 × 12.5

25 haunch

3100

998

NA

0.35

12

T

T

C1.08

49

Fig. 5.11. Cross-section of beam for Example 5.3, and primary shrinkage stresses with nL ¼ 18:8(T: tension; C: compression)

From clause 2.4.2.1 of EN 1992-1-1, the recommended partial factor for shrinkage is�SH ¼ 1:0, so the design shrinkage strain, for both serviceability and ultimate limitstates, is:

esh ¼ 1:0� ð282þ 50Þ � 10�6 ¼ 332� 10�6

From Example 5.2, the modular ratio for shrinkage is nL ¼ 18:8.The tensile force Fc to restore the slab to its length before shrinkage applies to the

concrete a tensile stress:

332� 10�6 � 210� 103=18:8 ¼ 3:71N=mm2

The area of the concrete cross-section is:

Ac ¼ 3:1� 0:25þ 0:4� 0:025 ¼ 0:785m2

therefore

Fc ¼ "shAcEa=nL ¼ 332� 0:785� 210=18:8 ¼ 2913 kN

For nL ¼ 18:8, the location of the neutral axis of the uncracked unreinforced section isas shown in Fig. 5.11. This is 375mm below the centroid of the concrete area. Relevantproperties of this cross-section are:

I ¼ 21 890� 106 mm4 and A ¼ 76 443mm2

The total external force is zero, so force Fc is balanced by applying a compressive forceof 2913 kN and a sagging moment of 2913� 0:375 ¼ 1092 kNm to the composite section.

The long-term primary shrinkage stresses in the cross-section are as follows, withcompression positive:

at the top of the slab,

� ¼ �3:71þ�2913� 103

76 443þ 1092� 502

21 890

�1

18:8¼ �0:35N=mm2

at the interface, in concrete,

� ¼ �3:71þ�2913� 103

76 443þ 1092� 227

21 890

�1

18:8¼ �1:08N=mm2

55

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 301: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

5.4.3. Non-linear global analysis for bridgesThe provisions of EN 1992 and EN 1993 on non-linear analysis are clearly relevant, but arenot referred to from clause 5.4.3. It gives Principles, but no Application Rules. It is stated inEN 1992-2 that clause 5.7(4)P of EN 1992-1-1 applies. It requires stiffnesses to be represented‘in a realistic way’ taking account of the ‘uncertainties of failure’, and concludes ‘Only thosedesign formats which are valid within the relevant fields of application shall be used’.

Clause 5.7 of EN 1992-2, ‘Non-linear analysis’, consists mainly of Notes that giverecommendations to national annexes. The majority of the provisions can be varied in theNational Annex as agreement could not be obtained at the time of drafting over the useof the safety format proposed. The properties of materials specified in the Notes havebeen derived so that a single safety factor can be applied to all materials in the verification.Further comment is given under clause 6.7.2.8.

Clause 5.4.1 of EN 1993-2 requires the use of an elastic analysis for ‘all persistent andtransient design situations’. It has a Note that refers to the use of ‘plastic global analysis’for accidental design situations, and to the relevant provisions of EN 1993-1-1. Theseinclude clause 5.4, which defines three types of non-linear analysis, all of which refer to‘plastic’ behaviour. One of them, ‘rigid-plastic analysis’, should not be considered forcomposite bridge structures. This is evident from the omission from EN 1994-2 of a clausecorresponding to clause 5.4.5 of EN 1994-1-1, ‘Rigid plastic global analysis for buildings’.

This method of drafting arises from Notes to clauses 1.5.6.6 and 1.5.6.7 of EN 1990, whichmake clear that all of the methods of global analysis defined in clauses 1.5.6.6 to 1.5.6.11(which include ‘plastic’ methods) are ‘non-linear’ in Eurocode terminology. ‘Non-linear’ inthese clauses of EN 1990 refers to the deformation properties of the materials, and not togeometrical non-linearity (second-order effects), although these have to be consideredwhen significant, as discussed in section 5.2 above.

Non-linear analysis must satisfy both equilibrium and compatibility of deformations whenusing non-linear material properties. These broad requirements are given to enable methodsmore advanced than linear-elastic analysis to be developed and used within the scope of theEurocodes.

Unlike clause 5.4.1 of EN 1993-2, EN 1994-2 makes no reference to the use of plasticanalysis for accidental situations, such as vehicular impact on a bridge pier or impact on aparapet. The National Annex to EN 1993-2 will give guidance. It is recommended thatthis be followed also for composite design.

Further guidance on non-linear analysis is given in EN 1993-1-5, Annex C, on finite-element modelling of steel plates.

5.4.4. Combination of global and local action effectsA typical local action is a wheel load on a highway bridge. It is expected that the NationalAnnex for the UK will require the effects of such loads to be combined with the globaleffects of coexisting actions for serviceability verifications, but not for checks for ultimatelimit states. This is consistent with current practice to BS 5400.11

The Note to clause 5.4.4(1) refers to Normative Annex E of EN 1993-2. This annex waswritten for all-steel decks, where local stresses in welds can be significant and where local andglobal stresses always combine unfavourably. It recommends a combination factor forlocal and global effects that depends on the span and ranges from 0.7 to 1.0. The application

Clause 5.4.3

Clause 5.4.4(1)

at the interface, in steel,

� ¼ þ 2913� 103

76 443þ 1092� 227

21 890¼ þ49:4N=mm2

at the bottom of the steel beam,

� ¼ þ 2913� 103

76 443þ 1092� 998

21 890¼ �11:7N=mm2

56

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 302: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

of this rule to reinforced concrete decks that satisfy the serviceability requirements for thecombined effects is believed to be over-conservative, because of the beneficial local effectsof membrane and arching action. By contrast, if the EN 1993 rules are adopted, globalcompression in the slab is usually favourable so consideration of 70% of the maximumcompressive global stress when checking local effects may actually be unconservative.

5.5. Classification of cross-sectionsThe classification of cross-sections of composite beams is the established method of takingaccount in design of local buckling of plane steel elements in compression. It determines theavailable methods of global analysis and the basis for resistance to bending, in the same wayas for steel members. Unlike the method in EN 1993-1-1, it does not apply to columns. TheClass of a steel element (a flange or a web) depends on its edge support conditions, b/t ratio,distribution of longitudinal stress across its width, yield strength, and in composite sections,the restraint provided against buckling by any attached concrete or concrete encasement.

A flow diagram for the provisions of clause 5.5 is given in Fig. 5.12. The clause numbersgiven are from EN 1994-2, unless noted otherwise.

Clause 5.5

Note 1: ‘Flange’ meanssteel compression flange

No No

Yes

Yes

Compressionflange is:

Yes

No Yes

No

No

Yes

From clause 5.5.2(2), classify the web using theelastic stress distribution, to Table 5.2 of EC3-1-1

Section is Class 1 Section is Class 2

YesEffectivesection isequivalentClass 2

Section is Class 3

Yes

Section isClass 4(see Note 2)

No

Note 2. Where the stress levels in a Class 4 section satisfy the limit given inEC3-1-1/5.5.2(9), it can be treated as a Class 3 section, from clause 5.5.1(1)P.

No

Is steel compressionflange restrained byshear connectors toclause 5.5.2(1)?

Is the section a fillerbeam to clause 6.3?

From clause 5.5.2(2), classifyflange to Table 5.2 of EC3-1-1

Classify flange to Table 5.2of EC4-2

Class 1 Class 4Class 2 Class 3

Locate the elastic neutral axis, takingaccount of sequence of construction,creep, and shrinkage, to clause 5.5.1(4)

Locate the plastic neutral axis, using grossweb and effective flanges, to clause 5.5.1(4)

Web is Class 3 Web not classified

Is web encased to clause 5.5.3(2)? Is the compression flangein Class 1 or 2?

Replace web by effective webin Class 2, to clause 5.5.2(3)?

Web is Class 1

Is the flange in Class 1?

Web is Class 2

Web is Class 3

Is the compressionflange in Class 3?

Web is Class 4

Effective webis Class 2

From clause 5.5.2(2), classify the webusing the plastic stress distribution, toTable 5.2 of EC3-1-1

Fig. 5.12. Classification of a cross-section of a composite beam

57

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 303: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 5.5.1(1)P refers to EN 1993-1-1 for definitions of the four Classes and theslendernesses that define the Class boundaries. Classes 1 to 4 correspond respectively tothe terms ‘plastic’, ‘compact’, ‘semi-compact’ and ‘slender’ that were formerly used inBS 5950.48 The classifications are done separately for steel flanges in compression andsteel webs. The Class of the cross-section is the less favourable of the Classes so found,clause 5.5.1(2), with one exception: the ‘hole-in-web’ option of clause 5.5.2(3).

Idealized moment–rotation curves for members in the four Classes are shown in Fig. 5.13.In reality, curves for sections in Class 1 or 2 depart from linearity as soon as (or even before)the yield moment is reached, and strain-hardening leads to a peak bending moment higherthan Mpl, as shown.

The following notes supplement the definitions given in clause 5.5.2(1) of EN 1993-1-1:

. Class 1 cross-sections can form a plastic hinge and tolerate a large plastic rotationwithout loss of resistance. It is a requirement of EN 1993-1-1 for the use of rigid-plastic global analysis that the cross-sections at all plastic hinges are in Class 1. Forcomposite bridges, EN 1994-2 does not permit rigid-plastic analysis. A Note to clause5.4.1(1) of EN 1993-2 enables its use to be permitted, in a National Annex, for certainaccidental design situations for steel bridges.

. Class 2 cross-sections can develop their plastic moment resistance, Mpl;Rd, but havelimited rotation capacity after reaching it because of local buckling. Regions ofsagging bending in composite beams are usually in Class 1 or 2. The resistance Mpl;Rd

exceeds the resistance at first yield, Mel;Rd, by between 20% and 40%, compared withabout 15% for steel beams. Some restrictions are necessary on the use ofMpl;Rd in combi-nation with elastic global analysis, to limit the post-yield shedding of bending moment toadjacent cross-sections in Class 3 or 4. These are given in clauses 6.2.1.2(2) and6.2.1.3(2).

. Class 3 cross-sections become susceptible to local buckling before development of theplastic moment of resistance. In clause 6.2.1.5(2) their bending resistance is defined asthe ‘elastic resistance’, governed by stress limits for all three materials. A limit may bereached when the compressive stress in all restrained steel elements is below yield.Some rotation capacity then remains, but it is impracticable to take advantage of it indesign.

. Class 4 cross-sections are those in which local buckling will occur before the attainmentof yield stress in one or more parts of the cross-section. This is assumed in EN 1993 andEN 1994 to be an ultimate limit state. The effective cross-section should be derived inaccordance with EN 1993-1-5. Guidance is given in comments on clause 6.2.1.5(7),which defines the procedure, and in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

Clause 5.5.1(1)P

Clause 5.5.1(2)

Mpl

Mel

Mpl

Mel

Mpl

Mel

Mpl

Mel

M

θ θ

θ θ

Class 1 Class 2

M

M

Class 3

M

Class 4

Typical curvefrom a test

Fig. 5.13. Idealized moment–rotation relationships for sections in Classes 1 to 4

58

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 304: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The Class of a cross-section is determined from the width-to-thickness ratios given inTable 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1 for webs and flanges in compression. The numbers appear differentfrom those in BS 5400:Part 3:200011 because the coefficient that takes account of yieldstrength, ", is defined as

pð235=fyÞ in the Eurocodes, and aspð355=fyÞ in BS 5400. After

allowing for this, the limits for webs at the Class 2/3 boundary agree closely with those inBS 5400, but there are differences for flanges. For outstand flanges, EN 1993 is moreliberal at the Class 2/3 boundary, and slightly more severe at the Class 3/4 boundary. Forinternal flanges of boxes, EN 1993 is considerably more liberal for all Classes.

Reference is sometimes made to a beam in a certain Class. This may imply a certaindistribution of bending moment. Clause 5.5.1(2) warns that the Class of a compositesection depends on the sign of the bending moment (sagging or hogging), as it does for asteel section that is not symmetrical about its neutral axis for bending.

Clause 5.5.1(3) permits account to be taken of restraint from concrete in determining theclassification of elements, providing that the benefit has been established. Further commentis given at clause 5.5.2(1) on spacing of shear connectors.

Since the Class of a web depends on the level of the neutral axis, which is different forelastic and plastic bending, it may not be obvious which stress distribution should be usedfor a section near the boundary between Classes 2 and 3. Clause 5.5.1(4) provides theanswer: the plastic distribution. This is because the use of the elastic distribution couldplace a section in Class 2, for which the bending resistance would be based on the plasticdistribution, which in turn could place the section in Class 3.

Elastic stress distributions should be built up by taking the construction sequence intoaccount, together with the effects of creep (generally through the use of different modularratios for the different load types) and shrinkage.

Where a steel element is longitudinally stiffened, it should be placed in Class 4 unless it canbe classified in a higher Class by ignoring the longitudinal stiffeners.

Where both axial load and moment are present, these should be combined when derivingthe plastic stress block. Alternatively, the web Class can conservatively be determined on thebasis of compressive axial load alone.

Clause 5.5.1(5), on the minimum area of reinforcement for a concrete flange, appearshere, rather than in Section 6, because it gives a further condition for a cross-section to beplaced in Class 1 or 2. The reason is that these sections must maintain their bendingresistance, without fracture of the reinforcement, while subjected to higher rotation thanthose in Class 3 or 4. This is ensured by disallowing the use of bars in ductility Class A(the lowest), and by requiring a minimum cross-sectional area, which depends on thetensile force in the slab just before it cracks.55 Clause 5.5.1(6), on welded mesh, hasthe same objective. Clause 3.2.4 of EN 1992-2 does not recommend the use of Class A re-inforcement for bridges in any case, but this recommendation can be modified in a NationalAnnex.

During the construction of a composite bridge, it is quite likely that a beam will change itssection Class, because the addition of the deck slab both prevents local buckling of the topflange and significantly shifts the neutral axis of the section. Typically, a mid-span sectioncould be in Class 1 or 2 after casting the slab but in Class 3 or 4 prior to this. Clause5.5.1(7) requires strength checks at intermediate stages of construction to be based on therelevant classification at the stage being checked.

The words ‘without concrete encasement’ in the title of clause 5.5.2 are there becausethis clause is copied from EN 1994-1-1, where it is followed by a clause on beams withweb encasement. These are outside the scope of EN 1994-2.

Clause 5.5.2(1) is an application of clause 5.5.1(3). The spacing rules to which it refersmay be restrictive where full-thickness precast deck slabs are used. Clause 5.5.2(2) addslittle to clause 5.5.1.

The hole-in-web methodThis useful device first appeared in BS 5950-3-1.48 It is now in clause 6.2.2.4 of EN 1993-1-1,which is referred to from clause 5.5.2(3).

Clause 5.5.1(3)

Clause 5.5.1(4)

Clause 5.5.1(5)

Clause 5.5.1(6)

Clause 5.5.1(7)

Clause 5.5.2

Clause 5.5.2(1)Clause 5.5.2(2)

Clause 5.5.2(3)

59

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 305: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

In beams subjected to hogging bending, it often happens that the bottom flange is in Class1 or 2, and the web is in Class 3. The initial effect of local buckling of the web would be asmall reduction in the bending resistance of the section. The assumption that a defineddepth of web, the ‘hole’, is not effective in bending enables the reduced section to be upgradedfrom Class 3 to Class 2, and removes the sudden change in the bending resistance that wouldotherwise occur. The method is analogous to the use of effective areas for Class 4 sections, toallow for local buckling.

There is a limitation to its scope that is not evident in the following wording, fromEN 1993-1-1:

The proportion of the web in compression should be replaced by a part of 20"tw adjacent to thecompression flange, with another part of 20"tw adjacent to the plastic neutral axis of the effectivecross-section.

It follows that for a design yield strength fyd, the compressive force in the web is limitedto 40"tw fyd. For a composite beam in hogging bending, the tensile force in the longitudinalreinforcement in the slab can exceed this value, especially where fyd is reduced to allow forvertical shear. The method is then not applicable, because the second ‘element of 20"tw’ isnot adjacent to the plastic neutral axis, which lies within the top flange. The method, andthis limitation, are illustrated in Examples in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1.5

It should be noted that if a Class 3 cross-section is treated as an equivalent Class 2 cross-section for section design, it should still be treated as Class 3 when considering the actions toconsider in its design. Indirect actions, such as differential settlement, which may beneglected for true Class 2 sections, should not be ignored for effective Class 2 sections.The primary self-equilibrating stresses could reasonably be neglected, but not the secondaryeffects.

Clause 5.5.3(2) and Table 5.2 give allowable width-to-thickness ratios for the outstands ofexposed flanges of filler beams. Those for Class 2 and 3 are greater than those from Table 5.2of EN 1993-1-1. This is because even though a flange outstand can buckle away fromthe concrete, rotation of the flange at the junction with the web is prevented (or at leastthe rotational stiffness is greatly increased) by the presence of the concrete.

Clause 5.5.3(2)

Example 5.4: classification of composite beam section in hogging bendingThe classification of the cross-section shown in Fig. 5.14 is determined for hoggingbending moments. The effective flange width is 3.1m. The top layer of reinforcementcomprises pairs of 20mm bars at 150mm centres. The bottom layer comprises single20mm bars at 150mm centres. All reinforcement has fsk ¼ 500N/mm2 and �S ¼ 1:15.These bars are shown in assumed locations, which would in practice depend on the speci-fied covers and the diameter of the transverse bars.

1225

400 × 40

400 × 25

1160 × 25

775

Plastic NA

209

ElasticNA

6070

8.47 MN

3.45 MN

10.01 MN

5.52 MN

250

25

8.21 MN

1.80 MN

3100

Fig. 5.14. Cross-section of beam for Example 5.4

The yield strength of structural steel is thickness-dependent and is 345N/mm2 fromEN 10025 for steel between 16mm and 40mm thick. (If Table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-1 is

60

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 306: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

used, the yield strength can be taken as 355N/mm2 for steel up to 40mm thick. The choiceof method can be specified in the National Annex. It is likely that this will require thevalue from the relevant product standard to be used.)

Hence, " ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi235=345

p¼ 0:825.

Steel bottom flangeIgnoring the web-to-flange welds, the flange outstand c ¼ ð400� 25Þ=2 ¼ 187:5mm.From Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, the condition for Class 1 is:

c=t < 9" ¼ 9� 0:825 ¼ 7:43

For the flange, c=t ¼ 187:5=40 ¼ 4:7, so the flange is Class 1.

Steel webTo check if the web is in Class 1 or 2, the plastic neutral axis must be determined, usingdesign material strengths.

The total area of reinforcement is:

As ¼ 3� �� 100� 3100=150 ¼ 19 480mm2

so its tensile force at yield is:

19:48� 0:5=1:15 ¼ 8:47MN

Similarly, the forces in the structural steel elements at yield are found to be as shown inFig. 5.14. The total longitudinal force is 27.45MN, so at Mpl;Rd the compressive force is27:45=2 ¼ 13:73MN. The plastic neutral axis is evidently within the web. The depth ofweb in compression is:

1160� ð13:73� 5:52Þ=10:01 ¼ 951mm

From Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, for a ‘part subject to bending and compression’, andignoring the depth of the web-to-flange welds:

� ¼ 951=1160 ¼ 0:82; >0:5

The web is in Class 2 if:

c=t � 456"=ð13�� 1Þ ¼ 456� 0:825=9:66 ¼ 39:0

Its ratio c=t ¼ 1160=25 ¼ 46:4, so it is not in Class 2. By inspection, it is in Class 3, butthe check at the Class 3/4 boundary is given, as an example. It should be based on thebuilt-up elastic stresses, which may not be available. It is conservative to assume thatall stresses are applied to the composite section as this gives the greatest depth of webin compression.

The location of the elastic neutral axis in hogging bending must be found, for thecracked reinforced composite section. There is no need to use a modular ratio for re-inforcement as its modulus may be taken equal to that for structural steel, according toclause 3.2(2). The usual ‘first moment of area’ calculation finds the neutral axis to beas shown in Fig. 5.14, so the depth of web in compression is 775� 40 ¼ 735mm.

Again neglecting the welds, from Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1 the stress ratio is

¼ �ð1160� 735Þ=735 ¼ �0:58

and the condition for a Class 3 web is:

c=t � 42"=ð0:67þ 0:33 Þ ¼ 42� 0:825=ð0:67� 0:19Þ ¼ 72:4

The actual c=t ¼ 1160=25 ¼ 46:4, so the composite section is in Class 3 for hoggingbending.

61

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 307: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Flow charts for global analysisThe flow charts given in Figs 5.15 and 5.16 are for a bridge with the general layout shown inFig. 5.1. Figure 5.15, for the superstructure, provides design forces and displacements for thebeams and at the four sets of bearings shown. Figure 5.16, for the columns, takes account ofsystem instability shown in Fig. 5.1(b). Instability of members in compression is covered incomments on clause 6.7.3.4.

For simplicity, the scope of these charts is limited by assumptions, as follows:

. Fatigue, vibration, and settlement are excluded.

. Axial force in the superstructure (e.g. from friction at bearings) is negligible.

. The main imposed loading is traffic Load Model 1, from EN 1991-2.

. Only persistent design situations are included.

. The limit states considered are ULS (STR) and SLS (deformation and crack width).

. The superstructure consists of several parallel continuous non-hybrid plate girderswithout longitudinal stiffeners, composite with a reinforced normal-density-concretedeck slab.

. There are no structural steel transverse members at deck-slab level.

. The only steel cross-sections that may be in Class 4 are the webs near internal supports.The depth of web in compression is influenced by the ratio of non-composite to compo-site bending moment and the area of reinforcement in the slab. The Class is thereforedifficult to predict until some analyses have been done.

. The deck is constructed unpropped, and all structural deck concrete is assumed to be inplace before any of the members become composite.

. The formwork is structurally participating precast concrete planks. They are assumed(for simplicity here) to have the same creep and shrinkage properties as the in situconcrete of the deck.

. All joints except bearings are assumed to be continuous (clause 5.1.2).

. Bearings are ‘simple’ joints, with or without longitudinal sliding, as shown in Fig. 5.1.Transverse sliding cannot occur.

In the charts, creep and shrinkage effects are considered only as ‘long-term’ values(t ! 1). The values of all Nationally Determined Parameters, such as � and factors,are assumed to be those recommended in the Notes in the Eurocodes.

The following data are assumed to be available, based on preliminary analyses and thestrengths of the materials to be used, fy, fsk and fck (converted from an assumed fcu):

. dimensions of the flanges and webs of the plate girders

. dimensions of the cross-sections of the concrete deck and the two supporting systems, BEand CF in Fig. 5.1(a)

. details and weight of the superimposed dead load (finishes, parapets, etc.)

. estimated areas of longitudinal slab reinforcement above internal supports.

Assumptions relevant to out-of-plane system instability are as follows. The deck transmitsmost of the lateral wind loading to supports A and D, with negligible restraint from the twosets of internal supports. The lateral deflections of nodes B and C influence the design of thecolumns, but stiffnesses are such that wind-induced system instability is not possible.

The following abbreviations are used:

. ‘EC2’ means EN 1992-1-1 and/or EN 1992-2; similarly for ‘EC3’.

. A clause in EN 1994-2 is referred to as, for example, ‘5.4.2.2’.

. Symbols gk1 and gk2 are used for characteristic dead loads on the steelwork, and oncomposite members, respectively. Superimposed dead load is gk3. Shrinkage is gsh.

. Characteristic imposed loads are denoted qk (traffic), wk (wind) and tk (temperature).

There is not space to list on Fig. 5.15 the combinations of actions required. The notation inthe lists that follow is that each symbol, such as gk2, represents the sets of action effects (MEd,VEd, deformations, etc.) resulting from the application of the arrangement of the action gk2that is most adverse for the action effect considered.

62

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 308: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

For the variable actions qk and wk, different arrangements govern at different cross-sections, so envelopes are required. This may apply also for tk, as several sets of temperatureactions are specified.

For finding the ‘cracked’ regions of longitudinal members, it is assumed that the short-term values are critical, because creep may reduce tensile stress in concrete more than

Determine elastic properties of materials: Ea,Es (taken as Ea), Ecm, etc., from 3.1 to 3.3.Assume a mean value t0 for permanent actions, to 5.4.2.2(3).Determine creep coefficients ϕ(∞, t0); hence find modular ratios n0, nL,s, and nL,p forshort-term, shrinkage, and permanent actions, respectively (5.4.2.2(2)).Determine free shrinkage strain, εcs(∞, 1 day), to 3.1(3) and 5.4.2.2(4)

Stability. If no buckling mode can be envisaged, as here for the superstructure, thenαcr ≥ 10 can be assumed, and global analyses can be first-order, to 5.2.1(3)

Select exposure (environmental) class(es) for concrete surfaces, to 7.1(3). Hence find minimumcovers to concrete from EC2/4.4, and the locations of main tensile reinforcement in compositebeams. These are required for cracked section properties

Determine shear lag effective widths for global analyses:– for concrete flanges, at mid-span and internal supports, to 5.4.1.2– for steel flanges, find beff for SLS and ULS, to EC3-1-5/3.1 to 3.3

Imperfections. Determine system imperfections to 5.3.2(1). Out-of-plumb of supports BE andCF are relevant for these members, but are assumed not to affect this flow chart.For imperfections of column members, see flow chart of Fig. 6.44

Estimate distributions of longitudinal stress in steel webs at internal supports, and classifythem, to 5.5. If any are in Class 4, thicken them or find effective properties to EC3-1-5/2.2

Flexural stiffnesses of cross-sections. Determine EaI1 for all uncracked composite andconcrete sections, for modular ratios n0, nL,s and nL,p, using effective widths at mid-span, orat supports for cantilevers (1.5.2.11). Reinforcement may be included or omitted.Determine EaI2 for cracked reinforced longitudinal composite sections in hogging bending, witheffective widths as above (1.5.2.12 ). Represent bearings by appropriate degrees of freedom

Global analyses. Areall span ratios ≥0.6?

Use stiffnesses to5.4.2.3(3) (‘15%’ rule)for global analyses

Do global analyses for the load cases gk1 (on the steel structure), gk2, gk3, gsh, qk, wk and tk

using both short-term and long-term modular ratios for the variable actions and for gk2, gk3

and long-term for gsh. Refer to expressions (D5.9) etc., for the combinations required. (END)

5.4.2.3(2) applies. Use uncracked stiffnesses and modularratios n0, nL,s and nL,p. Analyse for load cases: gk2, gk3, gsh.Find moment and shear envelopes for qk and tk.Find the highest extreme-fibre tensile stresses in concrete,fct,max, for the combinations listed in expression D(5.8),with effective widths to 5.4.1.2(7)Find regions of longitudinal members where fct,max > 2fctm,and reduce stiffnesses of these regions to EaI2

Yes

No

Fig. 5.15. Flow chart for global analysis for superstructure of three-span bridge

63

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 309: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

shrinkage increases it. From clause 5.4.2.3(2), the following characteristic combinations arerequired for finding ‘cracked’ regions:

. with traffic leading: gk2 þ gk3 þ qk þ 0;wwk

. with wind leading: gk2 þ gk3 þ 0;qqk þ wk

. with temperature leading: gk2 þ gk3 þ 0;qqk þ 0;wwk þ tk (D5.8)

In practice, of course, it will usually be evident which combination governs. Then, onlyregions in tension corresponding to that combination need be determined.

For finding the most adverse action effects for the limit state ULS (STR), all combinationsinclude the design permanent action effects:

�Gðgk1 þ gk2 þ gk3Þ þ gsh

using the more adverse of the long-term or short-term values. To these are added, in turn, thefollowing combinations of variable action effects:

. with traffic leading: 1:35qk þ 1:5 0;wwk

. with wind leading: 1:35 0;qqk þ 1:5wk

. with temperature leading: 1:35 0;qqk þ 1:5ð 0;wwk þ tkÞ (D5.9)

For serviceability limit states, deformation is checked for frequent combinations. Thecombination for crack width is for national choice, and ‘frequent’ is assumed here. Thesecombinations all include the permanent action effects as follows, again using the moreadverse of short-term and long-term values:

gk1 þ gk2 þ gk3 þ gsh

To these are added, in turn, the following combinations of variable action effects:

. with traffic leading: 1;qqk þ 2;ttk because 2;w ¼ 0

. with wind leading: 1;wwk þ 2;ttk because 2;q ¼ 0

. with temperature leading: 1;ttk (D5.10)

As before, it will usually be evident, for each action effect and location, which combinationgoverns.

Flow chart for supporting systems at internal supportsAt each of points B and C in Fig. 5.1, it is assumed that the plate girders are supported on atleast two bearings, mounted on a cross-head that is supported by a composite frame or bytwo or more composite columns, fixed at points E and F. Each bearing acts as a sphericalpin. Design action effects and displacements (six per bearing) are known, for each limitstate, from analyses of the superstructure.

Preliminary cross-sections for all the members have been chosen. Composite columns areassumed to be within the scope of clause 6.7.3 (doubly symmetrical, uniform, etc.). The flowchart of Fig. 5.16 is for a single composite column, and is applicable to composite columnsgenerally. For ultimate limit states, only long-term behaviour is considered, as this usuallygoverns.

Notes on Fig. 5.16(1) For the elastic critical buckling force Ncr, the effective length for an unbraced column, as

in Fig. 5.1(b), is at least 2L, where L is the actual length. If the foundation cannot beassumed to be ‘rigid’, its rotational stiffness should be included in an elastic criticalanalysis, as the effective length then exceeds 2L.

In many cases, ��� will be much less than 2, and �cr will far exceed 10. These checks canthen be done approximately, by simple hand calculation. Other methods of checking ifsecond-order global analysis is required are discussed under clause 5.2.1.

Here, it is assumed that for the transverse direction, �cr > 10. No assumption is madefor the plane shown in Fig. 5.1. The flow chart of Fig. 5.16, which is for a single column,includes second-order system effects in this plane.

64

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 310: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

(2) Out-of-plumb of columns, a system imperfection, should be allowed for as follows.Figure 5.17(a) shows a nominally vertical column of length L, with design actioneffects M, N and V from a preliminary global analysis. The top-end moment M couldrepresent an off-centre bearing. The design out-of-plumb angle for the column, �, isfound from clause 5.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-1. Notional horizontal forces N� areapplied, as shown in Fig. 5.17(b).

Second-order global analysis for the whole structure, including base flexibility, if any,then gives the deformations of the ends of the column and the action effects NEd, etc.,

Yes

Determine elastic properties of materials, mean value t0, creep coefficients ϕ(∞, t0),modular ratios n0, nL,s and nL,p, and shrinkage strain, εcs(∞, 1 day), as in Fig. 5.15.Select exposure class(es) for concrete, and find minimum covers, all as in Fig. 5.15.All effective widths are assumed to be actual widths. Check that concrete covers satisfy6.7.5.1, and reinforcement satisfies 6.7.5.2. Modify if necessary

For a concrete-encased section, find concrete cross-section for use in calculations from6.7.3.1(2) on excessive cover. Check that 6.7.3.1(3) on longitudinal reinforcement and6.7.3.1(4) on shape of section are satisfied

Find Npl,Rd from eq. (6.30), steel contributionratio δ from eq. (6.38), and check that 0.2 ≤ δ ≤ 0.9, to 6.7.1(4). Find Npl,Rk to 6.7.3.3(2)

Determine Ncr and then λ, to 6.7.3.3(2). Checkthat λ ≤ 2, to 6.7.3.1(1). See Note 1 in main text

Estimate ratio of permanent to total design normal force (axial compression) at ULSHence find Ec,eff from eq. (6.41), to allow for creep. Find the characteristic and designflexural stiffnesses, (EI )eff and (EI )eff,II, from eqs (6.40) and (6.42)

Note: Until the final box, below,the chart is for both y and zplanes, separately, and they or z subscript is not given

First-order globalanalysis permittedby5.2.1(3), with system imperfections

Use second-order global analysis,including both system and memberimperfections5.3.2(2) → EC3-2 → EC3-1-1/5.3.2(6)

No

Use method (i) or (ii)(see comment onclause 5.2.2) for global analysis

Yes

Perform global analysis, to findaction effects NEd, MEd and VEd

at each end of column

Repeat for the other plane of bending. Include member imperfection only in the plane whereits effect is more adverse; 6.7.3.7(1) (END)

Find system imperfection φ to EC3-1-1/5.3.2(3) and hence notional transverse forcesNEdφ at ends of column, and add to coexisting transverse forces (e.g. from wind loading)See Note 2 in the main text

No

Note: For verification of the column length, see flow chart of Fig. 6.44

Estimate maximumdesign axial force, NEd.Find αcr = Ncr/NEd.Is αcr ≥ 10? See Note 1

Is αcr < 4?

Fig. 5.16. Flow chart for global analysis of a composite column

65

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Page 311: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

needed for verification of the column length. In Fig. 5.17(c), �0 is the rotation of thecolumn base, and wEd represents the transverse loading, which may be negligible. Forthe determination of the bending moments within a column length and its verification,reference should be made to the flow chart of Fig. 6.36 of Ref. 5.

L

M

wEd

MEd,1

MEd,2

VEd,1

VEd,2

NEd

NEd

M

NN

(a) (b) (c)

V + Nφ

V

φ

φ0

Fig. 5.17. System imperfection and global analysis for a column

66

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 312: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 6

Ultimate limit states

This chapter corresponds to Section 6 of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. Beams Clause 6.1

. Resistances of cross-sections of beams Clause 6.2

. Filler beam decks Clause 6.3

. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams Clause 6.4

. Transverse forces on webs Clause 6.5

. Shear connection Clause 6.6

. Composite columns and composite compression members Clause 6.7

. Fatigue Clause 6.8

. Tension members in composite bridges Clause 6.9

Clauses 6.1 to 6.7 define resistances of cross-sections to static loading, for comparison withaction effects determined by the methods of Section 5. The ultimate limit state considered isSTR, defined in clause 6.4.1(1) of EN 1990 as:

Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members . . . where the

strength of constructional materials of the structure governs.

The self-contained clause 6.8, Fatigue, covers steel, concrete, and reinforcement by cross-reference to Eurocodes 2 and 3. Requirements are given for shear connection.

Clause 6.9 does not appear in EN 1994-1-1 and has been added in EN 1994-2 to coverconcrete and composite tension members such as may be found in tied arch bridges andtruss bridges.

6.1. Beams6.1.1. Beams in bridges – generalClause 6.1.1(1) serves as a summary of the checks that should be performed on the beamsthemselves (excluding related elements such as bracing and diaphragms). The checks listedare as follows:

. Resistance of cross-sections to bending and shear – clauses 6.2 and 6.3. In the Eurocodes,local buckling in Class 4 members, due to direct stress, is covered under the heading of‘cross-section’ resistance, even though this buckling resistance is derived considering afinite length of the beam. In Eurocode 3, shear buckling is similarly covered under theheading of ‘cross-section’ resistance, but this is separately itemized below. A check ofthe interaction between shear and bending is required in clause 6.2.2.4.

. Resistance to lateral–torsional buckling – clause 6.4. For lateral–torsional buckling, theresistance is influenced by the properties of the whole member. The rules of Eurocode 4assume that the member is of uniform cross-section, apart from variations arising from

Clause 6.1.1(1)

Page 313: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

cracking of concrete and from detailing. The resistance of non-uniform members iscovered in clause 6.3.4 of EN 1993-2.

. Resistance to shear buckling and in-plane forces applied to webs – clauses 6.2.2 and 6.5respectively. As discussed above, shear buckling resistance is treated as a property of across-section.

. Resistance to longitudinal shear – clause 6.6. According to clause 1.1.3(3), provisions forshear connection are given only for welded headed studs. This is misleading, for much ofclause 6.6 is more widely applicable, as discussed under clause 6.6.1.

. Resistance to fatigue – clause 6.8.

The above checks are not exhaustive. Further checks that may be required include thefollowing:

. Interaction with axial force. Axial force is not included in the checks above as clause1.5.2.4 defines a composite beam as ‘a composite member subjected mainly to bending’.Axial force does however occur in the beams of composite integral bridges.57 This isdiscussed in section 6.4 of this guide.

. Addition of stresses in webs and flanges generated from plan curvature, although this isidentified in clause 6.2.1.1(5). No method of combining (or calculating) these effects isprovided in Eurocodes 3 or 4. The Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-24 provides someguidance, as do the comments on clause 6.2.1.1(5).

. Flange-induced buckling of the web – clause 6.5.2 refers.

. Torsion in box girders, which adds to the shear in the webs and necessitates a furthercheck on the flange – Section 7 of EN 1993-1-5 refers. The need to consider combinationsof torsion and bending is mentioned in clause 6.2.1.3(1).

. Distortion of box girders, which causes both in-plane and out-of-plane bending in thebox walls – clause 6.2.7 of EN 1993-2 refers and the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2 pro-vides some guidance.

. Torsion of bare steel beams during construction, which often arises with the use ofcantilever forms to construct the deck edge cantilevers. This usually involves a considera-tion of both St Venant torsion and warping torsion.

. Design of transverse stiffeners – Section 9 of EN 1993-1-5 refers.

Steel cross-sections may be rolled I- or H-section or doubly-symmetrical or mono-symmetrical plate girders. Other possible types include any of those shown in sheet 1 ofTable 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1; this includes box girders. Channel and angle sections shouldnot be used unless the shear connection is designed to provide torsional restraint or thereis adequate torsional bracing between beams.

6.1.2. Effective width for verification of cross-sectionsEffective widths for shear lag are discussed in section 5.4.1.2 of this guide. Unlike in globalanalysis, the effective width appropriate to the cross-section under consideration must beused in calculation of resistance to bending. Distributions of effective width along a spanare given in Figure 5.1.

6.2. Resistances of cross-sections of beamsThis clause is for beams without partial or full encasement in concrete. Filler beams withpartial encasement are treated in clause 6.3. Full encasement is outside the scope ofEN 1994.

No guidance is given in EN 1994, or in EN 1993, on the treatment of large holes in steelwebs without recourse to finite-element modelling (following the requirements of EN 1993-1-5), but specialized literature is available.58;59 Bolt holes in steelwork should be treated inaccordance with EN 1993-1-1, particularly clauses 6.2.2 to 6.2.6.

68

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 314: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.2.1. Bending resistance6.2.1.1. GeneralIn clause 6.2.1.1, three different approaches are given, based on rigid-plastic theory, non-linear theory, and elastic theory. The ‘non-linear theory’ is that given in clause 6.2.1.4.This is not a reference to non-linear global analysis.

Clause 6.2.1.1(1) only permits rigid-plastic theory to be used where cross-sections are inClass 1 or 2 and where prestressing by tendons is not used. This is because no explicitcheck of yielding of bonded tendons is given and therefore non-linear resistance calculationis more appropriate. Comment on this use of plastic resistance with elastic analysis is givenunder clause 5.4.1.1(1).

Clause 6.2.1.1(2) permits non-linear theory and elastic theory to be used for all cross-sections. If unbonded tendons are used, the tendon forces used in section analysis shouldhowever be derived in accordance with clause 5.4.2.7(2).

The assumption that composite cross-sections remain plane is always permitted by clause6.2.1.1(3) where elastic and non-linear theory are used, because the conditions set will besatisfied if the design is in accordance with EN 1994. The implication is that longitudinalslip is negligible.

There is no requirement for slip to be determined. This would be difficult because thestiffness of shear connectors is not known accurately, especially where the slab is cracked.Wherever slip may not be negligible, the design methods of EN 1994-2 are intended toallow for its effects.

For beams with curvature in plan, clause 6.2.1.1(5) gives no guidance on how to allow forthe torsional moments induced or how to assess their significance. Normal practice is to treatthe changing direction of the longitudinal force in a flange (and a web, if significant) as atransverse load applied to that flange, which is then designed as a horizontal beam spanningbetween transverse restraints. It is common to use elastic section resistance in such circum-stances to avoid the complexity of producing a plastic stress block for the combined local andglobal loading. The shear connection and bracing system should be designed for the addi-tional transverse forces.

Similar calculation should be carried out where curvature is achieved using a series ofstraight sections, except that the transverse forces will be concentrated at the splicesbetween adjacent lengths. Particular care is needed with detailing the splices. Transversestiffeners and bracing will usually be needed close to each splice to limit the bending in theflange. In box girders, the torsion from curvature will also tend to produce distortion ofthe box. This must be considered in the design of both the cross-section of the box and itsinternal restraints.

Bending in transverse planes can also be induced in flanges by curvature of the flange in avertical plane, and should be considered. Clause 6.5 covers the transverse forces on webs thatthis causes, but not the transverse bending in the flange. The latter is covered in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

6.2.1.2. Plastic resistance moment Mpl;Rd of a composite cross-section‘Full interaction’ in clause 6.2.1.2(1)(a) means that no account need be taken of slip orseparation at the steel–concrete interface.

‘Full interaction’ should not be confused with ‘full shear connection’. That concept is usedonly in the rules for buildings, and is explained in clause 6.1.1(7)P of EN 1994-1-1 asfollows:

A span of a beam . . . has full shear connection when increase in the number of shear connectorswould not increase the design bending resistance of the member.

This link of shear connection to bending resistance differs from the method of EN 1994-2,where shear connection is related to action effects, both static and fatigue. Shear connectionto Part 2 is not necessarily ‘full’ according to the above definition (which should strictly read‘. . . number of shear connectors within a critical length . . .’). It would be confusing to refer toit as ‘partial’, so this term is never used in Part 2.

Clause 6.2.1.1(1)

Clause 6.2.1.1(2)

Clause 6.2.1.1(3)

Clause 6.2.1.1(5)

Clause6.2.1.2(1)(a)

69

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 315: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Reinforcement in compressionIt is usual to neglect slab reinforcement in compression (clause 6.2.1.2(1)(c)). Its effect onthe bending resistance of the composite section is negligible unless the slab is unusuallysmall. If it is included, and the concrete cover is little greater than the bar diameter, consid-eration should be given to possible buckling of the bars.

Guidance on detailing is given in clauses 9.5.3(6) and 9.6.3(1) of EN 1992-1-1 forreinforcement in concrete columns and walls respectively. The former requires that no barwithin a compression zone should be further than 150mm from a ‘restrained’ bar, but‘restrained’ is not defined. This could be interpreted as requiring all compression bars inan outer layer to be within 150mm of a bar held in place by transverse reinforcement.This would usually require link reinforcement in the flange. This interpretation was usedin BS 5400 Part 411 for compression bars assumed to contribute to the resistance of thesection. If the compression flange is classed as a wall, clause 9.6.3 of EN 1992-1-1 requiresonly that the longitudinal bars are placed inside horizontal (i.e. transverse) reinforcementunless the reinforcement in compression exceeds 2% of the gross concrete area. In thelatter case, transverse reinforcement must be provided in accordance with the column rules.

Stress/strain properties for concreteThe design compressive strength of concrete, fcd, is defined in clause 3.1.6(1)P of EN 1992-1-1as:

fcd ¼ �cc fck=�C

where:

‘�cc is the coefficient taking account of long term effects on the compressive strength and ofunfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied.

‘Note: The value of �cc for use in a country should lie between 0.8 and 1.0 and may befound in its National Annex. The recommended value is 1.’

The reference in clause 3.1(1) to EN 1992-1-1 for properties of concrete begins ‘unlessotherwise given by Eurocode 4’. Resistances of composite members given in EN 1994-2 arebased on extensive calibration studies (e.g. Refs 60, 61). The numerical coefficients givenin resistance formulae are consistent with the value �cc ¼ 1:0 and the use of either elastictheory or the stress block defined in clause 6.2.1.2. Therefore, there is no reference inEN 1994-2 to a coefficient �cc or to a choice to be made in a National Annex. The symbolfcd always means fck=�C, and for beams and most columns is used with the coefficient0.85, as in equation (6.30) in clause 6.7.3.2(1). An exception, in that clause, is that the0.85 is replaced by 1.0 for concrete-filled column sections, based on calibration.

The approximation made to the shape of the stress–strain curve is also relevant. Thosegiven in clause 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 are mainly curved or bilinear, but in clause 3.1.7(3)there is a simpler rectangular stress distribution, similar to the stress block given in theBritish Standard for the structural use of concrete, BS 8110.62 Its shape, for concrete strengthclasses up to C50/60, and the corresponding strain distribution are shown in Fig. 6.1 below.

This stress block is inconvenient for use with composite cross-sections, because the regionnear the neutral axis assumed to be unstressed is often occupied by a steel flange, andalgebraic expressions for resistance to bending become complex.

Clause6.2.1.2(1)(c)

x

Plasticneutral axis

0 0.0035

Compressive strain

0.8x

0

EN 1994-1-1:0.85fcd, with fcd = fck /γC

Compressive stress

EN 1992-1-1:fcd = αcc fck /γC

Fig. 6.1. Stress blocks for concrete at ultimate limit states

70

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 316: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

In composite sections, the contribution from the steel section to the bending resistancereduces the significance of that from the concrete. It is thus possible63 for EN 1994 toallow the use of a rectangular stress block extending to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 6.1.

For a member of unit width, the moment about the neutral axis of the EN 1992 stressblock ranges from 0.38fckx

2=�C to 0.48fckx2=�C, depending on the value chosen for �cc.

The value for beams in EN 1994-2 is 0.425fckx2=�C. Calibration studies have shown that

this overestimates the bending resistance of cross-sections of columns, so a correctionfactor �M is given in clause 6.7.3.6(1). See also the comments on clause 6.7.3.6.

Small concrete flangesWhere the concrete slab is in compression, the method of clause 6.2.1.2 is based on theassumption that the whole effective areas of steel and concrete can reach their designstrengths before the concrete begins to crush. This may not be so if the concrete flange issmall compared with the steel section. This lowers the plastic neutral axis, and so increasesthe maximum compressive strain at the top of the slab, for a given tensile strain in the steelbottom flange.

A detailed study of the problem has been reported.64 Laboratory tests on beams showthat strain hardening of steel usually occurs before crushing of concrete. The effect of this,and the low probability that the strength of both the steel and the concrete will be only atthe design level, led to the conclusion that premature crushing can be neglected unless thegrade of the structural steel is higher than S355. Clause 6.2.1.2(2) specifies a reductionin Mpl;Rd where the steel grade is S420 or S460 and the depth of the plastic neutral axisis high.

For composite columns, the risk of premature crushing led to a reduction in the factor �M,given in clause 6.7.3.6(1), for S420 and S460 steels.

Ductility of reinforcementReinforcement with insufficient ductility to satisfy clause 5.5.1(5), and welded mesh, shouldnot be included within the effective section of beams in Class 1 or 2 (clause 6.2.1.2(3)). This isbecause laboratory tests on hogging moment regions have shown33 that some reinforcingbars, and most welded meshes, fracture before the moment–rotation curve for a typicaldouble-cantilever specimen reaches a plateau. The problem with welded mesh is explainedin comments on clause 3.2(3).

6.2.1.3. Additional rules for beams in bridgesClause 6.2.1.3(1) is a reminder that composite beams need to be checked for possible com-binations of internal actions that are not specifically covered in EN 1994. The combinationsgiven are biaxial bending, bending and torsion and local and global effects, with a referenceto clause 6.2.1(5) of EN 1993-1-1.

Significant bending about a vertical axis is rare in composite bridges so biaxial bending israrely a concern. Despite the reference to EN 1993-1-1, there is little of direct relevance forbiaxial bending in composite beams therein. For Class 1 and 2 cross-sections, the interactionof EN 1993-1-1 expression (6.2) could be used for resistance of cross-sections. Rather thancomputing the resultant plastic stress block for axial load and biaxial bending, a linear inter-action is provided:

NEd

NRd

þMy;Ed

My;Rd

þMz;Ed

Mz;Rd

� 1:0

where NRd, My;Rd and Mz;Rd are the design resistances for each effect acting individually,with reductions for shear where the shear force is sufficiently large. In theory, it is stillnecessary to derive the resultant plastic stress block to check whether the cross-section iseither Class 1 or 2. This complexity can be avoided by performing the classification underaxial compression only. The same expression can be applied to Class 3 and 4 cross-sectionsor the stresses can be summed using elastic section analysis. Care is needed where the sign ofthe stress in the slab is different for each constituent action.

Clause 6.2.1.2(2)

Clause 6.2.1.2(3)

Clause 6.2.1.3(1)

71

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 317: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

In hogging zones of integral bridges, where there is usually a moderate coexistent axialload induced by temperature or soil pressure, it is common to do calculations on the basisof the fully cracked section. The non-linear method of clause 6.2.1.4 could also be usedbut this is likely to require the use of computer software. Buckling needs to be checkedseparately – see section 6.4.

Significant torsion is unlikely to be encountered in most composite I-girder bridges due tothe low St Venant torsional stiffness of the steel beams. There are some exceptions including:

. torsion in curved beams as discussed in comments on clause 6.2.1.1(5)

. torsion in skew decks at end trimmers

. torsion of bare steel beams where formwork for deck cantilevers is clamped to the outergirders.

EN 1993-1-1 clause 6.2.7(7) permits St Venant torsion to be ignored at ultimate limit statesprovided that all the torsion is carried by resistance to warping. This is usually the mostefficient model and avoids a further interaction with shear stress from vertical shear in theweb. If the torque is resisted by opposing bending in the flanges, they can be designed forthis bending combined with their axial force. If the length between restraints should belong, then the warping bending stresses would become large and the section would try toresist the torsion predominantly through St Venant shear flow. In that case it might bebetter to derive the separate contributions from St Venant and warping torsion. Furtherguidance on shear, torsion and bending is provided in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

Pure torsion in box beams is treated simply by a modification to the shear stress in thewebs and flanges, and the design is checked using clause 7.1 of EN 1993-1-5. Pure torsionis however rare and most boxes will also suffer some distortion. This leads to both in-plane warping and out-of-plane bending of the box walls as discussed in Ref. 4.

The reference in clause 6.2.1.3(1) to combined local and global effects relates to the steelbeam only, because this combination in a concrete deck is a matter for Eurocode 2, unless thedeck is a composite plate, when clause 9.3 applies. Such combinations include bending, shearand transverse load (from wheel loads) according to clause 6.2.8(6) of EN 1993-1-1 and othercombinations of local and global load. The VonMises equivalent stress criterion of EN 1993-1-1 expression (6.1) should be used in the absence of test-based interaction equations forresistances.

Clause 6.2.1.3(2) relates to the use of plastic resistances in bending, which impliesshedding of bending moments, typically from mid-span regions to adjacent supports.Non-linear global analysis allows for this, but linear-elastic analysis does not. The reasonsfor permitting linear analysis, and for the limitations given in the present clause, areexplained in comments on clause 5.4.1.1(1). A method for making use of the limited ductilityof support regions has been proposed.65

Clause 6.2.1.3(2)

Example 6.1: plastic resistance moment in sagging bendingFor the bridge in Example 5.1 (Fig. 5.6), the resistance moment for an internal beam atmid-span with the cross-section in Fig. 5.11 is determined. The deck concrete is GradeC30/37 and the structural steel is S355 J2 G3. The cross-section is shown in Fig. 6.2with relevant dimensions, stress blocks and longitudinal forces. The notation is as inFig. 6.2 and the concrete stress block as in Fig. 6.1.Using the partial factors recommended in EN 1992-2 and EN 1993-2, the design

strengths are:

fyd ¼ 345=1:0 ¼ 345N=mm2; fcd ¼ 30=1:5 ¼ 20N=mm2

The steel yield stress has been taken here as 345N/mm2 throughout. This is given inEN 10025 for thicknesses between 16mm and 40mm. For the web, 355N/mm2 couldhave been used.

72

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 318: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

250

1225

400 × 20

400 × 30

1175 × 12.5

25 haunch

3100

227

NA172

769

13724.14 MN

2.76 MN

5.07 MN

11.97 MN0.85fcd

fyd

Fig. 6.2. Plastic resistance of cross-section to sagging bending, for Example 6.1

Ignoring the haunch and any slab reinforcement, the available compressive force in theconcrete is:

Nc;f ¼ 3:1� 0:25� 0:85� 20 ¼ 13:18MN

The available forces in the steel beam are:

in the top flange, Na;top ¼ 0:4� 0:02� 345 ¼ 2:76MN

in the web, Na;web ¼ 1:175� 0:0125� 345 ¼ 5:07MN

in the bottom flange, Na;bot ¼ 0:4� 0:03� 345 ¼ 4:14MN

The total is 11.97MN. As this is less than 13.18MN, the neutral axis lies in the concreteslab, at a depth:

zna ¼ 250ð11:97=13:18Þ ¼ 227mm

The distances below force Nc of the lines of action of the three forces Na are shown inFig. 6.2. Hence:

Mpl;Rd ¼ 2:76� 0:172þ 5:07� 0:769þ 4:14� 1:372 ¼ 10:05MNm

The cross-section at the adjacent support is in Class 3, so potentially clause 6.2.1.3(2)applies. Since the ratio of adjacent spans is 0.61, greater than the limit of 0.6, there is noneed to restrict the bending resistance at mid-span to 0.90Mpl;Rd.

Example 6.2: resistance to hogging bending at an internal supportFor the bridge shown in Fig. 5.6, and materials as in Example 6.1, the resistance tohogging bending of the cross-section shown in Fig. 5.14 is studied. It was found inExample 5.4 that the flanges are in Class 1 and the web is in Class 3.

It appears from clause 5.5.2(3) that an effective section in Class 2 could be used, toclause 6.2.2.4 of EN 1993-1-1. However, the wording of that clause implies, and itsFig. 6.3 shows, that the plastic neutral axis of the effective section should lie within theweb. It is concluded in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-15 that the hole-in-web approx-imation should only be used when this is so. As the area of longitudinal reinforcement inthe present cross-section is quite high, this condition is checked first.

From clause 6.2.2.4 of EN 1993-1-1, the effective area of web in compression is 40t2w".Using rectangular stress blocks, the condition is:

As fsd þ Aa;top fyd < 40t2w" fyd þ Aa;bot fyd

Hence:

As < ð40t2w"þ Aa;bot � Aa;topÞ fyd=fsd ðD6:1Þ

73

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 319: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.2.1.4. Non-linear resistance to bendingThere are two approaches, described in clause 6.2.1.4. With both, the calculations should bedone at the critical sections for the design bending moments. The first approach, given inclause 6.2.1.4(1) to (5), enables the resistance of a section to be determined iterativelyfrom the stress–strain relationships of the materials.

Clause 6.2.1.4(1)to (5)

From Example 5.4:

As ¼ 19 480mm2; and " ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi235=345

p¼ 0:825

From Fig. 5.14:

Aa;bot � Aa;top ¼ 400� 15 ¼ 6000mm2; tw ¼ 25mm

For the reinforcement:

fsd ¼ 500=1:15 ¼ 435N=mm2

From expression (D6.1):

As < ð40� 252 � 0:825þ 6000Þ � 345=435 ¼ 21 120mm2

Thus, expression (D6.1) is satisfied, so Mpl;Rd will be found by the hole-in-web method.The longitudinal forces in the reinforcement and the two steel flanges are found as inExample 6.1, and are shown in Fig. 6.3.

2.82 120

3.45

0.715

3.56

3.56

1420

1194

5.52

5.645

116025

412

Plastic NA

253

250

412

281.5

529

227.5

Forces in MN unitsHole in web

zweb = 83400 × 25

400 × 40

Fig. 6.3. Plastic resistance of cross-section to hogging bending, for Example 6.2

The depth of each of the two compressive stress blocks in the web is:

20tw" ¼ 20� 25� 0:825 ¼ 412mm

The force in each of them is 20t2w" fyd ¼ 0:412� 0:025� 345 ¼ 3:56MNThe location of the plastic neutral axis is found from longitudinal equilibrium. The

tensile force in the web is:

Tw ¼ 3:56� 2þ 5:52� 5:645� 2:82� 3:45 ¼ 0:715MN ¼ 715 kN

This force requires a depth of web:

zw ¼ 715=ð25� 0:345Þ ¼ 83mm

This leads to the depth of the ‘hole’ in the web, 253mm, and the distances of the variousforces below the level of the top reinforcement, shown in Fig. 6.3. Taking moments aboutthis level gives the bending resistance, which is:

Mpl;Rd ¼ 12:64MNm

74

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 320: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

A curvature (strain gradient) and neutral-axis position are assumed, the stresses deter-mined from the strains, and the neutral axis moved until the stresses correspond to theexternal longitudinal force, if any. The assumed strain distributions should allow for theshrinkage strain of the concrete and any strain and/or difference of curvature betweensteel and concrete caused by temperature. The bending resistance is calculated from thisstress distribution. If it exceeds the external moment MEd, the calculation is terminated. Ifnot, the assumed curvature is increased and the process repeated until a value MRd isfound that exceeds MEd. If one of the ultimate strains given in EN 1992-1-1 for concreteand reinforcement is reached first, the cross-section has insufficient resistance. For Class 3cross-sections or Class 4 effective cross-sections, the compressive strain in the structuralsteel must not exceed that at first yield.

Clearly, in practice this procedure requires the use of software. For sections in Class 1 or2, a simplified approach is given in clause 6.2.1.4(6). This is based on three points onthe curve relating longitudinal force in the slab, Nc, to design bending moment MEd

that are easily determined. With reference to Fig. 6.4, which is based on Fig. 6.6, thesepoints are:

. A, where the composite member resists no moment, so Nc ¼ 0

. B, which is defined by the results of an elastic analysis of the section, and

. C, based on plastic analysis of the section.

Accurate calculation shows BC to be a convex-upwards curve, so the straight line BC is aconservative approximation. Clause 6.2.1.4(6) thus enables hand calculation to be used.

The elastic analysis gives the resistance Mel;Rd, which is calculated according to equation(6.4). The moment acting on the composite section will generally comprise both short-term and permanent actions and in calculating the stresses from these, appropriatemodular ratios should be used in accordance with clause 5.4.2.2(2).

Clause 6.2.1.4(7) makes reference to EN 1993-1-1 for the stress–strain relationship to beused for prestressing steel. The prestrain (which is the initial tendon strain after all losses,calculated in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 clause 5.10.8) must be taken into account inthe section design. For bonded tendons, this can be done by displacing the origin of thestress–strain curve along the strain axis by an amount equal to the design prestrain andassuming that the strain change in the tendon is the same as that in the surrounding concrete.For unbonded tendons, the prestress should be treated as a constant force equal to theapplied force after all losses. The general method of section analysis for compositecolumns in clause 6.7.2 would then be more appropriate.

6.2.1.5. Elastic resistance to bendingClause 6.2.1.4(6) includes, almost incidentally, a definition ofMel;Rd that may seem strange.It is a peculiarity of composite structures that when unpropped construction is used, theelastic resistance to bending depends on the proportion of the total load that is appliedbefore the member becomes composite. Let Ma;Ed and Mc;Ed be the design bending

Clause 6.2.1.4(6)

Clause 6.2.1.4(7)

C

1.0

Mpl,Rd

Nc /Nc,f

Nc,el /Nc,f

Mel,Rd

Ma,Ed

B

0

A

Fig. 6.4. Non-linear resistance to bending for Class 1 and 2 cross-sections

75

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 321: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

moments for the steel and composite sections, respectively, for a section in Class 3. Theirtotal is typically less than the elastic resistance to bending, so to find Mel;Rd, one or bothof them must be increased until one or more of the limiting stresses in clause 6.2.1.5(2) isreached. To enable a unique result to be obtained, clause 6.2.1.4(6) says that Mc;Ed is tobe increased, and Ma;Ed left unchanged. This is because Ma;Ed is mainly from permanentactions, which are less uncertain than the variable actions whose effects comprise most ofMc;Ed.

Unpropped construction normally proceeds by stages, which may have to be consideredindividually in bridge design. While the sequence of erection of the beams is often knownin the design stage, the concrete pour sequence is rarely known. Typically, either a rangeof possible pour sequences is considered or it is assumed that the whole of the wet concreteis placed simultaneously on the bare steelwork, and the resulting design is rechecked whenthe pour sequence is known.

The weight of formwork is, in reality, applied to the steel structure and removed from thecomposite structure. This process leaves self-equilibrated residual stresses in compositecross-sections. Whether or not this is considered in the final situation is a matter for judge-ment, depending on the significance of the weight of the formwork.

One permanent action that influences Mel;Rd is shrinkage of concrete. Clause 6.2.1.5(5)enables the primary stresses to be neglected in cracked concrete, but the implication isthat they should be included where the slab is in compression. This provision should notbe confused with clause 5.4.2.2(8), although it is consistent with it. The self-equilibratingstresses from the primary effects of shrinkage do not cause any moment but they can giverise to stress. In checking the beam section, if these stresses are adverse, they should beadded to those from Ma;Ed and Mc;Ed when verifying stresses against the limits in clause6.2.1.5(2). If it is necessary to determine the actual elastic resistance moment, Mel;Rd, theshrinkage stresses should be added to the stresses from Ma;Ed and kMc;Ed when determiningk and hence Mel;Rd. If this addition increases Mel;Rd, it could be omitted, but this is not arequirement, because shrinkage is classified as a permanent action.

Clause 6.2.1.5(6) is a reminder that lateral–torsional buckling should also be checked,which applies equally to the other methods of cross-section design. The calculation ofMel;Rd is relevant for Class 3 cross-sections if the method of clause 6.4.2 is used, but theabove problem with shrinkage does not occur as the slab will be in tension in the criticalregion.

Additional guidance is required for Class 4 cross-sections since the effectiveness of theClass 4 elements (usually only the web for composite I-beams) depends on the stress distri-butions within them. The loss of effectiveness for local buckling is dealt with by the use ofeffective widths according to EN 1993-1-5. For staged construction, there is the additionalproblem that the stress distribution changes during construction and therefore the sizeand location of the effective part of the element also change at each stage.

To avoid the complexity of summing stresses from different effective cross-sections, clause6.2.1.5(7) provides a simplified pragmatic rule. This requires that the stress distribution atany stage is built up using gross-section properties. The reference to ‘gross’ sections is notintended to mean that shear lag can be neglected; it refers only to the neglect of platebuckling. The stress distribution so derived is used to determine an effective web which isthen used to determine section properties and stresses at all stages up to the one considered.

The Note to clause 4.4(3) of EN 1993-1-5 provides almost identical guidance, but clarifiesthat an effective flange should be used together with the gross web to determine the initialstress distribution. ‘Effective’ in this sense includes the effects of both shear lag and platebuckling. Plate buckling for flanges is likely to be relevant only for box girders. Example6.3 illustrates the method.

Clause 6.2.1.5(7) refers to some clauses in EN 1993-1-5 that permit mid-plane stresses insteel plates to be used in verifications. For compression parts in Class 3, EN 1993-2 followsclause 6.2.1(9) of EN 1993-1-1. This says:

Compressive stresses should be limited to the yield strength at the extreme fibres.

Clause 6.2.1.5(2)

Clause 6.2.1.5(5)

Clause 6.2.1.5(6)

Clause 6.2.1.5(7)

76

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 322: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

It is followed by the Note:

The extreme fibres may be assumed at the midplane of the flanges for ULS checks. For fatigue seeEN 1993-1-9.

This concession can be assumed to apply also to composite beams.An assumption in the effective section method is that there is sufficient post-buckling

strength to achieve the necessary redistribution of stress to allow all components to bestressed to their individual resistances. This approach is therefore not permitted (and isnot appropriate) in a number of situations where there may not be sufficient post-bucklingstrength or where the geometry of the member is outside prescribed limits. These exceptionsare given in EN 1993-1-5, clause 2.3(1).

Where prestressing is used, clause 6.2.1.5(8) limits the stress in tendons to the elastic rangeand makes reference to clause 5.10.8 of EN 1992-1-1 for guidance on initial prestrain. Thelatter covers both bonded and unbonded prestress.

Clause 6.2.1.5(9) provides an alternative method of treating Class 4 cross-sections usingSection 10 of EN 1993-1-5. This method can be used where the conditions of EN 1993-1-5clause 2.3(1) are not met. Section 10 requires that all stresses are calculated on gross sectionsand buckling checks are then carried out on the component plates of the cross-section. Thereis usually economic disadvantage in using this method because the beneficial load sheddingof stress around the cross-section implicit in the effective section method does not occur.Additionally, the benefit of using test-based interactions between shear and bending is lost.

If the whole member is prone to overall buckling instability, such as flexural or lateral–torsional buckling, these effects must either be calculated by second-order analysis and theadditional stresses included when checking panels or by using a limiting stress �limit inmember buckling checks. For flexural buckling, �limit can be calculated based on thelowest compressive value of axial stress �x;Ed acting on its own, required to cause bucklingfailure in the weakest sub-panel or an entire panel, according to the verification formulain Section 10 of EN 1993-1-5. This value of �limit is then used to replace fy in the memberbuckling check. It is conservative, particularly when the critical panel used to determine�limit is not at the extreme compression fibre of the section where the greatest stress increaseduring buckling occurs. For lateral–torsional buckling, �limit can be determined as thebending stress at the extreme compression fibre needed to cause buckling in the weakestpanel. This would however again be very conservative where �limit was determined frombuckling of a web panel which was not at the extreme fibre, as the direct stress in a webpanel would not increase much during lateral–torsional buckling.

A detailed discussion of the use of Section 10 of EN 1993-1-5 is given in the Designers’Guide to EN 1993-2.4

Clause 6.2.1.5(8)

Clause 6.2.1.5(9)

Example 6.3: elastic bending resistance of a Class 4 cross-sectionFor the bridge in Example 5.1 (Fig. 5.6), the mid-span section of the internal beam inFig. 5.11 continues to the splice adjacent to each pier. The top and bottom layers ofreinforcement comprise 16mm bars at 150mm centres. There are 20mm transversebars, with top and bottom covers of 40mm and 45mm respectively, so the locations ofthe 16mm bars are as shown in Fig. 6.5. All reinforcement has fsk ¼ 500N/mm2 and�S ¼ 1:15. The steel yield stress is taken as 345N/mm2 throughout.

The cross-section is checked for the ultimate limit state hogging moments adjacent tothe splice, which are as follows:

steel beam only: Ma;Ed ¼ 150 kNm

cracked composite beam: Mc;Ed ¼ 2600 kNm (including secondary effects ofshrinkage)

By inspection, the cross-section is not in Class 1 or 2 so its classification is checked at theClass 3/4 boundary using elastic stresses.

77

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 323: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 3.2(2)

47

247

68

73

1225

25

250

400 × 20

400 × 30

1175 × 12.5

4155 mm2 4155 mm2

389

Elastic neutral axis,effective composite section

109

Fig. 6.5. Effective section and reinforcement for Example 6.3

Steel bottom flangeIgnoring the web-to-flange welds, the flange outstand c ¼ ð400� 12:5Þ=2 ¼ 193:8mm.From Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, the condition for Class 1 is:

c=t < 9" ¼ 9� 0:825 ¼ 7:43

For the flange, c=t ¼ 193:8=30 ¼ 6:46, so the flange is Class 1.

Steel webThe area of each layer of reinforcement is As ¼ �� 64� 3100=150 ¼ 4155mm2. It wouldbe conservative to assume that all stresses are applied to the composite section as this givesthe greatest depth of web in compression. The stresses below are however based on thebuilt-up elastic stresses. The elastic modulus for the reinforcement is taken as equal tothat for structural steel, from clause 3.2(2).The elastic section moduli for the gross cross-section are given in rows 1 and 3 of

Table 6.1. The extreme-fibre stresses for the steel section are:

�a;top ¼ 150=12:87þ 2600=25:85 ¼ 112:2N/mm2 tension

�a;bot ¼ 150=15:96þ 2600=18:91 ¼ 146:9N/mm2 compression

Table 6.1. Section moduli for hogging bending of the cross-section of Fig. 6.5, in 106 mm3 units, andheight of neutral axis above bottom of section

Section modulusHeight of

Top layerof bars

Top of steelsection

Bottom ofsteel section

neutral axis(mm)

Gross steel section — 12.87 15.96 547Effective steel section — 12.90 15.77 551Gross composite section 18.47 25.85 18.91 707Effective composite section 18.47 25.94 18.63 713

Primary shrinkage stresses are neglected because the deck slab is assumed to be cracked.Using the stresses at the extreme fibres of the web, from Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, thestress ratio is:

¼ �108=140:6 ¼ �0:768

and the condition for a Class 3 web is:

c=t � 42"=ð0:67þ 0:33 Þ ¼ 42� 0:825=ð0:67� 0:253Þ ¼ 83:1

Neglecting the widths of the fillet welds, the actual c=t ¼ 1175=12:5 ¼ 94, so the com-posite section is in Class 4 for hogging bending. An effective section must therefore be

78

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 324: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.2.2. Resistance to vertical shearClause 6.2.2 is for beams without web encasement. The whole of the vertical shear is usuallyassumed to be resisted by the steel section, as in previous codes for composite beams. Thisenables the design rules of EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1993-1-5 to be used. The assumption canbe conservative where the slab is in compression. Even where it is in tension and crackedin flexure, consideration of equilibrium shows that the slab must make some contributionto shear resistance, except where the reinforcement has yielded. For solid slabs, the effectis significant where the depth of the steel beam is only twice that of the slab,66 but diminishesas this ratio increases.

In composite plate girders with vertical stiffeners, the concrete slab can contribute to theanchorage of a tension field in the web,67 but the shear connectors must then be designed forvertical forces (clause 6.2.2.3(2)). The tension field model used in EN 1993-1-5 is discussed inthe Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4 Since the additional tension field supported by theflanges must be anchored at both upper and lower surfaces of the web, the weaker flange

Clause 6.2.2

Clause 6.2.2.3(2)

derived for the web in accordance with clause 6.2.1.5(7) using the built-up stressescalculated on the gross cross-section above.

From Table 4.1 of EN 1993-1-5:

k� ¼ 7:81� 6:29 þ 9:78 2 ¼ 18:4 for ¼ �0:768:

From clause 4.4(2) of EN 1993-1-5:

�p ¼b=t

28:4"ffiffiffiffiffik�

p ¼ 1175=12:5

28:4� 0:825�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi18:4

p ¼ 0:935 > 0:673

so the reduction factor is:

� ¼�p � 0:055 3þ ð Þ

�2p

¼ 0:935� 0:055 3� 0:768ð Þ0:9352

¼ 0:929

beff ¼ ��bb=ð1� Þ ¼ 617mm; be1 ¼ 0:4� 617 ¼ 247mm; be2 ¼ 0:6� 617 ¼ 370mm

Including the ‘hole’, the depth of web in compression is beff=�, which is 664mm, so thewidth of the hole is 664� 617 ¼ 47mm. The stress ratio for the web now differs from thatfor the gross section, but the effect of this on the properties of the net section can beneglected. It is clear from clause 4.4(3) of EN 1993-1-5 that (and hence � and beff)need not be recalculated. The level of the elastic neutral axis for this net section isfound to be as shown in Table 6.1; consequently, the depth be2 is in fact 389mm, not370mm. The new section moduli are given in rows 2 and 4 of Table 6.1.

The effective section is as shown in Fig. 6.5. The final stresses are as follows:

�a;top ¼ 150=12:90þ 2600=25:94 ¼ 111:8N/mm2 tension < 345N/mm2

�a;bot ¼ 150=15:77þ 2600=18:63 ¼ 149:1N/mm2 compression < 345N/mm2

�s;top ¼ 2600=18:47 ¼ 140:8N/mm2 < 500=1:15 ¼ 435N/mm2

The stress change caused by the small reduction in web area is negligible in this case.

Elastic resistance to bendingFrom clause 6.2.1.4(6),Mel;Rd is found by scaling upMc;Ed by a factor k until a stress limitis reached. By inspection of the final stresses, the bottom flange will probably govern. Infact, it does, and:

150=15:77þ ð2600=18:63Þk ¼ 345

whence k ¼ 2:40, and the elastic resistance moment is:

Mel;Rd ¼ 150þ 2:40� 2600 ¼ 6390 kNm (provided that Ma;Ed ¼ 150 kNm)

79

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 325: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

will govern the contribution of the flanges, Vbf;Rd, to shear resistance. Comment given lateron clause 6.2.2.5(1) is relevant here.

Bending and vertical shear – beams in Class 1 or 2Shear stress does not significantly reduce bending resistance unless the shear is quite high.For this reason, the interaction may be neglected until the shear force exceeds half theshear resistance (clause 6.2.2.4(1)).

Both EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1994-2 use a parabolic interaction curve. Clause 6.2.2.4(2)covers the case of Class 1 or 2 cross-sections where the reduction factor for the designyield strength of the web is ð1� �Þ, where:

� ¼ ½ð2VEd=VRdÞ � 1�2 ð6:5Þand VRd is the resistance in shear (which is either the plastic shear resistance or the shearbuckling resistance if lower). The interactions for Class 1 and 2 cross-sections with andwithout shear buckling are shown in Fig. 6.6.

For a web where the shear buckling resistance is less than the plastic shear resistance andMEd <Mf;Rd, the flanges may make a contributionVbf;Rd to the shear resistance according toEN 1993-1-5 clause 5.4(1). For moments exceeding Mf;Rd (the plastic bending resistanceignoring the web), this contribution is zero as at least one flange is fully utilized forbending. VRd is then equal to Vbw;Rd. For moments less than Mf;Rd, VRd is equal toVbw;Rd þ Vbf;Rd.

This definition of VRd leads to some inconsistency in clause 6.2.2.4(2) as the resistance inbending produced therein can never be less than Mf;Rd. Where there is shear buckling there-fore, it is best to consider that the interaction with bending and shear according to clause6.2.2.4(2) is valid for moments in excess of Mf;Rd only. For lower moments, the interactionwith shear is covered entirely by the shear check to EN 1993-1-5 clause 5.4(1).

Where a Class 3 cross-section is treated as an equivalent Class 2 section and the designyield strength of the web is reduced to allow for vertical shear, the effect on a section inhogging bending is to increase the depth of web in compression. If the change is small, thehole-in-web model can still be used. For a higher shear force, the new plastic neutral axismay be within the top flange, and the hole-in-web method is inapplicable. The sectionshould then be treated as a Class 3 section.

Bending and vertical shear – beams in Class 3 or 4If the cross-section is either Class 3 or Class 4, then clause 6.2.2.4(3) applies and the inter-action should be checked using EN 1993-1-5 clause 7.1. This clause is similar to that for Class1 and 2 sections but an interaction equation is provided. This allows the designer to neglectthe interaction between shear and bending moment when the design shear force is less than50% of the shear buckling resistance based on the web contribution alone. Where the design

Clause 6.2.2.4(1)Clause 6.2.2.4(2)

Clause 6.2.2.4(3)

Mpl,Rd

0.5Vpl,Rd

Vpl,Rd

0.5Vbw,Rd

Vbw,Rd

VEd

Mf,Rd Mpl,RdMf,Rd

MEd

VEd

MEd

Interaction toclause 6.2.2.4(2)

Shear resistanceVb,Rdto EN 1993-1-5/5

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.6. Shear–moment interaction for Class 1 and 2 cross-sections (a) with shear buckling and(b) without shear buckling

80

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 326: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

shear force exceeds this value and MEd � Mf;Rd, the condition to be satisfied is:

�1 þ 1�Mf;Rd

Mpl;Rd

� �2�3 � 1ð Þ2� 1:0 ð7:1Þ in EN 1993-1-5

where �3 is the ratio VEd=Vbw;Rd and �1 is a usage factor for bending, MEd=Mpl;Rd, based onthe plastic moment resistance of the section. Mf;Rd is the design plastic bending resistancebased on a section comprising the flanges only. The definition of Mf;Rd is discussed underclause 6.2.2.5(2) below.

For Class 4 sections, the calculation ofMf;Rd andMpl;Rd must consider effective widths forflanges, allowing for plate buckling.Mpl;Rd is however calculated using the gross web, regard-less of any reduction that might be required for local buckling under direct stress. If axialforce is present, EN 1993-1-5 clause 7.1(4) requires appropriate reduction to be made toMf;Rd and Mpl;Rd. Discussion of axial force is given before Example 6.4.

The interaction for Class 3 and 4 beams is illustrated in Fig. 6.7. The full contribution tothe shear resistance from the web, Vbw;Rd, is obtained at a moment of Mf;Rd. For smallermoments, the coexisting shear can increase further due to the flange shear contribution,Vbf;Rd, from clause 5.4 of EN 1993-1-5, provided that the web contribution is less than theplastic resistance. The applied bending moment must additionally not exceed the elasticbending resistance; that is, the accumulated stress must not exceed one of the limits inclause 6.2.1.5(2). This truncates the interaction diagram in Fig. 6.7 at a moment ofMel;Rd. The moment must also not exceed that for lateral–torsional buckling.

The value of MEd for use in the interaction with Class 3 and 4 cross-sections is not clearlydefined. Clause 6.2.2.4(3) states only that EN 1993-1-5 clause 7.1 is applicable ‘using thecalculated stresses of the composite section’. These stresses are dependent on the sequenceof construction and can include self-equilibrating stresses such as those from shrinkagewhich contribute no net moment. There was no problem with interpretation in earlierdrafts as �1, the accumulated stress divided by the appropriate stress limit, was used in theinteraction rather than �1.

For compatibility with the use of Mpl;Rd in the interaction expression (based on the cross-section at the time considered) it is recommended here thatMEd is taken as the greatest valueof (��iÞW , where ��i is the total accumulated stress at an extreme fibre and W is the elasticmodulus of the effective section at the same fibre at the time considered. This bendingmoment, when applied to the cross-section at the time considered, produces stresses at theextreme fibres which are at least as great as those accumulated.

The reason for the use of plastic bending properties in the interaction for Class 3 and Class4 beams needs some explanation. Test results on symmetric bare steel beams with Class 3 andClass 4 webs68 and also computer simulations on composite bridge beams with unequalflanges69 showed very weak interaction with shear. The former physical tests showed

Interaction toEC3-1-5/7.1

(1100)

(2900)

A

B

(2900), etc. Valuesfrom Example 6.4

Mel,Rd(6390)

Mpl,Rd(8089)

Vbw,Rd /2

Vbw,Rd(1834)

VEd

Mf,Rd(5568)

MEd

Shear resistanceVb,Rd

to EC3-1-5/5

Fig. 6.7. Shear–moment interaction for Class 3 and 4 cross-sections to clause 7.1 of EN 1993-1-5

81

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 327: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

virtually no interaction at all and the latter typically showed some minor interaction onlyafter 80% of the shear resistance had been reached. The use of a plastic resistancemoment in the interaction helps to force this observed behaviour as seen in Fig. 6.7.

No distinction is made for beams with longitudinally stiffened webs, which can have lesspost-buckling strength when overall web panel buckling is critical. There are limited testresults for such beams and the approach leads to an interaction with shear only at veryhigh percentages of the web shear resistance. A safe option is to replace �1 by �1 in theinteraction expression. For composite beams with longitudinally stiffened webs, �1 can beinterpreted as the usage factor based on accumulated stress and the stress limits in clause6.2.1.5(2).

Various theories for post-critical behaviour in shear of webs in Class 3 or 4 under com-bined bending and vertical shear have been compared with 22 test results from compositebeams.69 It was found that the method of EN 1993-1-5 gives good predictions for webpanels of width/depth ratio exceeding 1.5, and is conservative for shorter panels.

Checks of bare steel flanges of box girders are covered in theDesigners’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

For open steel boxes, clause 7.1(5) of EN 1993-1-5 clearly does not apply to the reinforcedconcrete top flange. For composite flanges, this clause should be applied to the steel part ofthe composite flange, but the effective area of the steel part may be taken as the gross area(reduced for shear lag if applicable) for all loads applied after the concrete flange has beencast, provided that the shear connectors are spaced in accordance with Table 9.1. Shearbuckling need not be considered in the calculation of ���3. Since most continuous box-girderbridges will be in Class 3 or 4 at supports, the restriction to elastic bending resistance forcedby clause 7.1(5) of EN 1993-1-5 should not be unduly conservative. The use of elastic analysisalso facilitates addition of any distortional warping and transverse distortional bendingstresses developed.

Bending and vertical shear – all ClassesClause 6.2.2.4(4) confirms that when the depth of web in compression is increased to allowfor shear, the resulting change in the plastic neutral axis should be ignored when classifyingthe web. The reduction of steel strength to represent the effect on bending resistance of shearis only a model to match test results. To add the sophistication of reclassifying the cross-section would be an unjustified complexity. The scatter of data for section classificationfurther makes reclassification unjustified. The issue of reclassification does not arise whenusing EN 1993-1-5 clause 7.1 as the interaction with shear is given by an interaction expres-sion. The movement of the neutral axis is never determined.

Clause 6.2.2.5(1) refers to the contribution of flanges to the resistance of the web to buck-ling in shear. It permits the contribution of the flange in EN 1993-1-5 clause 5.4(1) to bebased on the bare steel flange even if it has the larger plastic moment resistance. It impliesthat where this is done, the weaker flange is being assisted by the concrete slab in anchoringthe tension field. From clause 6.2.2.3(2), the shear connection should then be designed forthe relevant vertical force. This additional check can be avoided by neglecting the concretecontribution in calculating Vbf;Rd.

The plastic bending resistance of the flanges, Mf;Rd, is defined in clause 6.2.2.5(2) forcomposite sections as the design plastic resistance of the effective section excluding thesteel web. This implies a plastic neutral axis within the stronger flange (usually the compositeone). Clause 7.1(3) of EN 1993-1-5 allowsMf;Rd to be taken as the product of the strength ofthe weaker flange and ‘the distance between the centroids of the flanges’. This gives a slightlylower result for a composite beam than application of the rule in EN 1994-2. The definition inEN 1994-2 is in fact also used in EN 1993-1-5, clauses 5.4(2) and 7.1(1).

It is stated in clause 7.1(1) of EN 1993-1-5 that the interaction expression for bending andshear is valid only where �1 � Mf;Rd=Mpl;Rd. From the definition of �1, this condition isMEd � Mf;Rd. Where it is not satisfied (as in Example 6.5), the bending moment MEd canbe resisted entirely by the flanges of the section. The web is not involved, so there is nointeraction between bending and shear unless the shear resistance is to be enhanced by theflange contribution in EN 1993-1-5, clause 5.4. In such cases, the check on interaction

Clause 6.2.2.4(4)

Clause 6.2.2.5(1)

Clause 6.2.2.5(2)

82

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 328: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

between bending and shear is effectively carried out using that clause as illustrated in Figs 6.6and 6.7. No such condition is stated for �1, so it should not be applied when �1 is replaced by�1 when required by clause 7.1(5) of EN 1993-1-5.

Effect of compressive axial forceClause 6.2.2.5(1) makes clear that ‘axial force’ means a force NEd acting on the compositecross-section, or an axial force Na;Ed applied to the steel element before the memberbecomes composite. It is not the axial force in the steel element that contributes to thebending resistance of a composite beam.

For Class 1 or 2 cross-sections, the resistance to bending, shear and axial force should bedetermined by first reducing the design yield strength of the web in accordance with clause6.2.2.4(2) and then checking the resulting cross-section under bending and axial force.

For Class 3 or 4 cross-sections, clause 7.1(4) of EN 1993-1-5 is also relevant. Thiseffectively requires the plastic bending resistance Mpl;Rd in the interaction expression ofEN 1993-1-5 clause 7.1(1) to be reduced to Mpl;N;Rd (using the notation of clause 6.7.3.6)where axial force is present. The resistance Mf;Rd should be reduced by the factor in clause5.4(2) of EN 1993-1-5, which is as follows:

1� NEd

ðAf1 þ Af2Þ fyf=�M0

� �ð5:9Þ in EN 1993-1-5

This is written for bare steel beams andAf1 andAf2 are the areas of the steel flanges. These areassumed here to be resisting the whole of the force NEd, presumably because in this tension-field model, the web is fully used already.

For composite beams in hogging zones, equation (5.9) above could be replaced by:

1� NEd

ðAf1 þ Af2Þ fyf=�M0 þ As fsd

� �ðD6:2Þ

where As is the area of the longitudinal reinforcement in the top slab.For sagging bending, the shear force is unlikely to be high enough to reduce the resistance

to axial force and bending. On the assumption that the axial force is applied only to thecomposite section, the value of MEd to use in the interaction expression can be derivedfrom the accumulated stresses as suggested above for checking combined bending andshear, but the uniform stress component from the axial force should not be considered incalculating ��i. If the axial force, determined as acting at the elastic centroid of the compo-site section, acts at another level in the model used for the resistance, the moment arisingfrom this change in its line of action should be included in MEd. This is illustrated inExample 6.5.

Clause 7.1(4) and (5) of EN 1993-1-5 requires that where axial force is present such that thewhole web is in compression,Mf;Rd should be taken as zero in the interaction expression, and�1 should be replaced by �1 (which is defined in EN 1993-1-5 clause 4.6). This leads to theinteraction diagram shown in Fig. 6.8. The limit �1 � Mf;Rd=Mpl;Rd for validity of expression

1.0

1.0

0.5

η3

η1

Fig. 6.8. Shear–moment interaction for Class 3 and 4 cross-sections with webs fully in compression

83

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 329: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

(7.1) given in EN 1993-1-5 clause 7.1(1) is not applicable in this case. The expression isapplicable where �1 � 0.

The application of this requirement is unclear for beams built in stages. These could haveaxial load applied separately to the bare steel section and to the composite section. A safeinterpretation, given the relatively small amount of testing on asymmetric sections, wouldbe to takeMf;Rd as zero wherever the whole web is in compression under the built-up stresses.For composite bridges, �1 can be interpreted as the usage factor based on accumulated stressand the stress limits in clause 6.2.1.5(2). However, this is likely to be conservative at highshear, given the weak interaction between bending and shear found in the tests on compositebeams discussed above.

Vertical shear in a concrete flangeClause 6.2.2.5(3) gives the resistance to vertical shear in a concrete flange of a compositebeam (represented here by a design shear strength, vRd;c) by reference to clause 6.2.2 ofEN 1992-2. That clause is intended mainly to enable higher shear strengths to be used inthe presence of in-plane prestress. A Note in EN 1992-2 recommends values for its threenationally determined parameters (NDPs). Where the flange is in tension, as in a continuouscomposite beam, the reduced strengths obtained can be over-conservative. In EN 1994-2, theNote recommends different NDPs, based on recent research.70 With these values, and foreffective slab depths d of at least 200mm and �C ¼ 1:5, the rules are:

vRd;c ¼ 0:10 1þffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi200

d

r !ð100� fckÞ1=3 þ 0:12�cp ðaÞ

and

vRd;c � 0:035 1þffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi200

d

r !3=2f1=2ck þ 0:12�cp ðbÞ

where: � ¼ As=bd � 0:02

�cp ¼ NEd=Ac < 0:2fcd (compression positive) ðcÞandNEd is the in-plane axial force (negative if tensile) in the slab of breadth b and with tensilereinforcement As, and fck is in N/mm2 units.

It can be inferred from Fig. 6.3 in EN 1992-2 that As is the reinforcement in tension underthe loading ‘which produces the shear force considered’ (a wording that is used in clause 5.3.3.2of BS 5400-4). Thus, for shear from a wheel load, only one layer of reinforcement (top orbottom, as appropriate) is relevant, even though both layers may be resisting global tension.

It thus appears from equation (a) that the shear strength depends on the tensile force in theslab. This awkward interaction is usually avoided, because EN 1994-2 gives a furtherresearch-based recommendation, that where �cp is tensile, it should not be taken asgreater than 1.85N/mm2. The effect of this is now illustrated, with d ¼ 200mm.

Let the reinforcement ratios be �1 ¼ 0.010 for the ‘tensile reinforcement’, �2 ¼ 0.005 forthe other layer, with fck ¼ 40N/mm2, and �cp ¼ �1.85N/mm2. From equation (a) above:

vRd;c ¼ 0:1� 2ð1:0� 40Þ1=3 � 0:12� 1:85 ¼ 0:68� 0:22 ¼ 0:46N=mm2

and equation (b) does not govern. From equation (c) with values of �cp,NEd and fs all negative:

�cp ¼ NEd=Ac ¼ �ð fsAsÞ=Ac ¼ fsð0:01þ 0:005Þbd=bh ¼ 0:015fsd=h

where the summation is for both layers of reinforcement, because �cp is the mean tensilestress in the slab if uncracked and unreinforced.

For h ¼ 250mm, the stress �cp then reaches �1.85N/mm2 when the mean tensile stress inthe reinforcement is 154N/mm2, which is a low value in practice. At higher values, vRd;c isindependent of the tensile force in the slab, though the resulting shear strength is usuallylower than that from BS 5400-4.

In the transverse direction, NEd is zero unless there is composite action in both directions,so for checking punching shear, two different shear strengths may be relevant.

Clause 6.2.2.5(3)

84

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 330: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Example 6.4: resistance of a Class 4 section to hogging bending and verticalshearThe cross-section in Example 6.3 (Fig. 6.5) is checked for resistance to a vertical shearforce of 1100 kN, combined with bending moments Ma;Ed ¼ 150 kNm and

Mc;Ed ¼ 2600 kNm

From clause 6.2.6(6) of EN 1993-1-1, resistance to shear buckling should be checked if:

hw=tw > 72"=�

where � is a factor for which a Note to clause 5.1.2 of EN 1993-1-5 recommends the value1.2. For S355 steel and a 12.5mm thick web plate, " ¼ 0:81, so:

hw�=tw" ¼ 1175� 1:2=ð12:5� 0:81Þ ¼ 139 > 72

The resistance of this unstiffened web to shear buckling is found using clauses 5.2 and5.3 of EN 1993-1-5. The transverse stiffeners provided at the cross-bracings are conserva-tively ignored, as is the contribution from the flanges. For stiffeners at supports only, theslenderness is obtained from EN 1993-1-5 equation (5.5):

�w ¼ hw86:4t"

¼ 1175

86:4� 12:5� 0:81¼ 1:343

Away from an end support, the column ‘rigid end post’ in Table 5.1 of EN 1993-1-5applies, so:

�w ¼ 1:37

0:7þ �w¼ 1:37

0:7þ 1:343¼ 0:67

From EN 1993-1-5 equation (5.2):

Vbw;Rd ¼�w fywhwtffiffiffi

3p

�M1

¼ 0:67� 355� 1175� 12:5ffiffiffi3

p� 1:1

¼ 1834 kN

The shear ratio �3 ¼ 1100=1834 ¼ 0:60. This exceeds 0.5 so interaction with the hoggingbending moment must be considered using EN 1993-1-5, clause 7.1. The resistancesMf;Rd

andMpl;Rd are first determined for the composite section. Clause 6.2.2.5(2) requiresMf;Rd

to be calculated for the composite section neglecting the web.Mpl;Rd is calculated using thegross web, regardless of the reduction for local buckling under direct stress. From sectionanalysis, using fyd ¼ 345N/mm2 throughout:

Mf;Rd ¼ 5568 kNm

Mpl;Rd ¼ 8089 kNm

The applied bending moment MEd is taken as the greatest value of (��i)W , as explainedearlier. Using stresses from Example 6.3 and section moduli from Table 6.1, the values ofMEd for the extreme fibres of the steel beam are as follows:

top flange: MEd ¼ 111:8� 25:94 ¼ 2900 kNm, which governsbottom flange: MEd ¼ 149:1� 18:63 ¼ 2778 kNm

The bending ratio �1 ¼ 2900=8089 ¼ 0:359.This is less than the ratioMf;Rd=Mpl;Rd, which is 0.69, so there is no interaction between

bending and shear.To illustrate the use of interaction expression (7.1) of EN 1993-1-5, let us assume that

MEd is increased, such that �1 ¼ 0:75, with �3 ¼ 0:60 as before. Then:

�1 þ 1�Mf;Rd

Mpl;Rd

� �2�3 � 1ð Þ2¼ 0:75þ 1� 5568

8089

� �2� 0:60� 1ð Þ2¼ 0:762 ðD6:3Þ

The original action effects are shown as point A in Fig. 6.7. This lies below point B,showing that in this case, the vertical shear does not reduce the resistance to bending.

85

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 331: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The check of �1 also required by the reference in clause 7.1(1) of EN 1993-1-5 to itsclause 4.6 is covered in Example 6.3. The ratio �1 is the greatest usage based on accumu-lated stress, which is 149:5=345 ¼ 0:43 at the bottom flange. If the moment–shear interac-tion above is checked conservatively using �1, equation (D6.3) becomes:

MEd

Mel;Rd

þ 1� 5568

8089

� �2� 0:60� 1ð Þ2� 1; or MEd � 0:988Mel;Rd

thus giving a slight reduction to the bending resistance. This reduction will always occurwhen ���3 > 0:5 is used in this interaction expression as can be seen from Fig. 6.8.

Example 6.5: addition of axial compression to a Class 4 cross-sectionThe effect of adding an axial compression NEd ¼ 4.8MN to the composite cross-sectionstudied in Examples 6.3 and 6.4 is now calculated, using the method explained earlier.It is assumed that in the global analysis, the beam was located at the level of thelong-term elastic neutral axis of the uncracked unreinforced section at mid-span, withnL ¼ 23.7. This is 951mm (denoted zelu) above the bottom of the 1500mm deepsection. Where the neutral axis of the cross-section being verified is at some lower level,z, for example, with NEd acting at that level, the coexisting hogging bending momentshould be reduced by NEd(zelu � z), to allow for the change in the level of NEd.The composite section, shown in Fig. 6.5, is also subjected, as before, to hogging

bending moments Ma;Ed ¼ 150 kNm and Mc;Ed ¼ 2600 kNm, and to vertical shearVEd ¼ 1100 kN. The concrete slab is assumed to be fully cracked.It was found in Example 6.4 that for the vertical shear, ���3 ¼ 0:60, so the interaction

factor (2���3 � 1Þ2 is only 0.04. The first check is therefore on the elastic resistance of thenet section to NEd plus MEd.IfNEd is assumed to act at the centroid of the net elastic Class 4 section, allowing for the

hole, its line of action, and hence MEd, change at each iteration. It will be found that thewhole of the effective web is in compression, so that the interaction with shear should bebased on �1 (accumulated stresses), not on ���1 (action effects and resistances). This enablesstresses from NEd and MEd to be added, and a non-iterative method to be used, based onseparate effective cross-sections for axial force and for bending. This method can alwaysbe used as a conservative approach.

Stresses from axial compressionFor the gross cracked cross-section, A ¼ 43 000mm2, so:

�a ¼ 4800=43:0 ¼ 112N/mm2 compression

From Table 4.1 in EN 1993-1-5, ¼ 1 and k� ¼ 4.0

From Example 6.3, for the web, �bb=t ¼ c=t ¼ 94

Assuming fy ¼ 345N/mm2, as in Example 6.1, then " ¼ 0:825.From EN 1993-1-5 clause 4.4(2) and Table 4.1:

�p ¼ b=t

28:4"ffiffiffiffiffik�

p ¼ 94

28:4� 0:825�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi4:0

p ¼ 2:01

� ¼�p � 0:055 3þ ð Þ

�2p

¼ 2:01� 0:055 3þ 1ð Þ2:012

¼ 0:444

beff ¼ ��bb ¼ 0:444� 1175 ¼ 522mm; so be1 ¼ be2 ¼ 261mm

The depth of the hole in the web is 1175� 522 ¼ 653mm.

86

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 332: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The net cross-section for axial compression is shown in Fig. 6.9(a). Its net area is:

Aeff;N ¼ 43 000� 653� 12:5 ¼ 34 840mm2

The compressive stress from NEd is �a;N ¼ 4800=34:84 ¼ 138N/mm2.The elastic neutral axis of the net section is 729mm above the bottom, so the change inneutral axis is �z ¼ 951� 729 ¼ 222mm2, and NEd �z ¼ 1066 kNm.

261

653

261

729

Elastic NA Elastic NA

109

98

247

396

12.5493

71239

(a) (b)

400 × 20 400 × 20

400 × 30 400 × 30

12.5

4155 mm2 4155 mm2

Fig. 6.9. Net cross-sections for (a) axial compression and (b) hogging bending

Stresses from bending momentIn Example 6.4, Mc;Ed ¼ 2600 kNm, hogging. The line of action of NEd has been moveddownwards, so NEd �z is sagging, and now Mc;Ed ¼ 2600� 1066 ¼ 1534 kNm, withMa;Ed ¼ 150 kNm, as before.

Using section moduli for the gross cross-section from Example 6.3, the stresses at theedge of the web are:

�a;top ¼ 68.4N/mm2 tension, �a;bot ¼ 86.5N/mm2 compression

Hence,

¼ �68:4=86:5 ¼ �0:790

Proceeding as in Example 6.3, the results are as follows:

k� ¼ 18:9, ���p ¼ 0:923, � ¼ 0:941, beff ¼ 618mm, be1 ¼ 247mm, be2 ¼ 371mm

The hole in the web is 39mm deep. The effective cross-section is shown in Fig. 6.9(b).The extreme-fibre stresses from Ma;Ed, Mc;Ed and NEd respectively are:

�a;top ¼ �ð11:6þ 59:1Þ þ 138 ¼ 67N=mm2

�a;bot ¼ þð9:5þ 82:4Þ þ 138 ¼ 230N=mm2

It follows that there is some compression in the deck slab, which has been neglected, forsimplicity. The reinforcement is assumed here to carry all the compressive force in the slab.

Interaction with vertical shearThe whole of the web is in compression, so from clause 7.1(5) of EN 1993-1-5, Mf;Rd ¼ 0and �1, not ���1, is used. For the steel bottom flange, which governs,

�1 ¼ 230=345 ¼ 0:67

From equation (7.1) of EN 1993-1-5, with ���3= 0.60 and Mf;Rd ¼ 0,

�1 þ ð2���3 � 1Þ2 ¼ 0:67þ 0:04 ¼ 0:71

This is less than 1.0, so the cross-section is verified.

87

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 333: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Method when the web is partly in tensionThis example is now repeated with the axial compression reduced to NEd ¼ 2.5MN andall other data as before, to illustrate the method where ���1 is used and Mf;Rd is not zero.From clause 7.1(4) of EN 1993-1-5, Mpl;Rd is reduced to allow for NEd, as follows. For

the gross cross-section Mpl;Rd ¼ 8089 kNm, and the plastic neutral axis is 876mm abovethe bottom. Force NEd is assumed to act at its level. The depth of web needed to resist it ishw;N ¼ 2500=ð12:5� 0:345Þ ¼ 580mm. This depth is centred on the neutral axis as shownin Fig. 6.10 and remains wholly within the web. Its contribution to Mpl;Rd was:

ð fydth2w;NÞ=4 ¼ 345� 12:5� 0:582=4 ¼ 363 kNm

As its depth is centred on the plastic neutral axis for bending alone,

Mpl;N;Rd ¼ 8089� 363 ¼ 7726 kNm

12.5

556

290

0.17Plasticneutralaxis

2.40

NEd

4.14

1175 2.50Forces in MN units

290

250

45

1.805

2.76

1.805Tension

Compression

39400 × 20

400 × 30

Fig. 6.10. Plastic resistance of Class 4 section to hogging bending and axial compression

From Example 6.4, Mf;Rd ¼ 5568 kNm. From equation (D6.2) and using forces fromFig. 6.10, the reduction factor that allows for NEd is:

1� NEd

ðAf1 þ Af2Þ fyf=�M0 þ As fsd

� �¼ 1� 2:50

2:76þ 4:14þ 2� 1:805¼ 0:762

Hence,

Mf;N;Rd ¼ 0:762� 5568 ¼ 4243 kNm

The bending moment MEd is found from accumulated stresses, using the Class 4 cross-section for bending. Its elastic properties should strictly be determined with a value forMEd such that the line of action of NEd is at the neutral axis of the effective cross-section. This requires iteration. Finally, the line of action of NEd should be moved tothe neutral axis of the plastic section used for the calculation of Mpl;Rd. This requires afurther correction to MEd.The simpler and sufficiently accurate method used here is to find the Class 4 section

properties ignoring any moment from the axial force, to use these to scale up Ma;Ed,and then to add the correction from NEd. The change in the line of action of NEd is:

951� 876 ¼ 75mm, so Mc;Ed ¼ 2600� 2500� 0:075 ¼ 2413 kNm

Calculation similar to that in the section ‘Stresses from bending moment’, above, finds thedepth of the hole in the web to be 322mm. The top flange is found to govern, and

MEd ¼ Ma;EdðWc;top=Wa;topÞ þMc;Ed ¼ 150� 26:6=13:0þ 2413 ¼ 2720 kNm

This bending moment is less thanMf;N;Rd, so it can be resisted entirely by the flanges, andthere is no need to consider interaction with shear in accordance with clause 7.1(1) ofEN 1993-1-5.

88

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 334: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.3. Filler beam decks6.3.1. ScopeThe encasement of steel bridge beams in concrete provides several advantages for design:

. It enables a Class 3 web to be upgraded to Class 2, and the slenderness limit for a Class 2compression flange to be increased by 40% (clause 5.5.3).

. It prevents lateral–torsional buckling.

. It prevents shear buckling (clause 6.3.4(1)).

. It greatly increases the resistance of the bridge deck to vehicular impact or terrorist attack.

These design advantages may not however lead to the most economic solution. The use oflongitudinal filler beams in new construction is not common at present.

There are a great number of geometric, material and workmanship-related restrictionsgiven in clauses 6.3.1(1) to (4) which have to be met in order to use the application rulesfor the design of filler beams. These are necessary because the rules derive mainly fromexisting practice in the UK and from clause 8 of BS 5400:Part 5.11 No explicit check ofthe shear connection between steel beams and concrete (provided by friction and bondonly) is required.

Clause 6.3.1(1) excludes fully-encased filler beams from the scope of clause 6.3. This isbecause there are no widely-accepted design rules for longitudinal shear in fully-encasedbeams without shear connectors.

Clause 6.3.1(2) requires the beams to be of uniform cross-section and to have a web depthand flange width within the ranges found for rolled H- or I-sections. This is due to the lack ofexisting examples of filler beams with cross-sections other than these. There is no require-ment for the beams to be H- or I-sections, but hollow sections would be outside the scopeof clause 6.3.

Clause 6.3.1(3) permits spans to be either simply supported or continuous with square orskew supports. This clarification is based on existing practice, and takes account of the manyother restrictions.

Clause 6.3.1(4) contains the majority of the restrictions which relate mainly to ensuringthe adequacy of the bond between steel beam and concrete, as follows.

. Steel beams should not be curved in plan. This is because the torsion produced wouldlead to additional bond stresses between the structural steel and concrete, for which noapplication rules are available.

. The deck skew should not exceed 308. This limits the magnitude of torsional moments,which can become large with high skew.

. The nominal depth, h, of the beam should lie between 210mm and 1100mm. This isbecause anything less than 210mm should be treated as reinforced concrete, and therecould in future be rolled sections deeper than 1100mm.

. A maximum spacing of the steel beams is set: the lesser of h=3þ 600mm and 750mm.This reflects existing practice and limits the longitudinal shear flow (and bond stresses)between the concrete and the steel beam.

. The minimum concrete cover to the top of the steel beams is restricted to 70mm. A largervalue may however be necessary to provide adequate cover to the reinforcement. The

Clause 6.3.1(1)

Clause 6.3.1(2)

Clause 6.3.1(3)

Clause 6.3.1(4)

Stability of the span in the vertical planeBuckling of the whole span in the vertical plane is possible. Its elastic critical axial force isnow estimated, treating it as pin-ended, and assuming sagging bending. The modular rationL ¼ 18.8 is used, intermediate between the values for short- and long-term loading. Thepresence of a stiffer cross-section near the supports is ignored.

The result is Ncr ¼ 47MN. The ratio �cr ¼ Ncr=NEd ¼ 8.1 (<10), so from clause5.2.1(3), second-order effects should be included in MEd. There appears to be a sufficientmargin for these, but this has not been checked.

89

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 335: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

maximum cover is limited to the lesser of 150mm and h/3, based on existing practice andto limit the longitudinal shear stress developed.A further restriction is given such that the plastic neutral axis for sagging bending

remains below the level of the bottom of the top flange, since cracking of the concretein the vicinity of the top flange could reduce the bond stress developed. This rule couldonly govern where the steel beams were unusually small. The side cover to the topflange should be at least 80mm.

. The clear distance between top flanges should not be less than 150mm so that theconcrete can be adequately compacted. This is essential to ensure that the requiredbond to the steel is obtained.

. Bottom transverse reinforcement should be provided (through holes in the beam webs)such that transverse moments developed can be carried. A minimum bar size andmaximum spacing are specified. Minimum reinforcement, here and elsewhere, shouldalso satisfy the requirements of EN 1992.

. Normal-density concrete should be used. This is because there is little experience offiller-beam construction with concrete other than normal-density, where the bondcharacteristics could be affected.

. The flange should be de-scaled. This again is to ensure good bond between the concreteand the steel beam.

. For road and railway bridges the holes in steel webs should be drilled. This is discussedunder clause 6.3.2(2).

6.3.2. GeneralClause 6.3.2(1) refers to other clauses for the cross-section checks, which should beconducted at ultimate and serviceability limit states. These references do not require acheck of torsion as discussed below.

Clause 6.3.2(2) requires beams with bolted connections or welding to be checked againstfatigue. The implication is that filler beams without these need not be checked for fatigue,even though they will contain stress-raising holes through which the transverse reinforce-ment passes. For road and railway bridges, where fatigue loading is significant, clause6.3.1(4) requires that all holes in webs are drilled (rather than punched), which improvesthe fatigue category of the detail.

Clause 6.3.2(3) is a reminder to refer to the relaxations for cross-section Class in clause5.5.3.

Mechanical shear connection need not be provided for filler beams (clause 6.3.2(4)). Thisreliance on bond improves the relative economy of filler-beam construction but leads tomany of the restrictions noted above under clause 6.3.1.

6.3.3. Bending momentsThe resistance of cross-sections to bending, clause 6.3.3(1), is determined in the same way asfor uncased sections of the same Class, with Class determined in accordance with clause5.5.3. The relaxations in clause 5.5.3 should generally ensure that beams can be designedplastically and thus imposed deformations generally need not be considered at ultimatelimit states (the comments made under clause 5.4.2.2(6) refer).

Lateral–torsional buckling is not mentioned in clause 6.3.3(1) because a filler-beam deckis inherently stable against lateral–torsional buckling in its completed state due to its largetransverse stiffness. The steel beams are likely to be susceptible during construction andthe title of clause 6.3.5 provides a warning.

For the influence of vertical shear on resistance to bending, reference is made to the rulesfor uncased beams. The shear resistance of filler-beam decks is high, so interaction isunlikely, but it should be checked for continuous spans.

In the transverse direction, a filler-beam deck behaves as a reinforced concrete slab. Clause6.3.3(2) therefore makes reference to EN 1992-2 for the bending resistance in the transverse

Clause 6.3.2(1)

Clause 6.3.2(2)

Clause 6.3.2(3)

Clause 6.3.2(4)

Clause 6.3.3(1)

Clause 6.3.3(2)

90

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 336: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

direction. A Note to clause 9.1(103) of EN 1992-2 makes minimum reinforcement anationally determined parameter.

No requirement is given for a check on torsion, which will be produced to some degree inboth longitudinal and transverse directions of the global analysis models allowed by clause5.4.2.9(3). Neglect of torsion is justified by the limits imposed on geometry in clause6.3.1(4), particularly the limit on skew angle, and by current UK practice.

6.3.4. Vertical shearThe simplest calculation of shear resistance involves basing the resistance on that of the steelbeam alone. Clause 6.3.4(1) indicates that this resistance can be calculated using the plasticshear resistance and so ignoring shear buckling. The clause does permit a contribution fromthe concrete to be taken. Clauses 6.3.4(2) and 6.3.4(3), respectively, cover a method ofdetermining the shear force that may be carried on the reinforced concrete section and thedetermination of the resistance of this concrete section. Clause 6.3.4(3) applies also toshear resistance in the transverse direction.

6.3.5. Resistance and stability of steel beams during executionClause 6.3.5(1) refers to EN 1993-1-1 and EN 1993-2 for the check of the bare steel beams.This covers both cross-section resistance and lateral–torsional buckling. The latter is animportant consideration prior to hardening of the concrete.

6.4. Lateral–torsional buckling of composite beams6.4.1. GeneralIt is assumed in this section that in completed bridges, the steel top flanges of all compositebeams will be stabilized laterally by connection to a concrete or composite slab (clause6.4.1(1)). The rules on maximum spacing of connectors in clause 6.6.5.5(1) and (2)relate to the classification of the top flange, and thus only to local buckling. For lateral–torsional buckling, the relevant rule, given in clause 6.6.5.5(3), is less restrictive.

Any steel top flange in compression that is not so stabilized should be checked for lateralbuckling (clause 6.4.1(2)) using clause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-1-1 to determine the reductionfactor for buckling. For completed bridges, this applies to the bottom flange adjacent tointermediate supports in continuous construction. In a composite beam, the concrete slabprovides lateral restraint to the steel member, and also restrains its rotation about a longitu-dinal axis. Lateral buckling is always associated with distortion (change of shape) of thecross-section (Fig. 6.11(b)). This is not true ‘lateral–torsional’ buckling and is often referredto as ‘distortional lateral’ buckling. This form of buckling is covered by clauses 6.4.2 and6.4.3. The general method of clause 6.4.2, based on the use of a computed value of theelastic critical moment Mcr, is applicable, but no detailed guidance on the calculation ofMcr is given in either EN 1993-1-1 or EN 1994-2.

For completed bridges, the bottom flange may be in compression over most of a spanwhen that span is relatively short and lightly loaded and adjacent spans are fully loaded.Bottom flanges in compression should always be restrained laterally at supports. It shouldnot be assumed that a point of contraflexure is equivalent to a lateral restraint.

Design methods for composite beams must take account of the bending of the web,Fig. 6.11(b). They differ in detail from the method of clause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-1-1, but thesame imperfection factors and buckling curves are used, in the absence of any better-established alternatives.

The reference in clause 6.4.1(3) to EN 1993-1-1 provides a general method for use wherethe method in clause 6.4.2 is inapplicable (e.g. for a Class 4 beam). Clause 6.4.3 makes asimilar reference but adds a reference to a further method available in clause 6.3.4.2 ofEN 1993-2. During unpropped construction, prior to the presence of a hardened deckslab, the buckling verification can be more complicated and often involves overall buckling

Clause 6.3.4(1)

Clause 6.3.4(2)Clause 6.3.4(3)

Clause 6.3.5(1)

Clause 6.4.1(1)

Clause 6.4.1(2)

Clause 6.4.1(3)

91

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 337: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

of a braced pair of beams. This situation is discussed further at the end of section 6.4.3.2 ofthis guide.

6.4.2. Beams in bridges with uniform cross-sections in Class 1, 2 and 3This general method of design is written with distortional buckling of bottom flanges inmind. It would not apply, for example, to a mid-span cross-section of a beam with theslab at bottom-flange level (Fig. 6.12). The reference to ‘uniform cross-section’ in the titleof the clause is not intended to exclude minor changes such as reinforcement details andeffects of cracking of concrete. The method cannot be used for Class 4 cross-sections,which is a significant limitation for larger bridges, in which case the methods of clause6.4.3 should be used. The latter methods are more general.

The method is based closely on clause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-1-1. There is correspondence in thedefinitions of the reduction factor �LT, clause 6.4.2(1), and the relative slenderness, ���LT,clause 6.4.2(4). The reduction factor is applied to the design resistance moment MRd,which is defined in clauses 6.4.2(2) and (3). Expressions for MRd are given by referencesto clause 6.2. It should be noted that these include the design yield strength fyd whichshould, in this case, be calculated using �M1 rather than �M0 because this is a check ofinstability. If the beam is found not to be susceptible to lateral–torsional buckling (i.e.�LT ¼ 1.0), it would be reasonable to replace �M1 with �M0.

The determination of MRd for a Class 3 section differs from that of Mel;Rd in clause6.2.1.4(6) only in that the limiting stress fcd for concrete in compression need not be consid-ered. It is necessary to take account of the method of construction.

The buckling resistance moment Mb;Rd given by equation (6.6) must exceed the highestapplied moment MEd within the unbraced length of compression flange considered.

Clause 6.4.2(1)

Clause 6.4.2(2)Clause 6.4.2(3)

(b)

(a)

h

F F

θ0

Fig. 6.11. (a) U-frame action and (b) distortional lateral buckling

Fig. 6.12. Example of a composite beam with the slab in tension at mid-span

92

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 338: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Lateral buckling for a Class 3 cross-section with unpropped constructionThe influence of method of construction on verification of a Class 3 composite section forlateral buckling is as follows. From equation (6.4),

MRd ¼ Mel;Rd ¼ Ma;Ed þ kMc;Ed (a)

where subscript c is used for the action effect on the composite member.From equation (6.6), the verification is:

MEd ¼ Ma;Ed þMc;Ed � �LTMel;Rd (b)

which is:

�LT � ðMa;Ed þMc;EdÞ=Mel;Rd ¼ MEd=Mel;Rd (c)

The total hogging bending moment MEd may be almost independent of the method ofconstruction. However, the stress limit that determines Mel;Rd may be different for proppedand unpropped construction. If it is bottom-flange compression in both cases, then Mel;Rd islower for unpropped construction, and the limit on �LT from equation (c) is more severe.

Elastic critical buckling momentClause 6.4.2(4) requires the determination of the elastic critical buckling moment, takingaccount of the relevant restraints, so their stiffnesses have to be calculated. The lateralrestraint from the slab can usually be assumed to be rigid. Where the structure is suchthat a pair of steel beams and a concrete flange attached to them can be modelled as aninverted-U frame (clause 6.4.2(5) and Fig. 6.10), continuous along the span, the rotationalrestraining stiffness at top-flange level, ks, can be found from clause 6.4.2(6). In the defini-tion of stiffness ks, flexibility arises from two sources:

. bending of the slab, which may not be negligible: 1/k1 from equation (6.9)

. bending of the steel web, which predominates: 1/k2 from equation (6.10).

A third source of flexibility is potentially the shear connection but it has been found71 thatthis can be neglected providing the requirements of clause 6.4.2(5) are met.

There is a similar ‘discrete U-frame’ concept, which appears to be relevant to compositebeams where the steel sections have vertical web stiffeners. The shear connectors closest tothose stiffeners would then have to transmit almost the whole of the bending moment Fh(Fig. 6.11(a)), where F is now a force on a discrete U-frame. The flexibility of the shearconnection may then not be negligible, nor is it certain that the shear connection and theadjacent slab would be sufficiently strong.72 Where stiffeners are present, the resistance ofthe connection above each stiffener to repeated transverse bending should be established,as there is a risk of local shear failure within the slab. There is at present no simplemethod of verification. This is the reason for the condition that the web should be unstiffenedin clause 6.4.2(5)(b). The restriction need not apply if bracings (flexible or rigid) areattached to the stiffeners, but in this case the model referred to in clause 6.4.3.2 would beused.

Clause 6.4.2(7) allows the St Venant torsional stiffness to be included in the calculation.This is often neglected in lateral–torsional buckling models based on buckling of the bottomchord, such as that provided in EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4.2.

No formula is provided for the elastic critical buckling moment for the U-frame modeldescribed above. Mcr could be determined from a finite-element model of the beam with alateral and torsional restraint as set out above. Alternatively, textbook solutions could beused. One such method was given in Annex B of ENV 1994-1-120 and is now in theDesigners’Guide to EN 1994-1-1.5

6.4.3. General methods for buckling of members and frames6.4.3.1. General methodReference is made to EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4 where the method of clause 6.4.2 for beams orthe non-linear method of clause 6.7 for columns does not apply.

Clause 6.4.2(4)

Clause 6.4.2(5)Clause 6.4.2(6)

Clause 6.4.2(7)

93

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 339: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

EN 1993-1-1 clause 6.3.4 gives a general method of evaluating the combined effect ofaxial load and mono-axial bending applied in the plane of the structure, without use of aninteraction expression. The method is valid for asymmetric and non-uniform membersand also for entire plane frames. In principle, this method is more realistic since the structureor member does, in reality, buckle in a single mode with a single ‘system slenderness’.Interaction formulae assume separate modes under each individual action with differentslendernesses that have to subsequently be combined to give an overall verification. Thedisadvantage is that software capable of both elastic critical buckling analysis and second-order analysis is required. Additionally, shell elements will be needed to determine elasticcritical modes resulting from flexural loading.

An alternative method is to use second-order analysis with imperfections to cover both in-plane and out-of-plane buckling effects as discussed in sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this guide, butthis has the same difficulties as above.

The basic verification is performed by determining a single slenderness for out-of-planebuckling, which can include combined lateral and lateral–torsional buckling. This slender-ness is a slenderness for the whole system and applies to all members included within it. Ittakes the usual Eurocode form as follows:

���op ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ult;k

�cr;op

rð6:64Þ in EN 1993-1-1

where: �ult;k is the minimum load factor applied to the design loads required to reach thecharacteristic resistance of the most critical cross-section ignoring out-of-planebuckling but including moments from second-order effects and imperfections in-plane, and�cr;op is the minimum load factor applied to the design loads required to give elasticcritical buckling in an out-of-plane mode, ignoring in-plane buckling.

The first stage of calculation requires an analysis to be performed to determine �ult;k. In-plane second-order effects and imperfections must be included in the analysis because theyare not otherwise included in the resistance formula used in this method. If the structureis not prone to significant second-order effects as discussed in section 5.2 of this guide,then first-order analysis may be used. The flexural stiffness to be used is important in deter-mining second-order effects and this is recognized by the text of clause 6.4.3.1(1). It will beconservative to use the cracked stiffness EaI2 throughout if the bridge is modelled with beamelements. If a finite-element shell model is used, the reinforcement can be modelled and theconcrete neglected so as to avoid an overestimation of stiffness in cracked zones. Out-of-plane second-order effects may need to be suppressed.

Each cross-section is verified using the interaction expression in clause 6.2 of EN 1993-1-1,but using characteristic resistances. Effective cross-sections should be used for Class 4 sections.The loads are all increased by a factor �ult;k until the characteristic resistance is reached. Thesimple and conservative verification given in clause 6.2.1(7) of EN 1993-1-1 becomes:

NEd

NRk

þMy;Ed

My;Rk

� 1:0 ðD6:4Þ

where NRk and My;Rk include allowance for any reduction necessary due to shear andtorsion, if separate checks of cross-section resistance are to be avoided in addition to thebuckling check being considered here. NEd and My;Ed are the axial forces and moments ata cross-section resulting from the design loads. If first-order analysis is allowable, the loadfactor is determined from:

�ult;k

NEd

NRk

þMy;Ed

My;Rk

� �¼ 1:0 ðD6:5Þ

which is given in a Note to clause 6.3.4(4) of EN 1993-1-1.If second-order analysis is necessary, �ult;k is found by increasing the imposed loads

progressively until one cross-section reaches failure according to expression (D6.4). This is

Clause 6.4.3.1(1)

94

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 340: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

necessary as the system is no longer linear and results from one analysis cannot simply befactored up when the imposed load is increased.

The second stage is to determine the lowest load factor �cr;op to reach elastic criticalbuckling in an out-of-plane mode but ignoring in-plane buckling modes. This will typicallyrequire a finite-element model with shell elements to predict adequately the lateral–torsionalbuckling behaviour. The reinforcement can be modelled and the concrete neglected so as toavoid an overestimation of stiffness in cracked zones. If the load factor can only bedetermined separately for axial loads �cr;N and bending moments �cr;M, as might be thecase if standard textbook solutions are used, the overall load factor could be determinedfrom a simple interaction equation such as:

1

�cr;op

¼ 1

�cr;N

þ 1

�cr;M

Next, an overall slenderness is calculated for the entire system according to equation (6.64)of EN 1993-1-1. This slenderness refers only to out-of-plane effects as discussed abovebecause in-plane effects are separately included in the determination of action effects. Areduction factor �op for this slenderness is then determined. This reduction factor dependsin principle on whether the mode of buckling is predominantly flexural or lateral–torsionalas the reduction curves can sometimes differ. The simplest solution is to take the lower of thereduction factors for out-of-plane flexural buckling, �, and lateral–torsional buckling, �LT,from clauses 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, respectively, of EN 1993-2. For bridges, the recommendedreduction factors are the same but the National Annex could alter this. This reductionfactor is then applied to the cross-section check performed in stage 1, but this time usingdesign values of the material properties. If the cross-section is verified using the simple inter-action expression (D6.4), then the verification taking lateral and lateral–torsional bucklinginto account becomes:

NEd

NRk=�M1

þMy;Ed

My;Rk=�M1

� �op ðD6:6Þ

It follows from equation (D6.5) and expression (D6.6) that the verification is:

�op�ult;k

�M1

� 1:0 ðD6:7Þ

Alternatively, separate reduction factors � for axial load and �LT for bending moment canbe determined for each effect separately using the same slenderness. If the cross-section isverified using the simple interaction expression (D6.4), then the verification taking lateraland lateral–torsional buckling into account becomes:

NEd

�NRk=�M1

þMy;Ed

�LTMy;Rk=�M1

� 1:0 ðD6:8Þ

It should be noted that this procedure can be conservative where the element governing thecross-section check is not itself significantly affected by the out-of-plane deformations. Themethod is illustrated in a qualitative example for a steel-only member in theDesigners’ Guideto EN 1993-2.4

6.4.3.2. Simplified methodA simplified method is permitted for compression flanges of composite beams and chords ofcomposite trusses by reference to EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4.2. Its clause D2.4 provides thestiffness of U-frames in trusses (and plate girders by analogy). The method is based onrepresenting lateral–torsional buckling by lateral buckling of the compression flange. Allsubsequent discussion refers to beam flanges but is equally applicable to chords of trusses.The method is primarily intended for U-frame-type bridges but can be used for othertypes of flexible bracing. It also applies to lengths between rigid restraints of a beam compres-sion flange, as is found in hogging zones in steel and concrete composite construction. Theuse of the method for half-through bridges is discussed in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.

95

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 341: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The method effectively ignores the torsional stiffness of the beam. This may become signifi-cant for rolled steel sections but is generally not significant for deeper fabricated girders.

A flow diagram for determining the slenderness ���LT for a length of beam of uniform depthbetween rigid lateral supports is given in Fig. 6.13.

EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4.2 allows the slenderness for lateral buckling to be determined froman eigenvalue analysis of the compression chord. The flange (with an attached portion of web

No

Yes

eitheror

END

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Find λLT from eq. (6.10) in EC3-2/6.3.4.2(4) (END)

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Find cc. Then c = cc.Find γ toEC3-2/6.3.4.2(6)

Replace the bendingmoment that causestension in the flangeby M2 = 0

Scope: distortional lateral buckling of a steel flange of a span of an unhaunched compositebeam, with varying major-axis bending moment, rigid lateral supports at beam verticalsupports, intermediate lateral supports of stiffness Cd (either rigid or flexible) at spacing ℓand/or continuous lateral restraint of stiffness cc per unit length

Is the flange susceptible to lateral buckling, to 6.3.2.4(1) ofEC3-1-1, via 6.4.3.2(1) of EC4-2 and 6.3.4.2(1) of EC3-2?

Neglect torsionalstiffness of the flange.Simplified analysis to6.4.3.2(1)

Elastic critical analysis as arestrained strut to find Ncrit andλLT to EC3-2/6.3.4.2(4)

Note 1: all subsequent clausenumbers refer to EN 1993-2

Restraint is flexible, ofstiffness Cd. Find cd = Cd/ℓ.L is span length of beam

L, the distance between‘rigid’ restraints = ℓ

Is there a continuous restraint?c = cd

Classify discrete restraints.Is Cd > 4NE/L, toEC3-2/6.3.4.2(6), where L = ℓ?

Find cc. Then c = cd + ccFind γ to EC3-2/6.3.4.2(6)

Find Ncrit to eq. (D6.12) – conservative unless n is an integralnumber. Eqs (6.14) in EC3-2/6.3.4.2(8) are less conservative

This applies for uniform compressive force over length L, to EC3-2/6.3.4.2(6).Is it required to take account of variation of bending moment over this length?

Find m from eqs (6.14) in theNote to EC3-2/6.3.4.2(8)

Does the bending momentchange sign within length L?

Find Ncrit toeq. (D6.13)

Find Ncrit = mπ2EI/L2 but ≤ π2EI/ℓ2

Is there acontinuousrestraint?

c = γ = 0Ncrit = π2EI/L2

Find n to eq. (D6.11).Is n < 1?

Fig. 6.13. Flow diagram for slenderness for lateral buckling of a compressed flange

96

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 342: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

in the compression zone) is modelled as a strut with area Aeff, supported by springs in thelateral direction. These represent restraint from bracings (including discrete U-frames) andfrom any continuous U-frame action which might be provided by the connection to thedeck slab. Buckling in the vertical direction is assumed to be prevented by the web in thismodel but checks on flange-induced buckling according to Section 8 of EN 1993-1-5should be made to confirm this assumption. Bracings can be flexible, as is the case ofbracing by discrete U-frames, or can be rigid, as is likely to be the case for cross-bracing.Other types of bracing, such as horizontal members at mid-height between beams togetherwith plan bracing or a deck slab, may be rigid or flexible depending on their stiffness as dis-cussed below.

Elastic critical buckling analysis may be performed to calculate the critical buckling load,Ncrit. The slenderness is then given by EN 1993-2 equation (6.10):

�LT ¼

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiAeff fy

Ncrit

s

where Aeff ¼ Af þ Awc/3, as shown in Fig. 6.14. This approximate definition of Aeff (greaterthan the flange area) is necessary to ensure that the critical stress produced for the strut is thesame as that required to produce buckling in the beam under bending moment. For Class 4cross-sections, Aeff is determined making allowance for the reduction in area due to platebuckling.

If smeared springs are used to model the stiffness of discrete restraints such as discrete U-frames, the buckling load should not be taken as larger than that corresponding to the Eulerload of a strut between discrete bracings. If computer analysis is used, there would be noparticular reason to use smeared springs for discrete restraints. This approximation isgenerally only made when a mathematical approach is used based on the beam-on-elastic-foundation analogy, which was used to derive the equations in EN 1993-2.

Spring stiffnesses for discrete U-frames and other restraintsSpring stiffnesses for discrete U-frames may be calculated using Table D.3 from Annex D ofEN 1993-2, where values of stiffness, Cd, can be calculated. (It is noted that the notation Crather than Cd is used in Table D.3.) A typical case covering a pair of plate girders withstiffeners and cross-girders is shown in Fig. 6.15 for which the stiffness (under the unitapplied forces shown) is:

Cd ¼EIv

h3v3þh2bqIv

2Iq

ðD6:9Þ

Section properties for stiffeners should be derived using an attached width of web plate inaccordance with Fig. 9.1 of EN 1993-1-5 (stiffener width plus 30"tw). If the cross-member iscomposite, its second moment of area should be based on cracked section properties.

Equation (D6.9) also covers steel and concrete composite bridges without stiffeners andcross-girders where the cross-member stiffness is the short-term cracked stiffness of thedeck slab and reinforcement, and the vertical-member stiffness is based on the unstiffenedweb. For continuous U-frames, consideration of this stiffness will have little effect in

Af

Awc = twhwchwc

Fig. 6.14. Definitions for effective compression zone for a Class 3 cross-section

97

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 343: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

raising the buckling resistance, unless the length between rigid restraints is large, and willnecessitate an additional check of the web for the U-frame moments induced. For multiplegirders, the restraint to internal girders may be derived by replacing 2Iq by 3Iq in theexpression for Cd. Equation (D6.9) is then similar to equation (6.8). That differs only bythe inclusion of Poisson’s ratio in the stiffness of the web plate and by the assumptionthat the point of rotation of the compression flange is at the underside of the deck slab,rather than some way within it.

The stiffness of other restraints, such as a channel section placed between members at mid-height, can be derived from a plane frame model of the bracing system. For braced pairs ofbeams or multiple beams with a common system, it will generally be necessary to considerunit forces applied to the compression flanges such that the displacement of the flange ismaximized. For a paired U-frame, the maximum displacement occurs with forces in oppositedirections as in Fig. 6.15 but this will not always be the case. For paired beams braced by amid-height channel, forces in the same direction will probably give greater flange displacement.

A computer model is useful where, for example, the flange section changes or there is areversal of axial stress in the length of the flange being considered. In other simpler casesthe formulae provided in clause 6.3.4.2 of EN 1993-2 are applicable.

Elastic critical buckling loadThe formula for Ncrit is derived from eigenvalue analysis with continuous springs. Fromelastic theory (as set out, for example, in Refs 73 and 74), the critical load for buckling ofsuch a strut is:

Ncrit ¼ n2�2EI

L2þ cL2

n2�2ðD6:10Þ

where: I is the transverse second moment of area of the effective flange and web,L is the length between ‘rigid’ braces,c is the stiffness of the restraints smeared per unit length, andn is the number of half waves in the buckled shape.

By differentiation, this is a minimum when:

n4 ¼ cL4

�4EIðD6:11Þ

which gives:

Ncrit ¼ 2ffiffiffiffiffiffiffifficEI

pðD6:12Þ

Equation (6.12) of EN 1993-2 is:

Ncrit ¼ mNE

where:

NE ¼ �2EI

L2; m ¼ 2=�2

� � ffiffiffi�

p � 1:0; � ¼ cL4

EIand c ¼ Cd=l

Neutral axis ofcross-girder

Iv Iq

bq

hvh

Fig. 6.15. Definitions of properties needed to calculate Cd

98

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 344: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

where Cd is equal to the restraint stiffness and l is the distance between restraints. When theseterms are substituted into equation (6.12) of EN 1993-2, equation (D6.12) is produced.

When � ¼ �4 ¼ 97, then c ¼ �4EI=L4, and this model gives the results:

Ncrit ¼ 2�2EI=L2, n ¼ 1.0

It is not valid for lower values of c because then n<1, which implies a buckling half-wavelength that exceeds the length L between rigid restraints, and a value of Ncrit lowerthan that corresponding to a length L. In this case, the buckling load should be taken as:

Ncrit ¼�2EI

L2þ cL2

�2ðD6:13Þ

Equation (D6.10) assumes that the end restraints that define the length L are ‘rigid’. Thedefinition of ‘rigid’ is discussed below. If intermediate bracings are not rigid, their stiffnesscan be taken to contribute to ‘c’ but the length L is then defined by the length betweenrigid bracings. Bracings at supports for typical composite bridges will usually be rigid dueto the need for them to provide torsional restraint to the beams.

Short lengths of beam between rigid bracingsEquation (D6.12) shows that the critical buckling load from equation (6.12) of EN 1993-2 isindependent of the length between rigid restraints. Equation (D6.13) is the basis for the firstof equations (6.14) in EN 1993-2 for short lengths between rigid braces. The half wave lengthof buckling is restricted to the length between braces, and any flexible restraints included inthis length increase the buckling load from that for a pin-ended strut of length L. Theformulae provided also allow the effects of varying end moments and shears to be takeninto account, but they are not valid (and are actually unsafe) where the bending momentreverses within length L. They are as follows:

m1 ¼ 1þ 0:44ð1þ Þ�1:5 þ ð3þ 2�Þ�=ð350� 50Þ orm2 ¼ 1þ 0:44ð1þ Þ�1:5 þ ð0:195þ ð0:05þ =100Þ�Þ�0:5 if less than above

with:

¼ V2=V1 and � ¼ 2ð1�M2=M1Þ=ð1þ Þ for M2 <M1 and V2 < V1

The subscripts in the symbols m1 and m2 correspond to the number of buckling half-wavesconsidered, n. Figure 6.16 enables the equation that gives the lower result to be found, by

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

–0.4 –0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

500450

350

400

300

260

280

240

M2/M1

V2/V1

γ

Fig. 6.16. Values of � (other than zero) at which both equations (6.14) in EN 1993-2 give the same valuefor m. Below each curve, m1 governs

99

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 345: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

giving values of � at which m1 ¼ m2. If the actual value of � for a buckling length with ratiosV2=V1 andM2=M1 is lower than that shown in the figure, the equation form1 governs; if not,m2 governs.

Uniformly compressed flangeThe beneficial influence of lateral restraint, represented by �, is evident for the most adversecase, a uniformly-compressed flange, for which ¼ 1, � ¼ 0. Then,

m1 ¼ 1:00þ �=100; m2 ¼ 1:00þ 0:195�0:5

These ratios m are equal when �0:5 ¼ 19.5, or � ¼ 380, as shown by the point (1.0, 1.0) inFig. 6.16. The change from n ¼ 2 to n ¼ 3 can be found from equation (D6.10) which, interms of �, is:

Ncrit=NE ¼ n2 þ �=ðn2�4Þ

This gives Ncrit for n ¼ 3 equal to that for n ¼ 2 when � ¼ 3500 and Ncrit=NE ¼ 13. Theequations for m1 and m2 are more complex than equation (D6.10) because their scopeincludes non-uniform moment. Within the range of � from 380 to 3000, the value m2 foruniform moment can be up to 10% higher than from equation (D6.10). This ‘error’ issmall and is in part compensated for by the neglect of the torsional stiffness of the beamin this method. At � ¼ 3500 it gives Ncrit=NE ¼ 12.5, which is more conservative. It thenfollows closely the results from equation (D6.10) as � increases (and n also increases from3 to 4). For � up to 20 000, the values of m2 differ from the predictions of (D6.10) by only�3.6%.

The shear ratio, , in the equations for m1 and m2, helps to describe the shape ofthe bending moment diagram between points of restraint. It is linear if ¼ 1.0. If < 1:0,the moments fall quicker than assumed from a linear distribution as shown in Fig. 6.17and consequently the flange is less susceptible to buckling.

Change of sign of axial force within a length between rigid restraintsThe lack of validity for moment reversal of equations (6.14) in EN 1993-2 is a problem for atypical composite beam with cross-bracing adjacent to the internal supports. Where the mostdistant brace from the pier is still in a hogging zone, the moment in the beam will reverse inthe span section between braces as shown in Fig. 6.18. In this region, m should not beassumed to be 1.0 as this could lead to over-design of the beam or unnecessary provision

V2/V1 < 1

V2/V1 = 1

M2

M1

Fig. 6.17. Effect of shear ratio on the shape of the moment diagram

(6.14) not valid (6.14) not valid(6.14) valid

= bracing location

Fig. 6.18. Range of validity of equations (6.14) of EN 1993-2

100

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 346: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

of additional braces away from the pier, to ensure that the section between innermost bracesis entirely sagging and the bottom flange is in tension. ANote to clause 6.3.4.2(7) of EN 1993-2 provides the option of assumingM2 ¼ 0. If benefit from the restraining stiffness of the deckslab is ignored (i.e. c ¼ 0), and V2 is conservatively taken equal to V1 then this leads tom ¼ 1.88.

Where the top flange is braced continuously by a deck, it may be possible to ‘vary’ toproduce a less conservative moment diagram. For the case in Fig. 6.19, the use ofV2=V1 ¼ 0, M2=M1 ¼ 0 achieves the same moment gradient at end 1 as the real set ofmoments, and a distribution that lies everywhere else above the real moments and so isstill conservative. Equations (6.14) of EN 1993-2 then give the valuem ¼ 2.24, again ignoringany U-frame restraint. Providing the top flange is continuously braced, the correct m wouldbe greater.

It is possible to include continuous U-frame action from an unstiffened web between rigidbraces in the calculation of the spring stiffness c. The benefit is usually small for short lengthsbetween braces, and the web plate, slab and shear connection must be checked for the forcesimplied by such action. Fig. 6.20 shows a graph of m againstM2=M1 with c ¼ 0, for varyingV2=V1.

It is possible to combine equations (6.10) and (6.12) of EN 1993-2 to produce a singleformula for slenderness, taking Af ¼ btf for the flange area, as follows:

�LT ¼

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiAeff fy

Ncrit

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiðAf þ Awc=3Þ fyL2

m�2EI

s¼ L

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffið1þ Awc=3AfÞð fy=EmÞ

�2

12

b3tfbtf

vuuut

M1

Conservative set of momentswith V2/V1 = 0, M2/M1 = 0

Real moments

M2 = –M1

Fig. 6.19. Typical calculation of m where bending moment reverses

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

m

µ = V2/V1 = 1.0 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00

M2M1

M2/M1

Fig. 6.20. Values of m ( ¼ Ncrit=NE) between rigid restraints with � ¼ 0

101

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 347: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

so

�LT ¼ 1:103L

b

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffify

Em

r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ Awc

3Af

sðD6:14Þ

It is still necessary to evaluate Ncrit when checking the strength of the bracings.The formulae in clause 6.3.4.2(7) of EN 1993-2 do not apply directly to haunched girders

as they assume that the flange force is distributed in the same way as the bending moment.The general method of using an eigenvalue analysis based on the forces in the compressionchord is still applicable. Alternatively, the formulae provided could be applied using the leastvalue of the spring stiffness c within the length considered. The flange force ratio F2=F1 isused instead of the moment ratio M2=M1, with V2=V1 taken as 1.0, when applying equation(6.14) of EN 1993-2.

EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4.2(7) allows the buckling verification to be performed at a distanceof 0:25Lk ¼ 0:25L=

ffiffiffiffim

p(i.e. 25% of the effective length) from the end with the larger

moment. (The symbols Lk and lk are both used for effective length in 6.3.4.2.) Thisappears to double-count the benefit from moment shape derived in equations (6.14) ofEN 1993-2; but it does not do so. The check at 0:25Lk reflects the fact that the peak stressfrom transverse buckling of the flange occurs some distance away from the rigid restraintto the flange, whereas the peak stress from overall bending of the beam occurs at therestraint. (In this model, the beam flange is assumed to be pin-ended at the rigid transverserestraints.) Since these two peak stresses do not coexist they are not fully additive, and thebuckling verification can be performed at a ‘design’ section somewhere between these twolocations. The cross-section resistance must still be verified at the point of maximummoment.

There are clearly problems with applying clause 6.3.4.2(7) of EN 1993-2 where the momentreverses as the section 0:25L=

ffiffiffiffim

pfrom an end may be a point of contraflexure. In this situa-

tion, it is recommended here that the design section be taken as 25% of the distance from theposition of maximummoment to the position of zero moment. In addition, if benefit is takenof verification at the 0:25Lk cross-section, the calculated slenderness above must be modifiedso that it refers to this design section. The critical moment value will be less here and theslenderness is therefore increased. This can be done by defining a new slenderness at the0:25Lk section such that

�0:25Lk ¼ �LT

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiM1

M0:25Lk

s

where M0:25Lk is the moment at the 0:25Lk section. This procedure is illustrated in Example6.6 below. It should be noted that the k inM0:25Lk does not imply a characteristic value; this isa design value.

Stiffness of bracesThe formulae in EN 1993-2 discussed above are only valid where the end restraints thatdefine the length L are ‘rigid’. It is possible to equate Ncrit ¼ 2

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffifficEI

pto �2EI=L2 to find a

limiting stiffness that gives an effective length equal to the distance between rigid restraints,L, but this slightly underestimates the required stiffness. This is because the formulae assumethat the restraints are continuously smeared when they are in fact discrete. The formeranalysis gives a required value for Cd of �4EI=4L3, whereas the ‘correct’ stiffness is4�2EI=L3, which is 62% higher.

Interaction with compressive axial loadThe interaction with axial load is covered in clause 6.4, in clause 6.4.3.1 only, via the generalmethod given in EN 1993-2. Axial load has several effects including:

. magnification of the main bending moment about the horizontal axis of the beam (thesecond-order effect)

102

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 348: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. increase of stress in the compression flange leading to an increased tendency for lateralbuckling.

Most bridge cross-sections are either Class 3 or 4 at supports so the stresses from axial loadcan simply be assumed to be applied to the cracked composite section, and the elastic sectionresistance can be used. At mid-span, beams are usually Class 1 or 2 and the calculation of amodified plastic moment resistance in the presence of axial load is relatively simple. Theplastic neutral axis is so chosen that the total compressive force exceeds the total tensileforce by an amount equal to the axial load.

Care must however be taken to ensure that the bending resistance is obtained about an axisat the height of the applied axial force assumed in the global analysis. This is importantfor non-symmetric beams as the elastic and plastic neutral axes for bending alone do notcoincide, whereas they do for a symmetric section.Most of clause 6.7 is for doubly-symmetricsections only, but the general method of clause 6.7.2 may be applied to beams provided thatcompressive stresses do not exceed their relevant limiting values where Class 3 and 4 cross-sections are involved.

Alternatively, the cross-section can be designed using a conservative interaction expressionsuch as that in clause 6.2.1(7) of EN 1993-1-1:

NEd

NRd

þMy;Ed

My;Rd

� 1:0

where NRd and My;Rd are the design resistances for axial force and moment acting individu-ally but with reductions for shear where the shear force is sufficiently large. A similar inter-action expression can be used for the buckling verification with the terms in the denominatorreplaced by the relevant buckling resistances:

NEd

Nb;Rd

þ MEd

Mb;Rd

� 1:0 ðD6:15Þ

The value for MEd should include additional moments from in-plane second-order effects(including from in-plane imperfections). Such second-order effects will normally be negligible.The buckling resistance Nb;Rd should be calculated on the basis of the axial stress required forlateral buckling of the compression flange. This method is illustrated in Example 6.6 below.

Beams without plan bracing or decking during constructionDuring construction it is common to stabilize girders in pairs by connecting them with‘torsional’ bracing. Such bracing reduces or prevents torsion of individual beams but doesnot restrict lateral deflection. Vertical ‘torsional’ cross-bracing as shown in Fig. 6.21 hasbeen considered in the UK for many years to act as a rigid support to the compressionflange, thus restricting the effective length to the distance between braces. Opinion is nowsomewhat divided on whether such bracing can be considered fully effective and BS

Centre of rotation

Torsional

bracing

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.21. Torsional bracing and shape of buckling mode, for paired beams: (a) plan on braced pair ofbeams showing buckling mode shape; (b) cross-section through braced pair of beams showing bucklingmode shape

103

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 349: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

5400:Part 3:200011 introduced a clause to cover this situation which predicts that suchbracing is not fully effective.

This situation arises because equilibrium of the braced pair under torsion requires oppos-ing vertical forces to be generated in the two girders. Consequently one girder moves up, onemoves down and some twist of the girder pair is generated, albeit much less than for anunbraced pair. If the beam span-to-depth ratio is large, the deflections and hence twistscan be significant. The Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-24 suggests a method based on BS5400 Part 3, but in some cases it may lead to the conclusion that plan bracing is necessary.A better estimate of slenderness can be made using a finite-element analysis.

A finite-element model of a non-composite beam, using shell elements for the pairedmain beams and beam elements to represent the bracings, can be set up relatively quicklywith modern commercially available software. Elastic critical buckling analysis can thenbe performed and a value of Mcr determined directly for use in slenderness calculation toclause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-2. This approach usually demonstrates that the cross-bracing isnot fully effective in limiting the effective length of the flange to the distance betweenbracings, but that it is more effective than is predicted by BS 5400. For simply-supported paired girders, a typical lowest buckling mode under dead load is shown inFig. 6.21.

Example 6.6: bending and shear in a continuous composite beamThe locations of the bracings and splices for the bridge used in earlier examples are shownin Fig. 6.22. The two internal beams are Class 3 at each internal support as found inExample 5.4. The cross-sections of the central span of these beams, also shown, are asin Examples 5.4 and 6.1 to 6.4. The neutral axes shown in the cross-section at the piersare for hogging bending of the cracked composite section.

23 40019 000 3800 19 000

Location of bracing

Location of splice, about 6.0 m from pier

EA

B C F G

D

3800

400 × 40

400 × 25

1160 × 25

775

Plastic NA

209

Elastic NA

60

70

1225

250

25

3100

12 990 mm2 6490 mm2

Cross-section for lengths BD and EG

250

1225

400 × 30

400 × 20

1175 × 12.5

25 haunch

3100

998

NA

Cross-section for length DE

Fig. 6.22. Details for Examples 6.6 and 6.7

104

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 350: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The design ultimate hogging moments at internal support B are 2213 kNm on the steelsection plus 4814 kNm on the composite section, so MEd ¼ 7027 kNm. The coexistinghogging moment at the braced point C in the central span is 4222 kNm. The verticalshear at point C is 70% of that at the pier B. The hogging bending moment at thesplice, where the beam cross-section changes, is 3000 kNm.

Lateral–torsional buckling adjacent to the pier and in the main span beyond the brace ischecked and the effect of a coexisting axial compression of 1000 kN applied to thecomposite section is considered. This could arise in a semi-integral bridge with screenwalls at its ends.

Elastic resistance to bending at an internal supportThe elastic section moduli for the cross-section at point B are given in Table 6.2. These arebased on the extreme fibres but it would have been permissible to base them on thecentroids of the flanges in accordance with EN 1993-1-1 clause 6.2.1(9). To find Mel;Rd,the factor k (clause 6.2.1.4(6)) is found for the top and bottom surfaces of the steelbeam, as follows. The result will be used in checks on buckling, so fyd is found using�M1 (¼ 1.1). Primary shrinkage stresses are neglected because the deck slab is assumedto be cracked.

Table 6.2. Section moduli at an internal support, in 106 mm3 units

Top layer of bars Top of steel section Bottom of steel section

Gross steel section — 18.28 22.20Cracked composite section 34.05 50.31 29.25

For the top flange,

2213=18:28þ kMc;Ed=50:31 ¼ 345=1:1 so kMc;Ed ¼ 9688 kNm

For the bottom flange,

2213=22:20þ kMc;Ed=29:25 ¼ 345=1:1 so kMc;Ed ¼ 6258 kNm

The elastic resistance is governed by the bottom flange, so that:

Mel;Rd ¼ 2213þ 6258 ¼ 8471 kNm

The maximum compressive stress in the bottom flange is:

�a;bot ¼ 2213=22:2þ 4814=29:25 ¼ 264N/mm2

Resistance of length BC (Fig. 6.22) to distortional lateral bucklingStrictly, the stiffness of the bracing should first be checked (or should later be designed) sothat the buckling length is confined to the length between braces. This is done in Example6.7. The bending-moment distribution is shown in Fig. 6.23.

Where no vertical web stiffeners are required, the deck slab provides a small continuousU-frame stiffness. This could be included using Table D.3 of EN 1993-2, case 1a, tocalculate a stiffness, c. This contribution has been ignored to avoid the complexities ofdesigning the deck slab and shear connection for the forces implied, and because anyneed to stiffen the web has not yet been considered. Therefore from clause 6.3.4.2(6) ofEN 1993-2, � ¼ cL4=EI ¼ 0.

The compression zone of the beam is designed as a pin-ended strut with continuousvertical restraint, and lateral restraint at points 3.80m apart (Fig. 6.22). Its cross-sectionalareas are:

. flange: Af ¼ 400� 40 ¼ 16 000mm2

105

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 351: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. web compression zone: Awc ¼ 735� 25 ¼ 18 375mm2. (Conservatively based on theheight of the neutral axis for the composite section. It could be based on the actualdepth for the accumulated stress profile, which is 633mm.)

The second moment of area of the compressed area is calculated for the bottom flange,as the contribution from the web is negligible:

I ¼ 40� 4003=12 ¼ 213:3� 106 mm4

The applied bending moments at each end of the equivalent strut are:

MEd;1 ¼ 7027 kNm; MEd;2 ¼ 4222 kNm

From EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4.2(7):

M2=M1 ¼ 4222=7027 ¼ 0:60 and ¼ V2=V1 ¼ 0:70

� ¼ 2ð1�M2=M1Þ=ð1þ Þ ¼ 2ð1� 0:60Þ=ð1þ 0:70Þ ¼ 0:46

When � ¼ 0, the first two of equations (6.14) in clause 6.3.4.2(8) of EN 1993-2 both give:

m ¼ 1þ 0:44ð1þ Þ�1:5 ¼ 1þ 0:44ð1þ 0:70Þ0:461:5 ¼ 1:23

If the deck slab is considered to provide U-frame restraint, the value ofm for this lengthof flange is found to be still only 1.26, so there is no real benefit to lateral stability in con-sidering U-frame action over such a short length of beam.From equation (D6.14):

�LT ¼ 1:1L

b

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffify

Em

r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ Awc

3Af

s¼ 1:1� 3800

400

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi345

210� 103 � 1:23

r�

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ 18375

3� 16000

r¼ 0:45

This exceeds 0.2 so from clause 6.3.2.2(4) of EN 1993-1-1 this length of flange is prone tolateral–torsional buckling.The ratio h=b ¼ 1225=400 ¼ 3:1 exceeds 2.0, so from Table 6.4 in clause 6.3.2.2 of

EN 1993-1-1 the relevant buckling curve is curve d. Hence, �LT ¼ 0.76 from Table 6.3.From equation (6.56) in EN 1993-1-1, clause 6.3.2.2:

�LT ¼ 0:5½1þ �LT �LT � 0:2� �

þ �2LT� ¼ 0:5 1þ 0:76ð0:45� 0:2Þ þ 0:452� ¼ 0:696

�LT ¼ 1

�LT þffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�2

LT � �2LT

q ¼ 1

0:696þffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0:6962 � 0:452

p ¼ 0:81

Applying this reduction factor gives:

Mb;Rd ¼ �LTMel;Rd ¼ 0:81� 8471 ¼ 6862 kNm

At the internal support, MEd ¼ 7027 kNm (2% higher). However, clause 6.3.4.2(7) ofEN 1993-2 provides the option of making this check at a distance of 0:25L=

ffiffiffiffim

pfrom

the support. This distance is:

0:25� 3800=ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1:23

p¼ 857mm

Using linear interpolation, Fig. 6.23, this givesMEd ¼ 6394 kNm. The modified slender-ness is:

�0:25Lk ¼ �LT

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiM1

M0:25Lk

s¼ 0:45

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi7027

6394

r¼ 0:47

This reduces �LT from 0.81 to 0.80, so the new resistance is:

Mb;Rd ¼ �LTMel;Rd ¼ 0:80� 8471 ¼ 6777 kNm

This exceeds MEd (6394 kNm), so this check on lateral buckling is satisfied.

106

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 352: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The further condition that the elastic resistance (8471 kNm) is not exceeded at the pointof peak moment (7027 kNm) is satisfied. This cross-section should also be checkedfor combined bending and shear, but in this case the shear is less than 50% of theshear resistance and thus no interaction occurs.

Resistance with a coexisting axial compression of 1000 kNAn axial force of 1000 kN is applied at the height of the elastic centroidal axis of thecracked cross-section at the internal support. Susceptibility to in-plane second-ordereffects is first checked. The second moment of area of the cracked composite section atmid-span, 1:326� 1010 mm4, is conservatively used to determine the elastic criticalflexural buckling load for major-axis buckling.

Ncr ¼�2EI

L2¼ �2 � 210� 1:326� 1010

31 0002¼ 28 600 kN

From clause 5.2.1(3):

�cr ¼28 600

1000¼ 29 > 10

so in-plane second-order effects may be neglected.At the internal support, the area of the cracked composite section is 74 480mm2, so the

axial compressive stress is 1000� 103=74 480 ¼ 13:4N/mm2. This changes the totalstresses at the extreme fibres of the steel beam to 204N/mm2 tension and 278N/mm2 com-pression. This stress distribution is found to leave the cross-section at the pier still in Class3. The section at the brace is also in Class 3.

The conservative linear interaction between axial and bending resistances of expression(D6.15) will be used:

NEd

Nb;Rd

þ MEd

Mb;Rd

� 1:00

so Nb;Rd must be found, based on buckling of the web and bottom flange under uniformcompression. Since the combined stress distribution leads to a Class 3 cross-sectionthroughout the buckling length, the gross section will be used in this analysis, even forthe calculation of the compression resistance, below.

If the section became Class 4, effective properties should be used. These could bederived either separately for moment and axial force or as a unique effective sectionunder the combined stress field. In either case, the moment of the axial force producedby the shift of the neutral axis should be considered.

For axial force alone, the required areas of the cross-sections are:

Af ¼ 400� 40 ¼ 16 000mm2, Awc ¼ 1160� 25 ¼ 29 000mm2

Neglecting U-frame restraint as before, equations (6.14) in clause 6.3.4.2(7) of EN 1993-2 with M1 ¼ M2 and � ¼ 0 give m ¼ 1.00.

From equation (D6.14):

�LT ¼ 1:1L

b

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffify

Em

r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ Awc

3Af

s¼ 1:1� 3800

400

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi345

210� 103 � 1:00

r�

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ 29 000

3� 16 000

r¼ 0:54

From curve d on Fig. 6.4 of EN 1993-1-1, � ¼ 0.74. The axial buckling resistance of thecracked composite cross-section, based on buckling of the bottom flange, is:

Nb;Rd ¼ �Afyd ¼ 0:74� 74 480� 345=1:1 ¼ 17 285 kN

It should be noted that Nb;Rd does not represent a real resistance to axial load alone asthe cross-section would then be in Class 4 and a reduction to the web area to allow forlocal buckling in accordance with EN 1993-1-5 would be required. It is however valid

107

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 353: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

to use the gross cross-section in the interaction here as the cross-section is Class 3 underthe actual combination of axial force and bending moment. The use of a gross cross-section also avoids the need to consider any additional moment produced by the shiftin centroidal axis that occurs when an effective web area is used.From expression (D6.15),

1000=17 285þ 6394=6777 ¼ 1:00

which is just satisfactory, with these conservative assumptions. A check of cross-sectionresistance is also required at the end of the member, but this is satisfied by the check ofcombined stresses above.

Buckling resistance of the mid-span region of the central spanAn approximate check is carried out for the 23.4m length between the two braced points(C and F in Fig. 6.22), at first using the cross-section at the pier throughout to derive thereduction factor. This is slightly unconservative as the cross-section reduces at the splice.An axial force is not considered in this part of the example.

3.80

4222

6394

7027

027.20.86

MEd

Ben

ding

mom

ent (

kNm

)

Distance from support (m)Section:

M2 = 0,V2 = V1

M2 = 0,V2 = 0

B FC

3000

D

Fig. 6.23. Bending action effects and resistances for an internal span

It is assumed that maximum imposed load acts on the two side spans and that only ashort length near mid-span is in sagging bending, as sketched in Fig. 6.23. Since thebending moment reverses, equations (6.14) in EN 1993-2 are not directly applicable. Ifthe suggestion of clause 6.3.4.2(7) of EN 1993-2 is followed, and M2 is taken as zero atthe other brace (cross-section F), the bending-moment distribution depends on thevalue assumed for V2, the vertical shear at F . Two possibilities are shown in Fig. 6.23.Their use does not follow directly from the discussion associated with Fig. 6.18, where

the moment was assumed to reverse only once in the length between rigid restraints. InFig. 6.23, the two fictitious sets of moments do not always lie above the real set and aretherefore not obviously conservative. However, the interaction of the hogging momentat one end of the beam with the buckling behaviour at the other end is weak when themoment reverses twice in this way.BS 5400:Part 311 included a parameter ‘�’ which was used to consider the effect of

moment shape on buckling resistance. For no reversal, m is in principle equivalent to1=�2, although there is not complete numerical equivalence. Figure 6.24 gives comparativevalues of m0 ¼ 1=�2. This shows that for the worst real moment distribution, wherethe moment just remains entirely hogging, the value of m0 is greater (less conservative)than for the two possibilities in Fig. 6.23. This shows that the less conservative of thesepossibilities (V2 ¼ 0) can be used. It gives m ¼ 2.24 from equations (6.14).

108

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 354: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

From equation (D6.14) with Awc ¼ 25� 735 ¼ 18 375mm2:

�LT ¼ 1:1L

b

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffify

Em

r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ Awc

3Af

s

¼ 1:1� 23 400

400

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi345

210� 103 � 2:24

r�

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ 18 375

3� 16 000

r¼ 2:05 > 0:2

Using curve d in Fig. 6.4 of EN 1993-1-1, �LT ¼ 0.17.If the slab reinforcement at cross-section C is the same as at the support,

Mel;Rd ¼ 8471 kNm, and Mb;Rd ¼ 0:17� 8471 ¼ 1440 kNm

This is far too low, so according to this method another brace would be required furtherfrom the pier to reduce the buckling length. U-frame action is now considered.

mʹ = 1.73 mʹ = 2.5 mʹ = 4.0

Fig. 6.24. Variation ofm0 with different bending-moment distributions, derived from BS 5400:Part 311

Use of continuous U-frame action – simplified method of EN 1993-2, clause 6.3.4.2The method of clause 6.4.2 is inapplicable because the cross-section is not uniform alonglength CF, and a region near the splice is in Class 4 for hogging bending. The method ofclause 6.3.4.2 of EN 1993-2 is therefore used. Its spring stiffness c is the lateral force perunit length at bottom-flange level, for unit displacement of the flange. It is related to thecorresponding stiffness ks in clause 6.4.2 by:

ks ¼ ch2s ðD6:16Þ

where hs is the distance between the centres of the steel flanges (Fig. 6.10).For most of the length CF the web is 12.5mm thick so the cross-section for length DE

(Fig. 6.22) is used for this check, with hs ¼ 1200mm. For the bottom flange,

Iafz ¼ 30� 4003=12 ¼ 160� 106 mm4 ðD6:17Þ

In comparison with this thin web, the slab component of the U-frame is very stiff, so itsflexibility is neglected here, as is the torsional stiffness of the bottom flange. In general, theflexibility of the slab should be included. From equations (6.8) and (6.10) with k1 � k2,so that ks � k2, and using equation (D6.16),

c ¼ ks=h2s ¼ Ea

twhs

� �3=½4ð1� 2aÞ� ¼ 210� 106ð12:5=1200Þ3=ð4� 0:91Þ ¼ 65:2 kN=m2

As an alternative, equation (D6.9) could be used for the calculation of c. As discussedin the main text, there are some minor differences in the definition of the height terms,‘h’. Those in equation (D6.9) seem more appropriate where the slab flexibility becomesimportant.

From EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4.2 and result (D6.17),

� ¼ cL4=EI ¼ 65:2� 23:44=ð210� 160Þ ¼ 582

The less conservative assumption,V2 ¼ 0, is used withM2 ¼ 0. This gives ¼ 0,� ¼ 2.From Fig. 6.16, the second of equations (6.14) in clause 6.3.4.2 of EN 1993-2 governs.

109

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 355: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

With ¼ 0 it gives:

m ¼ 1þ 0:44�1:5 þ ð0:195þ 0:05�Þ�0:5 ¼ 1þ 1:245þ 7:117 ¼ 9:36

U-frame action (the final term) is now a significant contributor to m. (For uniformmoment and the same �, m ¼ 5.70.)The cross-section reduces at the splice position, approximately 6m from the pier, so the

minimum cross-section is conservatively considered throughout. In equation (D6.14) for���LT, the areas in compression are:

. flange: Af ¼ 400� 30 ¼ 12 000mm2

. web compression zone: Awc ¼ ð683� 47Þ � 12:5 ¼ 7950mm2. (Conservatively basedon the height of the neutral axis for the composite section shown in Fig. 6.5, whichis 683mm above the bottom flange.)

Hence from equation (D6.14):

�LT ¼ 1:1L

b

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffify

Em

r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ Awc

3Af

s

¼ 1:1� 23 400

400

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi345

210� 103 � 9:36

r�

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1þ 7950

3� 12 000

r¼ 0:942

Curve d of Fig. 6.4 in EN 1993-1-1 gives �LT ¼ 0.49. WithMel;Rd from Example 6.3, thebuckling resistance �LTMel;Rd is:

Mb;Rd ¼ 0:49� 6390 ¼ 3131 kNm

which is less than 4222 kNm (the moment at the brace). By inspection, a check at the0.25Lk design section will also not pass.These checks are however conservative as they assume the minimum cross-section

throughout. If reference is made back to the expressions for slenderness given in equations(6.10) of EN 1993-2 and (6.7), it is seen that:

�LT ¼

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiAeff fy

Ncrit

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiMRk

Mcrit

s

so that Mcrit measured at the brace is effectively

Mcrit ¼MRk

�2LT

¼ 6390� 1:1

0:9422¼ 7921 kNm

For the length of the beam with the larger cross-section, MRk is larger than assumedabove. The buckling moment Mcrit is however mainly influenced by the long length ofsmaller cross-section so that it will be similar to that found above, even if the shortlengths of stiffer end section are considered in the calculation.

Use of continuous U-frame action – general method of EN 1993-1-1, clause 6.3.4A revised slenderness can be determined using the method of EN 1993-1-1 clause 6.3.4.From equation (D6.5) withNEd ¼ 0, within the span between braces, the minimum value of

�ult;k ¼My;Rk

My;Ed

is

8471� 1:1

4222¼ 2:21

at the brace location, where:

My;Rd ¼ 8471 kNm

(For the weaker section at the splice location, My;Rk=My;Ed ¼ 6390� 1:1=3000 ¼ 2:34Þ:

110

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 356: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The minimum load factor to cause lateral–torsional buckling is:

�cr;op ¼ Mcrit

My;Ed

¼ 7921

4222¼ 1:88

The system slenderness of the span between the braces, from equation (6.64) of EN 1993-1-1, is:

���op ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�ult;k

�cr;op

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2:21

1:88

r¼ 1:08

and hence the reduction factor, from curve d of Fig. 6.4 in EN 1993-1-1, is �op ¼ 0.43. Theverification is then performed according to equation (D6.7):

�op�ult;k

�M1

¼ 0:43� 2:21

1:1¼ 0:86 < 1:0

so the beam is still inadequate. This verification is equivalent to Mb;Rd ¼ 0:43� 8471 ¼3643 kNm at the brace, which is still less than the applied moment of 4222 kNm.

It would be possible to improve this verification further by determining a more accuratevalue of Mcrit from a finite-element model. However, inclusion of U-frame action has thedisadvantage that the web and shear connection would have to be designed for the result-ing effects. A better alternative could be the addition of another brace adjacent to thesplice location.

Example 6.7: stiffness and required resistance of cross-bracingThe bracing of the continuous bridge beam in Example 6.6 comprises cross-bracing madefrom 150� 150� 18 angle and attached to 100� 20 stiffeners on a 25mm thick web. Thebracings are checked for rigidity and the force in them arising from bracing the flanges isdetermined. The effects of the 1000 kN axial compressive force are included.

1 kN 1 kN

Stiffener effectivesection

Deck slab

Bracing

1020

3100

Fig. 6.25. Cross-bracing for Examples 6.6 and 6.7

The stiffness of the brace was first calculated from the plane-frame model shown inFig. 6.25. From Fig. 9.1 of EN 1993-1-5, the effective section of each stiffener includesa width of web:

30"tw þ tst ¼ 30� 0:81� 25þ 20 ¼ 628mm

Hence,

Ast ¼ 628� 25þ 100� 20 ¼ 17 700mm2

This leads to Ist ¼ 9:41� 106 mm4.The deck slab spans 3.1m. From clause 5.4.1.2 its effective span is 3:1� 0:7 ¼ 2:17m,

and its effective width for stiffness is 0:25� 2:17 ¼ 0:542m. Its stiffness is conservatively

111

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 357: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

based on the cracked section, with the concrete modulus taken as Ecm/2 to represent thefact that some of the loading is short term and some is long term. Greater accuracy is notwarranted here as the concrete stiffness has little influence on the overall stiffness of thecracked section.From elastic analysis for the forces shown in Fig. 6.25, the stiffness is:

Cd ¼ 80 kN/mm

From clause 6.3.4.2(6) of EN 1993-2, the condition for a lateral support to a com-pressed member to be ‘rigid’ is:

Cd � 4�2EI=L3b

where, for length BC in Fig. 6.23,

Lb ¼ 3.80m

and

I ¼ 213:3� 106 mm4

Hence,

Cd � 4�2 � 210� 213:3=ð3:83 � 1000Þ ¼ 32:2 kN/mm

The support is ‘rigid’.

Cd

Fig. 6.26. Elastic stiffness of bracing to a pin-ended strut

The formula in EN 1993-2 here assumes that supports are present every 3.8m such thatthe buckling length is restricted to 3.8m each side of this brace and that the force in theflange is constant each side of the brace. The limiting spring stiffness forCd is analogous tothat required for equilibrium of a strut with a pin joint in it at the spring position, suchthat buckling of the lengths each side of the pin joint occurs before buckling of thewhole strut into the brace – see Fig. 6.26. A small displacement of the strut at the pinjoint produces a kink in the strut and a lateral force on the brace, which must be stiffenough to resist this force at the given displacement. For a given displacement, thekink angle and thus the force on the spring is increased by reducing the length of thestrut each side of the spring. This kink force is also increased because the critical bucklingload for the lengths each side of the spring is increased by the reduction in length. Here,the flange force is not the same each side of the brace and the length of unbraced flange isgreater than 3.8m on one side of the brace. The kink force is therefore overestimated andthe calculated value for Cd is conservative. This confirms the use in Example 6.6 of L asthe length between braces.The design lateral force for the bracing is now found, using clause 6.3.4.2(5) of EN 1993-

2. From Example 6.6, ���LT ¼ 0:45, and the effective area of the compressed flange is:

Aeff ¼ 16 000þ 18 375=3 ¼ 22 120mm2

From equations in EN 1993-2, clause 6.3.4.2,

‘k ¼ �ðEI=NcritÞ1=2 ¼ �½EI ���2LT=ðAeff fyÞ�1=2 ¼ �� 0:45210� 213:3� 1000

22 120� 345

� �1=2¼ 3:43m

112

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 358: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.5. Transverse forces on websThe local resistance of an unstiffened and unencased web to forces (typically, vertical forces)applied through a steel flange can be assumed to be the same in a composite member as in asteel member, so clause 6.5 consists mainly of references to EN 1993-1-5. High transverseloads are relatively uncommon in bridge design other than during launching operations orfrom special vehicles or heavy construction loads, such as from a crane outrigger. Theoreti-cally, wheel loads should be checked but are unlikely ever to be significant.

The patch loading rules given in EN 1993-1-5 Section 6 make allowance for failure byeither plastic failure of the web, with associated plastic bending deformation of the flange,or by buckling of the web. More detail on the derivation and use of the rules is given inthe Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4 The rules for patch loading can only be used if thegeometric conditions in EN 1993-1-5 clause 2.3 are met; otherwise EN 1993-1-5 Section 10should be used. Clause 6.1(1) of EN 1993-1-5 also requires that the compression flange is‘adequately restrained’ laterally. It is not clear what this means in practice, but the restraintrequirement should be satisfied where the flange is continuously braced by, for example, adeck slab or where there are sufficient restraints to prevent lateral–torsional buckling.

Clause 6.5.1(1) states that the rules in EN 1993-1-5 Section 6 are applicable to the non-composite flange of a composite beam. If load is applied to the composite flange, the rulescould still be used by ignoring the contribution of the reinforced concrete to the plasticbending resistance of the flange. No testing is available to validate inclusion of anycontribution. A spread of load could be taken through the concrete flange to increase thestiff loaded length on the steel flange. There is limited guidance in EN 1992 on what angleof spread to assume; clause 8.10.3 of EN 1992-1-1 recommends a dispersion angle oftan�1 2=3, i.e. 348, for concentrated prestressing forces. It would be reasonable to use 458here, which would be consistent with previous bridge design practice in the UK.

Clause 6.5.1(2)makes reference to EN 1993-1-5 clause 7.2 for the interaction of transverseforce with axial force and bending. This gives:

�2 þ 0:8�1 � 1:4

where:

�2 ¼�z;Ed

fyw=�M1

¼ FEd

fywLefftw=�M1

¼ FEd

FRd

Clause 6.5

Clause 6.5.1(1)

Clause 6.5.1(2)

The distance between braced points is ‘ ¼ 3:8m, so ‘k < 1:2 ‘.(Since the brace has been found to be ‘rigid’, and from Example 6.6, m > 1 so that

Ncrit > �2EI=‘2, ‘k is obviously less than ‘, and this check was unnecessary.)From clause 6.3.4.2(5), the lateral force applied by each bottom flange to the brace is:

FEd ¼ NEd/100

From Example 6.6, the greatest compressive stress in the bottom flange at the pier is278N/mm2.

Hence:

FEd ¼ NEd

100¼ 278� 22 120= 100� 1000ð Þ ¼ 61:5 kN

The axial force in the bracing is then approximately:

61:5

cos tan�11020=3100ð Þ¼ 64:7 kN

There will also be some bending moment in the bracing members due to joint eccen-tricities.

113

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 359: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

is the usage factor for transverse load acting alone, and

�1 ¼�x;Edfy=�M0

¼ NEd

fyAeff=�M0

þMEd þNEdeNfyWeff=�M0

is the usage factor for direct stress alone, calculated elastically. The calculation of �1 shouldtake account of the construction sequence as discussed in section 6.2.1.5 of this guide. It canbe seen that this interaction expression does not allow for a plastic distribution of stress forbending and axial force. Even if the cross-section is Class 1 or 2, this will not lead to anydiscontinuity with the plastic bending resistance at low transverse load as only 80% of theelastic bending stress is considered and the limiting value of the interaction is 1.4. Theratio between the plastic and elastic resistances to bending for typical composite beams isless than 1.4.

Clause 6.5.2 covers flange-induced buckling of webs by reference to EN 1993-1-5 Section 8.If the flange is sufficiently large and the web is very slender, it is possible for the whole flangeto buckle in the plane of the web by inducing buckling in the web itself. If the compressionflange is continuously curved in elevation, whether because of the soffit profile or because thewhole beam is cambered, the continuous change in direction of the flange force causes aradial force in the plane of the web. This force increases the likelihood of flange-inducedbuckling into the web. Discussion on the use of Section 8 of EN 1993-1-5 is provided inthe Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4

6.6. Shear connection6.6.1. General6.6.1.1. Basis of designClause 6.6 is applicable to shear connection in composite beams.Clause 6.6.1.1(1) refers alsoto ‘other types of composite member’. Shear connection in composite columns is addressed inclause 6.7.4, but reference is made to clause 6.6.3.1 for the design resistance of headed studconnectors.

Although the uncertain effects of bond are excluded by clause 6.6.1.1(2)P, friction is notexcluded. Its essential difference from bond is that there must be compressive force across therelevant surfaces. This usually arises from wedging action. Provisions for shear connectionby friction are given in clause 6.7.4.2(4) for columns.

‘Inelastic redistribution of shear’ (clause 6.6.1.1(3)P) is most relevant to building design inthe provisions of EN 1994-1-1 for partial shear connection. Inelastic redistribution of shear isallowed in a number of places for bridges including:

. clause 6.6.1.2 (which allows redistribution over lengths such that the design resistance isnot exceeded by more than 10%)

. clause 6.6.2.2 (which permits assumptions about the distribution of the longitudinal shearforce within an inelastic length of a member)

. clauses 6.6.2.3(3) and 6.6.2.4(3) for the distribution of shear in studs from concentratedloads.

Clause 6.6.1.1(4)P uses the term ‘ductile’ for connectors that have deformation capacitysufficient to assume ideal plastic behaviour of the shear connection. Clause 6.6.1.1(5)quantifies this as a characteristic slip capacity of 6mm.75

The need for compatibility of load/slip properties, clause 6.6.1.1(6)P, is one reason whyneither bond nor adhesives can be used to supplement the shear resistance of studs. Thecombined use of studs and block-and-hoop connectors has been discouraged for the samereason, though there is little doubt that effectively rigid projections into the concrete slab,such as bolt heads and ends of flange plates, contribute to shear connection. This Principleis particularly important in bridges, where the fatigue loading on individual connectors mayotherwise be underestimated. This applies also where bridges are to be strengthened by retro-fitting additional shear connectors.

Clause 6.5.2

Clause 6.6.1.1(1)

Clause 6.6.1.1(2)P

Clause 6.6.1.1(3)P

Clause 6.6.1.1(4)PClause 6.6.1.1(5)

Clause 6.6.1.1(6)P

114

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 360: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

‘Separation’, in clause 6.6.1.1(7)P, means separation sufficient for the curvatures of thetwo elements to be different at a cross-section, or for there to be a risk of local corrosion.None of the design methods in EN 1994-2 takes account of differences of curvature,which can arise from a very small separation. Even where most of the load is applied byor above the slab, as is usual, tests on beams with unheaded studs show separation, especiallyafter inelastic behaviour begins. This arises from local variations in the flexural stiffnesses ofthe concrete and steel elements, and from the tendency of the slab to ride up on the weldcollars. The standard heads of stud connectors have been found to be large enough tocontrol separation, and the rule in clause 6.6.1.1(8) is intended to ensure that other typesof connector, with anchoring devices if necessary, can do so.

Resistance to uplift is much influenced by the reinforcement near the bottom of the slab, soif the resistance of an anchor is to be checked by testing, reinforcement in accordance withclause 6.6.6 should be provided in the test specimens. Anchors are inevitably subjected also toshear.

Clause 6.6.1.1(9) refers to ‘direct tension’. Load from a maintenance cradle hanging fromthe steel member is an example of how tension may arise. It can also be caused by thedifferential deflections of adjacent beams under certain patterns of imposed load, althoughthe resulting tensions are usually small. Greater tension can be produced near bracings asidentified by clause 6.6.1.1(13). Where tension is present in studs, its design magnitudeshould be determined and checked in accordance with clause 6.6.3.2.

Clause 6.6.1.1(10)P is a principle that has led to many application rules. The shear forcesare inevitably ‘concentrated ’. One research study76 found that 70% of the shear on a stud wasresisted by its weld collar, and that the local (triaxial) stress in the concrete was several timesits cube strength. Transverse reinforcement performs a dual role. It acts as horizontal shearreinforcement for the concrete flanges, and controls and limits splitting. Its detailing isparticularly critical where connectors are close to a free surface of the slab or where theyare aligned so as to cause splitting in the direction of the slab thickness. To account forthe latter, clause 6.6.1.1(11) should also include a reference to clause 6.6.4 for design ofthe transverse reinforcement.

Larger concentrated forces occur where precast slabs are used, and connectors are placedin groups in holes in the slabs. This influences the detailing of the reinforcement near theseholes, and is referred to in Section 8.

Clause 6.6.1.1(12) is intended to permit the use of other types of connector. ENV 1994-1-120

included provisions for many types of connector other than studs: block connectors, anchors,hoops, angles, and friction-grip bolts. They have all been omitted because of their limited useand to shorten the code.

Clause 6.6.1.1(12) gives scope, for example, to develop ways to improve current detailingpractice at the ends of beams in fully integral bridges, where forces need to be transferredabruptly from the composite beams into reinforced concrete piers and abutments. InBritish practice, the use of ‘bars with hoops’ is often favoured in these regions, and designrules are given in BS 5400-5.11 The word ‘block’ rather than ‘bar’ is used in this Guide toavoid confusion with reinforcing bars. It is shown in Example 6.8 that the shear resistanceof a connector of this type can be determined in accordance with EN 1992 and EN 1993.The height of the block should not exceed four times its thickness if the connector isassumed to be rigid as in Example 6.8.

Clause 6.6.1.1(13) identifies a problem that occurs adjacent to cross-frames or diaphragmsbetween beams. For multi-beam decks, beams are often braced in pairs such that the bracingis not continuous transversely across the deck. The presence of bracing locally significantlystiffens the bridge transversely. Moments and shears in the deck slab are attracted out of theconcrete slab and into the bracing as shown in Fig. 6.27 via the transverse stiffeners. Thiseffect is not modelled in a conventional grillage analysis unless the increased stiffness inthe location of bracings is included using a shear flexible member with inertia and sheararea chosen to match the deflections obtained from a plane frame analysis of the bracingsystem. Three-dimensional space-frame or finite-element representations of the bridge canbe used to model these local effects more directly.

Clause 6.6.1.1(7)P

Clause 6.6.1.1(8)

Clause 6.6.1.1(9)

Clause6.6.1.1(10)P

Clause 6.6.1.1(11)

Clause 6.6.1.1(12)

Clause 6.6.1.1(13)

115

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 361: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The transfer of moment causes tension in the shear connectors on one side of the flange andinduces compression between concrete and flange on the other. Welds at tops of stiffenersmust also be designed for this moment, which often leads to throat sizes greater than a‘nominal’ 6mm.

In composite box girders, similar effects arise over the tops of the boxes, particularly at thelocations of ring frames, bracings or diaphragms.

6.6.1.2. Ultimate limit states other than fatigueIn detailing the size and spacing of shear connectors, clause 6.6.1.2 permits the designlongitudinal shear flow to be averaged over lengths such that the peak shear flow withineach length does not exceed the design longitudinal shear resistance per unit length bymore than 10%, and the total design longitudinal shear does not exceed the total designlongitudinal shear within this length. This is consistent with previous practice in the UKand sometimes avoids the need to alter locally the number or spacings of shear connectorsadjacent to supports. Clause 6.6.1.2 has little relevance to the inelastic lengths in Class 1and 2 members covered by clause 6.6.2.2(2) since the longitudinal shear is already averagedover the inelastic zone in this method.

Clause 6.6.1.2

Fig. 6.27. Example of bending moments from a deck slab attracted into bracings

Example 6.8: shear resistance of a block connector with a hoopBlocks of S235 steel, 250mm long and 40mm square, are welded to a steel flange as shownin Fig. 6.28, at a longitudinal spacing of 300mm. The resistance to longitudinal shear,PRd, in a C30/37 concrete is determined. From clause 6.6.1.1(8) the resistance to upliftshould be at least 0.1PRd. This is provided by the 16mm reinforcing bars shown. Noneof the modes of failure involve interaction between concrete and steel, so their own �Mfactors are used, rather than 1.25, though the National Annex could decide otherwise.The concrete is checked to EN 1992, so its definition of fcd is used, namelyfcd ¼ �cc fck=�C. Assuming that the National Annex gives �cc ¼ 1.0 for this situation,the design strengths of the materials are:

fyd � 225N/mm2, fsd ¼ 500=1:15 ¼ 435N/mm2, fcd ¼ 1� 30=1:5 ¼ 20N/mm2

The blocks here are so stiff that the longitudinal shear force can be assumed to beresisted by a uniform stress, �block say, at the face of each block. Lateral restraintenables this stress to exceed fcd to an extent given in clause 6.7 of EN 1992-1-1, ‘Partiallyloaded areas’:

�block ¼ FRdu=Ac0 ¼ fcdffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiAc1=Ac0

p� 3:0fcd ð6:63Þ in EN 1992-1-1

where Ac0 is the loaded area and Ac1 is the ‘design distribution area’ of similar shape toAc0, shown in Fig. 6.29 of EN 1992-1-1.

116

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 362: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 6.7 requires the line of action of the force to pass through the centres of bothareas, but in this application it can be assumed that the force from area b2d2/2 is resistedby the face of the block, of area b1d1/2, because the blocks are designed also to resist uplift.The dimensions of area Ac1 are fixed by clause 6.7 of EN 1992-1-1 as follows:

b2 � b1 þ h and b2 � 3b1; d2 � d1 þ h and d2 � 3d1

Here, from Fig. 6.28,

h ¼ 300� 40 ¼ 260mm; b1 ¼ 2� 40 ¼ 80mm; d1 ¼ 250mm

where b2 ¼ 240mm, d2 ¼ 510mm.

40

45 45

120

d2 = 510

h = 260

d1

b2 b1

16 dia.160

40

(a) (b)

Fig. 6.28. Block shear connector with hoop, for Example 6.8

From equation (6.63),

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiAc1=Ac0

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffið510� 240=2Þ=ð250� 40Þ

p¼ 2:47 ð<3:0Þ

and

FRdu ¼ PRd ¼ 0:250� 40� 2:47� 20 ¼ 494 kN

The tensile stress in two 16mm bars from an uplift force of 49.4 kN is 123N/mm2. Therequired anchorage length for a hooped bar is given in clause 8.4.4(2) of EN 1992-1-1. It isproportional to the tensile stress in the bar and depends on its lateral containment, whichin this application is good. For �sd ¼ 123N/mm2 the anchorage length is 115mm, so120mm (Fig. 6.28(a)) is sufficient.

The welds between the block and the steel flange are designed for the resulting shear,tension, and bending moment in accordance with EN 1993-1-8. A separate check offatigue would be required using EN 1993-1-9 to determine the detail category andstress range. The comments on clause 6.8.6.2(2) refer. The welds between the bar andthe block are designed for the uplift force.

The resistance given by this method is significantly less than that from design to BS5400-5, where the method is based mainly on tests.77 The above method based onclause 6.7 of EN 1992-1-1 would strictly require vertical reinforcement to control splittingfrom the vertical load dispersal. However, as both push tests and practice have shown thisreinforcement to be unnecessary even when using the higher resistances to BS 5400-5,vertical reinforcement need not be provided here.

The resistance of a block connector is much higher than that of a shear stud, so wherethey are used in haunches, the detailing of reinforcement in the haunch needs attention.

EN 1992-1-1 appears to give no guidance on the serviceability stress limit in a regionwhere its clause 6.7 is applied. For shear connectors generally, clause 7.2.2(6) refers toclause 6.8.1(3), where the recommended limit is 0.75PRd. This agrees closely with thecorresponding ratio given in BS 5400-5.11

117

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 363: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.6.2. Longitudinal shear force in beams for bridges6.6.2.1. Beams in which elastic or non-linear theory is used for resistances of cross-sectionsClause 6.6.2.1(1) requires that the design longitudinal shear force per unit length (the ‘shearflow’) at an interface between steel and concrete is determined from the rate of change offorce in the concrete or the steel. The second part of the clause states, as a consequence ofthis, that where elastic bending resistance is used, the shear flow can be determined fromthe transverse shear at the cross-section considered. To do this, it is implicit that the beamis of uniform cross-section such that the usual expression for longitudinal shear flow,

vL;Ed ¼Vc;EdAz

I

can be used, where:

A is the effective transformed area on the side of the plane concerned that does not includethe centroid of the section, sometimes named the ‘excluded area’;�zz is the distance in the plane of bending from the member neutral axis to the centroid ofarea A;I is the second moment of area of the effective cross-section of the member.

The relevant shear Vc;Ed is that acting on the composite section. Where the cross-sectionvaries along its length, the shear flow is no longer directly proportional to the shear onthe beam and the following expression should be used:

vL;Ed ¼ d

dx

Mc;EdAz

I

� �¼

Vc;EdAz

IþMc;Ed

d

dx

Az

I

� �ðD6:18Þ

Equation (D6.18) does not directly cover step changes in the steel cross-section as oftenoccur at splices. In such situations, it would be reasonable to assume that the step changeoccurs uniformly over a length of twice the effective depth of the cross-section when applyingequation (D6.18). Where there is a sudden change from bare steel to a composite section,design for the concentrated longitudinal shear force from development of compositeaction should follow clause 6.6.2.4.

The calculated elastic longitudinal shear flow is strongly dependent on whether or not theconcrete slab is considered to be cracked. In reality, the slab will be stiffer than predicted by afully cracked analysis due to tension stiffening.Clause 6.6.2.1(2) clarifies that the slab shouldtherefore be considered to be fully uncracked unless tension stiffening and over-strength ofconcrete are considered in both global analysis and section design as discussed under clause5.4.2.3(7).

Clause 6.6.2.1(3) requires account to be taken of longitudinal slip where concentratedlongitudinal forces are applied, and refers to clauses 6.6.2.3 and 6.6.2.4. In other cases,clause 6.6.2.1(3) allows slip to be neglected for consistency with clause 5.4.1.1(8).

Composite box girdersFor box girders with a composite flange, a shear flow across the shear connection can occurdue to shear from circulatory torsion, torsional warping and distortional warping. Theseeffects are discussed in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2.4 Clause 6.6.2.1(4) requiresthem to be included ‘if appropriate’. This influences the design longitudinal shear stress(clause 6.6.6.1(5)), and hence the area of transverse reinforcement, to clause 6.6.6.2.

Shear lag and connector slip lead to a non-uniform distribution of force in the shear con-nectors across the width of the flange. This is discussed in section 9.4 of this Guide.

6.6.2.2. Beams in bridges with cross-sections in Class 1 or 2Where the bending resistance exceeds the elastic resistance and material behaviour is non-linear, shear flows can similarly no longer be calculated from linear-elastic section analysis.To do so using equation (D6.18) would underestimate the shear flow where elastic limitsare exceeded as the lever arm of the cross-section implicit in the calculation would beoverestimated and thus the element forces would be underestimated. Clause 6.6.2.2(1)

Clause 6.6.2.1(1)

Clause 6.6.2.1(2)

Clause 6.6.2.1(3)

Clause 6.6.2.1(4)

Clause 6.6.2.2(1)

118

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 364: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

therefore requires that account be taken of inelastic behaviour of the member and its com-ponent parts in calculation of longitudinal shear. This differs from previous UK practice butis more soundly based in theory.

Clause 6.6.2.2(2) gives specific guidance on how to comply with the above requirementswhere the concrete slab is in compression. For the length of beam where the bendingmoment exceeds Mel;Rd, the longitudinal shear relationship should be determined from thechange in slab force. The relevant length is that between the points A and C in Fig. 6.29.The longitudinal shear force in the length A–B is determined as the difference betweenslab forces Nc;el at point A and Nc;d at point B. Appropriate shear connection to carry thisforce is provided within this length. Similar calculation is performed for the length B–C.

The spacing of the shear connectors within these lengths is left to the designer. Normallyfor lengths A–B and B–C, and in the absence of heavy point loads, changes of cross-section,etc., uniform spacing can be used. In a doubtful case, for example within A–B, the slab forceNc at some point within A–B should be determined from the bending moment and appropri-ate numbers of connectors provided between A and D, say D, and between D and B.

The actual relationship between slab force, Nc, and moment, MEd, is shown in Fig. 6.30,together with the approximate expression in Fig. 6.6 of clause 6.2.1.4(6) and the furthersimplification of Fig. 6.11. It can be seen that both the approximations are safe for thedesign of shear connection, because for a given bending moment, the predicted slab forceexceeds the real slab force.

For inelastic lengths where the slab is in tension, clause 6.6.2.2(3) requires the calculationof longitudinal shear force to consider the effects of tension stiffening and possible over-strength of the concrete. Failure to do so could underestimate the force attracted to theshear connection, resulting in excessive slip. As an alternative, clause 6.6.2.2(4) permitsthe shear flow to be determined using elastic cross-section analysis based on the uncrackedcross-section. Elastic analysis can be justified in this instance because the conservative

Clause 6.6.2.2(2)

Clause 6.6.2.2(3)

Clause 6.6.2.2(4)

A B C

M

x

MEd

LA–B LB–C

Mel,Rd

0

Mpl,Rd

Fig. 6.29. Definition of inelastic lengths for Class 1 and 2 cross-sections with the slab in compression

1.0

True behaviourIdealisation in Fig. 6.6Idealisation in Fig. 6.11

0 Nc,el /Nc,f

Ma,Ed /Mpl,Rd

MEd /Mpl,Rd

Mel,Rd /Mpl,Rd

1.0

Nc /Nc,f

Fig. 6.30. Variation of longitudinal force in a concrete flange with bending moment

119

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 365: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

assumption of fully uncracked concrete offsets the slightly unconservative neglect ofinelasticity.

6.6.2.3. Local effects of concentrated longitudinal shear force due to introduction of longitudinal forcesWhere concentrated longitudinal forces are applied to a composite section, the stress statecan easily be determined some distance away from the point of application from considera-tions of equilibrium and from the usual assumption that plane sections remain plane. Planesections do not, however, remain plane in the vicinity of the force, and accurate determina-tion of the length over which longitudinal shear transfers between concrete slab and steelflange together with the magnitude of the peak longitudinal shear flow requires complexanalysis. This clause is based on parametric finite-element analyses78 and existing practice.

Clause 6.6.2.3 provides simple rules for the determination of the design shear flow betweensteel and concrete where there is a concentrated longitudinal force, FEd, applied to theconcrete slab. Clause 6.6.2.3(2) distinguishes between forces applied within the length ofthe member and those applied at ends of the members. In the former case, the length overwhich the force is distributed, Lv, is equal to the effective width for global analysis, beff,plus ed, which is the loaded length plus twice the lateral distance from the point of applicationof the force to the web centreline: Lv ¼ beff þ ed.

For forces applied at an end of a concrete flange, the distribution length is half of theabove. The reference to effective width for global analysis means that the simple provisionsof clause 5.4.1.2(4) can be used, rather than the effective width appropriate to the cross-section where the force is applied.

The force cannot, in general, be transferred uniformly by the shear connection over theabove lengths and Fig. 6.12(a) and (b) shows the distribution to be used, leading to equa-tions (6.12) and (6.13). Where stud shear connectors are used, these are sufficiently ductileto permit a uniform distribution of shear flow over the above lengths at the ultimate limitstate. This leads to equations (6.14) and (6.15) in clause 6.6.2.3(3). For serviceability orfatigue limit states, the distributions of equations (6.12) and (6.13) should always be used.

The shear force VL;Ed transferred to the shear connection is not FEd, as can be seen fromFig. 6.31 for the case of a force applied to the end of the concrete slab. Force VL;Ed is thedifference between FEd and the force Nc in the concrete slab where dispersal of FEd intothe cross-section is complete.

Clause 6.6.2.3(4) allows the dispersal of the force FEd � VL;Ed (which for load applied tothe concrete as shown in Fig. 6.31 is equal to Nc) into either the concrete or steel element tobe based on an angle of spread of 2� where � is tan�1 2/3. This is the same spread angle usedin EN 1992-1-1 clause 8.10.3 for dispersal of prestressing force into concrete. It is slightly lessthan the dispersal allowed by clause 3.2.3 of EN 1993-1-5 for the spread through steelelements.

6.6.2.4. Local effects of concentrated longitudinal shear forces at sudden change of cross-sectionsClause 6.6.2.4 provides simple rules for the determination of the design shear flow betweensteel and concrete at ends of slabs where:

. the primary effects of shrinkage or differential temperature are developed (clause6.6.2.4(1))

Clause 6.6.2.3

Clause 6.6.2.3(2)

Clause 6.6.2.3(3)

Clause 6.6.2.3(4)

Clause 6.6.2.4

Clause 6.6.2.4(1)

Nc

Ga Na = VL,Ed

FEd VL,Ed = FEd – Nc

Lv/2 = beff/2 + ed/2

Mc

Ma

Fig. 6.31. Determination of VL;Ed for a concentrated force applied at an end of the slab

120

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 366: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. there is an abrupt change of cross-section (clause 6.6.2.4(2)), such as that shown inFig. 6.33.

The shear VL;Ed transferred across the concrete and steel interface due to shrinkage ortemperature may be assumed to be distributed over a length equal to beff, as discussed insection 6.6.2.3 above. Generally, clause 6.6.2.4(3) requires the distribution of this force tobe triangular as shown in Fig. 6.12(c), which leads to equation (6.16). Where stud shearconnectors are used, these are again sufficiently ductile to permit a uniform distribution ofshear flow over the length beff. This leads to a design shear flow of VL;Ed=beff.

A calculation of primary shrinkage stresses is given in Example 5.3 (Fig. 5.11). The forceNc is found from these. It equals the shear force VL;Ed, which is transferred as shown inFig. 6.32.

The determination of VL;Ed caused by bending at a sudden change in cross-section isshown in Fig. 6.33 for the case of propped construction, in which the total moment atcross-section B–B is:

MEd;B ¼ Ma þMc þNcz

For unpropped construction, the stress would not vary linearly across the compositesection as shown in Fig. 6.33, but the calculation of longitudinal shear from the force inthe slab would follow the same procedure.

The length over which the force is distributed and the shape of distribution may be takenaccording to clause 6.6.2.4(5) to be the same as that given in clause 6.6.2.4(3).

6.6.3. Headed stud connectors in solid slabs and concrete encasementResistance to longitudinal shearIn BS 5400 Part 511 and in earlier UK codes, the characteristic shear resistances of studs aregiven in a table, applicable only when the stud material has particular properties. There wasno theoretical model for the shear resistance.

The Eurocodes must be applicable to a wider range of products, so design equations areessential. Those given in clause 6.6.3.1(1) are based on the model that a stud with shank dia-meter d and ultimate strength fu, set in concrete with characteristic strength fck and meansecant modulus Ecm, fails either in the steel alone or in the concrete alone. The concretefailure is found in tests to be influenced by both the stiffness and the strength of the concrete.

Clause 6.6.2.4(2)

Clause 6.6.2.4(3)

Clause 6.6.2.4(5)

Clause 6.6.3.1(1)

T

C

T

Nc

beff

Mc

Ma

Ga Na = Nc

VL,Ed = Nc

Fig. 6.32. Determination of VL;Ed for primary shrinkage at an end of a beam

BA

z

B

Nc

beff

Mc

MEd,A

Ma

Ga

Na = Nc = VL,Ed

MEd,B

VL,Ed = Nc

Fig. 6.33. Determination of VL;Ed caused by bending moment at a sudden change of cross-section

121

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 367: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

This led to equations (6.18) to (6.21), in which the numerical constants and partial safetyfactor �V have been deduced from analyses of test data. In situations where the resistancesfrom equations (6.18) and (6.19) are similar, tests show that interaction occurs betweenthe two assumed modes of failure. An equation based on analyses of test data, but not ona defined model79

PRd ¼ kð�d2=4Þ fuðEcm=EaÞ0:4ð fck=fuÞ0:35 ðD6:19Þgives a curve with a shape that approximates better both to test data and to values tabulatedin BS 5400.

In the statistical analyses done for EN 1994-1-180;81 both of these methods were studied.Equation (D6.19) gave results with slightly less scatter, but the equations of clause6.6.3.1(1) were preferred because of their clear basis and experience of their use in somecountries. Here, and elsewhere in Section 6, coefficients from such analyses were modifiedslightly, to enable a single partial factor, denoted �V (V for shear), 1.25, to be recommendedfor all types of shear connection. This value has been used in draft Eurocodes for over 20years.

It was concluded from this study81 that the coefficient in equation (6.19) should be 0.26.This result was based on push tests, where the mean number of studs per specimen wasonly six, and where lateral restraint from the narrow test slabs was usually less stiff thanin the concrete flange of a composite beam. Strength of studs in many beams is also increasedby the presence of hogging transverse bending of the slab. For these reasons the coefficientwas increased from 0.26 to 0.29, a value that is supported by a subsequent calibration study60

based on beams with partial shear connection.Design resistances of 19mm stud connectors in solid slabs, given by clause 6.6.3.1, are

shown in Fig. 6.34. It is assumed that the penalty for short studs, equation (6.20), doesnot apply. For any given values of fu and fck, the figure shows which failure modegoverns. It can be used for this purpose for studs of other diameters, provided thath=d � 4. The reference to the slabs as ‘solid’ means that they are not composite slabs caston profiled steel sheeting. It does not normally exclude haunched slabs.

The ‘overall nominal height’ of a stud, used in equations (6.20) and (6.21), is about 5mmgreater than the ‘length after welding’, a term which is also in use.

Weld collarsClause 6.6.3.1(2) on weld collars refers to EN 13918,40 which gives ‘guide values’ for theheight and diameter of collars, with the note that these may vary in through-deck studwelding. It is known that for studs with normal weld collars, a high proportion of theshear is transmitted through the collar.76 It should not be assumed that the shear resistancesof clause 6.6.3.1 are applicable to studs without collars, as noted by clause 6.6.3.1(4) (e.g.

Clause 6.6.3.1(2)

100

80

60

20 30 40 50

Normal-density concrete

Density class 1.8

450

400

25 37 50 60

fu = 500 N/mm2

fck (N/mm2)

PRd (kN)

fcu (N/mm2)

Fig. 6.34. Design shear resistances of 19mm studs with h=d � 4 in solid slabs

122

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 368: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

where friction welding by high-speed spinning is used). A normal collar should be fused tothe shank of the stud. Typical collars in the test specimens from which the design formulaewere deduced had a diameter not less than 1.25d and a minimum height not less than 0.15d,where d is the diameter of the shank.

Splitting of the slabClause 6.6.3.1(3) refers to ‘splitting forces’ in the direction of the slab thickness. These occurwhere the axis of a stud lies in a plane parallel to that of the concrete slab; for example, ifstuds are welded to the web of a steel T-section that projects into a concrete flange. Theseare referred to as ‘lying studs’ in published research82 on the local reinforcement neededto prevent or control splitting. Comment on the informative Annex C on this subject isgiven in Chapter 10. A similar problem occurs in composite L-beams with studs close to afree edge of the slab. This is addressed in clause 6.6.5.3(2).

Tension in studsPressure under the head of a stud connector and friction on the shank normally causesthe stud weld to be subjected to vertical tension before shear failure is reached. This iswhy clause 6.6.1.1(8) requires shear connectors to have a resistance to tension that is atleast 10% of the shear resistance. Clause 6.6.3.2(2) therefore permits tensile forces thatare less than this to be neglected. (The symbol Ften in this clause means FEd;ten.)

Resistance of studs to higher tensile forces has been found to depend on so many variables,especially the layout of local reinforcement, that no simple design rules could be given.Relevant evidence from about 60 tests on 19mm and 22mm studs is presented in Ref. 74,which gives a best-fit interaction curve. In design terms, this becomes

ðFten=0:85PRdÞ5=3 þ ðPEd=PRdÞ5=3 � 1 ðD6:20ÞWhere the vertical tensile force Ften ¼ 0:1PRd, this gives PEd � 0:93PRd, which is plausible.Expression (D6.20) should be used with caution, because some studs in these tests had ratiosh=d as high as 9; but on the conservative side, the concrete blocks were unreinforced.

6.6.4. Headed studs that cause splitting in the direction of the slab thicknessThere is a risk of splitting of the concrete where the shank of a stud (a ‘lying stud’) is paralleland close to a free surface of the slab, as shown, for example, in Fig. 6.35. Where theconditions of clause 6.6.4(1) to (3) are met, the stud resistances of clause 6.6.3.1 may stillbe used. The geometric requirements are shown in Fig. 6.35, in which d is the diameter ofthe stud. A further restriction is that the stud must not also carry shear in a direction trans-verse to the slab thickness. The example shown in Fig. 6.35 would not comply in this respectunless the steel section were designed to be loaded on its bottom flange. Clause 6.6.4(3)requires that the stirrups shown should be designed for a tensile force equal to 0.3PRd perstud connector. This is analogous with the design of bursting reinforcement at prestressinganchorages. The true tensile force depends on the slab thickness and spacing of the studsand the proposed value is conservative for a single row of studs. No recommendation isgiven here, or in Annex C, on the design of stirrups where there are several rows of studs.

Clause 6.6.3.1(3)

Clause 6.6.3.2(2)

Clause 6.6.4(1)to (3)

(b)(a)

s

A

A View A–A

PEd

ev ≥ 6d

ev ≥ 6d

v ≥ 14d

≤s, ≤18d

Fig. 6.35. Examples of details susceptible to longitudinal splitting

123

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 369: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Some details which do not comply with clause 6.6.4 can be designed using the rules in theinformative Annex C, if its use is permitted by the National Annex. In Fig. 6.35, the effects oflocal loading on the slab and of U-frame action will also cause moment at the shear connec-tion which could cause stud tensions in excess of those allowed by clause 6.6.3.2. This detail istherefore best avoided.

Planes of type a–a such as section A–A in Fig. 6.35 should be provided with longitudinalshear reinforcement in accordance with clause 6.6.6.

6.6.5. Detailing of the shear connection and influence of executionIt is rarely possible to prove the general validity of application rules for detailing, becausethey apply to so great a variety of situations. They are based partly on previous practice.An adverse experience causes the relevant rule to be made more restrictive. In research, exist-ing rules are often violated when test specimens are designed, in the hope that extensive goodexperience may enable existing rules to be relaxed.

Rules are often expressed in the form of limiting dimensions, even though most behaviour(excluding corrosion) is more influenced by ratios of dimensions than by a single value.Minimum dimensions that would be appropriate for an unusually large structural membercould exceed those given in the code. Similarly, code maxima may be too large for use ina small member. Designers are unwise to follow detailing rules blindly, because no set ofrules can be comprehensive.

Resistance to separationThe object of clause 6.6.5.1(1) on resistance to separation is to ensure that failure surfaces inthe concrete cannot pass above the connectors and below the reinforcement, intersectingneither. Tests have found that these surfaces may not be plane; the problem is three-dimensional. A longitudinal section through a possible failure surface ABC is shown inFig. 6.36. The studs are at the maximum spacing allowed by clause 6.6.5.5(3).

Clause 6.6.5.1 defines only the highest level for the bottom reinforcement. Ideally, itslongitudinal location relative to the studs should also be defined, because the objective isto prevent failure surfaces where the angle � (Fig. 6.36) is small. It is impracticable to linkdetailing rules for reinforcement with those for connectors, or to specify a minimum forangle �. In Fig. 6.36, it is less than 88, which is much too low.

The angle� obviously depends on the level of the bottombars, the height of the studs, and thespacing of both the bars and the studs. Studs in a bridge deck usually have a length after welding(LAW) that exceeds the 95mm shown. AssumingLAW ¼ 120mm,maximum spacings of bothbars and studs of 450mm, and a bottom cover of 50mmgives� � 178, approximately, which issuggested here as a minimum. Studs may need to be longer than 125mm where permanentformwork is used, as this raises the level of the bottom reinforcement.

Other work reached a similar conclusion in 2004.83 Referring to failure surfaces as shownin Fig. 6.36, it was recommended that angle � should be at least 158. In this paper the line AB(Fig. 6.36) is tangential to the top of the bar at B, rather than the bottom, slightly reducing itsslope.

ConcretingClause 6.6.5.2(1)P requires shear connectors to be detailed so that the concrete can beadequately compacted around the base of the connector. This necessitates the avoidance

Clause 6.6.5.1(1)

Clause 6.6.5.2(1)P

800

55

95 30 α

AB

C

Fig. 6.36. Level of bottom transverse reinforcement (dimensions in mm)

124

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 370: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

of excessively close spacings of connectors and the use of connector geometries that mightprevent adequate flow of the concrete around the connector. The former could be a consid-eration at the ends of fully integral bridges where a very high shear flow has to be transferredinto the steel beam over a relatively short length. Since the resistances of connectors otherthan studs are not covered by EN 1994-2, properties of other types of connector could bereferred to from a National Annex. The design of a block-and-hoop connector is illustratedin Example 6.8. A novel type of connection could be investigated as part of the testingrequirements of clause 6.6.1.1(12).

Loading of shear connection during executionClause 6.6.5.2(3) particularly concerns the staged casting of concrete flanges for typicalunpropped composite bridges. Partly matured concrete around shear connectors in arecently cast length of beam could possibly be damaged by the effects of concretingnearby. The recommended lower limit on concrete strength, 20N/mm2, in effect sets aminimum time interval between successive stages of casting. The rule begins ‘Whereverpossible’ because there appears to be no evidence of damage from effects of early thermalor shrinkage strains, which also apply longitudinal shear to young concrete.

In propped construction, it would be unusual to remove the props until the concrete hadachieved a compressive strength of at least 20N/mm2, in order to avoid overstressing thebeam as a whole. Where the props are removed prior to the concrete attaining the specifiedstrength, verifications at removal of props should be based on an appropriately reducedcompressive strength.

Local reinforcement in the slabWhere shear connectors are close to a longitudinal edge of a concrete flange, use of U-bars isalmost the only way of providing the full anchorage required by clause 6.6.5.3(1). Thesplitting referred to in clause 6.6.5.3(2) is a common mode of failure in push-test specimenswith narrow slabs (e.g. 300mm, which has long been the standard width in British codes). Itwas also found, in full-scale tests, to be the normal failure mode for composite L-beamsconstructed with precast slabs.84 Detailing rules are given in clause 6.6.5.3(2) for slabs wherethe edge distance e in Fig. 6.37 is less than 300mm. The required area of bottom transverse re-inforcement,Ab per unit length of beam, should be found using clause 6.6.6. In the unhaunchedslab shown in Fig. 6.37, failure surface b–b will be critical (unless the slab is very thick) becausethe shear on surface a–a is low in an L-beam with an asymmetrical concrete flange.

To ensure that the reinforcement is fully anchored to the left of the line a–a, it is recom-mended that U-bars be used. These can be in a horizontal plane or, where top reinforcementis needed, in a vertical plane.

Reinforcement at the end of a cantileverAt the end of a composite cantilever, the force on the concrete from the connectors actstowards the nearest edge of the slab. The effects of shrinkage and temperature can addfurther stresses74 that tend to cause splitting in region B in Fig. 6.38, so reinforcement inthis region needs careful detailing. Clause 6.6.5.3(3)P can be satisfied by providing ‘herring-bone’ bottom reinforcement (ABC in Fig. 6.38) sufficient to anchor the force from theconnectors into the slab, and ensuring that the longitudinal bars provided to resist thatforce are anchored beyond their intersection with ABC.

Clause 6.6.5.2(3)

Clause 6.6.5.3(1)Clause 6.6.5.3(2)

Clause 6.6.5.3(3)P

b

b

a

a

d

e(≥6d )

≥0.5d

Fig. 6.37. Longitudinal shear reinforcement in an L-beam

125

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 371: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

HaunchesHaunches are sometimes provided in composite bridges to cater for drainage cross-falls sothat the thickness of the slab or deck surfacing need not be varied. The detailing rules ofclause 6.6.5.4 are based on limited test evidence, but are long-established.85 In regions ofhigh longitudinal shear, deep haunches should be used with caution because there may belittle warning of failure.

Maximum spacing of connectorsSituations where the stability of a concrete slab is ensured by its connection to a steel beamare unlikely to occur because a concrete slab that is adequate to resist local bridge loading isunlikely to suffer instability from membrane forces. The converse situation, stabilization ofthe steel flange, is of interest only where the steel compression flange is not already in Class 1or 2. Where the steel beam is a plate girder, its proportions will often be chosen such that it isin Class 3 for the bare steel condition during construction. This maximises the lateral buck-ling resistance for a flange of given cross-sectional area.

Clause 6.6.5.5(2) is not restrictive in practice. As an example, a plate girder is considered,in steel with fy ¼ 355N/mm2, where the top flange has tf ¼ 20mm, an overall breadth of350mm, and an outstand c of 165mm. The ratio " is 0.81 and the slenderness is:

c=tf" ¼ 165=ð20� 0:81Þ ¼ 10:2

so from Table 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1, the flange is in Class 3. From clause 6.6.5.5(2), it can beassumed to be in Class 1 if shear connectors are provided within 146mm of each free edge, atlongitudinal spacing not exceeding 356mm, for a solid slab.

The ratio 22 in this clause is based on the assumption that the steel flange cannot buckletowards the slab. Where there are transverse ribs (e.g. due to the use of profiled sheeting), theassumption may not be correct, so the ratio is reduced to 15. The maximum spacing in thisexample is then 243mm.

Further requirements for composite plates in box girders are given in clause 9.4(7). Thesealso cover limitations on longitudinal and transverse spacings of connectors to ensure Class 3behaviour. The rule on transverse spacing in Table 9.1 should be applied also to a widecompression flange of a plate girder.

The maximum longitudinal spacing in bridges, given in clause 6.6.5.5(3), 4hc but�800mm, is more liberal than the equivalent rule of BS 5400 Part 5.11 It is based mainlyon behaviour observed in tests, and on practice with precast slabs in some countries.

Clause 6.6.5.5(4) allows the spacing rules for individual connectors to be relaxed ifconnectors are placed in groups. This may facilitate the use of precast deck units with discretepockets for the shear connection (clause 8.4.3(3) refers) but many of the deemed-to-satisfyrules elsewhere in EN 1994-2 then no longer apply. The designer should then explicitly con-sider the relevant effects, which will make it difficult in practice to depart from the applicationrules. The effects listed are as follows.

. Non-uniform flow of longitudinal shear. If the spacing of the groups of connectors islarge compared to the distance between points of zero and maximum moment in thebeam, then the normal assumption of plane sections remaining plane will not applyand the calculation of bending resistance to clause 6.2 will not be valid.

Clause 6.6.5.4

Clause 6.6.5.5(2)

Clause 6.6.5.5(3)

Clause 6.6.5.5(4)

Studs

Steel beam

A

C

B

Transverse reinforcementnot shown

Slab

Fig. 6.38. Reinforcement at the end of a cantilever

126

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 372: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. Greater risk of slip and vertical separation of concrete and steel. The latter carries acorrosion risk for the steel flange which would be hard to quantify without testing.

. Buckling of the steel flange. This can be considered by applying clause 4.4(2) of EN 1993-1-5. The elastic critical buckling stress, �cr, can be determined for the discrete supportsoffered by the particular connection provided, either by finite-element analysis or fromstandard texts such as Ref. 86. If the latter method is employed, account needs to betaken of the beneficial restraint provided by the concrete against buckling. In theabsence of this restraint, the flange would try to buckle in half wavelengths betweenthe studs, alternating towards and away from the concrete. Buckling into the concreteis, in reality, prevented and therefore no rotation of the flange can occur along the lineof the studs. Discrete supports which clamp the plate at the stud locations may thereforeusually be assumed in determining the critical stress.

. Local resistance of the slab to the concentrated force from the connectors. Groups ofstuds apply a force analogous to that from an anchorage of a prestressing cable. Theregion of transverse tension does not coincide with the location of the group. Both thequantity and the location of the transverse reinforcement required may differ fromthat given by clause 6.6.6.

Dimensions of the steel flangeThe rules of clause 6.6.5.6 are intended to prevent local overstress of a steel flange near ashear connector and to avoid problems with stud welding. Application rules for minimumflange thickness are given in clause 6.6.5.7(3) and (5). The minimum edge distance forconnectors in clause 6.6.5.6(2) is consistent with the requirements of BS 5400:Part 5.11

The limit is also necessary to avoid a reduction in the fatigue detail category for the flangeat the stud location, which from EN 1993-1-9 Table 8.4, is 80 for a compliant stud.

Headed stud connectorsClause 6.6.5.7(1) and (2) is concerned with resistance to uplift. Rules for resistance of studs,minimum cover and projection of studs above bottom reinforcement usually lead to the useof studs of height greater than 3d.

The limit 1.5 for the ratio d=tf in clause 6.6.5.7(3) could, in principle, influence the designof shear connection for closed-top box girders in bridges, effectively requiring the thicknessof the top flange to be a minimum of 13mm where 19mm diameter studs are used. Studsof this size are preferred by many UK fabricators as they can be welded manually. It isunlikely that a composite box would have a flange this thin as it would then requireconsiderable longitudinal stiffening to support the plate prior to setting of the concrete.Clause 6.6.5.7(3) would also apply to plate girders adjacent to cross-braces or transversediaphragms, but practical sizes of flanges for main beams will satisfy this criterion. Itcould be a consideration for cross-girders.

In clause 6.6.5.7(4), the minimum lateral spacing of studs in ‘solid slabs’ has been reducedto 2.5d, compared with the 4d of BS 5950-3-1. This facilitates the use of precast slabssupported on the edges of the steel flanges, with projecting U-bars that loop over pairs ofstuds. Closely spaced pairs of studs must be well confined laterally. The words ‘solidslabs’ should therefore be understood here to exclude haunches.

6.6.6. Longitudinal shear in concrete slabsThe subject of clause 6.6.6 is the avoidance of local failure of a concrete flange near the shearconnection, by the provision of appropriate reinforcement. These bars enhance the resistanceof a thin concrete slab to in-plane shear in the same way that stirrups strengthen a concreteweb in vertical shear. Transverse reinforcement is also needed to control and limit the long-itudinal splitting of the slab that can be caused by local forces from individual connectors. Inthis respect, the detailing problem is more acute than in the flanges of concrete T-beams,where the shear from the web is applied more uniformly.

The principal change from earlier codes is that the equations for the required area oftransverse reinforcement have been replaced by cross-reference to EN 1992-1-1. Its

Clause 6.6.5.6

Clause 6.6.5.6(2)

Clause 6.6.5.7(1)Clause 6.6.5.7(2)

Clause 6.6.5.7(3)

Clause 6.6.5.7(4)

Clause 6.6.6

127

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 373: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

provisions are based on a truss analogy, as before, but a more general version of it, in whichthe angle between members of the truss can be chosen by the designer. It is an application ofstrut-and-tie modelling, which is widely used in EN 1992.

There is, however, a significant difference between the application of EN 1992 andEN 1994. In the latter, the transverse reinforcement may be placed according to the distribu-tion of vertical shear force envelope, or according to the stud forces for sections where theelastic resistance moment is exceeded. In the former, the transverse reinforcement shouldbe placed according to the location of the web compression struts as they intersect theflanges and their subsequent continuation into the flanges.

The definitions of shear surfaces in clause 6.6.6.1(2)P and the basic design method are asbefore. The method of presentation reflects the need to separate the ‘general’ provisions,clauses 6.6.6.1 to 3, from those restricted to ‘buildings’, in EN 1994-1-1 clause 6.6.6.4.

Clause 6.6.6.1(4) requires the design longitudinal shear to be ‘consistent with’ that used forthe design of the shear connectors. This means that the distribution along the beam ofresistance to in-plane shear in the slab should be not less than that assumed for the designof the shear connection. For example, uniform resistance to longitudinal shear flow (vL)should be provided where the connectors are uniformly spaced, even if the vertical shearover the length is not constant. It does not mean, for example, that if, for reasons concerningdetailing, vL;Rd ¼ 1:3vL;Ed for the connectors, the transverse reinforcement must provide thesame degree of over-strength.

The reference to ‘variation of longitudinal shear across the width of the concrete flange’means that transverse reinforcement could be reduced away from the beam centre-lines,where the longitudinal shear reduces, if flexural requirements permit.

In applying clause 6.6.6.1(5), it is sufficiently accurate to assume that longitudinal bendingstress in the concrete flange is constant across its effective width, and zero outside it. Theclause is relevant, for example, to finding the shear on plane a–a in the haunched beamshown in Fig. 6.15, which, for a symmetrical flange, is less than half the shear resisted bythe connectors.

Resistance of a concrete flange to longitudinal shearClause 6.6.6.2(1) refers to clause 6.2.4 of EN 1992-1-1, which is written for a design longi-tudinal shear stress vEd acting on a cross-section of thickness hf. This must be distinguishedfrom the design longitudinal shear flow vL;Ed used in EN 1994 which is equal to vEdhf. Theclause requires the area of transverse reinforcement Asf at spacing sf to satisfy

Asf fyd=sf > vEdhf= cot �f ð6:21Þ in EN 1992-1-1

and the longitudinal shear stress to satisfy

vEd < fcd sin �f cos �f ð6:22Þ in EN 1992-1-1

where ¼ 0:6ð1� fck=250Þ, with fck in N/mm2 units. (The Greek letter (nu) used here inEN 1992-1-1 should not be confused with the Roman letter v (vee), which is used forshear stress.)

The angle �f between the diagonal strut and the axis of the beam is chosen (within limits)by the designer. It should be noted that the recommended limits depend on whether theflange is in tension or compression, and can be varied by a National Annex.

EN 1992-1-1 does not specify the distribution of the required transverse reinforcementbetween the upper and lower layers in the slab. It was a requirement of early drafts ofEN 1992-2 that the transverse reinforcement provided should have the same centre ofresistance as the longitudinal force in the slab. This was removed, presumably because ithas been common practice to consider the shear resistance to be the sum of the resistancesfrom the two layers. Clause 6.6.6.2(3) refers to Fig. 6.15 which clarifies that the reinforce-ment to be considered on plane a–a for composite beams is the total of the two layers,Ab þ At. It should be noted that application of Annex MM of EN 1992-2 would necessitateprovision of transverse reinforcement with the same centre of resistance as the longitudinalforce in the slab.

Clause 6.6.6.1(2)P

Clause 6.6.6.1(4)

Clause 6.6.6.1(5)

Clause 6.6.6.2(1)

128

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 374: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The use of the method is illustrated in Example 6.9.The reference in clause 6.6.6.2(1) is to the whole of clause 6.2.4 of EN 1992-1-1. This

includes clause 6.2.4(5) which requires a check of the interaction with transverse bendingin the concrete slab on planes of type a–a. This requires the amount of transverse reinforce-ment to be the greater of that required for longitudinal shear alone and half that required forlongitudinal shear plus that required for transverse bending.

This rule is illustrated in Fig. 6.39(b), in which Areq;d is the total reinforcement required,

and subscripts s and b refer to the reinforcement required for shear and bending, respectively.The rule is more onerous than that in BS 5400 Part 5, where no interaction is needed to beconsidered on planes of type a–a. This was because a transverse bending moment producesno net axial force in the slab. Reinforcement in tension is then associated with concrete thathas a resistance to shear enhanced by the presence of transverse compression. Test evidencesupported this model.

Consideration of this interaction according to EN 1992-1-1, rather than simple addition ofbending and shear requirements, is rational as the truss angle in the upper and lower layers ofthe slab can be varied to account for the relative demands imposed on them of shear andeither direct tension or compression. Annex MM of EN 1992-2 reinforces this, althoughits use suggests that the ‘50% of longitudinal shear’ rule is optimistic. The interaction onsurfaces around the studs differs slightly as discussed below under the heading ‘Shearplanes and surfaces’.

Clause 6.2.4(105) of EN 1992-2 adds an additional interaction condition for the concretestruts, which was largely due to the strength of belief in its Project Team that the neglect ofthis check was unsafe. It was less to do with any inherent difference between the behaviour ofbuildings and bridges. Considerations of equilibrium suggest that EN 1992-2 is correct. Thereference in EN 1994-2 to EN 1992-1-1 rather than to EN 1992-2 is therefore significant as itexcludes the check. No check of the effect of moment on the concrete struts was required byBS 5400 Part 5.

Clause 6.2.4(105) of EN 1992-2 refers to the compression from transverse bending. It ishowever equally logical to consider the slab longitudinal compression in the check of theconcrete struts, although this was not intended. Once again, the use of Annex MM ofEN 1992-2 would require this to be considered. It is rare in practice for a concrete flangeto be subjected to a severe combination of longitudinal compression and in-plane shear. Itcould occur near an internal support of a continuous half-through bridge. It is shown inExample 6.11 that the reduction in resistance to bending would usually be negligible, ifthis additional interaction were to be considered.

Neither EN 1992 nor EN 1994 deals with the case of longitudinal shear and coexistenttransverse tension in the slab. This can occur in the transverse beams of ladder decks nearthe intersection with the main beams in hogging zones where the main beam reinforcementis in global tension. In such cases, there is clearly a net tension in the slab and the reinforce-ment requirements for this tension should be fully combined with that for longitudinal shearon planes a–a.

Shear planes and surfacesClause 6.6.6.1(3) refers to shear ‘surfaces’ because some of them are not plane. Those oftypes b–b, c–c and d–d in Fig. 6.15 are different from the type a–a surface because theyresist almost the whole longitudinal shear, not (typically) about half of it. The relevantreinforcement intersects them twice, as shown by the factors 2 in the table in Fig. 6.15.

For a surface of type c–c in a beam with the steel section near one edge of the concreteflange, it is clearly wrong to assume that half the shear crosses half of the surface c–c.However, in this situation the shear on the adjacent plane of type a–a will govern, so themethod is not unsafe.

Clause 6.6.6.2(2) refers to EN 1992-1-1 clause 6.2.4(4) for resistance to longitudinalshear for surfaces passing around the shear studs. This does not include a check of theinteraction with transverse bending in the slab. This does not mean that such a check maybe ignored.

Clause 6.6.6.2(2)

129

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 375: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Interaction of longitudinal shear and bending should be considered for the reinforcementcrossing shear surfaces around the connectors. Slab bottom reinforcement is particularlyimportant since most of the shear transferred by stud connectors is transferred over thebottom part of the stud. The bottom reinforcement crossing surfaces passing around thestuds must control the localized splitting stresses generated by the high stud pressures. Forsurfaces of type b–b and c–c in Fig. 6.15, it is clear that the reinforcement crossing thesurface must provide both the resistance to longitudinal shear and any transverse saggingmoment present. The reinforcement requirements for coexisting shear and saggingmoment should therefore be fully added.

For coexisting shear and hogging moment, there is transverse compression at the base ofthe connectors. BS 5400 Part 5 permitted a corresponding reduction in the bottom reinforce-ment. This could be the basis of a ‘more accurate calculation’ permitted by clause 6.6.6.2(2).

For surfaces of type d–d in Fig. 6.15, the haunch reinforcement crossed by the studs willnot be considered in the sagging bending resistance and therefore it need only be designed forlongitudinal shear. These recommendations are consistent with those in BS 5400 Part 5.

Minimum transverse reinforcementClause 6.6.6.3 on this subject is discussed under clause 6.6.5.1 on resistance to separation.Clause 6.6.6.3

Example 6.9: transverse reinforcement for longitudinal shearFigure 6.39(a) shows a plan of an area ABCD of a concrete flange of thickness hf, assumedto be in longitudinal compression, with shear stress vEd and transverse reinforcement Asf

at spacing sf. The shear force per transverse bar is:

Fv ¼ vEdhfsf

acting on side AB of the rectangle shown. It is transferred to side CD by a concrete strutAC at angle �f to AB, and with edges that pass through the mid-points of AB, etc., asshown, so that the width of the strut is sf sin �f.

A B

CD

Fv

sf

Areq’d/As

Ab/As

Fv

Fc

F t

sf sin θf

θ f

0

2

1

1

0.5

0.5

(b)(a)

Fig. 6.39. In-plane shear in a concrete flange: (a) truss analogy; and (b) interaction of longitudinalshear with bending

For equilibrium at A, the force in the strut is:

Fc ¼ Fv sec �f ðD6:21Þ

For equilibrium at C, the force in the transverse bar BC is:

Ft ¼ Fc sin �f ¼ Fv tan �f ðD6:22Þ

For minimum area of transverse reinforcement, �f should be chosen to be as small as pos-sible. For a flange in compression, the limits to �f given in clause 6.2.4(4) of EN 1992-1-1 are:

458 � �f � 26:58 ðD6:23Þ

130

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 376: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

so the initial choice for �f is 26.58. Then, from equation (D6.22),

Ft ¼ 0:5Fv ðD6:24ÞFrom equation (6.22) in EN 1992-1-1, above,

vEd < 0:40fcd

If this inequality is satisfied, then the value chosen for �f is satisfactory. However, let usassume that the concrete strut is overstressed, because vEd ¼ 0:48fcd.To satisfy equation (6.22), sin �f cos �f � 0:48, whence �f � 378.The designer increases �f to 408, which satisfies expression (D6.23).From equation (D6.22), Ft ¼ Fv tan 408 ¼ 0:84Fv.From equation (D6.24), the change in �f, made to limit the compressive stress in theconcrete strut AC, increases the required area of transverse reinforcement by 68%.

The lengths of the sides of the triangle ABC in Fig. 6.39(a) are proportional to theforces Fv, Ft and Fc. For given Fv and sf, increasing �f increases Fc, but for �f < 458(the maximum value recommended), the increase in the width st sin �f is greater, so thestress in the concrete is reduced.

Example 6.10: longitudinal shear checksThe bridge shown in Fig. 6.22 is checked for longitudinal shear, (i) adjacent to an internalsupport, (ii) at mid-span of the main span and (iii) at an end support. Creep of concretereduces longitudinal shear, so for elastic theory, the short-term modular ratio is used.

(i) Adjacent to an internal supportThe 19� 150mm stud connectors are assumed to be 145mm high after welding. Theirarrangement and the transverse reinforcement are shown in Fig. 6.40 and the dimensionsof the cross-section in Fig. 6.22. The shear studs are checked first. Although the concrete isassumed to be cracked at the support in both global analysis and cross-section design,the slab is considered to be uncracked for longitudinal shear design in accordance withclause 6.6.2.1(2). The longitudinal shear is determined from the vertical shear usingelastic analysis in accordance with clause 6.6.2.1(1) since the bending resistance wasbased on elastic analysis.

145

280

20 mm bars at150 mm

8585

250

Fig. 6.40. Shear studs and transverse reinforcement adjacent to an internal support

From Example 5.2, the modular ratio n0 is 6.36. From Example 5.4, the area oflongitudinal reinforcement is As ¼ 19 480mm2, which is 2.5% of the effective cross-section of the concrete flange. Relevant elastic properties of the cross-section are givenin Table 6.3 for the uncracked unreinforced section (subscript U) and the uncrackedreinforced section (subscript UR). The effect on these values of including the reinforce-ment is not negligible when the long-term modular ratio is used. However, the significantreduction in longitudinal shear caused by cracking is being ignored, so it is accurateenough to use the unreinforced section when calculating longitudinal shear.

The height z to the neutral axis is measured from the bottom of the cross-section. Theproperty A�zz=I , for the whole of the effective concrete flange, is appropriate for checking

131

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 377: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

the shear resistance of the studs, and slightly conservative for the shear surface of type b–bshown in Fig. 6.40.

Table 6.3. Elastic properties of cross-section at internal support

Modularratio zU (mm) IU (m2mm2) ðA�zz=IÞU (m�1) zUR (mm) IUR (m2mm2) ðA�zz=IÞUR (m�1)

6.36 1120 38 530 0.8098 1146 39 890 0.838023.63 862 26 390 0.6438 959 31 200 0.7284

The calculation using n0 is:

A�zz

3100

6:36� 250

� �� 1375� 1120ð Þ þ 400

6:36� 25

� �� 1238� 1120ð Þ

38 530� 103¼ 0:810m�1

The design vertical shear forces on the composite section are: long-term, VEd ¼ 827 kN;short-term, VEd ¼ 1076 kN; total, 1903 kN.From equation (D6.18),

vL;Ed ¼ 1903� 0:810 ¼ 1541 kN/m

Groups of four 19mm diameter studs with fu ¼ 500N/mm2 are provided at 150mmcentres. Their resistance is governed by equation (6.19):

PRd ¼ 0:29�d2ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffifckEcm

p�V

¼ 0:29� 192ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi30� 33� 103

p

1:25� 1000¼ 83:3 kN=stud

Thus vL;Rd ¼ 83:3� 4=0:15 ¼ 2222 kN/m which exceeds the 1541 kN/m applied.Longitudinal shear in the concrete is checked next. The surface around the studs is

critical for the reinforcement check as it has the same reinforcement as the planethrough the deck (i.e. two 20mm diameter bars) but almost twice the longitudinalshear. It is assumed here that there is no significant sagging bending over the top of themain beams adjacent to the internal supports. From equation (6.21) in clause 6.2.4(4)of EN 1992-1-1, assuming a 458 truss angle:

Asf fyd=sf > vEdhf=cot �f where vEdhf ¼ 1541 kN=m

Asf � 1541� 150= cot 458� 500=1:15ð Þ ¼ 532mm2 < 628mm2 from two 20mm bars

The planes through the deck slab are critical for the concrete stress check since thelength of each concrete shear plane is 250mm compared to 570mm for the surfacearound the studs, which carries twice the shear. The shear stress is:

vEd ¼ 1541=ð2� 250Þ ¼ 3:08N=mm2

From equations (6.6N) in clause 6.2.2(6) and (6.22) in clause 6.2.4(4) of EN 1992-1-1:

vEd < fcd sin �f cos �f ¼0:6 1� 30=250ð Þ � 30=1:5ð Þ � 0:5 ¼ 5:28N=mm2

so the shear stress is satisfactory.It should be noted that there is another surface around the studs which intersects the

top of the haunch with length of 582mm. It would be possible for such a plane to bemore critical.

(ii) Mid-span of the main spanThe maximum spacing of groups of studs as shown in Fig. 6.41 is now found. The trans-verse reinforcement is as before and the cross-sectional dimensions of the beam are shownin Fig. 6.22. In the real bridge, the moment at mid-span was less than the elastic resistance

132

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 378: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

to bending and therefore a similar calculation to that in (i) could have been performed.For the purpose of this example, the sagging bending moment at mid-span is consideredto be increased to 8.0MNm, comprising 2.0MNm on the bare steel section, 2.0MNm onthe ‘long-term’ composite section and 4.0MNm live load on the ‘short-term’ compositesection.

145

20 mm bars at150 mm

250

28085 85a

a

Fig. 6.41. Shear studs and transverse reinforcement at mid-span and adjacent to an end support

The distance between the point of maximum moment and the point where the elasticresistance to bending is just exceeded is assumed here to be 4.5m. The longitudinalshear force between these points is determined by rearranging equation (6.3) and substi-tuting MEd for MRd so that:

VL;Ed ¼ Nc �Nc;el ¼Nc;f �Nc;el

� �MEd �Mel;Rd

� �Mpl;Rd �Mel;Rd

� �It is not obvious which modular ratio gives the more adverse result for this region, so

calculations are done using both n0 and nL for the long-term loading. The elastic resistanceto bending is governed by the tensile stress in the bottom flange. From clause 6.2.1.4(6),Mel;Rd is found by scaling down Mc;Ed by a factor k until a stress limit is reached. Therelevant section moduli in m2mm units are 15.96 for the steel section, and 23.39 shortterm and 21.55 long term for the composite section. Hence,

2000=15:96þ ð4000=23:39þ 2000=21:55Þk ¼ 345� 11:7

where 11.7N/mm2 is the stress due to the primary effects of shrinkage from Example 5.3.(The secondary effects of shrinkage have been ignored here as they are relieving.)

This gives k ¼ 0.788, and the elastic resistance moment is:

Mel;Rd ¼ 2000þ 0:788� ð4000þ 2000Þ ¼ 6728 kNm

From Example 6.1, Mpl;Rd ¼ 10 050 kNm.The compressive forceNc;el in the composite slab atMel;Rd is now required. The primary

shrinkage stress, although tensile, is included for consistency with the calculation ofMel;Rd. Its value at mid-depth of the 250mm flange, from Example 5.3, is 0.68N/mm2.The effect of the stresses in the haunch is negligible here. Using the section moduli formid-depth of the flange, given in Table 6.4, the mean stress is:

�c;mean ¼ 0:788� ð4000=969:1Þ þ ð2000=1143Þ � 0:68 ¼ 3:95N=mm2

Table 6.4. Section moduli at mid-span for uncracked unreinforced section

Modularratio zU (mm) IU (m2mm2) ðA�zz=IÞU (m�1)

Wc, topof slab(m2mm)

Wc, midslab(m2mm)

Wc, midhaunch(m2mm)

Wa, bottomflange(m2mm)

6.36 1192 27 880 0.8024 575.9 969.1 3890 23.3923.7 951 20 500 0.6843 882.7 1143 1692 21.55

133

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 379: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Hence,

Nc;el ¼ 3:1� 0:25� 3:95 ¼ 3:06MN

The force for full interaction, Nc;f, is based on rectangular stress blocks:

Nc;f ¼ 3:1� 0:25� 0:85� 30=1:5 ¼ 13:18MN

From equation (6.3):

VL;Ed ¼ Nc �Nc;el ¼ðNc;f �Nc;elÞðMEd �Mel;RdÞ

ðMpl;Rd �Mel;RdÞ¼ ð13:18� 3:06Þð8:0� 6:728Þ

ð10:05� 6:728Þ

¼ 3875 kN

The shear flow is therefore vL;Ed ¼ 3875=4:5 ¼ 861 kN/m

Similar calculations using n0 ¼ 6.36 for all loading give: Mel;Rd ¼ 6858 kNm, �c;mean ¼4.33N/mm2, andNc;el ¼ 3.36MN, from which vL;Ed ¼ 781 kN/m, which does not govern.From (i) above, PRd ¼ 83.3 kN/stud, so the required spacing of groups of three is:

sv ¼ 83:3� 3=861 ¼ 0:290m

Groups at 250mm spacing could be used, unless a fatigue or serviceability check is foundto govern.Longitudinal shear in the concrete is adequate by inspection, as the shear flow is less

than that at the internal support but both the thickness of the slab and the reinforcementare the same.

(iii) End supportThe shear stud arrangement and transverse reinforcement are as shown in Fig. 6.41 andthe cross-sectional dimensions are shown in Fig. 6.22. The studs are checked first. Thelongitudinal shear is determined from the vertical shear using elastic analysis in accor-dance with clause 6.6.2.1(1) since the bending moment is less than the elastic resistance.From similar calculations to those for the pier section, the longitudinal shear flow,

excluding that from shrinkage and temperature, is found to be vL;Ed ¼ 810 kN/m. Thecombination factor 0 for effects of temperature recommended in Annex A2 ofEN 1990 is 0.6, with a Note that it ‘may in most cases be reduced to 0 for ultimatelimit states EQU, STR, and GEO’. Temperature effects are not considered here.The primary and secondary effects of shrinkage are both beneficial, and so are not

considered. With PRd ¼ 83.3 kN/stud, the resistance of groups of three at 250mmspacing is 1000 kN/m, which is sufficient.Longitudinal shear in the concrete is adequate by inspection, as the shear flow is less

than that at the internal support but both concrete slab thickness and reinforcementare the same.The studs in all three cases above should also be checked at serviceability according to

clause 6.8.1(3). This has not been done here.

Example 6.11: influence of in-plane shear in a compressed flange on bendingresistances of a beamThe mid-span region of an internal beam in the main span of the bridge is studied. Itscross-section is shown in Fig. 6.22. The imposed sagging bending moments are as inExample 6.10(ii): MEd;a ¼ 2.0MNm, MEd;c ¼ 2.0MNm short term plus 4.0MNm longterm. Shear flow is reduced by creep, so the short-term modular ratio, n0 ¼ 6.36, isused for all loading, and shrinkage effects are ignored. The section is in Class 2, but thefull plastic resistance moment, Mpl;Rd, is unlikely to be needed. Properties found earlierare as follows:

. from Example 6.1, Mpl;Rd ¼ 10 050 kNm

134

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 380: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

. from Fig. 6.2, at Mpl;Rd, depth of slab in compression¼ 227mm

. from Example 6.10, Mel;Rd ¼ 6858 kNm.

Elastic properties of the cross-section are given in Table 6.4.Situations are studied in which a layer of thickness hv at the bottom of the slab is needed

for the diagonal struts of the truss model for in-plane shear. The bending resistance isfound using only the remaining thickness, hm ¼ 250� hv (mm units). This is ‘the depthof compression considered in the bending assessment’ to which clause 6.2.4(105) ofEN 1992-2 could be assumed to refer. As discussed in the main text, it was only intendedto refer to transverse bending moment. The haunch is included in the elastic properties,and neglected in calculations for Mpl;Rd.

0

4

MRd, MNm

hm (mm)

Mpl,Rd

Mel,Rd

8

6

100 200

10

Compression at the topof the slab governs

Tension in the steelbottom flange governs

50 150 250

Fig. 6.42. Influence of thickness of slab in compression on resistance to bending

The effect on the bending resistances of reducing the flange thickness from 250mm tohm is shown in Fig. 6.42. Reduction in Mpl;Rd does not begin until hm < 227mm, and isthen gradual, until the plastic neutral axis moves into the web, at hm ¼ 122mm. Whenhm ¼ 100mm, the reduction is still less than 10%.

The elastic resistance is governed by stress in the bottom flange, and at first increases ashm is reduced. Compressive stress in concrete does not govern until hm is less than 50mm,as shown. For hm ¼ 100mm, Mel;Rd is greater than for 250mm.

The vertical shear for which hm ¼ 100mm, hv ¼ 150mm is now found and comparedwith the shear resistance of the steel web, Vbw;Rd ¼ 1834 kN from Example 6.4. Themethod is explained in comments on clause 6.6.6.2(1). The optimum angle �f for theconcrete struts, which is 458, is used. It is assumed that the transverse reinforcementdoes not govern. The propertyA�zz=I should continue to be based on the full slab thickness,not on hm, to provide a margin for over-strength materials, inelastic behaviour, etc.

Equation (6.22) in EN 1992-1-1 is vEd < fcd sin �f cos �f.From Example 6.10(i) with fck ¼ 30N/mm2, �f ¼ 458; this gives vEd < 5.28N/mm2.From Fig. 6.41, the width of flange excluded by the shear plane a–a is:

ð3100� 450Þ=2 ¼ 1325mm

The shear flow on this plane is:

vL;Ed ¼ vEdhv ¼ ð1325=3100ÞVEdðA�zz=IÞ ðD6:25Þ

From equation (D6.25) with hv ¼ 150mm and A�zz=I from Table 6.4,

VEd < 5:28� 150� ð3100=1325Þ=0:8024 ¼ 2309 kN

This limit is 26% above the shear resistance of the steel web. Evidently, interactionbetween in-plane shear and bending resistance is negligible for this cross-section.

135

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 381: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.7. Composite columns and composite compressionmembers6.7.1. GeneralScopeA composite column is defined in clause 1.5.2.5 as ‘a composite member subjected mainly tocompression or to compression and bending’. The title of clause 6.7 includes ‘compressionmembers’ to make clear that its scope is not limited to vertical members, but includes, forexample, composite members in trusses.

Composite columns are more widely used in buildings than in bridges, so their treatmenthere is less detailed than in the Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1.5 Its Example 6.10 on aconcrete-encased I-section column is supplemented here by Example 6.12 on a concrete-filled steel tube.

In this Guide, references to ‘columns’ include other composite compression members,unless noted otherwise, and ‘column’ means a length of member between adjacent lateralrestraints. The concept of the ‘effective length’ of a column is not used in clause 6.7.Instead, the ‘relative slenderness’ is defined, in clause 6.7.3.3(2), in terms of Ncr, ‘theelastic critical normal force for the relevant buckling mode’. This use of Ncr is explained inthe comments on clause 6.7.3.3.

Clause 6.7.1(1)P refers to Fig. 6.17, in which all the cross-sections shown have doublesymmetry; but clause 6.7.1(6) makes clear that the scope of the general method ofclause 6.7.2 includes members of non-symmetrical section.87

Clause 6.7 is not intended for application to members subjected mainly to transverseloading and also resisting longitudinal compression, such as longitudinal beams in anintegral bridge. These are treated in this Guide in the comments on beams.

The bending moment in a compression member depends on the assumed location of theline of action of the axial force, N. Where the cross-section has double symmetry, as inmost columns, this is taken as the intersection of the axes of symmetry. In other cases thechoice, made in the modelling for global analysis, should be retained for the analysis ofthe cross-sections. A small degree of asymmetry (e.g. due to an embedded pipe) can beallowed for by ignoring in calculations concrete areas elsewhere, such that symmetry isrestored.

No shear connectors are shown in the cross-sections in Fig. 6.17, because within a columnlength, the longitudinal shear is normally much lower than in a beam, and sufficient inter-action may be provided by bond or friction. Shear connectors are normally required forload introduction, following clause 6.7.4.

Where the design axial compression is less thanNpm;Rd, shown in Fig. 6.19 and Fig. 6.47, itis on the safe side to ignore it in verification of cross-sections. Where there is moderate orhigh transverse shear, shear connectors may be needed throughout the member. Example6.11 of Ref. 5 is relevant.

The strengths of materials in clause 6.7.1(2)P are as for beams, except that class C60/75and lightweight-aggregate concretes are excluded. For these, additional provisions (e.g. forcreep, shrinkage and strain capacity) would be required.88;89

Clause 6.7.1(3) and clause 5.1.1(2) both concern the scope of EN 1994-2, as discussedabove.

The steel contribution ratio, clause 6.7.1(4), is the proportion of the squash load of thesection that is provided by the structural steel member. If it is outside the limits given, themember should be treated as reinforced concrete or as structural steel, as appropriate.

Independent action effectsClause 6.7.1(7) relates to the N–M interaction curve for a cross-section of a column shownin Fig. 6.19 and as a polygon in Fig. 6.47. It applies where the factored axial compression�FNEk is less than Npm;Rd/2, so that reduction in NEd reduces MRd: As this could beunsafe where NEd and MEd result from independent actions, the factor �F for NEk isreduced, as illustrated in Fig. 6.34 of Ref. 5.

Clause 6.7.1(1)P

Clause 6.7.1(2)P

Clause 6.7.1(3)

Clause 6.7.1(4)

Clause 6.7.1(7)

136

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 382: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The ‘bulge’ in the interaction curve is often tiny, as shown in Fig. 6.47. A simpler and moreconservative rule, that ignores the bulge, was given in ENV 1994-1-1. It is that if MRd

corresponding to �FNEk is found to exceed Mpl;Rd, MRd should be taken as Mpl;Rd. It isapplicable unless the bending moment MEd is due solely to the eccentricity of the force NEd.

It is doubtful if the 20% rule of clause 6.7.1(7) was intended to be combined with thereduction of �F from 1.35 to 1.0 for a permanent action with a relieving effect. Where thatis done, use of the simpler rule given above is recommended (e.g. in Fig. 6.47, to replaceboundary BDC by BC).

Local bucklingThe principle of clause 6.7.1(8)P is followed by application rules in clause 6.7.1(9). Theyensure that the concrete (reinforced in accordance with clause 6.7.5) restrains the steel andprevents it from buckling even when yielded. Columns are, in effect, treated in clause 6.7as Class 2 sections. Restraint from the concrete enables the slenderness limits for Class 2to be increased to the values given in Table 6.3. For example, the factor 90 given for a circularhollow section replaces 70 in EN 1993-1-1. Members in Class 3 or 4 are outside the scope ofclause 6.7.

FatigueVerification of columns for fatigue will rarely be needed, but fatigue loading could occur incomposite members in a truss or in composite columns in integral bridges. Verification, ifrequired, should be to clause 6.8.

6.7.2. General method of designThe ‘general method’ of clause 6.7.2 is provided for members outside the scope of thesimplified method of clause 6.7.3, and also to enable advanced software-based methods tobe used. It is more a set of principles than a design method. Writing software that satisfiesthem is a task for specialists.

Much of clause 6.7.3 and the comments on it provide further guidance on design of com-pression members that are outside its scope.

Clause 6.7.2(3)P refers to ‘internal forces’. These are the action effects within the com-pression member, found from global analysis to Section 5 that includes global and localimperfections and second-order effects:

Clause 6.7.2(3)P also refers to ‘elasto-plastic analysis’. This is defined in clause 1.5.6.10 ofEN 1990 as ‘structural analysis that uses stress/strain or moment/curvature relationshipsconsisting of a linear elastic part followed by a plastic part with or without hardening’.

As the three materials in a composite section follow different non-linear relationships,direct analysis of cross-sections is not possible. One has first to assume the dimensionsand materials of the member, and then determine the axial force N and bending momentM at a cross-section from assumed values of axial strain and curvature , using the relevantmaterial properties. TheM–N– relationship for each section can be found from many suchcalculations. This becomes more complex where biaxial bending is present.90

Integration along the length of the member then leads to a non-linear member stiffnessmatrix that relates axial force and end moments to the axial change of length and the endrotations.

Clause 6.7.2(8) on stress–strain curves was drafted, as a ‘General’ rule, before clause 5.7of EN 1992-2 was available and refers only to the Parts 1-1 of Eurocodes 2 and 3. At thattime these rules appeared to be incompatible for use for composite structures. Hence, noapplication rules on non-linear global analysis are given in clause 5.4.3, where furthercomment is given.

In clause 5.7 of EN 1992-2, the intention is that realistic stiffnesses, not design stiffnesses,should be used, on the basis that a small amount of material at the critical section with‘design’ properties will not alter the overall response. For bridges, the recommended stress–strain curves are based on the characteristic strengths. This is consistent with Informative

Clause 6.7.1(8)PClause 6.7.1(9)

Clause 6.7.2

Clause 6.7.2(3)P

Clause 6.7.2(8)

137

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 383: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Annex C of EN 1993-1-5, for structural steel. Both Eurocodes 2 and 3 refer to their nationalannexes for this subject. In the absence of references in EN 1994-2 to these Parts of Eurocodes2 and 3, guidance should be sought from the National Annex.

Where characteristic properties are used in non-linear global analysis, further checks oncross-sections are required. An attractive proposition therefore is to use design values ofmaterial properties throughout, so that the non-linear analysis itself becomes the verifica-tion, provided that the resistance found exceeds the factored loading. This approach is per-mitted by clause 5.7 of EN 1992-2. However, it may not be conservative for serviceabilitylimit states if significant internal forces arise from indirect actions such that greater stiffnessattracts greater internal effects. There is a caveat to this effect in clause 5.7 of EN 1992-2.

6.7.3. Simplified method of designScope of the simplified methodThe method has been calibrated by comparison with test results.91;92 Its scope, clause 6.7.3.1,is limited mainly by the range of results available, which leads to the restriction ��� � 2 inclause 6.7.3.1(1). For most columns, the method requires explicit account to be taken ofimperfections and second-order effects. The use of strut curves is limited in clause6.7.3.5(2) to axially-loaded members.

The restriction on unconnected steel sections in paragraph (1) is to prevent loss of stiffnessdue to slip, that would invalidate the formulae for EI of the column cross-section. The limitsto concrete cover in clause 6.7.3.1(2) arise from concern over strain softening of concreteinvalidating the interaction diagram (Fig. 6.19), and from the limited test data forcolumns with thicker covers. These provisions normally ensure that for each axis ofbending, the flexural stiffness of the steel section makes a significant contribution to thetotal stiffness. Greater cover can be used by ignoring in calculation the concrete thatexceeds the stated limits.

The limit of 6% in clause 6.7.3.1(3) on the reinforcement used in calculation is moreliberal than the 4% (except at laps) recommended in EN 1992-1-1. This limit and that onmaximum slenderness are unlikely to be restrictive in practice.

Clause 6.7.3.1(4) is intended to prevent the use of sections susceptible to lateral–torsionalbuckling.

Resistance of cross-sectionsReference to the partial safety factors for the materials is avoided by specifying resistances interms of design values for strength, rather than characteristic values; for example in equation(6.30) for plastic resistance to compression in clause 6.7.3.2(1). This resistance,Npl;Rd, is thedesign ultimate axial load for a short column, assuming that the structural steel andreinforcement are yielding and the concrete is crushing.

For concrete-encased sections, the crushing stress is taken as 85% of the design cylinderstrength, as explained in the comments on clause 3.1. For concrete-filled sections, theconcrete component develops a higher strength because of the confinement from the steelsection, and the 15% reduction is not made; see also the comments on clause 6.7.3.2(6).

Resistance to combined compression and bendingThe bending resistance of a column cross-section, Mpl;Rd, is calculated as for a compositebeam in Class 1 or 2, clause 6.7.3.2(2). Points on the interaction curve shown in Figs 6.18and 6.19 represent limiting combinations of compressive axial load N and moment Mwhich correspond to the plastic resistance of the cross-section.

The resistance is found using rectangular stress blocks. For simplicity, that for theconcrete extends to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 6.43 for resistance to bending (pointB in Fig. 6.19 and Fig. 6.47). As explained in the comments on clause 3.1(1), this simplifica-tion is unconservative in comparison with stress/strain curves for concrete and the rules ofEN 1992-1-1. To compensate for this, the plastic resistance moment for the cross-sectionis reduced by a factor �M in clause 6.7.3.6(1).

Clause 6.7.3.1

Clause 6.7.3.1(1)

Clause 6.7.3.1(2)

Clause 6.7.3.1(3)

Clause 6.7.3.1(4)

Clause 6.7.3.2(1)

Clause 6.7.3.2(2)

138

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 384: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

As axial compression increases, the neutral axis moves; for example, towards the loweredge of the section shown in Fig. 6.43, and then outside the section. The interaction curveis therefore determined by moving the neutral axis in increments across the section, andfinding pairs of values of M and N from the corresponding stress blocks. This requires acomputer program, unless the simplification given in clause 6.7.3.2(5) is used. Simplifiedexpressions for the coordinates of points B, C and D on the interaction curve are given inAppendix C of Ref. 5. Further comment is given in Examples 6.10 and C.1 in that Guideand in Example 6.12 here.

Influence of transverse shearClauses 6.7.3.2(3) and (4), on the influence of transverse shear on the interaction curve, aregenerally the same as clause 6.2.2.4 on moment–shear interaction in beams. One assumes firstthat the shear VEd acts on the structural steel section alone. If it is less than 0.5Vpl;a;Rd, it hasno effect on the curve. If it is greater, there is an option of sharing it between the steel andreinforced concrete sections, which may reduce that acting on the steel to below0.5Vpl;a;Rd. If it does not, then a reduced design yield strength is used for the shear area,as for the web of a beam. In a column the shear area depends on the plane of bendingconsidered, and may consist of the flanges of the steel section. It is assumed that shearbuckling does not occur.

Shear high enough for Vc;Rd to be relied on in design is unlikely to occur in a compositecolumn, so the code does not go into detail here. The reference in clause 6.7.3.2(3) to theuse of EN 1992 does not include EN 1992-2, where clause 6.2 was not drafted withcolumns in mind. Equation (6.2.b) in EN 1992-1-1, which gives a minimum shear strengthfor concrete regardless of reinforcement content, is not valid for unreinforced concrete asit assumes that minimum reinforcement will be provided according to EN 1992 require-ments. It can be inferred that for a concrete-filled tube with no longitudinal reinforcement(permitted by clause 6.7.5.2(1)), the shear resistance Vc;Rd according to EN 1992 shouldbe taken as zero.

Simplified interaction curveClause 6.7.3.2(5) explains the use of the polygonal diagram BDCA in Fig. 6.19 as an approx-imation to the interaction curve, suitable for hand calculation. The method applies to anycross-section with biaxial symmetry, not just to encased I-sections.

First, the location of the neutral axis for pure bending is found, by equating the longitu-dinal forces from the stress blocks on either side of it. Let this be at distance hn from thecentroid of the uncracked section, as shown in Fig. 6.19(B). It is shown in Appendix C ofRef. 5 that the neutral axis for point C on the interaction diagram is at distance hn on theother side of the centroid, and the neutral axis for point D passes through the centroid.The values of M and N at each point are easily found from the stress blocks shown inFig. 6.19. For concrete-filled steel tubes the factor 0.85 may be omitted.

Concrete-filled tubes of circular or rectangular cross-sectionClause 6.7.3.2(6) is based on the lateral expansion that occurs in concrete under axialcompression. This causes circumferential tension in the steel tube and triaxial compressionin the concrete. This increases the crushing strength of the concrete91 to an extent that

Clause 6.7.3.2(3)Clause 6.7.3.2(4)

Clause 6.7.3.2(5)

Clause 6.7.3.2(6)

0.85fcd

+ +

Concrete Steel Reinforcement

fyd

fyd

fsd

Mpl,Rd

fsd

Fig. 6.43. Stress distributions for resistance in bending

139

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 385: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

outweighs the reduction in the effective yield strength of the steel in vertical compression. Thecoefficients �a and �c given in this clause allow for these effects.

This containment effect is not present to the same extent in concrete-filled rectangulartubes because less circumferential tension can be developed. In all tubes the effects ofcontainment reduce as bending moments are applied, because the mean compressive strainin the concrete and the associated lateral expansion are reduced. With increasing slenderness,bowing of the member under load increases the bending moment, and therefore the effective-ness of containment is further reduced. For these reasons, �a and �c are dependent on theeccentricity of loading and on the slenderness of the member.

Properties of the column or compression memberFor composite compression members in a frame, some properties of each member are neededbefore or during global analysis of the frame:

. the steel contribution ratio, clause 6.7.3.3(1)

. the relative slenderness ���, clause 6.7.3.3(2)

. the effective flexural stiffnesses, clauses 6.7.3.3(3) and 6.7.3.4(2), and

. the creep coefficient and effective modulus for concrete, clause 6.7.3.3(4).

The steel contribution ratio is explained in the comments on clause 6.7.1(4).The relative slenderness ��� is needed to check that the member is within the scope of the

simplified method, clause 6.7.3.1(1). Often it will be evident that ��� < 2. The calculationcan then be omitted, as ��� is not needed again unless the member resists axial load only.

The unfactored quantities E, I and L are used in the calculation of Ncr, so ��� is calculatedusing in equation (6.39) the characteristic (unfactored) value of the squash load, Npl;Rk, andthe characteristic flexural stiffness (EI)eff from clause 6.7.3.3(3). This is the only use of thisstiffness in Section 6. The upper limit on ��� is somewhat arbitrary and does not justify greatprecision in Ncr.

Creep of concrete increases the lateral deformation of the member. This is allowed for byreplacing the elastic modulus Ecm (in equation (6.40)) by a reduced value Ec;eff from equation(6.41). This depends on the creep coefficient t, which is a function of the age at whichconcrete is stressed and the duration of the load. The effective modulus depends also onthe proportion of the design axial load that is permanent. The design of the member israrely sensitive to the influence of the creep coefficient on Ec;eff, so conservative assumptionscan be made about uncertainties. Normally, a single value of effective modulus can be usedfor all compression members in a structure. Further discussion is given under clause 5.4.2.2.

The correction factor Ke is to allow for loss of stiffness caused by possible cracking ofconcrete.

The condition for ignoring second-order effects within the member is explained in com-ments on clause 5.2.1(3). Where the ratio �cr (¼ Ncr/NEd) is used, the critical load Ncr isthe axial force in the member in the lowest buckling mode of the structure that involvesthe member. In the rare cases where both ends of a column are detailed so as to behave aspin-ended (as in Example 6.12), Ncr ¼ �2ðEIÞeff;II/L2. The flexural stiffness (EI)eff;II isobtained from clause 6.7.3.4(2).

In continuous construction, the critical buckling mode involves adjacent members, whichmust be included in the elastic critical analysis.

Analyses for verification of a compression memberFor the compression members of a frame or truss that are within the scope of clause 6.7.3, aflow chart for calculation routes is given in Fig. 6.44.

The relationship between the analysis of a frame and the stability of individual membersis discussed both in the comments on clause 5.2.2 and below. If bending is biaxial, theprocedure in clause 6.7.3.4 is followed for each axis in turn.

Clause 6.7.3.4(1) requires the use of second-order linear-elastic global analysis exceptwhere the option of clause 6.7.3.4(5) applies, or route (c) in Fig. 6.44 is chosen and�cr > 10 in accordance with clause 6.7.3.4(3). The simplified method of clause 6.7.3.5(2)

Clause 6.7.3.3(1)Clause 6.7.3.3(2)Clause 6.7.3.3(3)Clause 6.7.3.3(4)

Clause 6.7.3.4(1)

140

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 386: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

is rarely applicable in practice because some first-order bending moment (other than fromimperfections) will usually be present; for example, due to friction at bearings.

Clause 6.7.3.4(2) gives the design flexural stiffnesses for compression members, for usein all analyses for ultimate limit states. The factor Ke;II allows for cracking, as is requiredby the reference in clause 5.4.2.3(4) to clause 6.7.3.4. The factor K0 is from research-basedcalibration studies. Long-term effects are allowed for, as before, by replacing Ecm in equation(6.42) by Ec;eff from equation (6.41).

In clause 6.7.3.4(3), ‘the elastic critical load ’ refers to the frame at its lowest bucklingmode involving the member concerned; and ‘second-order effects’ means those in the memberdue to both its own imperfections and global imperfections. When deciding whethersecond-order effects of member imperfections can be neglected, the effects of global imperfec-tions can be neglected in an elastic critical analysis (route (c) in Fig. 6.44). A second-orderanalysis for the asymptotic load, route (a), will give the same value for �cr whether globalimperfections are included or not. They are shown in Fig. 6.44 as included because thesame analysis can then give the design bending moments for the member concerned.

Clause 6.7.3.4(4) gives the equivalent member imperfection, for use in a global analysis, asan initial bow. It is proportional to the length L of the member between lateral restraints andis defined by e0, the lateral departure at mid-height of its axis of symmetry from the linejoining the centres of symmetry at its ends. The value accounts principally for truly geometricimperfections and for the effects of residual stresses. It is independent of the distribution ofbending moment along the member. The curved shape is usually assumed to be sinusoidal,but a circular arc is acceptable. The curve is assumed initially to lie in the plane normal to theaxes of the bending moments.

Clause 6.7.3.4(2)

Clause 6.7.3.4(3)

Clause 6.7.3.4(4)

YesYes NoNoYes No

Note 1. ‘Loading’ means a particular combination of actions, load case and load arrangement. In boxes (a) to (c) the lowest αcr for various loadings is found. The chosen loadings should include that for maximum side-sway, and those that are expected to cause the greatest axial compression in each potentially critical compression member.Note 2. Analysis (a) includes both P–Δ effects from global imperfections and P–δ effects from member imperfections.Note 3. For choice of loadings, see Note 1 and the comments on clause 5.2.1(3) and (4).Note 4. No need to return to (a) or (b) where αcr < 10 only in a local member mode (pin-ended conditions). Then, do first-order g.a. with amplification to 6.7.3.4(5) and verify cross-sections.

Flow chart for global analysis (g.a.) and verification of a compression member in a composite frame, with reference to global and member imperfections (g.imp and m.imp). This is for a member of doubly symmetrical and uniform cross-section (6.7.3.1(1)) and for a particular loading. See Notes 1 and 2.

Analysis complete. Verify resistance of cross-sections of each compressionmember, to 6.7.3.6 or 6.7.3.7 (END)

Go to box (a)or (b), above,except that αcr need not be found again. See Note 4

Do 1st orderg.a. with g.imp,and m.imp to6.7.3.4(4)

Find αcr to 5.2.1(3), using (EI )eff,II to 6.7.3.4(2) for all compression members by one of methods (a) to (c):

Do 1st order g.a.with g.imp, and m.imp to6.7.3.4(4)

(b) As box (a)but m.imp notincluded.Is αcr ≥ 10?

(c) Elastic critical analysis withproportional loading and verticalloads only, with no imp., to find αcr.See Note 3. Is αcr ≥ 10?

(a) 2nd order g.a. for proportional loading with g.imp and m.imp. Findratio αcr of asymptotic load to designload. Is αcr ≥ 10?

Use 2nd orderanalysis asabove. Allow for 1st and 2ndorder m.impto 6.7.3.4(5)

Use resultsfrom (a) forthe designloading

1st order g.a. withg.imp and m.imp ispermitted, but notneeded, as resultsfrom (a) for the designloading can be used.(Use of 1st order couldbe more economic)

Fig. 6.44. Flow chart for analysis and verification for a compression member

141

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 387: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Where member imperfections are not included in the global analysis and �cr < 10,clause 6.7.3.4(5) enables these imperfections to be allowed for. It is based on the criticalload Ncr;eff for the isolated pin-ended member even where the critical buckling mode forthe frame involves sway, such that the effective length of the member exceeds its systemlength. This is consistent with clause 5.2.2(7)(b) of EN 1993-1-1, which is referred to fromclause 5.2.2(1) via clause 5.2.2 of EN 1993-2. (This route also leads to clause 5.2.2(3) ofEN 1993-1-1, which sets out these options in detail and is consistent with Fig. 6.44.)

The reason for this definition for Ncr;eff is that where necessary (e.g. where �cr < 10), theeffects of global imperfections and side-sway have been accounted for in the second-orderglobal analysis. This can be seen by using as an example a ‘flagpole’-type column, withboth out-of-plumb and initial bow.

Determination of design bending moment for a compression memberIt is now assumed that for a particular member, with or without lateral load within its length,an analysis in which member imperfections were not included has provided a design axial forceNEd and design end moments for one of the principal planes of bending. These are denotedM1

and M2, with jM1j � jM2j, as shown in Fig. 6.45(a). Biaxial bending is considered later. Theaxial force is normally almost constant along the length of the member. Where it varies, itsmaximum value can conservatively be assumed to be present throughout its length.

The factor k in clause 6.7.3.4(5) is proportional to �. For the end moments, from Table6.4, � lies between 0.44 and 1.1, but for the member imperfection it is always 1.0. Thesetwo values are denoted �1 and �2. The calculation of �1 is now explained, assuming thatthe critical bending moment occurs either at the end where MEd ¼ M1 (where no memberimperfection or resulting second-order effect is assumed) or within the central 20% of thelength of the member.

Except where there is lateral loading, the maximum first-order bending moment within thiscentral length is:

M20% ¼ M1ð0:6þ 0:4rÞshown in Fig. 6.45(a). This is represented by an ‘equivalent’ first-order design value, given byTable 6.4 as:

M1st;Ed ¼ M1ð0:66þ 0:44rÞwith a lower limit of 0.44M1. The ratio M1st;Ed=M20% is shown in Fig. 6.45(c). It is generally1.1, but increases sharply where r < �0:5, which is where the lower limit of 0.44M1 isreached. This range of r represents significant double-curvature bending. The increase pro-vides protection against snap-through to single-curvature buckling.

The moment M1st;Ed is increased by the factor

1

1�NEd=Ncr;eff

Clause 6.7.3.4(5)

0 M1

M20%

M20%/10

0.6L

2.0

1.0

(c)(b)(a)

0–1 –0.50

M1st,Ed/M20%

NEde0 + Mtr,Ed

M2 = rM1

r (=M2/M1)

0

Second-order effectSecond-order

effect

Fig. 6.45. Bending moments in a column: (a) end moments from global analysis; (b) initial imperfectionsand transverse loading; and (c) equivalent first-order bending moment

142

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 388: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

to allow for second-order effects. This factor is an approximation, as shown in Fig. 2.9 ofRef. 93, which is allowed for by the use of the ratio 1.1 shown in Fig. 6.45(c).

BasingNcr;eff on pin-ended conditions can be conservative where the column is braced withend rotational restraints that produce an effective length less than the column height.

Where there is lateral loading within the column length, the bending-moment distributionshould be treated as the sum of two distributions, one corresponding to each of the two partsof Table 6.4. In the first half of the table,MEd is then the sum of contributions from memberimperfection and lateral load. These are not necessarily in the same direction, because themember imperfection e0 can be in any lateral direction and must be chosen to give themost adverse overall result for the column.

Equation (6.43) states that kmust be greater than or equal to unity, and this is correct for asingle distribution of bending moment. However, for a combination of two distributions, itcould be conservative to adjust both values of k in this way when the two sets of moments aretreated separately.

At mid-length the component due to end moments depends on their ratio, r, and thereforecould be small. The appropriate first component is:

�1M1

1�NEd=Ncr;eff

without the condition that it should exceed M1.The imperfection e0 causes a first-order bending moment NEde0 at mid-length. The result-

ing contribution to MEd;max is:

�2NEde01�NEd=Ncr;eff

; with �2 ¼ 1

This, plus the contribution from anymid-length moment from lateral loading, is added to thefirst component. The condition k � 1 applies to the sum of the two components, and isintended to ensure that the design moment is at least equal to the greatest first-order moment.

In biaxial bending, the initial member imperfection may be neglected in the less criticalplane (clause 6.7.3.7(1)).

The definitions ofMEd in clause 6.7.3.4(5) and Table 6.4may appear contradictory. In thetext before equation (6.43),MEd is referred to as a first-order moment. This is because it doesnot include second-order effects arising within the member. However, Table 6.4 makes clearthat MEd is to be determined by either first-order or second-order global analysis, as shownin Fig. 6.44.

The simplified method of clause 6.7.3.5 is rarely applicable, as explained in the commenton clause 6.7.3.4(1), so no comment on it is given.

Verification of cross-sectionsFor uniaxial bending, the final step is to check that the cross-section can resist Mmax;Ed withcompressionNEd. The interaction diagram gives a resistance dMpl;Rd with axial loadNEd, asshown in Fig. 6.18. This is unconservative, being based on rectangular stress-blocks, asexplained in the comment on clause 3.1(1), so in clause 6.7.3.6(1) it is reduced, by the useof a factor �M that depends on the grade of structural steel. This factor allows for theincrease in the compressive strain in the cross-section at yield of the steel (which is adversefor the concrete), when the yield strength of the steel is increased.

Where values of Mmax;Ed have been found for both axes, clause 6.7.3.7 on biaxial bendingapplies, in which they are written as My;Ed and Mz;Ed. If one is much greater than the other,the relevant check for uniaxial bending, equation (6.46), will govern. Otherwise, the linearinteraction given by equation (6.47) applies.

If the member fails this biaxial condition by a small margin, it may be helpful to recalculatethe less critical bending moment omitting the member imperfection, as permitted byclause 6.7.3.7(1).

Clause 6.7.3.5

Clause 6.7.3.6(1)

Clause 6.7.3.7

143

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 389: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.7.4. Shear connection and load introductionLoad introductionThe provisions for the resistance of cross-sections of columns assume that no significant slipoccurs at the interface between the concrete and structural steel components. Clauses6.7.4.1(1)P and (2)P give the principles for limiting slip to an insignificant level in thecritical regions: those where axial load and/or bending moments are applied to the member.

For any assumed ‘clearly defined load path’ it is possible to estimate stresses, includingshear at the interface. Shear connection is unlikely to be needed outside regions of loadintroduction unless the shear strength �Rd from Table 6.6 is very low, or the member isalso acting as a beam, or has a high degree of double-curvature bending. Clause6.7.4.1(3) refers to the special case of an axially loaded column.

Where axial load is applied through a joint attached only to the steel component, the forceto be transferred to the concrete can be estimated from the relative axial loads in the twomaterials given by the resistance model. Accurate calculation is rarely practicable wherethe cross-section concerned does not govern the design of the column. In this partly-plastic situation, the more adverse of the elastic and fully-plastic models give a safe result(clause 6.7.4.2(1), last line). In practice, it may be simpler to provide shear connectionbased on a conservative (high) estimate of the force to be transferred.

Where axial force is applied by a plate bearing on both materials or on concrete only, theproportion of the force resisted by the concrete gradually decreases, due to creep andshrinkage. It could be inferred from clause 6.7.4.2(1) that shear connection should beprovided for a high proportion of the force applied. However, models based on elastictheory are over-conservative in this inherently stable situation, where large strains areacceptable. The application rules that follow are based mainly on tests.

Few shear connectors reach their design shear strength until the slip is at least 1mm; butthis is not significant slip for a resistance model based on plastic behaviour and rectangularstress blocks. However, a long load path implies greater slip, so the assumed path should notextend beyond the introduction length given in clause 6.7.4.2(2).

In a concrete-filled tube, shrinkage effects are low, for only the autogenous shrinkagestrain occurs, with a long-term value below 10�4, from clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1.Radial shrinkage is outweighed by the lateral expansion of concrete in compression, forits inelastic Poisson’s ratio increases at high compressive stress, and eventually exceeds0.5. Friction then provides significant shear connection.

Concrete-filled tubular columns with bearings at both ends have found application inbridge design. Where the whole load is applied to the concrete core through an end plate,the conditions of clause 6.7.4.2(3) can be satisfied, and no shear connection is required.

This complete reliance on friction for shear transfer is supported by test evidence94;95

and by inelastic theory. For columns of circular cross-section, no plausible failure mechan-ism has been found for an end region that does not involve yielding of the steel casing inhoop tension and vertical compression. For a large non-circular column, it would beprudent to check behaviour by finite-element analysis. There is further discussion inExample 6.12.

Friction is also the basis for the enhanced resistance of stud connectors given inclause 6.7.4.2(4).

Detailing at points of load introduction or change of cross-section is assisted by the highpermissible bearing stresses given in clauses 6.7.4.2(5) and (6). An example is given in Ref. 5in which the local design compressive strength of the concrete, �c;Rd in equation (6.48), isfound to be 260N/mm2.

Clause 6.7.4.2(7) relates to load introduction to reinforcement in a concrete-filled tube.This and some other concessions made at the ends of a column length are based mainlyon tests on columns of sizes typical of those used in buildings. Some caution should beexercised in applying them to members with much larger cross-sections. Unless a columnis free to sway, a hinge forms in its central region before it fails. End regions that are slightlyweaker have little effect on the failure load, because at that stage their bending moments arelower than at mid-length.

Clause 6.7.4.1(1)PClause 6.7.4.1(2)P

Clause 6.7.4.1(3)

Clause 6.7.4.2(1)

Clause 6.7.4.2(2)

Clause 6.7.4.2(3)

Clause 6.7.4.2(4)

Clause 6.7.4.2(5)Clause 6.7.4.2(6)

Clause 6.7.4.2(7)

144

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 390: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The absence from clause 6.7.4.2(8) of a reference to EN 1992-2 is deliberate, as its clause9.5.3 gives a rule that is not required for composite columns.

Figure 6.23 illustrates the requirement of clause 6.7.4.2(9) for transverse reinforcement,which must have a resistance to tension equal to the force Nc1. If longitudinal reinforcementis ignored, this is given by:

Nc1 ¼ Ac2=ð2nAÞ

where A is the transformed area of the cross-section 1-1 of the column in Fig. 6.23, given by:

A ¼ As þ ðAc1 þ Ac2Þ=n

and Ac1 and Ac2 are the unshaded and shaded areas of concrete, respectively, in section 1-1.The modular ratio, n, should usually be taken as the short-term value.

Transverse shearClause 6.7.4.3 gives application rules (used in Example 6.11 in Ref. 5) relevant to theprinciple of clause 6.7.4.1(2), for columns with the longitudinal shear that arises fromtransverse shear. The design shear strengths �Rd in Table 6.6 are far lower than the tensilestrength of concrete. They rely on friction, not bond, and are related to the extent towhich separation at the interface is prevented. For example, in partially-encased I-sections,lateral expansion of the concrete creates pressure on the flanges, but not on the web, forwhich �Rd ¼ 0; and the highest shear strengths are for concrete within steel tubes.

Where small steel I-sections are present within a column that is mainly concrete, clause6.7.4.3(4) provides a useful increase to �Rd, for covers cz up to 115mm. The enhancementfactor is more simply presented as: �c ¼ 0:2þ cz=50 � 2:5.

Concern about the attachment of concrete to steel in partially-encased I-sections appearsagain in clause 6.7.4.3(5), because under weak-axis bending, separation tends to developbetween the encasement and the web.

6.7.5. Detailing provisionsIf a steel I-section in an environment in class X0 to EN 1992-1-1 has links in contact with itsflange (permitted by clause 6.7.5.2(3)), the cover to the steel section could be as low as25mm. For a wide steel flange, this thin layer of concrete would have little resistance tobuckling outwards, so the minimum thickness is increased to 40mm in clause 6.7.5.1(2).This is a nominal dimension.

Minimum longitudinal reinforcement, clause 6.7.5.2(1), is needed to control the width ofcracks, which can be caused by shrinkage even in columns with concrete nominally in com-pression.

Clause 6.7.5.2(2) does not refer to EN 1992-2 because its clause 9.5 introduces a nationally-determined parameter, which is not needed for composite columns.

Clause 6.7.5.2(4) refers to exposure class X0 of EN 1992-1-1. This is a ‘very dry’ environ-ment, with ‘no risk of corrosion or attack’, so this clause is unlikely to be applicable inbridges.

Clause 6.7.4.2(8)

Clause 6.7.4.2(9)

Clause 6.7.4.3

Clause 6.7.4.3(4)

Clause 6.7.4.3(5)

Clause 6.7.5.1(2)

Clause 6.7.5.2(1)

Clause 6.7.5.2(2)

Clause 6.7.5.2(4)

Example 6.12: concrete-filled tube of circular cross-sectionThis Example is based on columns used for a motorway interchange, as described inRefs 94 and 96. The column shown in Fig. 6.46 is of circular cross-section. It has sphericalrocker bearings at each end, of radii 600mm (internal) and 605mm (external). Itslength between centres of bearings is 11.5m. Its design will be checked for a designultimate load NEd ¼ 18.0MN. The bearing at its lower end is fixed in position. Thedeformation of the superstructure at ultimate load causes a maximum eccentricity ofload of 75mm.

Concerning �M for structural steel, clause 5.2.2(7)(a) of EN 1993-1-1 says that ‘noindividual stability check for the members according to 6.3 is necessary’ when

145

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 391: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

second-order analysis is used with member imperfections; and clause 6.1(1) of EN 1993-1-1 then says that �M1 is used for ‘instability assessed by member checks’. This appears topermit �M0 to be used when second-order analysis and cross-section checks are used, ashere, so �M0 ¼ 1.0 is used.The properties of the materials, in the usual notation, are as follows.

Structural steel: S355; fy ¼ fyd ¼ 355N/mm2, based on the use of Table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-1. (The UK’s National Annex is likely to require the appropriate value to be taken fromEN 10025.) From EN 1993, Ea ¼ 210kN/mm2.

Concrete: C40/50; fck ¼ 40N/mm2; fcd ¼ 40=1:5 ¼ 26:7N/mm2.The coarse aggregate is limestone, so from clause 3.1.3(2) of EN 1992-1-1,Ecm ¼ 0:9� 35 ¼ 31:5 kN/mm2; n0 ¼ 210=31:5 ¼ 6:67.

600

3535680

6 mm cement-sandbedding

11 500

Fig. 6.46. Cross-section at each end of concrete-filled tube of Example 6.12

Geometrical properties of the cross-sectionIn the notation of Fig. 6.17(e), d ¼ 750mm, t ¼ 35mm, giving d=t ¼ 21:4.The limit, from Table 6.3, is d=t � 90ð235=355Þ ¼ 59:6.From clause 6.7.5.2(1), ‘normally no longitudinal reinforcement is necessary’ (unless

resistance to fire is required), so As ¼ 0 is assumed.

For the concrete: area Ac ¼ �� 3402 ¼ 363 200mm2

Ic ¼ �� 3404=4 ¼ 10 500� 106 mm4

For the steel tube: area Aa ¼ �� 3752 � 363 200 ¼ 78 620mm2

Ia ¼ �� 3754=4� 10 500� 106 ¼ 5036� 106 mm4

Design action effects, ultimate limit stateFor the most critical load arrangement, global analysis gives these values:

NEd ¼ 18:0MN, of which NG;Ed ¼ 13.0MN (D6.26)

MEd;top ¼ 18� 0:075 ¼ 1.35MNm (D6.27)

As the column has circular symmetry and its imperfection is assumed to lie in the plane ofbending, there is no need to consider biaxial bending. For a rocker bearing, the effectivelength should be taken to the points of contact, and is:

L ¼ 11:5þ 2� 0:6 ¼ 12.7m

Depending on the relationship between the rotation and the displacement of thesuperstructure at the point of support, it can be shown that the points of contactwithin the two bearings can be such that the ratio of end moments has any value

146

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 392: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

between þ1 and �1. The worst case for the column, assumed here, is:

MEd;top ¼ MEd;bot

(i.e., r ¼ 1 in Table 6.4). Double-curvature bending (r ¼ �1) causes higher transverseshear force in the column, but it is too low to influence the design.

Creep coefficientFrom clause 6.7.3.3(4),

Ec ¼ Ecm=½1þ ðNG;Ed=NEdÞ t� (6.41)

The creep coefficient t is ðt; t0Þ to clause 5.4.2.2. The time t0 is taken as 30 days, and t istaken as ‘infinity’, as creep reduces the stiffness, and hence the stability, of a column.

From clause 3.1.4(5) of EN 1992-1-1, the ‘perimeter exposed to drying’ is zero, so thatthe notional size, h0 ! 1. Assuming ‘inside conditions’ and the use of normal cement, thegraphs in Fig. 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 give:

ð1; 30Þ ¼ 1:4 ¼ t

The assumed ‘age at first loading’ has little influence on the result if it exceeds about 20days.From equation (6.41),

Ec;eff ¼ 31:5=½1þ 1:4ð13=18Þ� ¼ 15.7 kN/mm2 (D6.28)

ShrinkageWhen the upper bearing is placed, the concrete becomes effectively sealed, so its dryingshrinkage can be taken as zero. From EN 1992-1-1/3.1.4(6), the autogenous shrinkage is:

ecað11Þ ¼ 2:5ð fck � 10Þ � 10�6 ¼ 2:5� 30� 30� 10�6 ¼ 75� 10�6 (D6.29)

Ignoring the restraint from the steel tube, this would cause the 11m length of column toshorten by only 0.8mm. Its influence on shear connection is discussed later.

Squash load, elastic critical load, and slendernessFrom clause 6.7.3.2(1),

Npl;Rd ¼ Aa fyd þ Ac fcd

¼ 78:62� 0:355þ 363:2� 0:0267 ¼ 27:9þ 9:70 ¼ 37:6MN ðD6:30Þ

From clause 6.7.3.3(1), the steel contribution ratio is:

� ¼ 27:9=37:6 ¼ 0:74

which is within the limits of clause 6.7.1(4).For ��� to clause 6.7.3.3(2), with �C ¼ 1.5,

Npl;Rk ¼ 27:9þ 1:5� 9:70 ¼ 42.46MN (D6.31)

From clause 6.7.3.3(3),

ðEIÞeff ¼ EaIa þ KeEc;effIc

¼ 210� 5036þ 0:6� 15:7� 10 500 ¼ 1:156� 106 kNm2 (6.40)

Hence,

Ncr ¼ �2ðEIÞeff=L2 ¼ 1:156� 103�2=12:72 ¼ 70.74MN

From equation (6.39),

��� ¼ ðNpl;Rk=NcrÞ0:5 ¼ ð42:46=70:74Þ0:5 ¼ 0.775

147

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 393: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The non-dimensional slenderness does not exceed 2.0, so clause 6.7.3.1(1) is satisfied.Clause 6.7.3.2(6), on the effect of containment on the strength of concrete, does notapply, as ��� > 0:5.

NRd (MN)

MRd (MNm)

NEd = 18.0

Npl,Rd = 37.6

Mpl,Rd = 6.884

Npm,RdMmax,Ed = 3149

20

0 42

30

10

A

4.836

6

4.85

9.700

7.057

B

C

D

Fig. 6.47. Interaction polygon for concrete-filled tube

Interaction polygonThe interaction polygon corresponding to Fig. 6.19 is determined using formulae that aregiven and explained in Appendix C of Ref. 5. Clause 6.7.3.2(5) permits it to be used as anapproximation to the N–M interaction curve for the cross-section.The data are: h ¼ b ¼ d ¼ 750mm; r ¼ d=2� t ¼ 375� 35 ¼ 340mm.From result (D6.30),

Npl;Rd ¼ 27:9þ 9:70 ¼ 37.6MN

The equation numbers (C.) refer to those given in Ref. 5. From equation (C.29) withWps ¼ 0,

Wpc ¼b� 2tð Þ h� 2tð Þ2

4� 2

3r3 ¼ 6803=4� 2� 3403=3 ¼ 52:4� 106 mm3

From equation (C.30):

Wpa ¼bh2� �4

� 2

3ðrþ tÞ3 �Wpc ¼ 7503=4� 2� 3753=3� 52:4� 106 ¼ 17:91� 106 mm3

From equation (C.8),

Npm;Rd ¼ Ac fcd ¼ 0:3632� 26:7 ¼ 9.70MN

From equation (C.31),

hn ¼Npm;Rd � Asnð2 fsd � fccÞ2b fcd þ 4tð2 fyd � fccÞ

¼ 9:70� 106

2� 750� 26:7þ 140ð2� 355� 26:7Þ ¼ 71:5mm

From equation (C.32),

Wpc;n ¼ ðb� 2tÞh2n ¼ ð750� 70Þ � 71:52 ¼ 3:474� 106 mm3

From equation (C.33),

Wpa;n ¼ bh2n �Wpc;n ¼ 750� 71:52 � 3:474� 106 ¼ 0:358� 106 mm3

From equation (C.5),

Mmax;Rd ¼ Wpa fyd þWpc fcd=2 ¼ 17:91� 355þ 52:4� 26:7=2 ¼ 7057 kNm

148

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 394: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

From equation (C.7),

Mn;Rd ¼ Wpa;n fyd þWpc;n fcd=2 ¼ 0:358� 355þ 3:474� 26:7=2 ¼ 173 kNm

From equation (C.6),

Mpl;Rd ¼ Mmax;Rd �Mn;Rd ¼ 7057� 173 ¼ 6884 kNm

These results define the interaction polygon, shown in Fig. 6.47.

Design maximum bending momentFrom Table 6.4 with r ¼ 1, � ¼ 1, the equivalent first-order bending moment is:

M1st;Ed ¼ 1350� 1:1 ¼ 1485 kNm

From Table 6.5, the equivalent member imperfection is:

e0 ¼ L=300 ¼ 12 700=300 ¼ 42.3mm

For NEd ¼ 18MN, the imperfection moment is 18� 42:3 ¼ 761 kNm

To check whether second-order moments can be neglected, an effective value of Ncr isrequired, to clause 6.7.3.4(3). From equation (6.42),

ðEIÞeff;II ¼ 0:9ðEaIa þ 0:5EcIcÞ

¼ 0:9� 106ð210� 5036þ 0:5� 15:7� 10 500Þ ¼ 1:026� 1012 kNmm2

Hence,

Ncr;eff ¼ 1026�2=12:72 ¼ 62.8MN

This is less than 10NEd, so second-order effects must be allowed for. Table 6.4 gives � ¼ 1for the distribution of bending moment due to the initial bow imperfection of the member,so from clause 6.7.3.4(5), the second-order factor is:

1

1�NEd=Ncr;eff

¼ 1

1� 18=62:8¼ 1:402

(The � factor for the end moments was accounted for in M1st;Ed.) Hence,

Mmax;Ed ¼ 1:402ð1485þ 761Þ ¼ 3149 kNm

Resistance of columnFrom Fig. 6.47 with NEd ¼ 18MN, Mpl;N;Rd ¼ 4836 kNm.From clause 6.7.3.6(1), the verification for uniaxial bending is:

MEd=Mpl;N;Rd � 0:9

Here, the ratio is 3149=4836 ¼ 0.65, so the column is strong enough.

Shear connection and load introductionThis column is within the scope of clause 6.7.4.2(3), which permits shear connection to beomitted. The significance of this rule is now illustrated, using preceding results.

Creep increases shear transfer to the steel. Full-interaction elastic analysis withnL ¼ n0ð1þ L tÞ ¼ 17 (clause 5.4.2.2(2)) finds the action effects on the steel to be:

Na;Ed ¼ 14.2MN and Ma;Ed ¼ �1.2MNm

based on MEd ¼ 1.35MNm near an end of the column.From the rules for shear connection, these transfers would require 90 25mm studs for

the axial force plus 28 for the bending moment, assuming it can act about any horizontalaxis.

The significance of friction is illustrated by the following elastic analysis assuming thatPoisson’s ratio for concrete is 0.5. The bearing stress on the concrete from NEd ¼ 18MN

149

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 395: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.8. Fatigue6.8.1. GeneralThe only complete set of provisions on fatigue in EN 1994-2 is for stud shear connectors.Fatigue in reinforcement, concrete and structural steel is covered mainly by cross-referenceto EN 1992 and EN 1993. Commentary will be found in the guides to those codes.3;4 Furthercross-reference is necessary to EN 1993-1-9,42 ‘Fatigue’, which gives supplementary guidanceand fatigue detail classifications which are not specific to bridges.

The fatigue life of steel components subjected to varying levels of repetitive stress can bechecked with the use of Miner’s summation. This is a linear cumulative damage calculationfor n stress ranges:

Xni¼1

nEiNRi

� 1:0 ðD6:32Þ

where nEi is the number of loading cycles of a particular stress range andNRi is the number ofloading cycles to cause fatigue failure at that particular stress range. For most bridges, theabove is a complex calculation because the stress in each steel component usually variesdue to the random passage of vehicles from a spectrum. Details on a road or rail bridgecan be assessed using the above procedure if the loading regime is known at design. Thisincludes the weight and number of every type of vehicle that will use each lane or track ofthe bridge throughout its design life, and the correlation between loading in each lane ortrack. In general, this will produce a lengthy calculation.

As an alternative, clause 9.2 of EN 1993-2 allows the use of simplified Fatigue LoadModels 3 and 71, from EN 1991-2, for road and rail bridges respectively. This reduces thecomplexity of the fatigue assessment calculation. It is assumed that the fictitious vehicle(or train) alone causes the fatigue damage. The calculated stress from the vehicle is thenadjusted by factors to give a single stress range which, for N cycles (2 million cycles forstructural steel), causes the same damage as the actual traffic during the bridge’s lifetime.This is called the ‘damage equivalent stress range’ and is discussed in section 6.8.4 below.Comments here are limited to the use of the damage equivalent stress method and, hence,a single stress range.

is 49.6N/mm2. Its resulting lateral expansion causes a hoop tensile stress in the steel of225N/mm2 and a radial compression in the concrete of 23N/mm2 – Fig. 6.48. Assuminga coefficient of friction of 0.4, the vertical frictional stress is:

�Rd ¼ 23� 0:4 ¼ 9:2N/mm2

The shear transfer reduces the compressive stress in the concrete. Using a guessed meanvalue of �Rd ¼ 5N/mm2 leads to a transfer length for 14.2MN of 1.33m. This is less thanthe introduction length of 2d (¼ 1:50m here) permitted by clause 6.7.4.2(2).These figures serve only to illustrate the type of behaviour to be expected. In practice, it

would be prudent to provide some shear connection; perhaps sufficient for the bendingmoment. Shrinkage effects are very small.

225 N/mm2 225 N/mm2

23 N/mm2

23 N/mm2

680

35

Fig. 6.48. Radial and hoop stresses near an end of a concrete-filled tube

150

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 396: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The term ‘equivalent constant-amplitude stress range’, defined in clause 1.2.2.11 ofEN 1993-1-9, has the same meaning as ‘damage equivalent stress range’, used here and inclause 6.8.5 of EN 1992-1-1 and clause 9.4.1 of EN 1993-2.

Fatigue damage is related mainly to the number and amplitude of the stress ranges as seenin expression (D6.32). The peak of the stress range has a secondary influence that can be, andusually is, ignored in practice for peak stresses below about 60% of the characteristicstrength. Ultimate loads are higher than peak fatigue loads, and the use of partial safetyfactors for ultimate-load design normally ensures that peak fatigue stresses are below thislimit. This may not be the case for long-span bridges with a high percentage of dead load,so clause 6.8.1(3) specifies a limit to the longitudinal shear force per connector, with arecommended value 0.75PRd, or 0.6PRk for �V ¼ 1:25. As fatigue damage to studs maynot be evident, some continental countries are understood to be specifying a lower limit,0.6PRd, in their national annexes. (For welded structural steel, the effect of peak stress iseffectively covered in the detail classifications in EN 1993-1-9, where residual stresses fromwelding, typically reaching yield locally, are catered for in the detail categories.)

Most bridges will require a fatigue assessment. Clauses 6.8.1(4) and (5) refer to EN 1993-2and EN 1992-2 for guidance on the types of bridges and bridge elements where fatigueassessment may not be required. Those relevant to composite bridge superstructures of steeland concrete include:

(i) pedestrian footbridges not susceptible to pedestrian-induced vibration(ii) bridges carrying canals(iii) bridges which are predominantly statically loaded(iv) parts of railway or road bridges that are neither stressed by traffic loads nor likely to be

excited by wind loads(v) prestressing and reinforcing steel in regions where, under the frequent combination of

actions and the characteristic prestress Pk, only compressive stresses occur at theextreme concrete fibres. (The strain and hence the stress range in the steel is typicallysmall while the concrete remains in compression.)

Fatigue assessments are still required in the cases above (with the possible exception of (v)),if bridges are found to be susceptible to wind-induced excitation. The main cause ofwind-induced fatigue, vortex shedding, is covered in EN 1991-1-4 and is not consideredfurther here.

6.8.2. Partial factors for fatigue assessment of bridgesResistance factors �Mf may be given in National Annexes, so only the recommended valuescan be discussed here. For fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement, clause 6.8.2(1)refers to EN 1992-1-1, which recommends the partial factors 1.5 and 1.15, respectively,for both persistent and transient design situations. For structural steel, EN 1993-1-9,Table 3.1 recommends values ranging from 1.0 to 1.35, depending on the design conceptand consequence of failure. These apply, as appropriate, for a fatigue failure of a steelflange caused by a stud weld. The choice of design concept and the uncertainties coveredby �Mf are discussed in Ref. 4.

Fatigue failure of a stud shear connector, not involving the flange, is covered by EN 1994-2.The recommended value of �Mf;s for fatigue of headed studs is given as 1.0 in a Note toclause 2.4.1.2(6) in the general rules of EN 1994. This is the value in EN 1993-1-9 for the‘damage tolerant’ assessment method with ‘low consequence of failure’. From clause 3(2)of EN 1993-1-9, the use of the damage tolerant method should be satisfactory, providedthat ‘a prescribed inspection and maintenance regime for detecting and correcting fatiguedamage is implemented . . .’. A Note to this clause states that the damage tolerant methodmay be applied where ‘in the event of fatigue damage occurring a load redistributionbetween components of structural elements can occur’.

The first condition does not apply to stud connectors, as lack of access prevents detectionof small cracks by any simple method of inspection. For that situation, EN 1993-1-9

Clause 6.8.1(3)

Clause 6.8.1(4)Clause 6.8.1(5)

Clause 6.8.2(1)

151

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 397: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

recommends use of the ‘safe life’ method, with �Mf ¼ 1:15 for ‘low consequence of failure’.The second condition does apply to stud connectors, and the value �Mf;s ¼ 1:0 is consideredto be appropriate for studs in bridges. Relevant considerations are as follows.

Fatigue failure results from a complex interaction between steel and concrete, commencingwith powdering of the highly stressed concrete adjacent to the weld collar. This displacesupwards the line of action of the shear force, increasing the bending and shear in the shankjust above the weld collar, and probably also altering the tension. Initial fatigue crackingfurther alters the relative stiffnesses and the local stresses. Research has found that theexponent that relates the cumulative damage to the stress range may be higher than thevalue, 5, for other welds in shear. The value chosen for EN 1994-2, 8, is controversial, asdiscussed later.

As may be expected from the involvement of a tiny volume of concrete, tests show a widescatter in fatigue lives, which is allowed for in the design resistances. Studs are provided inlarge numbers, and are well able to redistribute shear between themselves.

One reason for not recommending a partial factor more conservative than 1.0 comes fromexperience with bridges, where stud connectors have been used for almost 50 years. When-ever occasion has arisen in print or at a conference, the second author has stated thatthere is no known instance of fatigue failure of a stud in a bridge, other than a few clearlyattributable to errors in design. This has not been challenged. Research has identified, butnot yet quantified, many reasons for this remarkable experience.97;98 Most of them (e.g.slip, shear lag, permanent set, partial interaction, adventitious connection from boltheads, friction) lead to predicted stress ranges on studs lower than those assumed indesign. With an eighth-power law, a 10% reduction in stress range more than doubles thefatigue life.

6.8.3. Fatigue strengthThe format of clause 6.8.3(3) for shear studs, as in EN 1993-1-9, uses a reference value ofrange of shear stress at 2 million cycles, ��C ¼ 90N/mm2. It defines the slope m of theline through this point on the log-log plot of range of stress ��R against number ofconstant-range stress cycles to failure, NR, Fig. 6.25. Clause 6.8.3(4)modifies the expressionslightly for lightweight-aggregate concrete.

It is a complex matter to deduce a value for m from the mass of test data, which are ofteninconsistent. Many types of test specimen have been used, and the resulting scatter of resultsmust be disentangled from that due to inherent variability. Values form recommended in theliterature range from 5 to 12, mostly based on linear-regression analyses. The method ofregression used (x on y, or y on x) can alter the value found by up to 3.97

The value 8, which was also used in BS 5400 Part 10, may be too high. In design for aloading spectrum, its practical effect is that the cumulative damage is governed by thehighest-range components of the spectrum (e.g. by the small number of very heavy lorriesin the traffic spectrum). A lower value, such as 5, would give more weight to the muchhigher number of average-weight vehicles. This is illustrated in Example 6.13.

While fatigue design methods for stud connectors continue to be conservative (for bridgesand probably for buildings too) the precise value for m is of academic interest. Any futureproposals for more accurate methods for prediction of stress ranges should be associatedwith re-examination of the value for m. Annex C gives a different design rule for fatigue oflying studs, which is discussed in Chapter 10.

6.8.4. Internal forces and fatigue loadingsFor fatigue assessment, it is necessary to find the range or ranges of stress in a given materialat a chosen cross-section, caused by the passage of a vehicle along the bridge. Loading otherthan the vehicle influences the extent of cracking in the concrete, and hence, the stiffnesses ofmembers and the calculated stresses. Cracking depends mainly on the heaviest previousloading, and so tends to increase with time. Clause 6.8.4(1) refers to clause 6.8.3 ofEN 1992-1-1. This defines the non-cyclic loading assumed to coexist with the design value

Clause 6.8.3(3)

Clause 6.8.3(4)

Clause 6.8.4(1)

152

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 398: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

of the cyclic load, Qfat: it is the ‘frequent’ combination, represented byXj�1

Gk; j þ Pþ 1;1Qk;1 þXi>1

2;iQk;i

where the Q’s are non-cyclic variable actions.Traffic will usually be the leading non-cyclic action since the 2 value for traffic recom-

mended in Annex A2 of EN 1990 is zero. With traffic as the leading action, only thermalactions have a non-zero value of 2 and therefore need to be considered.

The non-cyclic combination gives a mean stress level upon which the cyclic part of theaction effect is superimposed. The importance of mean stress is illustrated in Fig. 6.49 forthe calculation of stress range in reinforcement in concrete. It shows that the stress changein the reinforcement for any part of the loading cycle that induces compression in theconcrete is much less than the stress change where the slab remains in tension throughoutthe cycle.

Clause 6.8.4(2) defines symbols that are used for bending moments in clause 6.8.5.4. Thesign convention is evident from Fig. 6.26, which shows thatMEd;max;f is the bending momentthat causes the greatest tension in the slab, and is positive. Clause 6.8.4(2) also refers tointernal forces, but does not give symbols. Analogous use of calculated tensile forces in aconcrete slab (e.g. NEd;max;f) may sometimes be necessary.

Clause 6.8.4(3) refers to Annex A.1 of EN 1993-1-9 for a general treatment of fatiguebased on summing the damage from a loading spectrum. As discussed in section 6.8.1above, this would be a lengthy and complex calculation for most bridges and thereforeclauses 6.8.4(4) to (6) provide the option of using simpler load models from EN 1991-2.The damage equivalent stress method for road bridges is based on Fatigue Load Model 3defined in EN 1991-2 clause 4.6.4, while for rail bridges it is based on Load Model 71.Clause 6.8.4(5) says that the additional factors given in EN 1992-2 clause NN.2.1 ‘should ’be applied to Load Model 3 where a road bridge is prestressed by tendons or imposeddeformations. As Annex NN is Informative, the situation is unclear in a country wherethe National Annex does not make it available.

The load models and their application are discussed in the other guides in this series.2�4

6.8.5. StressesClause 6.8.5.1(1) refers to a list of action effects in clause 7.2.1(1)P to be taken into account‘where relevant’. They are all relevant, in theory, to the extent of cracking. However, this canusually be represented by the same simplified model, chosen from clause 5.4.2.3, that is usedfor other global analyses. They also influence the maximum value of the fatigue stress range,which is limited for each material (e.g. the limit for shear connectors in clause 6.8.1(3)).

The provisions for fatigue are based on the assumption that the stress range caused by agiven fluctuation of loading, such as the passage of a vehicle of known weight, remainsapproximately constant after an initial shakedown period. ‘Shakedown’ here includes the

Clause 6.8.4(2)

Clause 6.8.4(3)

Clauses 6.8.4to (6)

Clause 6.8.5.1(1)

Stress inreinforcing bar

Tension

Time

Reduced stress range forthe same vehicle

Stress range from cyclic loads(e.g. passage of fatigue load model)

‘Mean’ stress levelfrom non-cyclic loads

Compression 0

Fig. 6.49. Stress ranges for fatigue verification of reinforcement caused by the same cyclic action atdifferent mean stress levels

153

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 399: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

changes due to cracking, shrinkage, and creep of concrete, that occur mainly within the firstyear or two.

For bridges, most fatigue cycles occur over very short durations as the stress ranges areproduced either by the passage of vehicles or by wind-induced oscillations. Cycles of stressfrom thermal actions also occur but over greater durations. The magnitude and smallnumber of these cycles do not generally cause any significant fatigue damage. The short-term modular ratio should therefore be used when finding stress ranges from the cyclicaction Qfat. Where a peak stress is being checked, creep from permanent loading shouldbe allowed for, if it increases the relevant stress.

The effect of tension stiffening on the calculation of stress in reinforcement, clause6.8.5.1(2)P and (3), is illustrated in Example 6.13 and discussed under clause 6.8.5.4below. It is not conservative to neglect tension stiffening in this calculation for a compositebeam as the increased stiffness attracts more stress to the concrete slab and hence to thereinforcement between cracks. For stresses in structural steel, the effects of tension stiffeningmay be included or neglected in accordance with clause 6.8.5.1(4). Tension stiffening herehas a beneficial effect in reducing the stresses in the structural steel. Tension stiffeningshould also be considered in deriving stresses for prestressing steel – clause 6.8.5.1(5).

For analysis, the linear-elastic method of Section 5 is used, from clause 6.8.4(1). Clause7.2.1(8) requires consideration of local and global effects in deck slabs. This is also reflectedin clause 6.8.6.1(3). When checking fatigue, it is important to bear in mind that the mostcritical areas for fatigue may not be the same as those for other ultimate limit state calcula-tions. For example, the critical section for shear connection may be near mid-span, since itsprovision is usually based on the static design, and the contribution to the static shear fromdead load is zero there.

ConcreteFor concrete, clause 6.8.5.2(1) refers to clause 6.8 of EN 1992-1-1, where clause 6.8.5(2)refers to EN 1992-2. EN 1992-2 clause 6.8.7(101) provides a damage equivalent stressrange method presented as for a spectrum. The method of its Annex NN is not applicableto composite members. As a simpler alternative, EN 1992-1-1 clause 6.8.7(2) gives a conser-vative verification based on the non-cyclic loading used for the static design. It will usually besufficient to apply this verification to composite bridges as it is unlikely to govern designother than possibly for short spans where most of the compressive force in concrete is pro-duced by live load.

Structural steelClause 6.8.5.3(1) repeats, in effect, the concession in clause 6.8.5.1(4).Where the words ‘or onlyMEd;min;f’ in clause 6.8.5.3(2) apply, MEd;max;f causes tension in the slab. The use of theuncracked section for MEd;max;f would then underestimate the stress ranges in steel flanges, sothat cracked section properties should be used for the calculation of this part of the stress range.

ReinforcementFor reinforcement, clause 6.8.3(2) refers to EN 1992-1-1, where clause 6.8.4 gives theverification procedure. Its recommended value N for straight bars is 106. This should notbe confused with the corresponding value for structural steel in EN 1993-1-9, 2� 106,denoted NC, which is used also for shear connectors, clause 6.8.6.2(1).

Using the � values recommended in EN 1992-1-1, its expression (6.71) for verification ofreinforcement becomes:

��E;equðNÞ � ��RskðNÞ=1:15 (D.6.33)

with ��Rsk ¼ 162.5N/mm2 for N ¼ 106, from Table 6.3N.Where a range��E(NE) has been determined, the resistance��Rsk(NE) can be found from

the S–N curve for reinforcement, and the verification is:

��EðNEÞ � ��RskðNEÞ=1:15 (D6.34)

Clause 6.8.5.1(2)PClause 6.8.5.1(3)

Clause 6.8.5.1(4)

Clause 6.8.5.1(5)

Clause 6.8.5.2(1)

Clause 6.8.5.3(1)Clause 6.8.5.3(2)

154

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 400: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 6.8.5.4(1) permits the use of the approximation to the effects of tension stiffeningthat is used for other limit states. It consists of adding to the maximum tensile stress in the‘fully cracked’ section, �s;o, an amount ��s that is independent of �s;o. The value of ��s forfatigue verification is modified by replacing the factor of 0.4 in equation (7.5) by 0.2. This isto allow for the reduction in tension stiffening caused by repeated cycles of tensile stress.99

Clauses 6.8.5.4(2) and (3) give simplified rules for calculating stresses, with reference toFig. 6.26, which is discussed using Fig. 6.50. This has the same axes, and also shows aminimum bending moment that causes compression in the slab. A calculated value for thestress �s in reinforcement, that assumes concrete to be effective, would lie on line A0D.On initial cracking, the stress �s jumps from B to point E. Lines 0BE are not shown inFig. 6.26 because clause 7.2.1(5)P requires the tensile strength of concrete to be neglectedin calculations for �s. This gives line 0E. For moments exceeding Mcr, the stress �s followsroute EFG on first loading. Calculation of �s using section property I2 gives line 0C. Atbending moment MEd;max;f the stress �s;o thus found is increased by ��s, from equation(7.5), as shown by line HJ.

Clause 6.8.5.4 defines the unloading route from point J as J0A, on which the stress �s;min;f

lies. Points K and L give two examples, for MEd;min;f causing tension and compression,respectively, in the slab. The fatigue stress ranges ��s;f for these two cases are shown.

Shear connectionThe interpretation of clause 6.8.5.5(1)P is complex when tension stiffening is allowed for.Spacing of shear connectors near internal supports is unlikely to be governed by fatigue,so it is simplest to use uncracked section properties when calculating range of shear flowfrom range of vertical shear, clause 6.8.5.5(2). These points are illustrated in Example 6.13.

Reinforcement and prestressing steel in members prestressed by bonded tendonsWhere bonded prestress is present, stresses should be determined in a similar manner tothe above for reinforcement alone, but account needs to be taken of the difference ofbond behaviour between prestressing steel and reinforcement – clause 6.8.5.6(1). Clause6.8.5.6(2) makes reference to clause 7.4.3(4) which in turn refers to clause 7.3 ofEN 1992-1-1 for the calculation of stresses ‘�s’. This is a generic symbol here, and soapplies to the stress �s;max;f referred to in clause 6.8.5.6(2).

6.8.6. Stress rangesClause 6.8.6.1 is most relevant to the damage equivalent stress method where the complexcyclic loadings from a spectrum of vehicles are condensed into one single stress rangewhich, for N cycles, is intended to give the same damage during the bridge’s lifetime as

Clause 6.8.5.4(1)

Clause 6.8.5.4(2)Clause 6.8.5.4(3)

Clause 6.8.5.5(1)P

Clause 6.8.5.5(2)

Clause 6.8.5.6(1)Clause 6.8.5.6(2)

Clause 6.8.6.1

D

C

G

0

LB MEd,min,f MEd,max,f

M

J

A

E

MEd,min,f

F

K

H

Mcr

σs,max,f

∆σs,f

∆σs

σs,o

σs,min,f

σs (tension)

Fig. 6.50. Stress ranges in reinforcement in cracked regions

155

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 401: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

the real traffic. This stress range is determined by applying the relevant fatigue load modeldiscussed in section 6.8.4 and by multiplying it by the damage equivalent factor �, accordingto clause 6.8.6.1(2). The factor � is a property of the spectrum and the exponent m, which isthe slope of the fatigue curve as noted in clause 6.8.6.1(4).

Deck slabs of composite bridge beams are usually subjected to combined global and localfatigue loading events, due to the presence of local wheel loads. The effects of local andglobal loading are particularly significant in reinforcement design in slabs adjacent tocross-beams supporting the deck slab, in zones where the slab is in global tension. Here,wheel loads cause additional local hogging moments. Clause 6.8.6.1(3) provides a conserva-tive interaction where the damage equivalent stress range is determined separately for theglobal and local actions and then summed to give an overall damage equivalent stress range.

In combining the stress ranges in clause 6.8.6.1(3), it is important to consider the actualtransverse location being checked within the slab. The peak local effect usually occurssome distance from the web of a main beam, while the global direct stress reduces awayfrom the web due to shear lag. The reduction may be determined using clause 5.4.1.2(8),even though that clause refers to EN 1993-1-5, which is for steel flanges.

A similar damage equivalent factor, �v, is used in clause 6.8.6.2(1) to convert the shearstress range in the studs from the fatigue load model into a damage equivalent stress range.

For other types of shear connection clause 6.8.6.2(2) refers to Section 6 of EN 1993-1-9.This requires the damage equivalent stress to be determined from its Annex A using theactual traffic spectrum and Miner’s summation. This approach could also be used forshear studs as an alternative, provided that m is taken as 8, rather than 3.

For connectors other than studs, the authors recommend that the method of Annex A beused only where the following conditions are satisfied:

. the connectors are attached to the steel flange by welds that are within the scope ofEN 1993-1-9

. the fatigue stress ranges in the welds can be determined realistically

. the stresses applied to concrete by the connectors are not high enough for fatigue failureof the concrete to influence the fatigue life.

The exponent m should then have the value given in EN 1993-1-9; m ¼ 8 should not be used.In other situations, fatigue damage to concrete could influence the value of m. The

National Annex may refer to guidance, as permitted by the Note to clause 1.1.3(3).Clauses 6.8.6.2(3) to (5) provide a method of calculating the damage equivalent factors

for studs. With the exception of �v;1, those for road bridges are based on those in EN 1993-2clause 9.5.2, but with the exponents modified to 8 or 1

8 as discussed in section 6.8.3.In EN 1993-2, an upper limit to � is defined in clause 9.5.2, in paragraphs that EN 1994-2

does not refer to. This is because the upper limit is not required for stud shear connectors.

6.8.7. Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress rangesComment on the methods referred to from clause 6.8.7.1 will be found in other guides in thisseries. The term ‘nominal stress range’ in the heading of clause 6.8.7 is defined in Section 6 ofEN 1993-1-9 for structural steel. It is the stress range that can be compared directly with thedetail categories in EN 1993-1-9. It is not the stress range before the damage equivalentfactors are applied. It is intended to allow for all stress concentration factors implicitwithin the particular detail category selected. If additional stress concentrating detailsexist adjacent to the detail to be checked which are not present in the detail category selected(e.g. a hole), these additional effects need to be included via an appropriate stress concentra-tion factor. This factored stress range then becomes a ‘modified nominal stress range’ asdefined in clause 6.3 of EN 1993-1-9.

For shear connectors, clause 6.8.7.2(1) introduces the partial factors. The recommendedvalue of �Mf;s is 1.0 (clause 2.4.1.2(6)). For �Ff, EN 1990 refers to the other Eurocodes. Therecommended value in EN 1992-1-1, clause 6.8.4(1), is 1.0. Clause 9.3(1) of EN 1993-2recommends 1.0 for steel bridges.

Clause 6.8.6.1(2)

Clause 6.8.6.1(3)

Clause 6.8.6.2(1)

Clause 6.8.6.2(2)

Clauses 6.8.6.2(3)to (5)

Clause 6.8.7.1

Clause 6.8.7.2(1)

156

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 402: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 6.8.7.2(2) covers interaction between the fatigue failures of a stud and of the steelflange to which it is welded, where the flange is in tension. The first of expressions (6.57) isthe verification for the flange, from clause 8(2) of EN 1993-1-9, and the second is for the stud,copied from equation (6.55). The linear interaction condition is given in expression (6.56).

It is necessary to calculate the longitudinal stress range in the steel flange that coexists withthe stress range for the connectors. The load cycle that gives the maximum value of ��E;2 inthe flange will not, in general, be that which gives the maximum value of ��E;2 in a shearconnector, because the first is caused by flexure and the second by shear. Also, both ��E;2and ��E;2 may be influenced by whether the concrete is cracked, or not.

It thus appears that expression (6.56) may have to be checked four times. In practice, it isbest to check first the conditions in expression (6.57). It should be obvious, for these,whether the ‘cracked’ or the ‘uncracked’ model is the more adverse. Usually, one or bothof the left-hand sides is so far below 1.0 that no check to expression (6.56) is needed.

Clause 6.8.7.2(2)

Example 6.13: fatigue verification of studs and reinforcementThe bridge shown in Fig. 6.22 is checked for fatigue of the shear studs at an abutment andof the top slab reinforcement at an internal support. The Client requires a design life of120 years. Fatigue Load Model 3 of EN 1991-2 is used. The bridge will carry a road inTraffic Category 2 of Table 4.5(n) of EN 1991-2, ‘roads with medium flow rates oflorries’. The table gives the ‘indicative number of heavy vehicles expected per year andper slow lane’ as 500 000, and this value is used. The ‘safe life’ method (defined inclause 3(7)(b) of EN 1993-1-9) is used, as this is likely to be recommended by the UK’sNational Annex.

Studs at an abutmentThe cross-section of an inner beam at the abutments is as shown for length DE in Fig.6.22. Groups of three 19mm studs are provided, Fig. 6.41, at 150mm spacing. The‘special vehicle’ of Load Model 3 is defined in clause 4.6.4 of EN 1991-2. For thiscross-section its passage produces maximum and minimum unfactored vertical shearsof þ235 kN and �19 kN. Since the detail is adjacent to an expansion joint, these valuesshould be increased by a factor of 1.3 in accordance with EN 1991-2 Fig. 4.7, so theshear range becomes 1:3� ð235þ 19Þ ¼ 330 kN.

The short-term uncracked properties of the composite beam are used for the calculationof shear flow. From Table 6.3 in Example 6.10, A�zz=I ¼ 0:810m�1. The range of shearforce per connector is:

0:810� 330� 0:150=3 ¼ 13:4 kN

The shear stress range for the connector is:

�� ¼ 13:4� 103

�� 192=4¼ 47:1N=mm2

To determine the damage equivalent stress range, the factor

�v ¼ �v;1 � �v;2 � �v;3 � �v;4

should be calculated in accordance with clause 6.8.6.2(3). From clause 6.8.6.2(4),�v;1 ¼ 1:55. The remaining factors are calculated from EN 1993-2 clause 9.5.2 usingexponents 8 and 1

8 in place of those given.For �v;2 it would be possible to use the recommended data for Load Model 4 in Tables

4.7 and 4.8 of EN 1991-2. However, the UK’s National Annex to EN 1991-2 is likely toreplace these with the BS 5400 Part 10 data, which are given in Table 6.5.

From clause 9.5.2(3) of EN 1993-2:

Qm1 ¼P

niQ5iP

ni

!1=5¼ 8:051� 1018

1:000� 106

!1=5¼ 381:2 kN for checks on structural steel

157

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 403: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Qm1 ¼P

niQ8iP

ni

!1=8¼ 3:384� 1029

1:000� 106

!1=8¼ 873:3 kN for checks on shear studs

It can be seen from the above that the contribution of the small number of very heavyvehicles is much more significant when the exponent 8 is used.

Table 6.5. Vehicle spectrum for fatigue verifications

Vehicleref.

Weight (kN)(Qi)

No. per millionvehicles (ni) (niQ

5i ) (niQ

8i )

18GTH 3680 10 6:749� 1018 3:363� 1029

18GTM 1520 30 2:434� 1017 8:548� 1026

9TT-H 1610 20 2:164� 1017 9:029� 1026

9TT-M 750 40 9:492� 1015 4:005� 1024

7GT-H 1310 30 1:157� 1017 2:602� 1026

7GT-M 680 70 1:018� 1016 3:200� 1024

7A-H 790 20 6:154� 1015 3:034� 1024

5A-H 630 280 2:779� 1016 6:948� 1024

5A-M 360 14 500 8:768� 1016 4:091� 1024

5A-L 250 15 000 1:465� 1016 2:289� 1023

4A-H 335 90 000 3:797� 1017 1:428� 1025

4A-M 260 90 000 1:069� 1017 1:879� 1024

4A-L 145 90 000 5:769� 1015 1:759� 1022

4R-H 280 15 000 2:582� 1016 5:667� 1023

4R-M 240 15 000 1:194� 1016 1:651� 1023

4R-L 120 15 000 3:732� 1014 6:450� 1020

3A-H 215 30 000 1:378� 1016 1:370� 1023

3A-M 140 30 000 1:613� 1015 4:427� 1021

3A-L 90 30 000 1:771� 1014 1:291� 1020

3R-H 240 15 000 1:194� 1016 1:651� 1023

3R-M 195 15 000 4:229� 1015 3:136� 1022

3R-L 120 15 000 3:732� 1014 6:450� 1020

2R-H 135 170 000 7:623� 1015 1:876� 1022

2R-M 65 170 000 1:972� 1014 5:417� 1019

2R-L 30 180 000 4:374� 1012 1:181� 1017

Totals 1:000� 106 8:051� 1018 3:384� 1029

For a two-lane road, traffic category 2,NObs ¼ 0:5� 106. (The UK’s National Annex toEN 1991-2 may modify this value.)

Also from clause 9.5.2(3), N0 ¼ 0:5� 106

Q0 ¼ 480 kN (weight of vehicle for Fatigue LoadModel 3)

Therefore

�v;2 ¼Qm1

Q0

NObs

N0

� �1=8¼ 873:3

480

0:5� 106

0:5� 106

!1=8¼ 1:819

From clause 9.5.2(5) of EN 1993-2:

�v;3 ¼ ðtLd=100Þ1=8 ¼ 1:023 for the 120-year design life.

From clause 9.5.2(6) of EN 1993-2:

�v;4 ¼ 1þN2

N1

�2Qm2

�1Qm1

� �8þN3

N1

�3Qm3

�1Qm1

� �8þ . . .þNk

N1

�kQmk

�1Qm1

� �8" #1=8

158

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 404: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The influence coefficient from lane 2 is approximately 75% of that from lane 1. As bothlanes are slow lanes with N ¼ 0:5� 106 vehicles per year,

�v;4 ¼ 1þN2

N1

�2Qm2

�1Qm1

� �8" #1=8¼ 1þ 0:5� 106

0:5� 1060:75

1:0

� �8" #1=8¼ 1:012

�v ¼ �v;1 � �v;2 � �v;3 � �v;4 ¼ 1:55� 1:819� 1:023� 1:012 ¼ 2:92

From clause 6.8.6.2(1), ��E;2 ¼ �v�� ¼ 2:92� 47:1 ¼ 138N=mm2

From clause 6.8.7.2(1), �Ff��E;2 ¼ 1:0� 138 ¼ 138N=mm2

From clause 6.8.3(3), ��c ¼ 90N/mm2, so the fatigue resistance is:

��c=�Mf;s ¼ 90=1:0 ¼ 90N=mm2

The shear studs are therefore not adequate and would need to be increased. There is noneed to check the interaction in clause 6.8.7.2(2) as the stress in the steel flange is smalland compressive at an abutment.

Fatigue of reinforcement, global effectsNote: throughout this Example, all cross-references commencing ‘NN’ are to Annex NNof EN 1992-2, ‘Damage equivalent stresses for fatigue verification’.

The cross-section at an intermediate support is shown in Fig. 6.22. For these cross-sections, the axle loads of Fatigue Load Model 3 should be multiplied by 1.75 accordingto clause NN.2.1(101). The maximum hogging moment from the fatigue vehicle was1:75� 593 ¼ 1038 kNm and the minimum was 1:75� ð�47Þ ¼ �82 kNm.

In this calculation, the maximum and minimum moments occurred with the vehicle inthe same lane. Previous practice in the UK has been to calculate the stress range by allow-ing the maximum and minimum effects from the vehicle to come from different lanes.Clause 4.6.4(2) of EN 1991-2 however implies that the maximum stress range should becalculated as the greatest stress range produced by the passage of the vehicle along anyone lane. The UK’s draft National Annex currently requires the former interpretation(the safer of the two) to be used, but there is no national provision in EN 1991-2 forthis to be done.

The maximum hogging moment on the composite section from the frequent combi-nation was found to be 3607 kNm. This includes the effects of superimposed dead load,secondary effects of shrinkage, settlement, thermal actions and traffic load (load group1a). Traffic was taken as the leading variable action and hence the combination factorsapplied were 1 for traffic loading and 2 for thermal actions. Wind was not considered,as the recommended value of 2 is zero from EN 1990 Table A2.1.

From clause 6.8.4(1), the minimum moment from the cyclic þ non-cyclic loading is:

MEd;min;f ¼ 3607� 82 ¼ 3525 kNm

and the maximum is:

MEd;max;f ¼ 3607þ 1038 ¼ 4645 kNm

From clause 7.4.3(3) as modified by clause 6.8.5.4(1), the increase in stress in the re-inforcement, due to tension stiffening, above that calculated using a fully cracked analysis is:

��s ¼0:2 fctm�st�s

where �st ¼AI

AaIa¼ 74 478� 22 660

55 000� 12 280¼ 2:50

The reinforcement ratio �s ¼ 0:025 and fctm ¼ 2:9N/mm2 and thus ��s ¼ 9:3N/mm2.From Example 6.6, the section modulus for the top layer of reinforcement is

34:05� 106 mm3. Therefore the stress due to MEd;max;f ignoring tension stiffening is:

�s;o ¼ 4645=34:05 ¼ 136:4N/mm2

159

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 405: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

From equation (7.4), the stress including allowance for tension stiffening is:

�s;max;f ¼ 136:4þ 9:3 ¼ 146N/mm2

From clause 6.8.5.4(2),

�s;min;f ¼ 136:4� 3525=4645þ 9:3 ¼ 113N/mm2

The damage equivalent parameters are next calculated from Annex NN. Figure NN.1refers to the ‘length of the influence line’. This length is intended to be the length of thelobe creating the greatest stress range. EN 1993-2 clause 9.5.2 provides definitions ofthe critical length of the influence line for different situations and these can be referredto. For bending moment at an internal support, the average length of the two adjacentspans may be used, but here the length of the main span has been conservatively used.From Fig. NN.1 for straight reinforcing bars (curve 3) and critical length of the influenceline of 31m, �s;1 ¼ 0.98.From equation (NN.103):

�s;2 ¼ �QQ�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiNobs=2:0

k2

pwith Nobs in millions (which is not stated)

From Table 4.5(n) of EN 1991-2, Nobs ¼ 0:5� 106.From EN 1992-1-1/Table 6.3N, k2 ¼ 9 for straight bars.The factor for traffic type, �QQ, is given in Table NN.1, but no guidance is given on its selec-tion. ‘Traffic type’ is defined in Note 3 of EN 1991-2 clause 4.6.5(1). The definitions givenare not particularly helpful:

. ‘long distance’ means hundreds of kilometres

. ‘medium distance’ means 50–100 km

. ‘local traffic’ means distances less than 50 km.

‘Long distance’ will typically apply to motorways and trunk roads. The use of either of thelower categories should be agreed with the Client as the traffic using a road may not berepresented by a typical length of journey. ‘Long distance’ traffic is conservatively usedhere, so from Table NN.1, �QQ ¼ 1:0. Thus,

�s;2 ¼ 1:0�ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0:5=2:09

p¼ 0:86

From equation (NN.104): �s;3 ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiNYears=100

k2

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi120=1009

p¼ 1:02

From equation (NN.105): �s;4 ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiP

Nobs;i

Nobs;1

k2

s.

Since both lanes are slow lanes, from Table 4.5 of EN 1991-2,

Nobs;1 ¼ Nobs;2 ¼ 0:5� 106

and therefore

�s;4 ¼9ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0:5þ 0:5

0:5

r¼ 1:08

From clause NN.2.1(108) and then EN 1991-2, Annex B, the damage equivalent impactfactor for surfaces of good roughness (i.e. regularly maintained surfaces) is ’fat ¼ 1.2.From equation (NN.102):

�s ¼ ’fat�s;1�s;2�s;3�s;4 ¼ 1:20� 0:98� 0:86� 1:02� 1:08 ¼ 1:11

From clause 6.8.6.1(2) and (7):

��E ¼ � �max;f � �min;f

� �¼ 1:11� 1:0� 146� 113ð Þ ¼ 37N/mm2

There is an inconsistency here between EN 1992-2, where �s includes the impact factor ’fat

and EN 1994-2 where � excludes this factor, which is written as .

160

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 406: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

6.9. Tension members in composite bridgesThe terms ‘concrete tension member’ and ‘composite tension member’ used in this clause aredefined in clause 5.4.2.8. Global analysis for action effects in these members and determina-tion of longitudinal shear is discussed in comments on that clause.

Clause 6.9(1) concerns members that have tensile force introduced only near their ends. Itrefers to their design to EN 1992, as does clause 6.9(2), with reference to simplifications

Clause 6.9(1)Clause 6.9(2)

From Table 6.3N of EN 1992-1-1, for straight bars, N ¼ 106 and ��Rskð106Þ ¼162.5N/mm2.

The verification is carried out using expression (6.71) of EN 1992-1-1, taking��s;equ Nð Þ ¼ ��E above:

�F;fat��s;equ Nð Þ ¼ 1:0� 37 ¼ 37N=mm2 � ��Rsk Nð Þ�s;fat

¼ 162:5=1:15 ¼ 141N=mm2

The reinforcement has adequate fatigue life under global loading.

Fatigue of reinforcement, local effectsLocal bending moments are caused by hogging of the deck slab over the pier diaphragm.The worst local effects are here conservatively added to the global effects according toexpression (6.53). A stress range of 44N/mm2 in the reinforcement was determinedfrom the maximum hogging moment caused by the passage of the factored fatiguevehicle of EN 1992-2 Annex NN. (The moments were found using Pucher’s influencesurfaces.100) Cracked section properties were used for the slab in accordance withclause 6.8.2(1)P of EN 1992-1-1 since the slab remains in tension when the local effectis added under the ‘basic combination plus the cyclic action’ as defined in clause6.8.3(3) of EN 1992-1-1.

The damage equivalent factors from EN 1992-2 Annex NN are the same as above withthe exception of �s;1. For local load, the critical length of the influence line is the lengthcausing hogging moment each side of the pier diaphragm. From the Pucher chart usedto determine the local moment, the influence of loads applied more than 6m from thepier diaphragm is approximately zero so the total influence line length to consider isapproximately 12m. From Fig. NN.1, �s;1 ¼ 0:91.

From equation (NN.102):�s ¼ fat�s;1�s;2�s;3�s;4 ¼ 1:20� 0:91� 0:86� 1:02� 1:08 ¼ 1:03

From clause 6.8.6.1(2) and (7):

��E ¼ � �max;f � �min;f

� �¼ 1:03� 1:0� 44ð Þ ¼ 45N=mm2

Verifying as for the global loading:

�F;fat��s;equ Nð Þ ¼ 1:0� 45 ¼ 45N=mm2 � ��Rsk Nð Þ�s;fat

¼ 162:5=1:15 ¼ 141N=mm2

The reinforcement has adequate fatigue life under local loading.

Fatigue of reinforcement, combined global and local effectsThe simple interaction method of clause 6.8.6.1(3) is used. This entails summing thedamage equivalent stresses from the local and global loading, so that the total damageequivalent stress ��E ¼ 37þ 45 ¼ 82N=mm2. In this case, the locations of peak globalstress in the reinforcement and peak local stress do coexist because there was no reductionto the slab width for shear lag. The verification is now:

82N/mm2 � 141N/mm2

The reinforcement has adequate fatigue life under the combined loading.

161

CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Page 407: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

given in clause 5.4.2.8. Clause 6.9(2) applies also to composite tension members, which haveshear connectors throughout their length. The subsequent paragraphs concern the distribu-tion of the connectors along the member.

A plan of the steel members at deck level near one end of a bowstring arch bridge is shownin Fig. 6.51(a). The arch applies concentrated forces T at points A and B. The force at A isshared between the steel tie AC and the composite deck, shown shaded. The deck has steeledge members such as DE, and spans longitudinally between composite cross-beams FG, etc.The proportion of each force T that is resisted by the deck structure, Td say, depends on theextent to which its stiffness is reduced by cracking of the concrete. The force Td is applied tothe deck by diagonal members such as FH. The stiffness of these members also influences themagnitude of Td. Details of bridges of this type are available elsewhere.101

In some bridges, the deck is shear-connected directly to the main tie member, as shown inFig. 6.51(b). Clause 6.9(3) requires the shear connection for the force Td to be providedwithin the lengths 1.5b shown.

The precise distribution of the connectors along a length such as JK has been studied,using the rules of EN 1994-2 for tension stiffening.102 In this bridge, Newark Dyke, thearch is the top chord of a truss of span 77m with diagonals that apply longitudinal forcealso at points such as L in Fig. 6.51(b). Neither paragraph (3) nor (6) defines the lengtha over which shear connection near point L should be provided, but clause 6.6.2.3 providesguidance.

The number of connectors to be provided over a length such as JK can be conservativelyfound by assuming the deck to be uncracked. In this bridge, the design ultimate force T wasabout 18MN, and ‘uncracked’ analysis gave Td � 9MN at mid-span. Fully cracked analysisgave this force as about 5MN. Accurate analysis found the deck to be in a state of singlecracking (explained in comments on clause 5.4.2.8(6)), with a tensile force of about 8MN.

Lower levels of shear connection are, of course, required along the whole length of thedeck for other combinations and arrangements of variable actions.

Clause 6.9(4)P, a principle that corresponds to clause 6.7.4.1(1)P for compressionmembers, is followed by application rules. For laterally loaded tension members, shearconnection within the length is related to the transverse shear in clause 6.9(5), exactly asfor composite beams.

Where axial tension is applied to the ends of a member through only one material, steel orconcrete, the length over which part of the tension should be transferred to the other material(typically by shear connection), is limited by clause 6.9(6). This corresponds to clause6.7.4.2(2) for compression members. Other provisions of clause 6.7.4.2may be relevant here.

Clause 6.9(3)

Clause 6.9(4)P

Clause 6.9(5)

Clause 6.9(6)

T

T

T

T

2b

≤1.5b ≤1.5b

2b

A

G

F

ED

C

B J K

HL

a

(b)(a)

Fig. 6.51. Shear connection to the deck of a bowstring arch bridge

162

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 408: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 7

Serviceability limit states

This chapter corresponds to Section 7 of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. General Clause 7.1

. Stresses Clause 7.2

. Deformations in bridges Clause 7.3

. Cracking of concrete Clause 7.4

. Filler beam decks Clause 7.5

7.1. GeneralSection 7 of EN 1994-2 is limited to provisions on serviceability that are specific to compositestructures and are not in Sections 1, 2, 4 or 5 (for global analysis), or in Eurocodes 1990,1991, 1992 or 1993. Some of these other provisions are briefly referred to here. Furthercomments on them are in other chapters of this book, or in other guides in this series.

The initial concept for a composite bridge is mainly influenced by the intended methodof construction, durability, ease of maintenance, and the requirements for ultimate limitstates. Serviceability criteria that should be considered at an early stage are stress limitsin cross-sections in Class 1 or 2 and susceptibility to excessive vibration. It should nothowever be assumed that Class 3 and 4 cross-sections require no checks of stress limitsat serviceability. For example, if torsional warping or St Venant torsional effects havebeen neglected at ultimate limit state (ULS), as allowed by a reference in clause6.2.7.2(1) of EN 1993-2, then the serviceability limit state (SLS) stresses should bechecked taking these torsional effects into account. Considerations of shear lag at SLSmay also cause unacceptable yielding as the effective widths of steel elements are greaterat ULS.

Control of crack width can usually be achieved by appropriate detailing of reinforcement.Provision of fire resistance and limiting of deformations have less influence at this stage thanin structures for buildings. The important deformations are those caused by imposed load.Limits to these influence the design of railway bridges, but generally, stiffness is governedmore by vibration criteria than by limits to deflection.

The drafting of the serviceability provisions in the Eurocodes is less prescriptive than forother limit states. It is intended to give designers and clients greater freedom to take accountof factors specific to the project.

The content of Section 7 was also influenced by the need to minimize calculations. Resultsalready obtained for ultimate limit states are scaled or reused wherever possible. Experienceddesigners know that many structural elements satisfy serviceability criteria by wide margins.For these, design checks should be simple, and it does not matter if they are conservative. Forother elements, a longer but more accurate calculation may be justified. Some applicationrules therefore include alternative methods.

Page 409: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 7.1(1)P and (2) refer to clause 3.4 of EN 1990. This gives criteria for placing a limitstate within the ‘serviceability’ group, with reference to deformations (including vibration),durability, and the functioning of the structure. The relevance of EN 1990 is not limited tothe clauses referred to, because clause 2.1(1)P requires design to be in accordance with thegeneral rules of EN 1990. This means all of it except annexes that are either informative ornot for bridges.

Serviceability verification and criteriaThe requirement for a serviceability verification is given in clause 6.5.1(1)P of EN 1990 as:

Ed � Cd

where Ed is the design value of the effects of the specified actions and the ‘relevant’ combina-tion, and Cd is the limiting design value of the ‘relevant’ criterion.

From clause 6.5.3 of EN 1990, the relevant combination is ‘normally’ the characteristic,frequent, or quasi-permanent combination, for serviceability limit states that are respectivelyirreversible, reversible, or a consequence of long-term effects. The quasi-permanentcombination is also relevant for the appearance of the structure.

For bridges, rules on combinations of actions are given in clause A2.2 of EN 1990. Itsclause A2.2.2(1) defines a fourth combination, ‘infrequent’, for use for concrete bridges. Itis not used in EN 1994-2, but may be invoked by a reference to EN 1992, or found in aNational Annex.

Clause 7.1(3) refers to ‘environmental classes’. These are the ‘exposure classes’ of EN 1992,and are discussed in Chapter 4. The exposure class influences the cover to reinforcing bars,and the choice of concrete grade and hence the stress limits.

Clause 7.1(4) on serviceability verification gives no detailed guidance on the extent towhich construction phases should be checked. The avoidance of excessive stress is oneexample. Yielding of steel can cause irreversible deformation, and handling of precastcomponents can cause yielding of reinforcement or excessive crack width. Bridges can alsobe more susceptible to aerodynamic oscillation during erection. In extreme cases, this canlead to achievement of an ultimate limit state.

Clause 7.1(5) refers to the eight-page clause A2.4 of EN 1990. It covers partial factors,serviceability criteria, design situations, comfort criteria, deformations of railway bridgesand criteria for the safety of rail traffic. Few of its provisions are quantified. Recommendedvalues are given in Notes, as guidance for National Annexes.

The meaning of clause 7.1(6) on composite plates is that account should be taken ofSection 9 when applying Section 7. There are no serviceability provisions in Section 9.

No serviceability limit state of ‘excessive slip of shear connection’ is defined. Generally, itis assumed that clause 6.8.1(3), which limits the shear force per connector under thecharacteristic combination, and other rules for ultimate limit states, will ensure satisfactoryperformance in service.

No serviceability criteria are specified for composite columns, so from here on, thischapter is referring to composite beams or plates or, in a few places, to compositeframes.

7.2. StressesExcessive stress is not itself a serviceability limit state. Stresses in bridges are limited to ensurethat under normal conditions of use, assumptions made in design models (e.g. linear-elasticbehaviour) remain valid, and to avoid deterioration such as the spalling of concrete ordisruption of the corrosion protection system.

The stress ranges in a composite structure caused by a particular level of imposed loadingtake years to stabilise, mainly because of the cracking, shrinkage and creep of concrete.Stress limits are also intended to ensure that after this initial period, live-load behaviour isreversible.

Clause 7.1(1)PClause 7.1(2)

Clause 7.1(3)

Clause 7.1(4)

Clause 7.1(5)

Clause 7.1(6)

164

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 410: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

For the calculation of stresses, the principle of clause 7.2.1(1)P says, in effect, ‘takeaccount of everything that is relevant’. It is thus open to interpretation, subject to theguidance in the rest of clause 7.2.1. Four of its paragraphs are worded ‘may’.

For persistent design situations, it is usual to check stresses soon after the opening of thebridge to traffic, ignoring creep, and also at a time when further effects of creep and shrinkagehave become negligible. Their values are usually found by letting t ! 1 when applying thedata on creep and shrinkage in clause 3.1.4 and Annex B of EN 1992-1-1. Assuming thatt ¼ 10 years, for example, gives only about 90% of the long-term shrinkage strain andcreep coefficient. It may be necessary to include part of the long-term shrinkage effects inthe first check, because up to half of the long-term shrinkage can occur in the first threemonths after the end of curing of the concrete.

Clause 7.2.1(4) refers to the primary effects of shrinkage. These are calculated foruncracked cross-sections (Example 5.3). After cracking, these effects remain in the concretebetween cracks, but have negligible influence on stresses at the cracked cross-sections, atwhich stresses are verified.

Clauses 7.2.1(6) and (7) refer to tension stiffening. At a cross-section analysed as cracked,its effect is to increase the tensile stress in the reinforcement, as discussed under clause 7.4.3.It has negligible effect on the stress in the steel flange adjacent to the slab, and slightly reducesthe compressive stress in the other steel flange.

Clause 7.2.1(8) refers to the effects of local actions on the concrete slab, presumably a deckslab. In highway bridges, these effects are mainly the sagging and hogging moments causedby a single wheel, a pair of wheels, or a four-wheel tandem system, whichever is the mostadverse. In Load Model 1 these are combined with the effects of distributed loading andthe global effects in the plane of the slab. This combination is more adverse where theslab spans longitudinally between cross-beams than for transverse spanning. Longitudinalspanning can also occur at intermediate supports at the face of diaphragms. In combiningthe stress ranges, it is important to consider the actual transverse location beingchecked within the slab. The peak local effect usually occurs some distance from theweb of a main beam, while the global direct stress reduces away from the web due toshear lag. The global stress distribution allowing for shear lag may be determined usingclause 5.4.1.2(8), even though this refers to EN 1993-1-5 which is for steel flanges.

For serviceability stress limits, clause 7.2.2 refers to EN 1992 and EN 1993. Both codesallow choice in the National Annex. EN 1992 does so by means of coefficients ki, whereasEN 1993 permits national values for a partial factor �M;ser. If any National Annex usesother than the recommended value, 1.0, this could be a source of error in practice,because partial factors for serviceability checks are almost invariably 1.0, and so tend tobe forgotten.

Combinations of actions for serviceability checksClause 7.2 defines these combinations only by cross-reference, so the following summary isgiven. The limiting stresses can be altered by National Annexes.

Clause 7.2.2(2) leads to the following recommendations for concrete.

. Where creep coefficients are based on clause 3.1.4(2) of EN 1992-1-1, as is usual, its clause7.2(3) gives the stress limit for the quasi-permanent combination as 0.45 fck.

. In areas where the exposure class is XD, XF or XS, clause 7.2(102) of EN 1992-2 gives thestress limit for the characteristic combination as 0.60 fck. Comment on clause 4.1(1)refers to the XD class in bridges.

From clause 7.2.2(4), the recommended limit for reinforcement is 0.8 fsk under thecharacteristic combination, increased to 1.0 fsk for imposed deformations.

Clause 7.2.2(5) refers to clause 7.3 of EN 1993-2, where the stress limits for structural steeland the force limits for bolts are based on the characteristic combination, with a limit onstress range under the frequent combination.

For service loading of shear connectors generally, clause 7.2.2(6) refers to clause 6.8.1(3).That clause refers only to stud connectors under the characteristic combination, and uses a

Clause 7.2.1(1)P

Clause 7.2.1(4)

Clause 7.2.1(6)Clause 7.2.1(7)

Clause 7.2.1(8)

Clause 7.2.2

Clause 7.2.2(2)

Clause 7.2.2(4)

Clause 7.2.2(5)

Clause 7.2.2(6)

165

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Page 411: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

factor k that can be chosen nationally. EN 1994-2 envisages the use of other types ofconnector (for example, in clause 6.6.1.1(6)P). Rules for the use of these, which may begiven in a National Annex, from clause 1.1.3(3), should include a service load limit.

To sum up, most stress checks are based on characteristic combinations, as are the deter-mination of cracked regions, clause 5.4.2.3(2), and the provision of minimum reinforcement,clause 7.4.2(5). However, limiting crack widths are given, in clause 7.3.1(105) of EN 1992-2,for the quasi-permanent combination.

Web breathingClause 7.2.3(1) refers to EN 1993-2 for ‘breathing’ of slender steel web plates. The effect on aslender plate of in-plane shear or compressive stress is to magnify its initial out-of-planeimperfection. This induces cyclic bending moments at its welded edges about axes parallelto the welds. If excessive, it can lead to fatigue failure in these regions. Further commentis given in the Guide to EN 1993-2.4

7.3. Deformations in bridges7.3.1. DeflectionsClause 7.3.1(1) refers to clauses in EN 1993-2 that cover clearances, visual impression,precambering, slip at connections, performance criteria and drainage. For precambering,‘the effects of shear deformation . . . should be considered’. This applies to vertical shear insteel webs, not to the shear connection.

Clause 7.3.1(2) refers to Section 5 for calculation of deflections. Rules for the effects of slipare given in clause 5.4.1.1. They permit deformations caused by slip of shear connection to beneglected, except in non-linear analysis. Clause 5.4.2.1(1) refers to the sequence ofconstruction, which affects deflections. When the sequence is unknown, an estimate on thehigh side can be obtained by assuming unpropped construction and that the adverse areasof the influence line, with respect to deflection at the point being considered, are concretedfirst, followed by the relieving areas. Sufficient accuracy should usually be obtained byassuming that the whole of the concrete deck is cast at one time, on unpropped steelwork.

The casting of an area of deck slab may increase the curvature of adjacent beams where theshear connectors are surrounded by concrete that is too young for full composite action tooccur. It is possible that subsequent performance of these connectors could be impaired bywhat is, in effect, an imposed slip. Clause 7.3.1(3) refers to this, but not to the detailedguidance given in clause 6.6.5.2(3), which follows.

‘Wherever possible, deformation should not be imposed on a shear connection until the concrete hasreached a cylinder strength of at least 20N/mm2.’

The words ‘Wherever possible’ are necessary because shrinkage effects apply force to shearconnection from a very early age without, so far as is known, any adverse effect.

7.3.2. VibrationsThe limit state of vibration is covered in clause 7.3.2(1) by reference to other Eurocodes.Composite bridges are referred to only in clause 6.4.6.3.1(3) of EN 1991-2, which covers reso-nance under railway loading. This gives ‘lower bound’ values for damping that are the samefor composite bridges as for steel bridges, except that those for filler-beam decks are muchhigher, and the same as for concrete bridges. Alternative values may be given in the NationalAnnex. The specialized literature generally gives damping values for composite floor or decksystems that are between those for steel and for concrete members, as would be expected. Inrailway bridges, the presence or absence of ballast is a relevant factor.

The reference to EN 1993-2 requires consideration of pedestrian discomfort and fatigueunder wind-induced motion, usually vortex shedding. The relevant reference is then toEN 1991-1-4.103 Its Annex E provides guidance on the calculation of amplitudes of oscilla-tion while its Annex F provides guidance on the determination of natural frequencies and

Clause 7.2.3(1)

Clause 7.3.1(1)

Clause 7.3.1(2)

Clause 7.3.1(3)

Clause 7.3.2(1)

166

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 412: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

damping. The damping values for steel-composite bridges in its Table F.2 this time do liebetween the values for steel bridges and reinforced concrete bridges.

7.4. Cracking of concrete7.4.1. GeneralIn the early 1980s it was found64;104 that for composite beams in hogging bending, the long-established British methods for control of crack width were unreliable for initial cracks,which were wider than predicted. Before this, it had been found for reinforced concretethat the appropriate theoretical model for cracking caused by restraint of imposed defor-mation was different from that for cracking caused by applied loading. This has led to thepresentation of design rules for control of cracking as two distinct procedures:

. for minimum reinforcement, in clause 7.4.2, for all cross-sections that could be subjectedto significant tension by imposed deformations (e.g. by effects of shrinkage, whichcause higher stresses than in reinforced concrete, because of restraint from the steelbeam)

. for reinforcement to control cracking due to direct loading, clause 7.4.3.

The rules given in EN 1994-2 are based on an extensive and quite complex theory,supported by testing on hogging regions of composite beams.104;105 Much of the originalliterature is either in German or not widely available106 so a detailed account of thetheory has been published in English,107 with comparisons with results of tests on compositebeams, additional to those used originally. The paper includes derivations of the equationsgiven in clause 7.4, comments on their scope and underlying assumptions, and procedures forestimating the mean width and spacing of cracks. These are tedious, and so are not inEN 1994-2. Its methods are simple: Tables 7.1 and 7.2 give maximum diameters and spacingsof reinforcing bars for three design crack widths: 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4mm.

These tables are for ‘high-bond’ bars only. This means ribbed bars with properties referredto in clause 3.2.2(2)P of EN 1992-1-1. The use of reinforcement other than ribbed is outsidethe scope of the Eurocodes.

The references to EN 1992 in clause 7.4.1(1) give the surface crack-width limits requiredfor design. Typical exposure classes for composite bridge decks are discussed in section 4.1 ofthis guide.

Clause 7.4.1(2) refers to ‘estimation’ of crack width, using EN 1992-1-1. This rather longprocedure is rarely needed, and does not take full account of the following differencesbetween the behaviours of composite beams and reinforced concrete T-beams. The steelmember in a composite beam does not shrink or creep and has much greater flexural stiffnessthan the reinforcement in a concrete beam. Also, the steel member is attached to the concreteflange only by discrete connectors that are not effective until there is longitudinal slip,whereas in reinforced concrete there is monolithic connection. There is no need here for areference to EN 1992-2.

Clause 7.4.1(3) refers to the methods developed for composite members, which are easierto apply than the methods for reinforced concrete members.

Clause 7.4.1(4) refers to limiting calculated crack widths wk, with a Note on recommendedvalues. Those for all XC, XD and XS exposure classes are given in a Note to clause 7.3.1(105)of EN 1992-2 as 0.3mm. This is for the quasi-permanent load combination, and excludesprestressed members with bonded tendons. Both the crack width and the load combinationmay be changed in the National Annex. It is expected that the UK’s National Annex toEN 1992-2 will confirm these recommendations and give further guidance for combinationsthat include temperature difference.

Clause 7.4.1(5) and (6) draws attention to the need to control cracking caused byearly thermal shrinkage. The problem is that the heat of hydration causes expansion ofthe concrete before it is stiff enough for restraint from steel to cause much compressivestress in it. When it cools, it is stiffer, so tension develops. This can occur in regions that

Clause 7.4.1(1)

Clause 7.4.1(2)

Clause 7.4.1(3)

Clause 7.4.1(4)

Clause 7.4.1(5)Clause 7.4.1(6)

167

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Page 413: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

are in permanent compression in the finished bridge. They may require crack-controlreinforcement for this phase only.

The check is made assuming that the temperatures of the steel and the concrete are bothuniform. The concrete is colder, to an extent that may be given in the National Annex. Thiscauses tension, and possibly cracking. Further comment is given in Example 7.1.

7.4.2. Minimum reinforcementThe only data needed when using Tables 7.1 and 7.2 are the design crack width and the tensilestress in the reinforcement, �s. For minimum reinforcement, �s is the stress immediatelyafter initial cracking. It is assumed that cracking does not change the curvature of the steelbeam, so all of the tensile force in the concrete just before cracking is transferred to the reinforce-ment, of areaAs. If the slabwere in uniform tension, equation (7.1) in clause 7.4.2(1)would be:

As�s ¼ Act fct;eff

where fct;eff is an estimate of the mean tensile strength of the concrete at the time of cracking.The three correction factors in equation (7.1) are based on calibration work.106 These

allow for the non-uniform stress distribution in the area Act of concrete assumed to crack.‘Non-uniform self-equilibrating stresses’ arise from primary shrinkage and temperatureeffects, which cause curvature of the composite member. Slip of the shear connection alsocauses curvature and reduces the tensile force in the slab.

The magnitude of these effects depends on the geometry of the uncracked compositesection, as given by equation (7.2). With experience, calculation of kc can often beomitted, because it is less than 1.0 only where z0 < 1:2hc. (These symbols are shown inFig. 7.5.) The depth of the ‘uncracked’ neutral axis below the bottom of the slab normallyexceeds about 70% of the slab thickness, and then, kc ¼ 1.

The method of clause 7.4.2(1) is not intended for the control of early thermal cracking,which can occur in concrete a few days old, if the temperature rise caused by heat ofhydration is excessive. The flanges of composite beams are usually too thin for this tooccur. It would not be correct, therefore, to assume a very low value for fct;eff.

The suggested value of fct;eff, 3N/mm2, was probably rounded from the mean 28-daytensile strength of grade C30/37 concrete, given in EN 1992-1-1 as 2.9N/mm2 – the valueused as the basis for the optional correction given in clause 7.4.2(2). The maximum bardiameter may be increased for stronger concrete because the higher bond strength of theconcrete compensates for the lower total perimeter of a set of bars with given area perunit width of slab. The difference between 2.9 and 3.0 is obviously negligible. It may be anerror in drafting, because in EN 1992, the value 2.9N/mm2 is used in both places.

If there is good reason to assume a value for fct;eff such that the correction is not negligible,a suitable procedure is to assume a standard bar diameter, �, calculate ��, and then find �s byinterpolation in Table 7.1.

The reinforcement in a deck slab will usually be in two layers in each direction, with at leasthalf of it adjacent to the surface of greater tensile strain. The relevant rule, in clause 7.4.2(3),refers not to the actual reinforcement, but to the minimum required. The reference to ‘localdepth’ in clause 7.4.2(4) means the depth at the cross-section considered.

The rule of clause 7.4.2(5) on placing of minimum reinforcement refers to its horizontalextent, not to its depth within the slab. Analysis of the structure for ultimate load combina-tions of variable actions will normally find regions in tension that are more extensive thanthose for the characteristic combination specified here. The regions so found may need tobe extended for early thermal effects (clause 7.4.1(5)).

Design of minimum reinforcement for a concrete slabFor design, the design crack width and thickness of the slab, hc, will be known. For a chosenbar diameter �, Table 7.1 gives �s, the maximum permitted stress in the reinforcement, andequation (7.1) allows the bar spacing to be determined. If this is too high or low, � ischanged.

Clause 7.4.2(1)

Clause 7.4.2(2)

Clause 7.4.2(3)

Clause 7.4.2(4)Clause 7.4.2(5)

168

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 414: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

A typical relationship between slab thickness hc, bar spacing s and bar diameter � is shownin Fig. 7.1. It is for two similar layers of bars, with kc ¼ 1 and fct;eff ¼ 3.0N/mm2. Equation(7.1) then gives, for a fully cracked slab of breadth b:

(��2=4Þð2b=sÞ ¼ 0:72� 3bhc=�s

Hence,

hcs ¼ 0:727�2�s (with �s inN/mm2 units) (D7.1)

For each bar diameter and a given crack width, Table 7.1 gives �2�s, so the product hcs isknown. This is plotted in Fig. 7.1, for wk ¼ 0.3mm, as curves of bar spacing for fourgiven slab thicknesses, which can of course also be read as maximum slab thickness sizeand for bar spacing. The shape of the curves results partly from the use of rounded valuesof �s in Table 7.1. The correction to minimum reinforcement given in clause 7.4.2(2) isnegligible here, and has not been made.

The weight of minimum reinforcement, per unit area of slab, is proportional to �2=s, whichis proportional to ��1

s , from equation (D7.1). The value of ��1s increases with bar diameter,

from Table 7.1, so the use of smaller bars reduces the weight of minimum reinforcement. Thisis because their greater surface area provides more bond strength.

7.4.3. Control of cracking due to direct loadingClause 7.4.3(2) specifies elastic global analysis to Section 5, allowing for the effects ofcracking. The preceding comments on global analysis for deformations apply also to thisanalysis for bending moments in regions with concrete in tension.

From clause 7.4.1(4), the combination of actions will be given in the National Annex.There is no need to reduce the extent of the cracked regions below that assumed forglobal analysis for ultimate limit states, so the new bending moments for the compositemembers can be found by scaling values found previously. At each cross-section, the areaof reinforcement will already be known: that required for ultimate loading or the specifiedminimum, if greater; so the stresses �s;o, clause 7.4.3(3), can be found.

Tension stiffeningA correction for tension stiffening is now required. At one time, these effects were not wellunderstood. It was thought that, for a given tensile strain at the level of the reinforcement,the total extension must be the extension of the concrete plus the width of the cracks, so thatallowing for the former reduced the latter. The true behaviour is more complex.

The upper part of Fig. 7.2 shows a single crack in a concrete member with a centralreinforcing bar. At the crack, the external tensile force N causes strain "s2 ¼ N=AsEa inthe bar, and the strain in the concrete is the free shrinkage strain "cs, which is shown as

Clause 7.4.3(2)

Clause 7.4.3(3)

100

200

300

400

0 5 6 8 10 12 16 20

hc = 100 mm 150

200

300

φ (mm)

s (mm)

Fig. 7.1. Bar diameter and spacing for minimum reinforcement in two equal layers, for wk ¼ 0.3mm andfct;eff ¼ 3.0N/mm2

169

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Page 415: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

negative here. There is a transmission length Le each side of the crack, within which there istransfer of shear between the bar and the concrete. Outside this length, the strain in both thesteel and the concrete is "s1, and the stress in the concrete is fractionally below its tensilestrength. Within the length 2Le, the curves "s(x) and "c(x) give the strains in the twomaterials, with mean strains "sm in the bar and "cm in the concrete.

It is now supposed that the graph represents the typical behaviour of a reinforcing bar in acracked concrete flange of a composite beam, in a region of constant bending moment suchthat the crack spacing is 2Le. The curvature of the steel beam is determined by the meanstiffness of the slab, not the fully cracked stiffness, and is compatible with the mean longitu-dinal strain in the reinforcement, "sm.

Midway between the cracks, the strain is the cracking strain of the concrete, correspondingto a stress less than 30N/mm2 in the bar. Its peak strain, at the crack, is much greater than "sm,but less than the yield strain of the reinforcement, if crack widths are not to exceed 0.3mm. Thecrack width corresponds to this higher strain, not to the strain "sm that is compatible with thecurvature, so a correction to the strain is needed. It is presented in clause 7.4.3(3) as a correc-tion to the stress �s;o because that is easily calculated, and Tables 7.1 and 7.2 are based onstress. The strain correction cannot be shown in Fig. 7.2 because the stress �s;o is calculatedusing the ‘fully cracked’ stiffness, and so relates to a curvature greater than the true curvature.The derivation of the correction107 takes account of crack spacings less than 2Le, the bondproperties of reinforcement, and other factors omitted from this simplified outline.

The section properties needed for the calculation of the correction ��s will usually beknown. For the cracked composite cross-section, the transformed area A is needed to findI , which is used in calculating �s;o, and Aa and Ia are standard properties of the steelsection. The result is independent of the modular ratio. For simplicity, �st may conserva-tively be taken as 1.0, because AI > AaIa.

When the stress �s at a crack has been found, the maximum bar diameter or the maximumspacing are found from Tables 7.1 and 7.2. Only one of these is needed, as the known area ofreinforcement then gives the other. The correction of clause 7.4.2(2) does not apply.

General comments on clause 7.4, and flow chartsThe design actions for checking cracking will always be less than those for the ultimate limitstate due to the use of lower load factors. The difference is greatest where unpropped con-struction is used for a continuous beam with hogging regions in Class 1 or 2 and withlateral–torsional buckling prevented. This is because the entire design hogging moment iscarried by the composite section for Class 1 and 2 composite sections at ULS, but at SLS,reinforcement stresses are derived only from actions applied to the composite section inthe construction sequence. It is also permissible in such cases to neglect the effects of indirectactions at ULS. The quantity of reinforcement provided for resistance to load should be

Le Le

N

Tensile strain

0x

N

εc(x)

εs(x)

εs2

εsm

εcm

εcs

εs1

Fig. 7.2. Strain distributions near a crack in a reinforced concrete tension member

170

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 416: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

sufficient to control cracking. The main use of clause 7.4.3 is then to check that the spacing ofthe bars is not excessive.

Where propped construction is used, the disparity between the design loadings for thetwo limit states is smaller. A check to clause 7.4.3 is then more likely to influence thereinforcement required.

Flow charts for crack-width controlThe check to clause 7.4.3 is likely to be done first, so its flow chart, Fig. 7.3, precedes Fig. 7.4for minimum reinforcement, to clause 7.4.2. The regions where the slab is in tension dependon the load combination, and three may be relevant, as follows.

. Most reinforcement areas are found initially for the ultimate combination.

. Load-induced cracking is checked for a combination to be specified in the NationalAnnex, to clause 7.4.1(4). It may be the quasi-permanent or frequent combination.

. Minimum reinforcement is required in regions in tension under the characteristiccombination, clause 7.4.2(5).

Recommended only for cross-sectionswith longitudinal prestress by tendons.Outside the scope of this chart (END)

Yes

No

No

Reduce φ and ss Increase ss

Go to flow chart for minimum reinforcement (Fig. 7.4)

See the Notes in the section ‘Flow charts for crack-width control’

Exposure classes. For each concrete surface in tension, find the exposureclass to clause 4.2 of EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1992-2 (referred to from 7.4.1(1))

Crack widths. Find the limiting crack widths wk and the combination of actionsfor verification from the National Annex (from the Note to 7.4.1(4))

Do global analyses for this combination to find bendingmoments in regions where the slab is in tension

For areas of reinforcement found previously, As, determine tensile stresses σs,o inbars adjacent to surfaces to be checked, neglecting primary shrinkage, to 7.2.1(4).Calculate tensile stresses Δσs for tension stiffening, from 7.4.3(3). Determine thetensile stress due to coexisting local actions, σs,loc, and findσs,E = σs,o + Δσs + σs,loc, from 7.2.1(8)

Do you want to find crack widthsfrom EN 1992-1-1, 7.3.4?(7.4.1(2))

From 7.4.1(3), use wk and σs,E to find either max. bar spacing ss fromTable 7.2 andcalculate bar diameter φ from As or (less convenient) find diameter φ* fromTable 7.1,then φ from 7.4.2(2), and find bar spacing from As

Do you want to change φ or ss?

Only possible by increasing As andhence reducing σs,E. This may permit asmall increase in φ. It is inefficient andnot recommended

Reduce φ, at constant As.Effect is to reduce bar spacing

Fig. 7.3. Flow chart for control of cracking due to direct loading

171

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Page 417: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The following notes apply to these charts.

Note 1. Creep and shrinkage of concrete both increase stress in reinforcement at internalsupports of beams, so crack widths are usually verified using the long-termmodular ratio for permanent actions. This is assumed here.

Note 2. The flow charts apply to a tension flange of a continuous longitudinal beam. It isassumed (for brevity) that:

. areas of reinforcement required for ultimate limit states have been found

. the flexural stiffnesses EaI1 are known for the uncracked cross-sections, usingrelevant modular ratios (inclusion of reinforcement optional)

. the cracked flexural stiffnesses EaI2 are known. For these, modular ratios areusually irrelevant, unless double composite action is being used

. the deck slab is above the steel beam, and at cross-sections considered,maximum tensile strain occurs at the top surface of the slab

. there is no double composite action

. early thermal cracking does not govern

. the symbols As (area of reinforcement) are for a unit width of slab.

Appropriate for sections prestressedby tendons, 7.4.2(1).Outside the scope ofthis flow chart (END)

NoYes

The chosen bar size and spacing are satisfactory as minimum reinforcement,but may not be sufficient to control cracking due to direct loading at the sectionconsidered (END)

Calculate φ* = (2.9/fct,eff)φ

No

Yes

Minimum reinforcement. Find all regions where concrete can be in flexural tensionunder the characteristic combination of permanent and variable actions, 7.4.2(5), taking account of shrinkage of concrete and effects of temperature and settlement,if any, 7.4.2(1). These regions may be more extensive than those where crack controlfor effects of loading is required

For each region, propose details of minimum longitudinal reinforcement: bar size φand spacing ss; usually in two layers, with at least half near the surface with thegreater tensile strain (7.4.2(3)). Figure 7.1 is useful where fct,eff ≈ 3 N/mm2

For the design crack width wk, find σs,max for φ* from Table 7.1, usinginterpolation if necessary. (This route is used because φ must be astandard bar diameter, but φ* need not be)

Do you wish to determine minimum reinforcement by a ‘more accuratemethod’, following clause 7.3.2(1)P of EN 1992-1-1 (from 7.4.2(1))?

Calculate kc from eq. (7.2). Consider whether therecommended values for k and ks areappropriate, and change them if not (unlikely).For unit width of the tensile zone considered,find Act. Find As,min from eq. (7.1) using σs,max

For the proposed reinforcement,find As per unit width of slab.Is As ≥ As,min?

Reduce ss or increase φ(or combination of both)

Choose fct,eff, defined in 7.4.2(1).Use N/mm2 units

Fig. 7.4. Flow chart for minimum reinforcement for control of cracking

172

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 418: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Note 3. A second subscript, l for loading, is used in this note to indicate quantities found inthe check to clause 7.4.3. Area As;l is usually that required for resistance to ultimateloads. It is assumed, for simplicity, that minimum reinforcement consists oftwo identical layers of bars, one near each surface of the slab. Area As;l shouldbe compared with the minimum reinforcement area As required when bars ofdiameter �l are used. If As;l < As, minimum reinforcement governs.

7.5. Filler beam decksThis clause is applicable to simply-supported or continuous decks of the type shown inFig. 6.8, spanning longitudinally. The Note to clause 6.3.1(1) permits the use of transversefiller beams according to the National Annex, which should refer also to serviceabilityrequirements, if any.

From clause 7.5.1(1), the methods of global analysis for serviceability limit states are thesame as for ultimate limit states, clause 5.4.2.9, except that no redistribution of moments ispermitted.

The word ‘considered ’ is used in clause 7.5.2(1) because some of the clauses may not beapplicable. For example, the thickness of the concrete in a filler-beam deck will exceedthat in a conventional composite beam, so the effects of heat of hydration will be greater.The temperature difference recommended in the Note to clause 7.4.1(6) may not beappropriate. Tension stiffening is also different (clause 7.5.4(2)).

The objective of clause 7.5.3(1) is to ensure that cracking of concrete does not cause itsreinforcement to yield. It applies above an internal support of a continuous filler-beamdeck, and can be illustrated as follows.

It is assumed that all the concrete above the top flanges of the steel beams reaches its meantensile strength, fctm, and then cracks. This releases a tensile force of Ac;eff fctm per beam,where Ac;eff ¼ swcst; as in clause 7.5.3(1). The notation is shown in Fig. 6.8.

The required condition, with partial factors �M taken as 1.0, is:

As;min fsk � Ac;eff fctm (D7.2)

For concretes permitted by clause 3.1(2), fctm � 4:4N/mm2.If, to satisfy expression (7.7), As;min > 0.01Ac;eff, then expression (D7.2) is satisfied if

fsk > 440N/mm2. In design to EN 1994, normally fsk ¼ 500N/mm2, so the objective is met.Clause 7.5.4(1) applies to longitudinal bottom reinforcement in mid-span regions. Widths

of cracks in the concrete soffit between the steel beams should be controlled unless theformwork used (shown in Fig. 6.8) provides permanent protection. Otherwise, widetransverse cracks could form under the bottom transverse bars specified in clause 6.3.1(4),putting them at risk of corrosion.

Clause 7.5.4(2) says, in effect, that the stress in the reinforcement may be taken as �s;o,defined in clause 7.4.3(3). Thus, there is no need to consider tension stiffening in filler-beam decks.

Clause 7.5.1(1)

Clause 7.5.2(1)

Clause 7.5.3(1)

Clause 7.5.4(1)

Clause 7.5.4(2)

Example 7.1: checks on serviceability stresses, and control of crackingThe following serviceability checks are performed for the internal girders of the bridge inFigs 5.6 and 6.22:

. tensile stress in reinforcement and crack control at an intermediate support

. minimum longitudinal reinforcement for regions in hogging bending

. stresses in structural steel at an intermediate support

. compressive stress in concrete at mid-span of the main span.

Tensile stress in reinforcementThe cross-section at an intermediate support is shown in Fig. 7.5. All reinforcement hasfsk ¼ 500N/mm2.

173

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Page 419: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

1225

400 × 40

400 × 25

1160 × 25

26

Including reinforcement

Elastic neutral axesfor n0 = 6.36

60

70

25

3100

1120

Excluding reinforcement

20 mm bars at 75 mm 20 mm bars at 150 mm

hc = 250

z0

125

Fig. 7.5. Elastic neutral axes of uncracked cross-section at internal support

From clause 7.2.1(8), stresses in reinforcement caused by simultaneous global and localactions should be added. Load Model 1 is considered here. The tandem system (TS) andUDL produce a smaller local effect than does Load Model 2, but Load Model 1 producesthe greatest combined local plus global effect. Local moments are caused here by hogging ofthe deck slab over the pier diaphragm. Full local effects do not coexist with full global effectssince, for maximum global hogging moment, the axles are further from the pier. Themaximum local and global effects are here calculated independently and then combined.A less conservative approach, if permitted by the National Annex, is to use the combinationrule in Annex E of EN 1993-2 as noted below clause 5.4.4(1). This enables the maximumglobal effect to be combined with a reduced local effect and vice versa.The maximum global hogging moment acting on the composite section under the

characteristic combination was found to be 4400 kNm. Clause 7.2.1(4) allows theprimary effects of shrinkage to be ignored for cracked sections, but not the secondaryeffects which are unfavourable here.From Table 6.2 in Example 6.6, the section modulus for the top layer of reinforcement

in the cracked composite section is 34:05� 106 mm3. The stress due to global effects in thisreinforcement, ignoring tension stiffening, is:

�s;o ¼ 4400=34:05 ¼ 129N/mm2

From clause 7.2.1(6), the calculation of reinforcement stress should include the effectsof tension stiffening. From clause 7.4.3(3), the increase in stress in the reinforcement, dueto tension stiffening, from that calculated using a fully cracked analysis is:

��s ¼0:4 fctm�st�s

where �st ¼AI

AaIa¼ 74 478� 2:266� 1010

55 000� 1:228� 1010¼ 2:50

The reinforcement ratio �s ¼ 0.025 and fctm ¼ 2.9N/mm2 and thus:

��s ¼0:4� 2:9

2:50� 0:025¼ 19N=mm2

The stress in the reinforcement from global effects is therefore:

129þ 19 ¼ 148N/mm2

The stress in the reinforcement due to local load was found by determining the localmoment from an analysis using the appropriate Pucher chart.100 This bending moment,12.2 kNm/m hogging, is not sufficient to cause compression in the slab, so it is resistedsolely by the two layers of reinforcement, and causes a tensile stress of 73N/mm2 in thetop layer. The total stress from global plus local effects is therefore:

�s ¼ 148þ 73 ¼ 221N/mm2

174

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 420: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

From clause 7.2.2(4) and from EN 1992-1-1 clause 7.2(5), the tensile stress in thereinforcement should not exceed k3 fsk ¼ 400N/mm2 (recommended k3 ¼ 0:8, andfsk ¼ 500N/mm2) so this check is satisfied.Where the global tension is such that local effects cause net compression at one face of

the slab, iterative calculation can be avoided by taking the lever arm for local bending asthe lesser of the distance between the two layers of reinforcement and that derived fromconsidering the cracked section in flexure alone.

Control of cracking due to direct loading – persistent design situationCreep of concrete in sagging regions causes hogging moments to increase, so this check isdone at t ! 1. Cracking during construction is considered later.

For concrete protected by waterproofing, EN 1992-2 clause 4.2(105) recommends anexposure class of XC3 for which Table 7.101N of EN 1992-2 recommends a limitingcrack width of 0.3mm under the quasi-permanent load combination.

Crack widths are checked under this load combination for which the maximum hoggingmoment acting on the composite section was found to be 2500 kNm. The secondary effectsof shrinkage were unfavourable here. The primary effects can be ignored because the deri-vation of the simplified method (Tables 7.1 and 7.2) takes account of a typical amount ofshrinkage.107

Using a section modulus from Table 6.2, the stress due to global effects in the top layerof reinforcement, ignoring tension stiffening, is:

�s;o ¼ 2500=34:05 ¼ 73N/mm2

The increase in stress in the reinforcement due to tension stiffening is 19N/mm2 asfound above. From equation (7.4), the reinforcement stress is:

�s ¼ 73þ 19 ¼ 92N/mm2

For this stress, Table 7.1 gives a bar diameter above 32mm, and Table 7.2 gives a barspacing exceeding 300mm, so there is sufficient crack control from the reinforcement pro-vided, 20mm bars at 75mm spacing.

Control of cracking during constructionConstruction is unpropped, so clause 7.4.1(5) is applicable. Effects of heat of hydration ofcement should be analysed ‘to define areas where tension is expected ’. These areas requireat least minimum reinforcement, from clause 7.4.2. The curvatures for determiningsecondary effects should be based initially on uncracked cross-sections.

Clause 7.4.1(6) requires account to be taken of the effects of heat of hydration forlimitation of crack width ‘unless specific measures are taken’ to limit its effects. TheNational Annex may refer to specific measures.

Assuming that no specific measures have been taken, clause 7.4.1(6) applies. Its Noterecommends that the concrete slab should be assumed to be 20K colder than the steelmember, and that the short-term modular ratio n0 should be used. It is expected thatthe National Annex for the UK will replace 20K by 25K, the value used here.

Referring to Fig. 5.6, it is assumed that the whole of the deck slab has been concretedexcept for lengths such as CD, which extend for 6m each side of each internal support.These two 12m lengths are now cast, over the whole width of the deck. When theyharden, it is assumed that the only longitudinal stress in their concrete arises fromshrinkage and the temperature difference. The primary effects are uniform over thewhole 12m length. The secondary effects are a hogging bending moment over thewhole length of the bridge, which is a maximum at the internal supports, and associatedshear forces.

It is reasonable to assume that the 12m lengths are either cracked throughout, oruncracked. In calculating secondary effects, primary effects due to shrinkage can beneglected in cracked regions, from clause 5.4.2.2(8), so only effects of heat of hydration

175

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Page 421: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

need be considered. A similar conclusion is reached if the method of clause 5.4.2.3(3),‘15% of the span cracked’, is used. In any case, shrinkage is a minor effect, as shownbelow.From Example 5.3, the autogenous and long-term shrinkage strains are "ca ¼ 50� 10�6

and "cd ¼ 282� 10�6 respectively. From clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1, drying shrinkagemay be assumed to commence at the end of curing.Autogenous shrinkage is a function of the age of the concrete, t in days:

"caðtÞ ¼ ½1� expð0:2t0:5Þ�"cað1Þ

Here, the temperature difference is assumed to reach its peak at age seven days, and curingis conservatively assumed to have ended at age three days. From EN 1992-1-1, less than1% of the long-term drying shrinkage will have occurred in the next four days, so it isneglected.From the equation above,

"cað7Þ ¼ ½1� expð�0:53Þ� � 50� 10�6 ¼ 21� 10�6

For temperature, clause 3.1.3(5) of EN 1992-1-1 gives the thermal coefficient forconcrete as 10� 10�6, so a difference of 25K causes a strain of 250� 10�6.The resulting sagging curvature of each 12m length of deck is found by analysis of the

uncracked composite section with n0 ¼ 6.36 from Example 5.2. To find whether crackingoccurs, the secondary effects are found from these curvatures by global analysis usinguncracked stiffnesses.The definition of ‘regions in tension’ is based on the characteristic combination, from

clause 5.4.2.3(2). It is suggested here that heat of hydration should be treated as apermanent action, as shrinkage is. The leading variable action is likely to be constructionload elsewhere on the deck, in association with either temperature or wind. Thepermanent actions are dead load and any drying shrinkage in the rest of the deck. Theaction effects so found from ‘uncracked’ analysis are added to the secondary effects,above, to determine the regions in tension, in which at least minimum reinforcement(to clause 7.4.2) should be provided. If tensile stresses in concrete are such that itcracks, reanalysis using cracked sections and ignoring primary effects gives the tensilestresses in reinforcement needed for crack-width control. Minimum reinforcement willnot be sufficient at the internal supports, where reinforcement will have been designedboth for resistance to ultimate direct loading and for long-term crack-width control.The seven-day situation studied here is unlikely to be more adverse.

Minimum reinforcementThe minimum reinforcement required by clause 7.4.2 is usually far less than that requiredat an internal support. The rules apply to any region subjected to significant tension andcan govern where the main longitudinal reinforcement is curtailed, or near a point ofcontraflexure.Figure 7.1 gives the minimum reinforcement for this 250mm slab as 20mm bars at

260mm spacing, top and bottom. The top layer has a cross-section only 29% of that ofthe top layer provided at the pier. This result is now checked. From clause 7.4.2(1):

As;min ¼ kskck fct;effAct=�s (7.1)

with ks ¼ 0.9 and k ¼ 0.8.Assuming that the age of the concrete at cracking is likely to exceed 28 days,

fct;eff ¼ 3.0N/mm2

The only term in equation (7.1) that depends on the steel cross-section is kc, given by:

kc ¼1

1þ hc= 2z0ð Þ þ 0:3 � 1:0 ð7:2Þ

176

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 422: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

where hc is the flange thickness (250mm) and z0 is the distance between the centres ofarea of the uncracked composite section and the uncracked concrete flange, withmodular ratio n0 (6.36 here). It makes little difference whether reinforcement is includedor not. Excluding it (for simplicity) and ignoring the haunch, then from Fig. 7.5:

z0 ¼ 1500� 1120� 125 ¼ 255mm

and

kc ¼ 1=ð1þ 250=510Þ þ 0:3 ¼ 0:97

If the area of longitudinal reinforcement at the internal support is included, kc is reducedby only 0.02.

Ignoring the difference between 2.9 and 3.0N/mm2, Table 7.1 gives the maximum stressfor 20mm bars as 220N/mm2 for a limiting crack width of 0.3mm.

For a 1m width of flange, from equation (7.1):

As;min ¼ 0:9� 0:97� 0:8� 3:0� 1000� 250=220 ¼ 2380mm2/m

Clause 7.4.2(3) requires at least half of this reinforcement to be placed in the upperlayer. This gives 20mm bars at 264mm spacing; probably 250mm in practice. A similarcalculation for 16mm bars gives their spacing as 184mm.

Stress limits for structural steelThe hogging moments under the characteristic load combination are found to be1600 kNm acting on the steel beam and 4400 kNm acting on the composite section. Therelevant section moduli are given in Table 6.2 in Example 6.6. The stress in the bottomflange was found to be critical, for which:

�Ed;ser ¼1600

22:20þ 4400

29:25¼ 222N=mm2

The coexisting shear force acting on the section was found to be 1900 kN, so:

�Ed;ser ¼1900� 103

25� 1160¼ 66N=mm2

if buckling is neglected at SLS.From clause 7.2.2(5) and EC3-2 clause 7.3, stresses should be limited as follows:

�Ed;ser ¼ 222 �fy

�M;ser

¼ 345N=mm2

�Ed;ser ¼ 66 �fyffiffiffi

3p

�M;ser

¼ 199N=mm2

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�2Ed;ser þ 3�2Ed;ser

q¼ 250 �

fy

�M;ser

¼ 345N=mm2

where �M;ser ¼ 1.00. The stresses in structural steel are all satisfactory.

Compressive stress in concreteThe cross-section at mid-span is shown in Fig. 6.2. The compressive stress in the slab ischecked under simultaneous global and local actions. Both the primary and secondaryeffects of shrinkage are favourable and are conservatively ignored. The concrete is checkedshortly after opening the bridge, ignoring creep, as this produces the greatest concretecompressive stress here, so the short-term modular ratio is used. The sagging moment onthe composite section from the characteristic combination was found to be 3500kNm.

The section modulus for the top of the concrete slab is 575:9� 106 mm3 from Table 6.4in Example 6.10. The compressive stress at the top of the slab is:

�c ¼ 3500=575:9 ¼ 6:1N/mm2

177

CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Page 423: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

The maximum longitudinal sagging moment from local loading was found to be20 kNm/m. The short-term section modulus for the top surface of the uncrackedreinforced slab is Wc;top ¼ 10:7� 106 mm4/m in ‘concrete’ units, so the compressivestress from local load is �c;loc ¼ 20=10:7 ¼ 1:9N/mm2.The total concrete stress, fully combining global and local effects, is:

�c ¼ 6:1þ 1:9 ¼ 8:0N/mm2

The global stress is sufficient to keep the whole depth of the slab in compression sothis calculation of stresses from local moment using gross properties for the slab isappropriate. If the local moment caused tension in the slab, this would no longer beadequate. Either the stress from local moment could conservatively be calculated froma cracked section analysis considering the local moment acting alone, or an iterativecalculation considering the local moment and axial force acting together would berequired. In this case, application of the combination rule of EN 1993-2 Annex Ewould underestimate the combined effect as the global and local loading cases are thesame.From clause 7.2.2(2) and from EN 1992-1-1 clause 7.2 with the recommended value for

k1, concrete stresses should be limited to k1 fck ¼ 0:6� 30 ¼ 18N/mm2 so the concretestress is acceptable.

178

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 424: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 8

Precast concrete slabs incomposite bridges

This chapter corresponds to Section 8 in EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. General Clause 8.1

. Actions Clause 8.2

. Design, analysis and detailing of the bridge slab Clause 8.3

. Interface between steel beam and concrete slab Clause 8.4

8.1. GeneralClause 8.1(1) states the scope of Section 8: precast deck slabs of reinforced or prestressedconcrete which are either:

. partial thickness, acting as permanent participating formwork to the in-situ concretetopping, or

. full thickness, where only a small quantity of concrete needs to be cast in situ to join theprecast units together. Figure 8.1 illustrates a typical deck of this type.

Precast slabs within the scope of Section 8 should be fully composite with the steel beam –clause 8.1(2). Non-participating permanent formwork is not covered, for it is difficultboth to prevent such formwork from being stressed by imposed loading, and to ensure itsdurability.

Clause 8.1(1)

Clause 8.1(2)

Precast or in situedge beam

Precast or in situedge beam

Transverse joint

Pocket for shearconnectors

Precast deck slabunit spanningmultiple girders

Projectingreinforcement

not shown

Fig. 8.1. Typical full-thickness precast concrete deck

Page 425: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 8.1(3) is a reminder that the designer should check the sensitivity of the detailing totolerances and specify stricter values than those required by EN 1992 (through EN 13670) ifnecessary. Key issues to consider include:

. detailing of the precast slabs at pockets to ensure that each pocket is correctly locatedover the steel beam, that projecting transverse reinforcement will not clash with theshear connection, and that there is sufficient space for concreting (clause 8.4.3(2))

. detailing of stitch reinforcement between adjacent precast slabs to ensure that bars do notclash and to satisfy clause 8.3(1) on continuity

. tolerances on overall geometry of each precast unit so that, where required, abuttingunits are sufficiently parallel to each other to avoid the need for additional sealingfrom underneath. The tolerances for steelwork are also important, and are referred toin clause 8.4.1.

8.2. Actions

Clause 8.2(1) warns that the design of precast deck slabs should consider the actionsarising from the proposed construction method as well as the actions given in EN 1991-1-6.30

8.3. Design, analysis and detailing of the bridge slabEven where full-thickness slabs are used, some interaction with in-situ concrete occurs atjoints, so clause 8.3(1) is relevant to both types of precast concrete slab. Its requirementfor the deck to be designed as continuous in both directions applies to the finished structure.It does not mean that the reinforcement in partial-thickness precast slabs or planks must becontinuous. That would exclude the use of ‘Omnia’-type planks, shown in Fig. 8.2. Precastplanks of this sort span simply-supported between adjacent steel beams and are joined within-situ concrete over the tops of the beams. The main reinforcement in the planks is notcontinuous across these joints, but the reinforcement in the in-situ concrete is. In the otherdirection, the planks abut as shown, so that only a small part of the thickness of the slabis discontinuous in compression. Continuity of reinforcement is again achieved in the slabbut not in the planks. The resulting slab (part precast, part in situ) is continuous in bothdirections.

EN 1992-1-1 clause 6.2.5 is relevant for the horizontal interface between the precast andin situ concrete. Examples of bridges of this type are given in Ref. 108.

To allow precast slab units to be laid continuously across the steel beams, shear connectionusually needs to be concentrated in groups with appropriate positioning of pockets in theprecast slab as illustrated in Fig. 8.1. Clause 8.3(2) therefore refers to clause 6.6.5.5(4)for the use of stud connectors in groups. Clause 8.3(3) makes reference to clause 6.6.1.2.This allows some degree of averaging of the shear flow over a length, which facilitatesstandardisation of the details of the shear connection and the pockets.

Clause 8.1(3)

Clause 8.2(1)

Clause 8.3(1)

Clause 8.3(2)Clause 8.3(3)

Precast plank

In-situ concrete

Flange of steel beam

Fig. 8.2. Typical partial-thickness precast concrete planks

180

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 426: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

8.4. Interface between steel beam and concrete slabClause 8.4.1(1) refers to bedding, such as the placing of the slabs on a layer of mortar.Sealing of the interface between steel beam and precast beam is needed both to protect thesteel flange from corrosion and to prevent leakage of grout when the pockets are concreted.Where a precast unit is supported by more than two beams, bedding may also be needed toensure that load is shared between the beams as intended.

‘Bedding’ in clause 8.4.1(1) appears to mean a gap-filling material capable of transferringvertical compression. Where it is intended not to use it, the clause requires special tolerancesto be specified for the steelwork to minimise the effects of uneven contact between slab andsteel flange.

This does not solve the problems of corrosion and grout leakage, for which a compressiblesealing strip could be applied to the edges of the flange and around the pocket. There wouldthen still be no direct protection of the top flange by in-situ concrete (other than at a pocket)and so clause 8.4.2(1) requires that a top flange without bedding be given the same corrosionprotection as the rest of the beam, apart from the site-applied top coat.

If a non-loadbearing anti-corrosion bedding is provided, then the slab should be designedfor the transfer of vertical loads only at the positions of the pockets. It would be prudent alsoto assume that clause 8.4.1(1) on special tolerances still applies.

Clause 8.4.3 gives provisions for the shear connection and transverse reinforcement, sup-plementing Sections 6 and 7. Clause 8.4.3(2) emphasises the need for both suitable concretemix design and appropriate clearance between shear connectors and precast concrete, allow-ing for tolerances, in order to enable in-situ concrete to be fully compacted. Clause 8.4.3(3)highlights the need to detail reinforcement appropriately adjacent to groups of connectors.This is discussed with the comments on clause 6.6.5.5(4).

EN 1994-2 gives no specific guidance on the detailing of the transverse and longitudinaljoints between precast deck units. Transverse joints between full-depth precast slabs at theintermediate supports of continuous bridges are particularly critical. Here, the slab reinforce-ment must transmit the tension caused by both global hogging moments and the bendingmoment from local loading. To allow for full laps in the reinforcement, a clear gapbetween units would need to be large and a problem arises as to how to form the soffit tothe joint. One potential solution is to reduce the gap by using interlocking looped barsprotruding from each end of adjoining slab units. Such a splicing detail is not covered inEN 1992-2, other than in the strut-and-tie rules. Experience has shown that even ifsatisfactory ultimate performance can be established by calculation, tests may be requiredto demonstrate acceptable performance at the serviceability limit state and under fatigueloading.

The publication Precast Concrete Decks for Composite Highway Bridges109 gives furtherguidance on the detailing of longitudinal and transverse joints for a variety of bridge types.

Clause 8.4.1(1)

Clause 8.4.2(1)

Clause 8.4.3Clause 8.4.3(2)

Clause 8.4.3(3)

181

CHAPTER 8. PRECAST CONCRETE SLABS IN COMPOSITE BRIDGES

Page 427: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 9

Composite plates in bridges

This chapter corresponds to Section 9 of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. General Clause 9.1

. Design for local effects Clause 9.2

. Design for global effects Clause 9.3

. Design of shear connectors Clause 9.4

9.1. GeneralA composite plate comprises a steel plate acting compositely with a concrete slab in bothlongitudinal and transverse directions. The requirements of Section 9 apply to compositetop flanges of box girders, which resist local wheel loads in addition to performing the func-tion of a flange in the global system. Clause 9.1(1) clarifies that this section of EN 1994-2does not cover composite plates with shear connectors other than headed studs, or sandwichconstruction where the concrete is enclosed by a top and bottom steel plate. Composite platescan also be used as bottom flanges of box girders in hogging zones. This reduces the amountof stiffening required to prevent buckling. Composite bottom flanges have been used both innew bridges110;111 and for strengthening older structures.

Clause 9.1(2) imposes a deflection limit on the steel flange under the weight of wetconcrete, unless the additional weight of concrete due to the deflection is included in thecalculation. In most bridges where this deflection limit would be approached, the steel topplate would probably require stiffening to resist the global compression during construction.

Clause 9.1(3) gives a modified definition for b0 in clause 5.4.1.2 on shear lag. Its effectis that where the composite plate has no projection beyond an outer web, the value ofb0 for that web is zero. For global analysis, the effects of staged construction, cracking,creep and shrinkage, and shear lag all apply. Clause 9.1(4) therefore makes reference toclause 5.4, together with clause 5.1 on structural modelling.

9.2. Design for local effectsLocal effects arise from vertical loading, usually from wheels or ballast, acting on thecomposite plate. For flanges without longitudinal stiffeners, most of the load is usuallycarried by transverse spanning between webs, but longitudinal spanning also occurs in thevicinity of any cross-beams and diaphragms. For flanges with longitudinal stiffeners, thedirection of spanning depends on the flange geometry and the relative stiffnesses ofthe various components. It is important to consider local loading for the fatigue check ofthe studs as the longitudinal shear from wheel loads can be as significant as that from theglobal loading in low-shear regions of the main member.

Clause 9.1(1)

Clause 9.1(2)

Clause 9.1(3)

Clause 9.1(4)

Page 428: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Clause 9.2(1) permits the local analysis to be carried out using elastic analysis withuncracked concrete properties throughout. This is reasonable because the concrete islikely to be cracked in flexure regardless of the sign of the bending moment. There is thereforeno need to distinguish between uncracked and cracked behaviour, although where the steelflange is in tension, the cracked stiffness is likely to be significantly higher for saggingmoments than for hogging moments. The same assumption is made in the design ofreinforced concrete and is justified at ultimate limit states by the lower-bound theorem ofplasticity. Clause 9.2(1) also clarifies that the provisions of Section 9 need not be appliedto the composite flange of a discrete steel I-girder, since the flange will not usually be wideenough for significant composite action to develop across its width.

A small amount of slip can be expected between the steel plate and concrete slab, asdiscussed in the comments under clause 9.4(4), but as in beams its effect on compositeaction is small. Clause 9.2(2) therefore allows slip to be ignored when determiningresistances. Excessive slip could however cause premature failure. This needs to be preventedby following the applicable provisions of clause 6.6 on shear connection in conjunction withclause 9.4.

Providing the shear studs are designed as above, the steel deck plate may be taken to actfully compositely with the slab. Clause 9.2(3) then permits the section to be designed forflexure as if the steel flange plate were reinforcement. The requirements of EN 1992-2clause 6.1 should then be followed. The shear resistance may similarly be derived by treatingthe composite plate as a reinforced concrete section without links according to EN 1992-2clause 6.2.2 (as modified by clause 6.2.2.5(3)), provided that the spacing of the studs trans-versely and longitudinally is less than three times the thickness of the composite plate. Thestuds should also be designed for the longitudinal shear flow from local loading for ultimatelimit states, other than fatigue, and for the shear flow from combined global and local effectsat serviceability and fatigue limit states.

Both punching and flexural shear should be checked. Checks on flexural shear for unstif-fened parts of the composite plate should follow the usual procedures for reinforced concretedesign. An effective width of slab, similar to that shown below in Fig. 9.1, could be assumedwhen determining the width of slab resisting flexural shear. Checks on punching shear couldconsider any support provided by longitudinal stiffeners, although this could conservativelybe ignored.

9.3. Design for global effectsClause 9.3(1) requires the composite plate to be designed for the effects induced in it by axialforce, bending moment and torsion acting on the main girder. In the longitudinal direction,the composite plate will therefore resist direct compression or tension. Most bridge boxgirders will be in Class 3 or Class 4 and therefore the elastic stresses derived in the concreteand steel elements should be limited to the values in clause 6.2.1.5 for ultimate limit states.

Torsion acting on the box will induce in-plane shear in both steel and concrete elements ofthe flange. These shear flows can be determined using a transformed section for the concreteas given in clauses 5.4.2.2(11) and 5.4.2.3(6). Checks of the steel flange under combineddirect stress and in-plane shear are discussed under the comments on clause 6.2.2.4(3).The concrete flange should be checked for in-plane shear in accordance with EN 1992-2clause 6.2.

Distortion of a box girder will cause warping of the box walls, and thus in-plane bending inthe composite plate. The direct stresses from warping will need to be added to those fromglobal bending and axial force. Distortion will also cause transverse bending of the compo-site plate.

Once a steel flange in compression is connected to the concrete slab, it is usually assumedthat the steel flange panels are prevented from buckling (providing the shear studs are spacedsufficiently closely – clause 9.4(7) refers). It is still possible, although very unlikely, that thecomposite plate might buckle as a whole. Clause 9.3(2) acknowledges this possibility and

Clause 9.2(1)

Clause 9.2(2)

Clause 9.2(3)

Clause 9.3(1)

Clause 9.3(2)

184

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 429: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

requires reference to be made to clause 5.8 of EN 1992-1-1 for the calculation of the second-order effects. None of the simple methods of accounting for second-order effects in thisclause apply to plates so a general second-order non-linear analysis with imperfectionswould be required in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 clause 5.8.6. No guidance is given inEN 1992-1-1 on imperfections in plate elements. The imperfection shape could be basedon the elastic critical buckling mode shape for the composite plate. The magnitude ofimperfection could be estimated as the sum of the plate imperfection given in EN 1090and the deflection caused by wet concrete, less any specified camber of the plate.

EN 1992-1-1 clause 5.8.2(6) provides a criterion for ignoring second-order effects whichrequires them first be calculated. This is unhelpful. A simpler alternative would be to usethe criterion in clause 5.2.1(3) based on an elastic critical buckling analysis of the compositeplate.

Where account should be taken of significant shear force acting on the studs in bothlongitudinal and transverse directions simultaneously, clause 9.3(4) requires the force onthe connectors to be based on the vector sum. Hence,

PEd ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiP2l;Ed þ P2

t;Ed

q

where Pl;Ed and Pt;Ed are the shear forces per stud in the longitudinal and transversedirections respectively. This can influence the spacing of the studs nearest to the websbecause they are the most heavily stressed from global effects (see section 9.4 below) andalso tend to be the most heavily loaded from local effects in the transverse direction.

9.4. Design of shear connectorsThe effect of clause 9.4(1) and clause 9.3(4) is that local and global effects need only becombined in calculations for serviceability and fatigue limit states, but not for other ultimatelimit states. Several justifications can be made for this concession. The main ones are asfollows.

. The effects of local loading are usually high only over a relatively small width comparedwith the total width providing the global resistance.

. The composite plate will have significant reserves in local bending resistance above thatobtained from elastic analysis.

. Complete failure requires the deformation of a mechanism of yield lines, which is resistedby arching action. This action can be developed almost everywhere in the longitudinaldirection and in many areas in the transverse direction also.

There is no similar relaxation in EN 1993-2 for bare steel flanges so a steel flange should, inprinciple, be checked for any local loading in combination with global loading. It will notnormally be difficult to satisfy this check, even using elastic analysis.

For serviceability calculations, elastic analysis is appropriate. This greatly simplifies theaddition of global and local effects. For the serviceability limit state, the relevant limitingforce per connector is that in clause 6.8.1(3), referred to from clause 7.2.2(6). The forceper connector should be derived according to clause 9.3(4). When checking the VonMises equivalent stress in the steel flange plate, the weight of wet concrete carried by itshould be included.

No guidance is given on the calculation of stud shear flow from local wheel loads, otherthan that in clause 9.2(1). Longitudinally stiffened parts of composite plates can be designedas beams spanning between transverse members, where present. The rules for effective widthof clause 5.4.1.2 would apply in determining the parts of the composite plate acting with eachlongitudinal stiffener. For unstiffened parts of the composite plate, spanning transverselybetween webs or longitudinally between cross-beams, a simplified calculation of shearflow could be based on an equivalent simply-supported beam. A reasonable assumptionfor beam width, as recommended in Ref. 112, would be the width of the load, w, plusfour-thirds of the distance to the nearest support, x, as shown in Fig. 9.1.

Clause 9.3(4)

Clause 9.4(1)

185

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE PLATES IN BRIDGES

Page 430: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

At cross-sections where there is an abrupt change from composite plate to reinforcedconcrete section, such as at the web of the box in Fig. 9.2, the method of clause 6.6.2.4can be used to determine the transverse shear on the studs near the edge of the plate.

Although the composite section formed by a steel flange and concrete slab might provideadequate strength against local sagging moments without additional transverse reinforce-ment, transverse reinforcement is still required in the bottom of the slab to control crackingand prevent splitting of the concrete ahead of the studs. Clause 9.4(2) requires a fairlymodest quantity of bottom reinforcement to be provided in two orthogonal directions. Itimplies that in the absence of such reinforcement, the static design resistances of studsgiven in clause 6.6.3.1(1) cannot be used as they assume that splitting is prevented. The limit-ing fatigue stress range for studs provided in clause 6.8.3 is also inappropriate without sometransverse reinforcement as splitting will increase the flexural stresses in the stud.

Clause 9.4(3) refers to the detailing rules of clause 6.6.5. The minimum steel flangethickness in clause 6.6.5.7(3) is only likely to become relevant where the top flange isheavily stiffened as discussed in the comments on that clause.

The force on shear connectors in wide composite flanges is influenced both by shear lag inthe concrete and steel flanges and also slip of the shear connection. At the serviceability limitstate, these lead to a non-uniform distribution of connector force across the flange width.This distribution can be approximated by equation (9.1) in clause 9.4(4):

PEd ¼vL;Edntot

��3:85

�nwntot

��0:17

� 3

��1� x

b

�2þ 0:15

�ð9:1Þ

Equation (9.1) was derived from a finite-element study by Moffat and Dowling.113 Thestudy considered only simply-supported beams with ratios of flange half-breadth betweenwebs (b in equation (9.1)) to span in the range 0.05 and 0.20. The stud stiffness was takenas 400 kN/mm.

The studs nearest the web can pick up a significantly greater force than that obtained bydividing the total longitudinal shear by the total number of connectors. This is illustrated inExample 9.1 and in Ref. 74. Connectors within a distance of the greater of 10tf and 200mmare assumed to carry the same shear force. This result is obtained by using x ¼ 0 in equation(9.1) when calculating the stud force and it is necessary to avoid underestimating the force,compared to the finite-element results, in the studs nearest the web. The rule is consistentwith practice for flanges of plate girders, where all shear connectors at a cross-section areassumed to be equally loaded.

The assumed value of stud stiffness has a significant effect on the transverse distribution ofstud force as greater slip leads to a more uniform distribution. Recent studies, such as that inRef. 98, have concluded that stud stiffnesses are significantly lower than 400 kN/mm. Thesame value of stiffness is probably not appropriate for both fatigue calculation and service-ability calculations under the characteristic load combination, due to the greater slip, and

Clause 9.4(2)

Clause 9.4(3)

Clause 9.4(4)

x

2

3

w 4x/3 + w

L

Fig. 9.1. Effective beam width for the determination of shear flow in a composite plate

186

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 431: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

therefore flexibility, possible in the latter case. Nevertheless, the assumed stiffness of 400 kN/mm is an upper bound and therefore the transverse distribution is conservative.

Clause 9.4(5) permits a relaxation of the requirements of clause 9.4(4) for compositebottom flanges of box girders, provided that at least half of the shear connectors requiredare concentrated near the web–flange junction. ‘Near’ means either on the web or withinthe defined adjacent width bf of the flange. The rule is based on extensive practice inGermany, and assumes that there is no significant local loading.

At the ultimate limit state, plasticity in the flange and increased slip lead to a much moreuniform distribution of stud forces across the box, which is allowed for in clause 9.4(6).

To prevent buckling of the steel compression flange in half waves between studs,clause 9.4(7) refers to Table 9.1 for limiting stud spacings in both longitudinal and transversedirections. These could, in principle, be relaxed if account is taken of any longitudinalstiffening provided to stabilise the compression flange prior to hardening of the concrete.Most bridge box girders will have webs in Class 3 or Class 4, so it will usually only be neces-sary to comply with the stud spacings for a Class 3 flange; there is however little differencebetween the spacing requirements for Class 2 and Class 3.

Clause 9.4(5)

Clause 9.4(6)

Clause 9.4(7)

Example 9.1: design of shear connection for global effects at the serviceabilitylimit stateThe shear connection for the box girder shown in Fig. 9.2 is to be designed using 19mmstud connectors. For reasons to be explained, it may be governed by serviceability, forwhich the longitudinal shear per web at SLS (determined from elastic analysis of thecross-section making allowance for shear lag) was found to be 800 kN/m.

25 mm thick

200 580 580100

3525250 mm thick

1 2 3 4

605

x

Fig. 9.2. Box girder for Example 9.1

From clause 6.8.1(3) the force per connector at SLS is limited to 0.75PRd. FromExample 6.10, this limit is 0:75� 83:3 ¼ 62:5 kN.

It will be found that longitudinal shear forces per stud decrease rapidly with distancefrom the web. This leaves spare resistance for the transverse shear force and localeffects (e.g. from wheel loads), both of which can usually be neglected adjacent to theweb, but increase with distance from it.113 The following method is further explained inRef. 74. It is based on finite-element analyses that included shear lag, and so is appliedto the whole width of composite plate associated with the web concerned, not justto the effective width. In this case, both widths are 3525=2 ¼ 1762mm, denoted b inFig. 9.1 in EN 1994-2.

From clause 9.4(4), nw is the number of connectors within 250mm of the web, because10tf > 200mm. The method is slightly iterative, as the first step is to estimate the rationw=ntot, here taken as 0.25. The longitudinal spacing of the studs is assumed to be0.15m, so the design shear per transverse row is vL;Rd ¼ 800� 0:15 ¼ 120 kN.

187

CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE PLATES IN BRIDGES

Page 432: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

If all the studs were within 250mm of the web, their x-coordinate in equation (9.1)would be zero. The number of studs required is found from this equation by puttingPEd ¼ 0:75PRd ¼ 62:5 kN and x ¼ 0:

6:25 ¼ 120

ntot½ð3:85ð0:25Þ�0:17 � 3Þ þ 0:15�

whence ntot ¼ 3:88. Design is therefore based on four studs per transverse row, of whichone will be within 250mm of the web. To conform to the assumptions made in derivingequation (9.1), the other studs will be equally spaced over the whole width b, not thewidth b� 250mm. (This distinction only matters where ntot is low, as it is here.) In awider box, non-uniform lateral spacing may be more convenient, subject to the conditiongiven in the definition of ntot in clause 9.4(4).For these studs, uniform spacing means locations at x ¼ b=6, b=2 and 5b=6 – that is, at

x ¼ 294, 881 and 1468mm. These are rounded to x ¼ 300, 880 and 1460mm. Themaximum lateral spacing is midway between the webs: 3525� 2� 1460 ¼ 605mm.This spacing satisfies the provisions on spacing of clause 9.2(3) (i.e.<3� 275 ¼ 825mm) and also those of Table 9.1 for Class 3 behaviour. It would not benecessary to comply with the latter if the longitudinal stiffeners were close enough toensure that there is no reduction to the effective width of the plate for local sub-panelbuckling; this is not the case here.The shear force PEd per stud is found from equation (9.1), which is:

PEd ¼ 120

4

�ð3:85ð0:25Þ�0:17 � 3Þ

�1� x

1762

�2þ 0:15

Results are given in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1. Forces in studs from global effects

Stud No. 1 2 3 4 Total

x (mm) 100 300 880 1460 —PEd (kN) 60.7 43.2 18.6 6.2 129

The shear resisted by the four studs, 129 kN, exceeds 120 kN, and no stud is overloaded,so the spacing is satisfactory. The result, 129 kN, differs from 120 kN because equation(9.1) is an approximation. This ratio, 129/120, is a function, given in a graph inRef. 74, of nw=ntot and of the effective-width ratio beff=b. Where the lateral spacing ofthe ntot–nw studs is uniform, as here, the ratio exceeds 1.0 provided that nw=ntot < 0:5and beff=b > 0:7. Its minimum value is about 0.93. If the design needs to be modified,revision of the longitudinal spacing is a simple method, as the ratios between the forcesper stud do not then change.From clause 9.4(6), at ULS the studs may be assumed to be equally loaded. Here, their

design resistance is:

ðntot=0:15ÞðPRd=�VÞ ¼ ð4=0:15Þð83:3=1:25Þ ¼ 1777 kN=m

This is more than twice the design shear for SLS, so ULS is unlikely to govern. Table 9.1shows that for SLS, studs 2 to 4 have a reserve of resistance (cf. 62.5 kN) that should besufficient for transverse shear and local effects.

188

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 433: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

CHAPTER 10

Annex C (Informative).Headed studs that causesplitting forces in the directionof the slab thickness

This chapter corresponds to Annex C of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. Design resistance and detailing Clause C.1

. Fatigue strength Clause C.2

Annex A of EN 1994-1-1 is for buildings only. Annex B of EN 1994-1-1, ‘Standard tests’,for shear connectors and composite floor slabs, is not repeated in EN 1994-2. Comment onthese annexes is given in Ref. 5.

Annex C gives a set of design rules for the detailing and resistance of shear studs that areembedded in an edge of a concrete slab, as shown in Figs 6.13 and C.1 of EN 1994-2 andin Fig. 6.35. Details of this type can occur at an edge of a composite deck in a tied archor half-through bridge, or where double composite action is used in a box girder. Thesame problem, premature splitting, could occur in a steep-sided narrow haunch. The useof such haunches is now discouraged by the 458 rule in clause 6.6.5.4(1).

The rules in Annex C were developed from research at the University of Stuttgartthat has been available in English only since 2001.82;114;115 These extensive push testsand finite-element analyses showed that to avoid premature failure by splitting of theslab and to ensure ductile behaviour, special detailing rules are needed. Clause6.6.3.1(3) therefore warns that the usual rules for resistance of studs do not apply.The new rules, in Annex C, are necessarily of limited scope, because there are somany relevant parameters. The rules are partly based on elaborate strut-and-tie model-ling. It was not possible to find rules that are dimensionally consistent, so the units tobe used are specified – the only occasion in EN 1994 Parts 1-1 and 2 where this hasbeen necessary. For these reasons, Annex C is Informative, even though its guidanceis the best available. The simplified and generally more conservative rules given inclause 6.6.4 do not cover interaction with transverse (e.g. vertical) shear or resistance tofatigue.

It will be found that these ‘lying studs’ have to be much longer than usual, and that theminimum slab thickness to avoid a reduction in the shear resistance per stud can exceed250mm. The comments that follow are illustrated in Example 10.1, and in Fig. 10.1 wherethe longitudinal shear acts normal to the plane of the figure and vertical shear acts down-wards from the slab to the steel web.

Page 434: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

C.1. Design resistance and detailingClause C.1(1) gives the static resistance of a stud to longitudinal shear in the absence ofvertical shear, which should not be taken as greater than that from clause 6.6.3.1(1). Theminimum length h of the stud and the reinforcement details are intended to be such thatsplitting of the slab is followed by fracture or pulling out of the stud, giving a ductilemode of failure. The important dimensions are a0r;o and v, from the stud to the centre-linesof the stirrup reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 10.1.

Equation (C.1), repeated in the Example, uses factor kv to distinguish between twosituations. The more favourable, where kv ¼ 1.14, applies where the slab is connected toboth sides of the web and resists hogging bending – a ‘middle position’. This requires re-inforcement to pass continuously above the web, as shown in Fig. C.1. Some shear is thentransferred by friction at the face of the web. Where this does not occur, an ‘edge position’,kv has the lower value 1.0. Details in bridge decks are usually edge positions, so furthercomment is limited to these. The geometries considered in the Stuttgart tests, however,covered composite girders where the steel top flange was omitted altogether, with the webprojecting into the slab.

The general symbol for distance from a stud to the nearest free surface is ar, but notationar;o is used for the upper surface, from the German oben, ‘above’. Its use is relevant wherethere is vertical shear, acting downwards from the slab to the studs. Allowing for coverand the stirrups, the important dimension is:

a0r;o ¼ ar;o � cv � �s=2

If the lower free surface is closer to the stud, its dimension a0r should be used in place of a0r;o.Clause 6.6.4 appears to cover only this ‘edge position’ layout, and uses the symbol ev in

place of a0r;o or a0r.Although fck in equation (C.1) is defined as the strength ‘at the age considered’, the

specified 28-day value should be used, unless a check is being made at a younger age.The longitudinal spacing of the stirrups, s, should be related to that of the studs, a, and

should ideally be uniform.

Clause C.1(1)

29

40

33º

β = 10º

φℓ

φs = 10

ch = 40

cv = 40

a r,o = 80

a r,o

Centre-lineof slab

1045 v = 136

h = 191

d = 19

Fig. 10.1. Notation and dimensions for lying studs in Example 10.1

190

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 435: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

For concretes of grade C35/45 and above, the resistance PRd from clause 6.6.3.1 isindependent of the concrete grade. Then, equation (C.1) can be used to find a minimumvalue for a0r such that PRd;L � PRd.

For example, let a ¼ s, d ¼ 19mm, fck ¼ 35N/mm2, kv ¼ 1, and �V ¼ 1.25. Then,PRd ¼ 90.7 kN from equation (6.18) and PRd;L from equation (C.1) does not governunless a0r < 89mm, say 90mm. With 40mm cover and 10mm stirrups, the minimum slabthickness is then 2ð90þ 40þ 5Þ ¼ 270mm if the studs are centrally placed, but greater ifthey are off centre. If a thinner slab is required, the ratio a=s can be increased or morestuds provided, to compensate for a value PRd;L < PRd.

The limits on v in clause C.1(2) are more convenient for use in practice than the limits on�, because the angle � is defined by the position of the longitudinal corner bar within thebend of the stirrup (Fig. 10.1), which is difficult to control on site.

It follows from clause C.1(3) that the minimum stirrup diameter �s is roughly propor-tional to the stud diameter d. Where a/s ¼ 1.0, �s � d/2.

The expression for interaction between longitudinal and vertical shear, clause C.1(4), isonly slightly convex. The vertical shear resistance given in Example 10.1, equation (C.4),is typically less than 40% of the longitudinal shear resistance, being governed mainly bythe upper edge distance ar;o. Application of vertical shear to lying studs is best avoided,and can be minimized by spanning the concrete slab longitudinally between cross-beams.

C.2. Fatigue strengthEquation (C.5) in clause C.2(1), ð�PRÞm N ¼ ð�PcÞm Nc, differs from equation (6.50) inclause 6.8.3(3) (for the fatigue strength of studs in a non-lying position) only in thatsymbols �P in equation (C.5) appear as �� in equation (6.50). Both methods use m ¼ 8.

In Annex C, �Pc is a function of dimension a0r (Fig. C.1, Fig. 10.1), and is 35.6 kN at2 million cycles, for a0r � 100mm. With typical covers to reinforcement, this correspondsto a lying stud at mid-depth of a slab at least 280mm thick, where the splitting effect isprobably minimal. This value 35.6 kN should therefore correspond to the value given inclause 6.8.3 for �� at 2 million cycles, 90N/mm2. It does so when the stud diameter is22.4mm. This is as expected, because in the fatigue tests, only 22mm diameter studs wereused. However, the method of Annex C is provided for studs of diameter 19mm to25mm, for which: ‘numerous FE-calculations show, that the fatigue strength curve shouldbe based on the absolute range of shear force per stud rather than on the range of shearstress’ (p. 9 of Ref. 115).

The value of �PR given by the rule in clause 6.8.3 is proportional to the square of theshank diameter of the stud. For 19mm studs, it is only 25.6 kN at 2� 106 cycles, which isonly 72% of the resistance 35.6 kN given in Table C.1. This is why clause C.2(1) requiresthe lower of the two values from clause 6.8.3 and Annex C to be used.

Clause C.2(2) refers to the recommended upper limit for the longitudinal shear forceper connector, which is 0.75PRd. The word ‘longitudinal ’ reveals that the rule for fatigueresistance does not apply where vertical shear is present, which is not clear in clauseC.2(1). There were no fatigue tests in combined longitudinal and vertical shear – anotherreason why application of vertical shear to lying studs is best avoided.

Applicability of Annex CThe definition of a ‘lying stud’, given in the titles of clause 6.6.4 and Annex C, does not statehow far from a free surface a stud must be, for the normal rules for its resistance and thedetailing to apply.

Clause 6.6.5.3 refers to a ‘longitudinal edge’, not a top surface, but appears to deal withthe same problem of splitting parallel to a free surface nearby. Where the edge distance(i.e. ar;o in Fig. 10.1) is less than 300mm, it specifies ‘U-bars’ (i.e. stirrups) of diameter�s � 0:5d and an edge distance ar � 6d. These limits correspond closely with the results of

Clause C.1(2)

Clause C.1(3)

Clause C.1(4)

Clause C.2(1)

Clause C.2(2)

191

CHAPTER 10. ANNEX C (INFORMATIVE)

Page 436: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Example 10.1, �s ¼ 0:53d and ar ¼ 6:6d, but the stirrups are required to pass around thestuds, whereas in Annex C they pass between them. The difference is that the surface parallelto the plane of splitting, AB in Fig. 10.2, is normal to the plane of the slab in one case, not inthe other. The minimum height of the stud, about 90mm to clause 6.6.5.1(1) and 191mm inExample 10.1, is less significant in the detail in Fig. 10.2(a) than in detail (b). Details mayoccur where clause 6.6.5.3 is also applicable, but it does not clarify the scope of Annex C.

Let us consider the options, as the local thickness hc of the slab in Fig. 10.1 is increased(e.g. by the addition of an upstand haunch) without change to other details. If the topcover is maintained, length a0r;o must increase, so from clause C.1(2) for v, the studs haveto be longer. An alternative is to keep a0r;o and v unchanged, by increasing the cover to thelegs of the stirrups. When hc exceeds 300mm (using data from Example 10.1), two rowsof studs are possible, Fig. 10.2(b), because the minimum vertical spacing of studs is 2.5d,from clause 6.6.5.7(4). In the absence of vertical shear, the shear resistance is doubled, asis the potential splitting force. For two rows of lying studs, the force Td given by equation(C.2) should be 0.3 times the sum of their resistances.

Limits to the applicability of Annex C are further discussed at the end of Example 10.1.

Example 10.1: design of lying studsA bridge deck slab 250mm thick is to be connected along its sides to steel webs. The finaldetail is shown to scale in Fig. 10.1. The design ultimate longitudinal shear at each edge isVL;Ed ¼ 600 kN/m. The vertical shear is at first assumed to be negligible. The effect ofadding VV;Ed ¼ 60 kN/m is then found. The strengths of the materials are:fyd ¼ 500=1:15 ¼ 435N/mm2, fu ¼ 500N/mm2 and fck ¼ 40N/mm2. Resistances inAnnex C are given in terms of fck, not fcd, because the partial factor �V allows for boththe stud material and the concrete. The minimum cover is 40mm.There is space only for a single row of studs at mid-depth, and 19mm studs are pre-

ferred. Assuming the studs have a height greater than four times their shank diameter,their shear resistance to equation (6.19) is:

PRd ¼ 0:29� 192ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi40� 35 000

p=ð1:25� 1000Þ ¼ 99:1 kN=stud ðD10:1Þ

and to equation (6.18) is:

PRd ¼ 0:8� 500� �� 192=ð4� 1:25Þ ¼ 90:7 kN=stud ðD10:2Þso equation (6.18) governs.This gives a spacing of 90:7=600 ¼ 0:151m, so a spacing a ¼ 150mm is assumed, with

stirrups also at 150mm. Their required diameter �s can be estimated from clause C.1(3),equation (C.2):

Td ¼ 0:3PRd;L

Using PEd;L as an approximation to PRd;L:

Td ¼ ð��2s=4Þ � 500=1:15 � 0:3� 600� 1000� 0:15

A

BC D

125

50

125

125

D

C B A

50

125

125

(c)(b)(a)

50

Fig. 10.2. Cross-sections at an edge of a slab: (a) edge studs; (b) lying studs in an edge position; and(c) three rows of lying studs

192

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 437: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

This gives �s � 8:9mm, so 10mm stirrups are assumed for finding a0r;o.With cover of 40mm,

a0r;o ¼ ½250� 2ð40þ 5Þ�=2 ¼ 80mm

From equation (C.1) with kv ¼ 1.0 for an edge position and a ¼ s,

PRd;L ¼ 1:4kvð fckda0rÞ0:4ða=sÞ0:3=�V ¼ 1:4ð40� 19� 80Þ0:4=1:25 ¼ 91:7 kN=stud ðC:1Þ

This is greater than result (D10.2), so the shear resistance is governed by equation (6.18).Where this occurs, the term PRd;L in equations (C.2) and (C.3) should be replaced by thegoverning shear resistance.

For studs at 0.15m spacing, VRd;L ¼ 90:7=0:15 ¼ 605 kN/m which is sufficient. Thisresult requires the diameter of the stirrups to be increased to 8:9� 605=600 ¼ 9:0mm,so 10mm is still sufficient. The length of the studs is governed by a0r. From clause C.1(2):

. for uncracked concrete, v � maxf110; 1:7� 80; 1:7� 75g ¼ 136mm

. for cracked concrete, v � maxf160; 2:4� 80; 2:4� 75g ¼ 192mm

To these lengths must be added ch þ �s/2 (i.e. 45mm) plus the thickness of the head ofthe stud, 10mm, giving lengths h after welding of 191mm and 247mm respectively. Inpractice, these would be rounded up. Here, h is taken as 191mm. Figure 10.1 showsthat the angle � can then be anywhere between 108 and 338. This is roughly consistentwith the alternative rule in clause C.1(2), � � 308.

The simpler rules of clause 6.6.4 would require a0r;o to be increased from 80mm to6� 19 ¼ 114mm. It would then be necessary for the slab thickness to be increasedlocally from 250mm to at least 318mm. Dimension v would be increased from 136 or192mm to 266mm, requiring much longer studs.

In the absence of vertical shear, a check on fatigue to clause C.2(1) is straightforward.

Interaction with vertical shearThe design vertical shear is Fd;V ¼ 0:15� 60 ¼ 9 kN/stud.

Clause C.1(4) requires longitudinal reinforcement with �l � 16mm, so this value isused. From equation (C.4) with kv ¼ 1:0 and a ¼ s,

PRd;V ¼ 0:012ð fck�lÞ0:5ðda=sÞ0:4ð�sÞ0:3ða0r;oÞ0:7kv=�V ðC:4Þ

¼ 0:012ð40� 16Þ0:5ð19Þ0:4ð10Þ0:3ð80Þ0:7 � 1:0=1:25 ¼ 33:8 kN=stud

From interaction expression (C.3):

ð600� 0:15=90:7Þ1:2 þ ð9=33:8Þ1:2 ¼ 1:20 (but �1.0)

which is too large. Changing the spacing of the studs and stirrups from 150mm to 125mmwould reduce result 1.20 to 0.96.

Two or more rows of lying studsThe detail shown in Fig. 10(c) is now considered, with materials and studs as before. Thedeck spans longitudinally, so it can be assumed that no vertical shear is applied to thethree rows of lying studs. The preceding calculations apply to the top and bottomrows. For the middle row, a0r increases from 80mm to 130mm. From equation (C.1)the resistance of its studs increases from 91.7 kN to 111 kN, so result (D10.2), 90.7 kN,still governs. Assuming uncracked concrete, the minimum height of these studs increasesby 1.7 times the change in a0r, from clause C.1(2); that is, from 191mm to 276mm. Thissituation was not researched, and the increase may not be necessary; but the stirrupsshould be designed for a force

Td ¼ 0:3ð3� 90:7Þ ¼ 82 kN per 150mm length of beam,

if the full shear resistance of the studs is needed.

193

CHAPTER 10. ANNEX C (INFORMATIVE)

Page 438: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

References

European Standards listed as EN . . . are being published in eachMember State of the ComiteEuropeen de Normalisation (CEN) by its National Standards organisation between 2002and 2007. In the UK, publication is by the British Standards Institution, London, as BSEN . . . .

The Eurocodes, EN 1990 to EN 1999, are accompanied by National Annexes. Theseannexes for the UK are expected to be completed by the end of 2007.

1. Gulvanessian, H., Calgaro, J.-A. and Holicky, M. (2002)Designers’ Guide to EN 1990.Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. Thomas Telford, London.

2. Calgaro, J.-A., Tschumi, M., Gulvanessian, H. and Shetty, N. Designers’ Guide to EN1991-1-1, 1991-1-3, 1991-1-5 to 1-7 and 1991-2, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures.(Traffic loads and other actions on bridges). Thomas Telford, London (in preparation).

3. Smith, D. and Hendy, C. R. Designers’ Guide to EN 1992-2. Eurocode 2: Design ofConcrete Structures. Part 2: Bridges. Thomas Telford, London (in preparation).

4. Murphy, C. J. M. and Hendy, C. R. Designers’ Guide to EN 1993-2. Eurocode 3:Design of Steel Structures. Part 2: Bridges. Thomas Telford, London (to be published,2007).

5. Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (2004)Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1. Eurocode 4:Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rulesfor Buildings. Thomas Telford, London.

6. Beeby, A. W. and Narayanan, R. S. (2005) Designers’ Guide to EN 1992. Eurocode 2,Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.Thomas Telford, London.

7. Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. (2005) Designers’ Guide to EN 1993. Eurocode 3,Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. ThomasTelford, London.

8. British Standards Institution.Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. Part1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. BSI, London, EN 1994.

9. British Standards Institution.Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. Part2: General Rules and Rules for Bridges. BSI, London, EN 1994.

10. The European Commission (2002) Guidance Paper L (Concerning the ConstructionProducts Directive � 89/106/EEC). Application and Use of Eurocodes. EC, Brussels.

11. British Standards Institution. Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. (In many Parts.)BSI, London, BS 5400.

12. Hanswille, G. (2006) The new German design code for composite bridges. In: Leon,R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 13�24.

13. British Standards Institution. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. (IncludingAnnexes for Buildings, Bridges, etc.). BSI, London, EN 1990.

Page 439: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

14. British Standards Institution. Actions on Structures. BSI, London, EN 1991. (In manyParts.) See also Refs 26, 30, 53 and 103.

15. British Standards Institution. Design of Concrete Structures. BSI, London, EN 1992.(In several Parts.) See also Ref. 27.

16. British Standards Institution. Design of Steel Structures. BSI, London, EN 1993. (Inmany Parts.) See also Refs 19, 28, 38, 41, and 42.

17. British Standards Institution. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. BSI,London, EN 1998. (In several Parts.)

18. Niehaus, H. and Jerling, W. (2006) The Nelson Mandela bridge as an example of theuse of composite materials in bridge construction in South Africa. In: Leon, R. T. andLange, J. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V. American Society ofCivil Engineers, New York, pp. 487�500.

19. British Standards Institution. Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-8: Design of Joints.BSI, London, EN 1993.

20. British Standards Institution (1994) Design of Composite Steel and ConcreteStructures. Part 1-1, General Rules and Rules for Buildings. BSI, London, BS DDENV 1994.

21. Hosain, M. U. and Pashan, A. (2006) Channel shear connectors in compositebeams: push-out tests. In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), CompositeConstruction in Steel and Concrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, NewYork, pp. 501�510.

22. Veljkovic, M. and Johansson, B. (2006) Residual static resistance of welded stud shearconnectors. In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel andConcrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 524�533.

23. Andra, H.-P. (1990) Economical shear connection with high fatigue strength. Pro-ceedings of a Symposium on Mixed Structures, including New Materials, Brussels.IABSE, Zurich. Reports 60, 167�172.

24. Marecek, J., Samec, J. and Studnicka, J. (2005) Perfobond shear connector behaviour.In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005, vol. B. Druck undVerlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp. 4.3-1 to 4.3-8.

25. Hauke, B. (2005) Shear connectors for composite members of high strengthmaterials. In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005, vol. B. Druckund Verlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp. 4.2-57 to 4.2-64.

26. British Standards Institution. Actions on Structures. Part 2: Traffic Loads on Bridges.BSI, London, EN 1991.

27. British Standards Institution. Design of Concrete Structures. Part 2: Bridges. BSI,London, EN 1992.

28. British Standards Institution. Design of Steel Structures. Part 2: Bridges. BSI,London, EN 1993.

29. International Organisation for Standardization (1997) Basis of Design for Structures �Notation � General Symbols. ISO, Geneva, ISO 3898.

30. British Standards Institution. Actions on Structures. Part 1-6: Actions duringExecution. BSI, London, EN 1991.

31. The European Commission (1989) Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC,OJEC No. L40 of 11 February. EC, Brussels.

32. British Standards Institution. Geotechnical Design. BSI, London, EN 1997. (In severalParts.)

33. Anderson, D., Aribert, J.-M., Bode, H. and Kronenburger, H. J. (2000) Designrotation capacity of composite joints. Structural Engineer, 78, No. 6, 25�29.

34. Working Commission 2 (2005) Use and application of high-performance steels forsteel structures. Structural Engineering Documents 8, IABSE, Zurich.

35. Morino, S. (2002) Recent developments on concrete-filled steel tube members inJapan. In: Hajjar, J. F., Hosain, M., Easterling, W. S. and Shahrooz, B. M. (eds),Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society of Civil Engineers,New York, pp. 644�655.

196

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 440: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

36. Hegger, J. and Doinghaus, P. (2002) High performance steel and high performanceconcrete in composite structures. In: Hajjar, J. F., Hosain, M., Easterling, W. S.and Shahrooz, B. M. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV.American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 891�902.

37. Hoffmeister, B., Sedlacek, G., Muller, C. and Kuhn, B. (2002) High strength materialsin composite structures. In: Hajjar, J. F., Hosain, M., Easterling, W. S. and Shahrooz,B. M. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society ofCivil Engineers, New York, pp. 903�914.

38. British Standards Institution. Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-3: Cold Formed ThinGauge Members and Sheeting. BSI, London, EN 1993.

39. Sedlacek, G. and Trumpf, H. (2006) Composite design for small and medium spans.In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V.American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 105�113.

40. British Standards Institution. (1998) Welding � Studs and Ceramic Ferrules for ArcStud Welding. BSI, London, EN 13918.

41. British Standards Institution. Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-5: Plated StructuralElements. BSI, London, EN 1993.

42. British Standards Institution. Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-9: Fatigue Strength ofSteel Structures. BSI, London, EN 1993.

43. Trahair, N. S., Bradford, M. A. and Nethercot, D. A. (2001) The Behaviour andDesign of Steel Structures to BS 5950, 3rd edn. Spon, London.

44. Johnson, R. P. and Cafolla, J. (1977) Stiffness and strength of lateral restraints tocompressed flanges. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 42, No. 2, 73�93.

45. Johnson, R. P. and Chen, S. (1991) Local buckling and moment redistribution inClass 2 composite beams. Structural Engineering International, 1, No. 4, 27�34.

46. Johnson, R. P. and Fan, C. K. R. (1988) Strength of continuous beams designed toEurocode 4. Proceedings of IABSE, Periodica 2/88, P-125/88, May, pp. 33�44.

47. Johnson, R. P. and Huang, D. J. (1995) Composite bridge beams of mixed-classcross-section. Structural Engineering International, 5, No. 2, 96�101.

48. British Standards Institution (1990) Code of Practice for Design of Simple and Con-tinuous Composite Beams. BSI, London, BS 5950-3-1.

49. Haensel, J. (1975) Effects of Creep and Shrinkage in Composite Construction. Institutefor Structural Engineering, Ruhr-Universitat, Bochum, Report 75-12.

50. Johnson, R. P. and Hanswille, G. (1998) Analyses for creep of continuous steel andcomposite bridge beams, according to EC4:Part 2. Structural Engineer, 76, No. 15,294�298.

51. Johnson, R. P. (1987) Shrinkage-induced curvature in cracked concrete flanges ofcomposite beams. Structural Engineer, 65B, Dec., 72�77.

52. Guezouli, S. and Aribert, J.-M. (2006) Numerical investigation of moment redistribu-tion in continuous beams of composite bridges. In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds),Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers,New York, pp. 47�56.

53. British Standards Institution. Actions on Structures. Part 1-5: Thermal Actions. BSI,London, EN 1991.

54. British Standards Institution (1997) Design of Composite Structures of Steel andConcrete. Part 2: Bridges. BSI, London, BS DD ENV 1994.

55. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Cracking in concrete tension flanges of composite T-beams �tests and Eurocode 4. Structural Engineer, 81, No. 4, Feb., 29�34.

56. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Analyses of a composite bowstring truss with tension stiffening.Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Bridge Engineering, 156, June,63�70.

57. Way, J. A. and Biddle, A. R. (1998) Integral Steel Bridges: Design of a Multi-spanBridge � Worked Example. Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, Publication 180.

58. Lawson, R. M. (1987) Design for Openings in the Webs of Composite Beams. SteelConstruction Institute, Ascot, Publication 068.

197

REFERENCES

Page 441: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

59. Lawson, R. M., Chung, K. F. and Price, A. M. (1992) Tests on composite beams withlarge web openings. Structural Engineer, 70, Jan., 1�7.

60. Johnson, R. P. and Huang, D. J. (1994) Calibration of safety factors �M for compositesteel and concrete beams in bending. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,Structures and Buildings, 104, May, 193�203.

61. Johnson, R. P. and Huang, D. J. (1997) Statistical calibration of safety factors forencased composite columns. In: Buckner, C. D. and Sharooz, B. M. (eds), CompositeConstruction in Steel and Concrete III, American Society of Civil Engineers, NewYork, pp. 380�391.

62. British Standards Institution (1997) Structural Use of Concrete. Part 1: Code ofPractice for Design and Construction. BSI, London, BS 8110.

63. Stark, J. W. B. (1984) Rectangular Stress Block for Concrete. Technical paper S16,June. Drafting Committee for Eurocode 4 (unpublished).

64. Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (1993) Designers’ Handbook to Eurocode 4. ThomasTelford, London. [This handbook is for ENV 1994-1-1.]

65. Laane, A. and Lebet, J.-P. (2005) Available rotation capacity of composite bridgeplate girders with negative moment and shear. Journal of Constructional SteelworkResearch, 61, 305�327.

66. Johnson, R. P. and Willmington, R. T. (1972) Vertical shear in continuous compositebeams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 53, Sept., 189�205.

67. Allison, R. W., Johnson, R. P. and May, I. M. (1982) Tension-field action incomposite plate girders. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,Research and Theory, 73, June, 255�276.

68. Veljkovic, M. and Johansson, B. (2001) Design for buckling of plates due to directstress. In: Makelainen, P., Kesti, J., Jutila, A. and Kaitila, O. (eds) Proceedings ofthe 9th Nordic Steel Conference, Helsinki, 721�729.

69. Lebet, J.-P. and Laane, A. (2005) Comparison of shear resistance models with slendercomposite beam test results. In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005,vol. B. Druck und Verlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp. 4.3-33 to 4.3-40.

70. Ehmann, J. and Kuhlmann, U. (2006) Shear resistance of concrete bridge decks intension. In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel andConcrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 67�76.

71. Johnson, R. P. and Fan, C. K. R. (1991) Distortional lateral buckling of continuouscomposite beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 91, Mar.,131�161.

72. Johnson, R. P. and Molenstra, N. (1990) Strength and stiffness of shear connectionsfor discrete U-frame action in composite plate girders. Structural Engineer, 68, Oct.,386�392.

73. Trahair, N. S. (1993) Flexural Torsional Buckling of Structures. E & FN Spon, London.74. Johnson, R. P. and Buckby, R. J. (1986) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete,

Vol. 2, Bridges, 2nd edn. Collins, London.75. Johnson, R. P. andMolenstra, N. (1991) Partial shear connection in composite beams

for buildings. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Research andTheory, 91, 679�704.

76. Johnson, R. P. and Oehlers, D. J. (1981) Analysis and design for longitudinal shear incomposite T-beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Researchand Theory, 71, Dec., 989�1021.

77. Menzies, J. B. (1971) CP 117 and shear connectors in steel�concrete composite beams.Structural Engineer, 49, March, 137�153.

78. Johnson, R. P. and Ivanov, R. I. (2001) Local effects of concentrated longitudinalshear in composite bridge beams. Structural Engineer, 79, No. 5, 19�23.

79. Oehlers, D. J. and Johnson, R. P. (1987) The strength of stud shear connections incomposite beams. Structural Engineer, 65B, June, 44�48.

80. Roik, K., Hanswille, G. and Cunze-O. Lanna, A. (1989) Eurocode 4, Clause 6.3.2:Stud Connectors. University of Bochum, Report EC4/8/88, March.

198

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 442: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

81. Stark, J. W. B. and van Hove, B. W. E. M. (1991) Statistical Analysis of Pushout Testson Stud Connectors in Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. TNO Building andConstruction Research, Delft, Report BI-91-163, Sept.

82. Kuhlmann, U. and Breuninger, U. (2002) Behaviour of horizontally lying studs withlongitudinal shear force. In: Hajjar, J. F., Hosain,M., Easterling, W. S. and Shahrooz,B. M. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. American Society ofCivil Engineers, New York, pp. 438�449.

83. Bridge, R. Q., Ernst, S., Patrick, M. and Wheeler, A. T. (2006) The behaviour anddesign of haunches in composite beams and their reinforcement. In: Leon, R. T.and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 282�292.

84. Johnson, R. P. and Oehlers, D. J. (1982) Design for longitudinal shear in compositeL-beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Research andTheory, 73, March, 147�170.

85. Johnson, R. P. (2004) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete, 3rd edn. Blackwell,Oxford.

86. Bulson, P. S. (1970) The Stability of Flat Plates. Chatto & Windus, London.87. Roik, K. and Bergmann, R. (1990) Design methods for composite columns with

unsymmetrical cross-sections. Journal of Constructional Steelwork Research, 15,153�168.

88. Wheeler, A. T. and Bridge, R. Q. (2002) Thin-walled steel tubes filled with highstrength concrete in bending. In: Hajjar, J. F., Hosain, M., Easterling, W. S. andShahrooz, B. M. (eds), Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete IV. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 584�595.

89. Kilpatrick, A. and Rangan, V. (1999) Tests on high-strength concrete-filled tubularsteel columns. ACI Structural Journal, Mar.�Apr., Title No. 96-S29, 268�274. Amer-ican Concrete Institute, Detroit.

90. May, I. M. and Johnson, R. P. (1978) Inelastic analysis of biaxially restrainedcolumns. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Research andTheory, 65, June, 323�337.

91. Roik, K. and Bergmann, R. (1992) Composite columns. In: Dowling, P. J., Harding,J. L. and Bjorhovde, R. (eds), Constructional Steel Design � an International Guide.Elsevier, London and New York, pp. 443�469.

92. Bergmann, R. and Hanswille, G. (2006) New design method for composite columnsincluding high strength steel. In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Con-struction in Steel and Concrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,pp. 381�389.

93. Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M. (1991) Stability Design of Steel Frames. CRC Press, BocaRaton, Florida.

94. Bondale, D. S. and Clark, P. J. (1967) Composite construction in the Almondsburyinterchange. Proceedings of a Conference on Structural Steelwork, British Construc-tional Steelwork Association, London, pp. 91�100.

95. Virdi, K. S. and Dowling, P. J. (1980) Bond strength in concrete-filled tubes. Proceed-ings of IABSE, Periodica 3/80, P-33/80, Aug., 125�139.

96. Kerensky, O. A. and Dallard, N. J. (1968) The four-level interchange betweenM4 andM5 motorways at Almondsbury. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 40,295�321.

97. Johnson, R. P. (2000) Resistance of stud shear connectors to fatigue. Journal ofConstructional Steel Research, 56, 101�116.

98. Oehlers, D. J. and Bradford, M. (1995) Composite Steel and Concrete StructuralMembers � Fundamental Behaviour. Elsevier Science, Oxford.

99. Gomez Navarro, M. (2002) Influence of concrete cracking on the serviceability limitstate design of steel-reinforced concrete composite bridges: tests and models. In:J. Martinez Calzon (ed.), Composite Bridges � Proceedings of the 3rd InternationalMeeting, Spanish Society of Civil Engineers, Madrid, pp. 261�278.

199

REFERENCES

Page 443: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

100. Pucher, A. (1977) Influence Surfaces of Elastic Plates. Springer-Verlag Wien, NewYork.

101. Kuhlmann, U. (1997) Design, calculation and details of tied-arch bridges in compositeconstructions. In: Buckner, C. D. and Sharooz, B. M. (eds), Composite Construction inSteel and Concrete III, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 359�369.

102. Monnickendam, A. (2003) The design, construction and performance of NewarkDyke railway bridge. Proceedings of a Symposium on Structures for High-speedRailway Transportation, Antwerp. IABSE, Zurich. Reports, 87, 42�43.

103. British Standards Institution. Actions on Structures. Part 1-4: General Actions � Windactions. BSI, London, EN 1991.

104. Randl, E. and Johnson, R. P. (1982) Widths of initial cracks in concrete tensionflanges of composite beams. Proceedings of IABSE, Periodica 4/82, P-54/82, Nov.,69�80.

105. Johnson, R. P. and Allison, R. W. (1983) Cracking in concrete tension flanges ofcomposite T-beams. Structural Engineer, 61B, Mar., 9�16.

106. Roik, K., Hanswille, G. and Cunze-O. Lanna, A. (1989) Report on Eurocode 4, Clause5.3, Cracking of Concrete. University of Bochum, Report EC4/4/88.

107. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Cracking in concrete flanges of composite T-beams � tests andEurocode 4. Structural Engineer, 81, No. 4, 29�34.

108. Schmitt, V., Seidl, G. and Hever, M. (2005) Composite bridges with VFT-WIBconstruction method. In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005,vol. B. Druck und Verlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp. 4.6-79 to 4.6-83.

109. Yandzio, E. and Iles, D. C. (2004) Precast Concrete Decks for Composite HighwayBridges. Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, Publication 316.

110. Calzon, J. M. (2005). Practice in present-day steel and composite structures. In:Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005, vol. A. Druck und VerlagshausMainz, Aachen, pp. 0-11 to 0-18.

111. Doeinghaus, P., Dudek, M. and Sprinke, P. (2004) Innovative hybrid double-composite bridge with prestressing. In: Pre-Conference Proceedings, CompositeConstruction in Steel and Concrete V, United Engineering Foundation, New York,Session E4, paper 1.

112. Department of Transport (now Highways Agency) DoT (1987) Use of BS 5400:Part5:1979. London, Departmental Standard BD 16/82.

113. Moffat, K. R. and Dowling, P. J. (1978) The longitudinal bending behaviour ofcomposite box girder bridges having incomplete interaction. Structural Engineer,56B, No. 3, 53�60.

114. Kuhlmann, U. and Kurschner, K. (2001) Behavior of lying shear studs in reinforcedconcrete slabs. In: Eligehausen, R. (ed.), Connections between Steel and Concrete.RILEM Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France, pp. 1076�1085.

115. Kuhlmann, U. and Kurschner, K. (2006) Structural behavior of horizontally lyingshear studs. In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Construction in Steeland Concrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 534�543.

200

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 444: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

Index

Notes: references to ‘beams’ and to ‘columns’ are to composite members; cross-references to EN1992and EN1993 are too numerous to be indexed

action effect see actions, effects ofactions 6, 8

accidental 56

arrangement of 62�4combinations of 3, 6, 11, 15, 31, 62�4characteristic 46for serviceability 164�6, 171frequent 48, 64, 153infrequent 164quasi-permanent 48

effects of 8de-composition of 51�2envelopes of 63

global with localand fatigue 156, 161and serviceability 165, 174�5, 177�8at failure 56�7, 72in composite plates 184�5

independent 136�7local 161, 165, 183�4primary 12, 48, 168secondary 12, 48second-order 31, 33�4, 103, 107, 141�2,

149, 185indirect 12, 44, 60, 138, 170�1permanent 15�16temperature 48, 120see also fatigue load models; forces,

concentrated; loading

analysis, elastic, of cross-sections see beams;columns; etc.

analysis, global 8, 29�66cracked 50�1elastic 30, 36�7, 40, 42�53elasto-plastic 137finite-element 31, 34, 39, 93, 111

first-order 31�3, 38grillage 52�3non-linear 8, 36, 56, 72, 138, 185

of filler-beam decks 52�3

of frames 29rigid-plastic 8second-order 8, 31�4, 38, 64�5, 94, 140�1uncracked 50�1see also cracking of concrete; loading, elastic

criticalanalysis, local 183�4analysis, rigorous 39Annex, National see National Annexannexes, informative 2, 4�5, 191�2application rules 7arches see bridges, tied-archassumptions in Eurocodes 7

axes 8�9

beams

axial force in 81, 83�4, 86�9, 105, 111,161�2

bending resistance of 67�84hogging 73�4, 77�9, 83sagging 72�3, 83

cantilever 68, 125Class of 12, 57�60concrete-encased 4, 52, 59, 68, 89concrete flange of 13, 71, 109cross-sections of 67�89Class 1 or 2 118�20

and axial force 83and filler beams 53

and global analysis 36and indirect actions 44�5and reinforcement 20and resistance to bending 69

and serviceability 163, 170and vertical shear 80

Class 3 37, 108

Class 3 and 4 20, 80�2, 103, 163Class 4 77�9, 85�9, 94, 97, 107classification of 29, 37, 57�61, 71, 82elastic analysis of 58�9, 69, 75�7

Page 445: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

beams – cross-sections of (continued )plastic analysis of 36

sudden change in 120�1, 186curved in plan 4, 68�9, 89curved in elevation 69, 114

flexural stiffness of 46haunched 102, 117, 122, 126�7, 189of non-uniform section 4

shear connection for see shear connectionshear resistance of 67, 79�83see also analysis; buckling; cantilevers;

cracking of concrete; deflections; filler

beams; flange, effective width of;imperfections; interaction; shear . . . ;slabs, concrete; vibration; webs

bearings 11, 15, 62, 64, 141, 145bedding see slabs, precast concretebending, bi-axial 71

bending momentsaccumulation of 12and axial force 59, 68, 102�3elastic critical 93in columns 142�3redistribution of 18, 37, 53

bolts, holes for 68

bolts, stiffness of 30, 37�8bond see shear connectionbox girders 82

distortion of 68�9shear connection for 116, 118torsion in 45�6, 72see also composite plates

bracing, lateral 35�6, 69, 91, 111�3, 115and buckling 97

and slip of bolts 38�9stiffness of 96�9, 102�4

breadth of flange, effective see flange, effectivewidth of

Bridge Code (BS 5400) 1, 39, 56, 59, 70, 89,104

bridges

cable-supported 4, 23, 40durability of see corrosion; durabilityfor pedestrians 151

integral 31, 33, 36, 68, 72, 105, 115railway 151strengthening of 114tied-arch 35, 161�2, 189U-frame 30see also box girders; filler beams

British Standards

BS 5400, see Bridge CodeBS 5950 39, 59BS 8110 70

bucklingdistortional lateral 35, 91, 105�7flange-induced 68, 114

flexural 77, 89, 184�5in columns 34, 136, 140�2lateral 95

lateral-torsional 31, 34, 45, 67, 76�7, 90�104,111, 138

local 37�8, 57�9, 76, 127, 137see also beams, Class of

of plates 29, 37�8, 184�5of webs in shear 68, 80, 82see also bending moments, elastic critical;

filler beams

cables 4, 23camber 166cement, hydration of 175�6see also cracking of concrete

CEN (Comite Europeen Normalisation) 1�2Class of section see beams, cross-sections of

class, structural 26�7Codes of Practice, see British Standards;EN . . .

columns 64�6, 136�50, 164analysis of 29, 140�3axially loaded 144

bending resistance of 71bi-axial bending in 140, 143, 146concrete-encased 4, 138, 145concrete-filled 4, 144�50cross-sections ofinteraction diagram for 138�9non-symmetrical 33, 47, 136

design methods for 31, 137�43effective stiffness of 33, 137, 140, 149moment-shear interaction in 139, 148

out-of-plumb 65�6second-order effects in 138shear in 139, 145

squash load of 138, 140, 147steel contribution ratio for 136, 140, 147transverse loading on 143see also buckling; bending moments; cracking

of concrete; creep of concrete; length,effective; imperfections; loading, elasticcritical; load introduction;

reinforcement; shear connection;slenderness, relative; stresses, residual

composite action, double 4, 183, 189

composite bridges, see bridges; Bridge Codecomposite plates 4, 183�8compression members 136�50see also columns

concretecompaction of 124�5lightweight-aggregate 17, 19, 22, 136, 152

over-strength of 47, 50, 118�9partial factors for 13�14precast 27�8, 62properties of 17�19spalling of 4strength classes for 17�18, 26strength of 13, 17�18, 70stress block for 18, 70�1, 138thermal expansion of 22

202

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 446: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

see also cracking of concrete; creep ofconcrete; elasticity, modulus of;

prestress; shrinkage of concrete; slabsconnecting devices 20�1connections, see joints

connector modulus, see shear connectors,stiffness of

construction 3, 47�8, 103�4, 164, 166loads 6, 12methods of 12, 180propped 121, 171unpropped 12, 76, 91�3, 121see also erection of steelwork

Construction Products Directive 14contraflexure, points of 32, 35

corrosion 25, 27at steel-concrete interface 27�8, 127, 181of reinforcement 25�7

cover 25�7, 89�90, 138, 145cracking of concrete 46, 152�4, 167�73

and global analysis 29, 32, 36, 46�7, 50,52�3

and longitudinal shear 47, 118control of 163, 173load-induced 169�70, 175restraint-induced 168�9, 175�7

early thermal 167�8, 172�3, 175�6in columns 47, 140, 141, 145

creep coefficient 19, 42�3, 53�4, 140creep multiplier 42�3creep of concrete 12, 17, 19, 32, 42�5, 53

in columns 45, 140, 147secondary effects of 44see also modular ratio; elasticity, modulus of

cross-sections see beams, cross-sections of;columns, cross-sections of

curves, buckling resistance 34

damage, cumulative 153, 155�6see also factors, damage equivalent

damping factor 166�7definitions 8deflections see deformationsdeformations 166

limits to 163deformation, imposed 12, 44, 49, 90design, basis of 11�16design,methods of see beams; columns; slabs; etc.

design, mixed-class 36�7Designers’ guides v, 2

to EN1990 14

to EN1993�2 35, 58, 68�9, 72, 77, 79, 82, 95,104, 113, 114, 118

to EN1994-1-1 60, 73, 93, 136

diaphragms 115�6dimensions 14dispersion, angle of 113, 120

distortion of cross sections 68, 72, 82, 184ductility see reinforcement, fracture of;

structural steels

durability 25�8, 179

effective length see length, effectiveeffective width see beams; flanges; slabs,

composite

effect of action see actions, effects ofeigenvalue see loading, elastic criticalelasticity, modulus of

for concrete 18, 33, 140for shear 45

EN1090 7, 185EN10025 60, 72, 146

EN13670 5, 7, 180EN13918 23, 122EN1990 v, 2, 6, 14�15, 25, 29, 48, 56, 164EN1991 v, 2, 6, 12, 48, 151, 166EN1992 v, 2, 5EN1993 v, 2, 6

EN1994-1-1 v, 2EN1994-2 v, 2EN1998 3, 7

ENV 1994-1-1 5, 137environmental class see exposure classequilibrium, static 15�16erection of steelwork 7, 39

European Standard see EN . . .examplesbending and vertical shear 104�11block connector with hoop 116�8composite beam, continuous 60�2, 104�11composite column 136, 145�50concrete-filled tube 145�50control of crack width 175�7cross bracing 111�3distortional lateral buckling 105�8effective width 41�2elastic resistance to bending 77�9fatigue 157�61in-plane shear in a concrete flange 130�1longitudinal shear 131�4lying studs 192�4modular ratios 53�4plastic resistance to bending 72�3resistance to bending and shear 85�6, 104�11with axial compression 86�9, 107�8

serviceability stresses 173�5, 177�8shear connection for box girder 187�8shrinkage effects 54�6transverse reinforcement 130�1

execution see constructionexposure classes 26�7, 164�5, 167, 175

factors, combination 6, 48�9, 56�7factors, damage equivalent 156, 161

factors, partial see partial factorsfactors, reduction 92�3, 95fatigue 15�16, 137, 150�61analysis for 37load models for 150, 153, 157�61of joints 30

203

INDEX

Page 447: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

fatigue (continued )of reinforcement 19�20, 154�5, 159�61of shear connectors 47, 150, 155�6, 183, 191of structural steel 27, 90, 127, 150�1, 154,

157

partial factors for 14, 151�2filler beams 29, 52�3, 60, 89�91, 166, 173finite-element methods 68, 93�4, 104, 115see also analysis, global

fire, resistance to 25, 163flangesconcrete see beams; slabs

effective width of 39�41, 68, 111plastic bending resistance of 82steel 104, 186

flow charts vfor classification of sections 57for compression members 141

for control of cracking 171�2for global analysis 46, 62�6for lateral buckling 96

forces, concentrated 114, 120�1forces, internal 137formwork, permanent 62, 179�81formwork, re-usable 76

foundations 7, 16fracture toughness 12frame, inverted-U 35, 93, 95�8, 101, 106,

109�11frames, composite 8, 35, 64�6, 141braced 47

see also analysis, global; buckling;imperfections

geometrical data 15see also imperfections

girders see beams; box girdersground-structure interaction 30

see also bridges, integral

haunches see beams, haunched

Highways Agency 1hole-in-web method 58, 59�60, 73, 80

impact factor 160imperfections 7, 14, 29, 31�2, 33�6and lateral buckling 91in columns 65, 138, 141, 143

in plates 185interaction, partial and full 69ISO standards 5, 8

italic type, use of v�vi

jacking, see prestress

joints 22, 30between precast slabs 181stiffness of 38

length, effective 34, 64, 136, 143see also slenderness, relative

limit statesserviceability 6, 37, 56, 163�78STR (structural failure) 67ultimate 56, 67�162

loading 12

arrangement of 31construction 12elastic critical 31�3for beams 97�102for columns 140, 147�8for composite plates 185

wheel 56�7, 84, 165, 183, 185see also actions

load introductionin columns 136, 144�5, 149�50in tension members 161�2

lying studs see studs, lying

materials, properties of 17�23see also concrete; steel; etc.

mesh, welded see reinforcement, welded

meshmodular ratio 42�3, 53�4modulus of elasticity see elasticity, modulus

of

moment of area, torsional second 46moments see bending moments; torsion

nationally determined parameter 1�2, 62, 84,91

National Annexes 1, 3, 11, 56

and actions 48, 56, 153, 158�9, 164, 169and analysis, global 56, 58and beams 38

and columns 138and combination factors 48and materials 13, 20, 22, 59, 61, 70, 146and partial factors 116, 151

and resistances 95, 124, 128, 156�7and serviceability 27, 164, 166�7, 173�5and shear connectors 125, 166

national choice 2national standards 1NDPs 1�2normative rules 2�3notation see symbolsnotes, in Eurocodes 1, 12

partial factors 2, 3, 9�16for fatigue 14, 151�2, 156�F, for actions 6, 15, 19, 45, 51, 55�M, for materials and resistances 13�15, 92,

165, 192plastic theory see analysis, global, rigid-plastic;

beams, cross-sections of, Class 1 and 2plate girders see beamsplates, buckling of see buckling

plates, composite 41, 72, 126, 164, 183�8plates, orthotropic 52Poisson’s ratio 46, 144

204

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2

Page 448: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

prestress 4, 8by jacking at supports 4, 8, 12, 49

by tendons 49, 77, 155, 167transverse 4

principles 4, 7, 12

propping see construction, methods ofprovisions, general 2push tests see shear connectors, tests on

quality, control of 26

redistribution see bending moments; shear,

longitudinalreferences, normative 5�7reference standards 3, 5�7regulatory bodies 12reinforcement 9, 19�21, 22

and lying studs 190�1ductility of 20, 59, 71fracture of 21�2, 59in beams

for crack control 167�73for shrinkage 19minimum area of 59, 168�9, 176�7transverse 115, 124, 127�30

in columns 138, 145�6in composite plates 186in compression 70

in filler-beam decks 90in haunches see beams, haunchedyielding of 39

welded mesh (fabric) 19�21, 59, 71see also cover; fatigue

resistances 14

see also beams, bending resistance of; etc.restraints, lateral see bracing, lateralrotation capacity 12, 22, 58

see also joints

safety factors see partial factorsscope of EN1994-2 4�5, 36, 136, 138section modulus 8sections see beams; columns; etc.separation 8, 115, 124

serviceability see limit statessettlement 12, 30shakedown 153�4shear see columns, shear in; shear, longitudinal;

shear, vertical; etc.shear connection 2, 8, 68, 114�35

and execution 124�5and U-frame action 93, 111by adhesives 23, 114by bond or friction 23, 114, 136, 144, 149�50,

190design of 82, 155detailing of 124�7, 180, 189�93for box girders 185�8full or partial 69in columns 144�5, 149�50

see also fatigue; load introduction;reinforcement, in beams, transverse;

shear connectors; slip, longitudinalshear connectors 115, 156and splitting see studs, lying

angle 5, 115bi-axial loading of 185, 188block with hoop 5, 114, 116�7channel 5ductility of 114fatigue strength of 151, 191flexibility of see stiffness of

force limits for 151, 165�6in young concrete 166partial factors for 14

perforated plate 22spacing of 59, 91, 119, 124�5, 162, 180, 184�5,

187�8stiffness of 18, 69, 164, 186�7tension in 115tests on 5, 189

types of 5, 22see also studs, welded

shear flow 116, 118shear lag see width, effective

shear, longitudinal 47, 68, 114, 118�21, 127�30see also columns, shear in; composite plates;

shear connection; shear flow

shear, punching 84, 184shear ratio 100shear, vertical 29

and bending moment 80�3, 87and lying studs 191, 193in deck slabs 84, 184

in filler-beam decks 91see also buckling

shrinkage of concrete 19, 53and cracking 169�70, 174�5autogenous 19, 55, 144, 147effects of 35, 45, 165�6, 172in tension members 50

modified by creep 43�4, 54�6primary 12, 54�6, 76, 120, 133�4secondary 12, 134

see also cracking of concretesituations, design 165skew 89slabs, concrete 53

reinforcement in 125splitting in 115, 123�4, 189�93see also plates, composite

slabs, precast concrete 115, 125�7, 179�81slenderness, relativefor beams 92, 94, 97, 101�2for columns 136, 140, 147�8

slip capacity 114slip, longitudinal 8, 38�9, 69, 166in columns 138, 144in composite plates 184, 186�7

software for EN1994 32�3, 75, 94

205

INDEX

Page 449: Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures

splices 38, 118squash load see columns, squash load of

stability see equilibrium, staticstandards see British Standards; EN . . .standards, harmonised 14

steel see reinforcing steel; structural steel;yielding of steel

steel contribution ratio see columns

steelwork, protection of see durabilitystiffeners, longitudinal 59, 82, 185stiffeners, transverse web 35, 68�9, 93, 97, 116stiffness, effective, of reinforcement 51

stiffness, flexural see beams; columns; etc.stiffness, torsional 45�6strength of a material 13�14characteristic 13, 15see also resistance

stress block for concrete 13

stressesaccumulation of 12, 81, 84, 86bearing 144

design, at serviceability limit state 164�6in concrete 26, 165, 177�8in reinforcement 165in steel 165, 177

equivalent, in steel 72, 185excessive 164fatigue 150�1mid-plane, in steel 76�7residual, in steel 31, 34�5, 141shrinkage see shrinkage of concrete

temperature see temperature, effects ofstress range, damage equivalent 155�7stress resultant see actions, effects of

structural steels 20�2partial factors for 9, 14�15thermal expansion of 22

strut, pin-ended 32

studs, lying 115, 123�4, 189�93studs, welded 3, 22�3, 121�3detailing of 127, 189�93ductility of 120length after welding 122resistance of 121�2, 189, 191tension in 123weld collar of 23, 115, 122�3see also fatigue; shear connection, detailing

of; shear connectors

subscripts 8�9superposition, principle of 31

support, lateral see bracing, lateralsway 142symbols 8�9, 13�14, 20

temperature, effects of 48�9, 53, 153temporary structures 11

tendons see prestresstension field 79�80tension members 23, 49�52, 161�2tension stiffening

and cracking 47, 169�70and longitudinal shear 118�9, 162and stresses 154�5, 160, 165, 173�5and tension members 50�1

testing see shear connectorstolerances 14, 49, 180�1torsion 45�6, 68, 72, 91, 163, 184traffic, road, type of 160truss analogy 128

trusses, members in 49, 136�7, 140and buckling 95and effective widths 41

tubes, steel see columns, concrete-filled

U-frame see frame, inverted-Uunits 189

uplift see separation

variables, basic 12

vibration 163, 166�7

warping, resistance to 72, 118, 163, 184

websbreathing of 166effective area of 37�8holes in 68, 90

transverse forces on 113�4see also hole-in-web method; shear,

vertical

web stiffeners see stiffeners, transverse webwidth, effective 29, 183�4see also beams; flanges, effective width of

worked examples see examples

yielding of steel 37

206

DESIGNERS’ GUIDE TO EN 1994-2