Worked example for Eurocode 2

Contents

Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 First order effects ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Moments due to gravity loads ..................................................................................................... 2
1.2 First order moments due to geometric imperfections ............................................................... 6
2.0 Slender versus non-slender columns ........................................................................................... 8
3.0 Including second order effects................................................................................................... 10
4.0 Solved example .......................................................................................................................... 13
References ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Authors.................................................................................................................................................. 21
Peer reviewers ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Objectives
 Provide the designer with a simple method to calculate moments on columns
supporting a continuous concrete beam.
 Provide a methodology to account for geometric imperfections following the
recommendations of Eurocodes 2.
 Provide a methodology to classify columns (slender or non-slender).
 Provide a methodology to compute second order effects (moments).
 Provide a step-by-step example for an isolated column in a typical braced concrete
frame.

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 1

1.0 First order effects
1.1 Moments due to gravity loads

A concrete frame (Figure 1) with continuous beams spanning the columns is considered as
an example. The frame is assumed to be braced and only gravity loads are therefore
considered.

Figure 1. Concrete frame (designing column X against gravity loads).

The first step is to calculate the first order moments due to the applied loads on column X.
According to Mosley et al. (2012), the columns and main beams of a building can be
considered as a series of rigid plane frames. The effects of vertical loads on buildings can be
calculated on a full complete frame or using simplified substitute frames such as are shown
in Figures 1 and 2. These frames are simplified idealizations intended to enable the designer
to calculate the bending moments and shear forces on beams and columns. A full frame
analysis generally enables the calculation of all types of effects of vertical loading. The
substitute frame in Figure 1 can be used to calculate bending moments and shear forces on
the columns, whereas the simplest substitute frame shown in Figure 2 can only be used to
compute the bending moment. It must be noted that it is highly advisable for engineers to
be aware of all methods of analysis where, depending on the level of accuracy required and
the project stage, the designer must select the appropriate analysis method. However, as

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 2

we are interested solely in bending effects, only the simple substitute frame will be used in
this example.

Figure 2. Simplified substitute frame of the frame shown in Figure 1.

For a general case of a simple substitute frame as is shown in Figure 3, the fixed end
moments (FEM) for the spans (beam 1 and beam 2) can be calculated thus:
2
q 1 L1
FEM beam1 
12
2
q L
FEM beam2  2 2
12

Figure 3. Simplified substitute frame (general case).

The out of balance moments (the moment to be resisted by the connected members:
column X, column Y, beam 1 and beam 2) can be calculated as:

M  FEM beam1  FEM beam2

Here, the aim of the designer is to maximize the out of balance moments, or what are more
commonly known as unfavourable conditions. In this example, L1 and L2 are equal and hence
the only way to increase M is by placing different arrangements of q 1 and q2 through the
application of unfavourable and favourable loading conditions. This method is not specific.

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 3

Unfavourable loads are loads that tend to increase the severity of a condition (which in our
case is the overturning moment), whereas favourable loads decrease the severity. In simpler
terms, it is necessary to increase the FEM in one span and to reduce it in another. This can
result in the following loading conditions as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Favourable and unfavourable loading conditions.

And the bending moment diagram is shown schematically in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Expected shape of bending moment diagrams.

The shape of the bending moment diagrams shown in Figure 5 is also needed while
assessing the slenderness of a column.

According to Table NA.A1.2 (A) in BS EN 1990 Eurocode – Basis of structural design, the
partial safety factors for the dead load are 1,35 in unfavourable conditions and 1,00 in
favourable conditions. For imposed loads, the partial safety factor is 1,50 for unfavourable
loading and 0 for favourable loading.

Based on load case scenarios, the greatest out of balance moment is computed. It must
then be distributed between the connected members beam 1, beam 2, column X and

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 4

column Y based on their relevant distribution factors kbeam1, kbeam2, kcolX and kcolY. A
simplified substitute frame of the system can be represented as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Substitute frame for column analysis.

According to Mosley et al. (2012), when using a simplified substitute frame, the stiffness of
the beams may be halved. This is because of the fact that the assumption of fixed ends
overestimates the stiffness and, in reality, some rotation occurs at the beam ends. Thus, the
stiffness is halved to allow for flexibility resulting from the continuity of the beams.
0,5I beam1
k beam1 
L beam1
0,5I beam2
k beam2 
L beam2
IcolX
k colX 
L colX
IcolY
k colY 
L colY

Therefore, the distribution factors can be computed as:

k beam1
DFbeam1 
k beam1  k beam2  k colX  k colY
k beam2
DFbeam2 
k beam1  k beam2  k colX  k colY
k colX
DFcolX 
k beam1  k beam2  k colX  k colY
k colY
DFcolY 
k beam1  k beam2  k colX  k colY

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 5

The out of balance moment is then multiplied by the distribution factors to calculate the
moment M imparted to each member. The moment M can be named as the first order
effect due to applied actions. This moment has to also take into account geometric
imperfections in the column as per BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.1

1.2 First order moments due to geometric imperfections

First order effects (moments) are action effects calculated without the consideration of
structural deformations but including geometric imperfections. Section 1.1 shows how
'action effects' can be calculated resulting in a moment M. The effect of imperfections must
now be added such that the revised moment (M02) is given by:

M02 = M + effect of geometric imperfections

These imperfections are due to 'errors' arising from the casting or installing of a column. In
reality, columns are not perfectly straight and may have variability in thickness across the
entire length, thus affecting the load-bearing capacity of the column.

Figure 7. First order bending moments including the effects of geometric imperfections.

For the design of compression members subjected to a moment at the ultimate limit state
(ULS), the effect of geometric imperfections is calculated by two methods:
(1) BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.2 (7)

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 6

as a transverse force Hi (this method is more suitable for indeterminate structures and full
frame analysis) or

(2) BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.2 (9) (the method used in this example)

through the introduction of an eccentricity that models the effect of geometric

imperfections. According to BS EN 1992, this eccentricity can be estimated as ei = l0/400.

The moment obtained (M02) should be checked against a value that takes into account the
minimum eccentricity as per BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 6.1 (4):

e0 = h/30 but not less than 20 mm where h is the depth of the section.

Consequently, the first order design moments of a column are:

M 02  M  e i N ED

which should be checked against the minimum value of MMIN = e0NED, where NED is the
design axial load acting on the column.

Note:

The configuration above assumes that the bending due to eccentricity occurs in one
direction. The designer must check cases where the bending due to imperfection occurs in
the other direction and take on the worst case effects. This is not applicable in this
example as the magnitude of the moment due to gravity loads is the same at the top and
bottom of the column. This is important when the magnitude of the moment at the top
and bottom of the column is different. For example, if the moment shown in Figure 8 is
obtained after analyzing the effects of gravity loads, then the worst case moment is M02 =
65+eiNED.

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 7

Figure 8: Moment diagram depicting a negative moment at the top and positive at the bottom with different magnitudes.

On the other hand, if the moment diagram is as the one shown in Figure 9, then |M02|=|-
65-eiNED|.

Figure 9: Moment diagram depicting a positive moment at the top and negative at the bottom with different magnitudes.

2.0 Slender versus non-slender columns

As per BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.1

Second order effects are additional action effects (moments in this example) caused by
structural deformations. These have to be included only if certain criteria are met.

According to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.2 (6)

Second order effects may be ignored if they are less than 10% of the corresponding first
order effects. Generally, they are taken into account for the global analysis of a building as

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 8

per Clause 5.8.3.3. For isolated members (as in this case), simplified expressions as per
Clause 5.8.3.1 may be used:

  lim second order effects can be ignored.

On the other hand, if

  lim , then second order effects need to be accounted for:

20ABC
λ lim 
n

where

A 1 (in the absence of information A = 0,7 may be used)

1  0, 2et 
B  1  2ω (in the absence of information B = 1,1 may be used)

C  1,7  rm (in the absence of information C = 0,7 may be used)

 et is the effective creep ratio as specified in Clause 5.8.4

A S f yd
 is the mechanical reinforcement ratio given by
A C f cd
N ED
n is the relative normal force and as per EN 1991-1-1:2004 Clause 3.1.6
A C f cd
f cd  α cc f ck /γ c where the recommended values for  cc and  c , as per the UK National
Annex, are 0,85 and 1,5, respectively.

M 02
rm is the moment ratio of the top and bottom first order moments where M02 is
M 01

the larger of the two. When both moments give tension on the same side, rm should be
taken as a positive value; otherwise, rm should be taken as a negative value. This is why both
favourable and unfavourable loads on beams shown in Figure 4 must be considered. The
value giving the smallest  lim should be selected.

For  of the column:

As per section BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.3.2

l0
λ
i

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 9

where l0 is the effective length of the member and I is the radius of gyration of an uncracked
section.

As per BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.3.2 (3)

 k1  k2 
l0  0,5L 1  1  
 0,45  k1  0,45  k 2 

For the case of unbraced members, the code provides the following expression:

  k k  k2   k1   k 2 
l0  L  max  1  10 1 2  1   
; 1  
  1  
  k1  k 2   0,45  k 2   1  k1   1  k 2  


where k1 and k2 are the rotational stiffness at the top and bottom ends of the column.

PD 6687-1:2010 Background paper to the National Annexes to EN 1992-1 and EN 1992-3

provides a simplified recommendation in order to calculate k1 and k2 (given that they exceed
a minimum value of 0,1).

EIcolumn
lcolumn
k
2EI beams

lbeams

It should be calculated at both ends of the column.

3.0 Including second order effects

If the slenderness ratio is higher than the limiting value,    lim ,then additional moments
should be added to the first order moments (which include the geometric imperfections).

According to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.5, non-linear second order can be computed

using two simplified methods:

(1) Method based on nominal stiffness and

(2) Method based on nominal curvature, which is generally simpler and is often used for
isolated member design (this method is based on a curvature caused by a
deflection).

As per BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.8.2

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 10

The design bending moments on an isolated member with nominal curves method, taking
into account second order affected, are summarized in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Bending moment diagram with the addition of second order effects.

M0e is the moment due to first order effects near the centre of the column, as per BS EN
1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.8.2:

M 0e  0.6M 02  0.4M 01  0.4M 02

The remaining unknown is M2, which requires the calculation of e2.

As per BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.8.3

e2 
1/r  l0 2
c
K r K
1/r 
r0

Kr 
nu  n 
 n u  n bal 
nu  1 ω
n bal  0,4
ε
1  yd
r0 0,45d
f yd
ε yd 
ES
c  10

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 11

*Note: for a constant moment along the column, c = 8.

From the above equations, it is clear that the value of Kr depends on n, which, in turn,
depends on the reinforcement ratio. This means that e2 and M0e also depend on the amount
of reinforcement. Hence, obtaining the required reinforcement is an iterative procedure,
which can be summarized as follows:

1. The designer starts with an assumed value for the reinforcement and calculates the
values of Kr and n to obtain e2 and M0e.
2. The designer then checks the reinforcement value needed to resist M0e.
3. This new reinforcement value will induce new values for n and Kr, which, in turn, will
update the value of e2 and M0e.
4. The process is repeated until the obtained moment (M0e) in the current iteration is
similar to the previous iteration.

Moreover, as per Clause 5.8.4 (1), the effects of creep should be considered at the ultimate
limit states in second order analysis. These are incorporated through the following
equations

K   1   ef  1
f ck 
  0.35  
200 150
such that ef is the creep coefficient as per EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.8.4

M 0 Eqp
 ef    ,10  
M 0 Ed

where

 ,10  is the final creep coefficient as per Clause 3.1.4 together with Annex B (these can be

found from Figure 3.1 in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 as shown in the solved example)

M 0 Eqp is the first order bending moment in quasi-permanent condition (SLS)

M 0 Ed is the first order bending moment in design load condition (ULS).

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 12

4.0 Solved example

The following solved example shows the step-by-step analysis and design procedure of
column X. which is part of the braced frame. The following material properties and
unfactored loads are used:

 fck = 32 N/mm2
 fyk = 500 N/mm2
 Slab weight on the beams (including beam self-weight): 30 kN/m
 Superimposed dead load on the beams: 11 kN/m
 Imposed load on the beams: 30 kN/m.

Loads after applying favourable/unfavourable factors:

 Unfavourable dead loads: 1,35 x (30+11) = 55,35 kN/m
 Favourable dead loads: 1 x (30+11) = 41 kN/m
 Unfavourable imposed loads: 1,5 x 30 = 45 kN/m
 Favourable imposed loads: 0 x 30 = 0 kN/m
 Total unfavourable loads: 55,35 + 45 = 100,35 kN/m
 Total favourable loads: 41+0 = 41 kN/m
 Factored axial load on column X (include floor weight), NED: 2000 kN.

The FEM can then be calculated according to the calculated loading configuration:

Figure 11. Schematic of the example problem

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 13

 100,35  7 2
FEM beam1   409,76 kN.m
12
41 7 2
FEM beam1   167,41 kN.m
12
M = 409,76 - 167,41 = 242,35 kN.m
This moment has to be distributed between the members:
0,63  0,3
0,5 
k beam1  12  3,85  10 4
7
0,63  0.3
0,5 
k beam2  12  3,85  104
7
0,3  0,3
3

k colX  12  1,93 104

3,5
0,33  0,3
k colY  12  1,93 104
3,5
The distribution factors between members:

3,85
DFbeam1   0,33
3,85  3,85  1,93  1,93
3,85
DFbeam2   0,33
3,85  3,85  1,93  1,93
1,93
DFcolX   0,167
3,85  3,85  1,93  1,93
1,93
DFcolY   0,167
3,85  3,85  1,93  1,93

The moment M imparted to the column X is 0,167 x 242,35 = 40,5 kN.m.

In order to calculate the eccentricity due to geometric imperfections, the effective length of
column X, l0, is to be found:

 k1  k2 
l0  0,5L 1  1  
 0,45  k1  0,45  k 2 

Columns have the same value for Young’s modulus E (hence it cancels it out) and the beams
connected to the top and bottom of column X have the same dimensions.

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 14

 0,3  0,33 /12
k1  k 2  3,5  0, 0625 => use minimum
 2  0,3  0, 63 /12 2  0,3  0, 63 /12 
  
 7 7 
value of 0,1.

 0,1  0,1 
l0  0,5  3,5  1   1   2,1m
 0,45  0,1  0,45  0,1 

Hence the eccentricity due to geometric imperfections ei = l0/400 = 2,1/400 = 0,00525 m

which gives a moment due to geometric imperfections NEDei = 2000 x 0,00525 = 10,5 kN.m

Total moment: M02 = M+ NEDei = 40,5+10,5 = 51 kN.m. This must be checked against the
minimum moment NEDe0, where e0 = h/30 but not less than 20 mm where h is the depth of
the section => 300/30 = 10 mm => e0 = 20 mm and M02 = 2000 x 0,02 = 40 kN.m < 51 kN.m

M01 = - 40,5+10,5 = - 30 kN.m

The next step is to classify the column as slender or non-slender to decide whether or not to
include moments from second order effects:

I 0,3  0,33 /12

i   0,087m => λ  2,1  24,13
A 0,3  0,3 0,087

20ABC
λ lim  taking the recommended values of A = 1.1 and B = 0.7
n

30
C  1,7  rm  1   1,59
51

N ED
n  2000000  1, 225
A C f cd  300  300   0,85  32 /1,5

20 1,1 0,7 1,59

λ lim   22,12 < 24,13.
1,225

Moments of second order effects must be considered. The second order effect eccentricity
e2 is also to be calculated.

e2 is a function of ef , where ef itself is computed using the following equation:

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 15

 M 0 Eqp
 ef   ,10   M 0 Ed

Assuming indoor (relative humidity) conditions for N-type cement,  ,10  can be found using

charts provided in BS EN 1992 1-1:2004 Clause 3.1.4.

Figure 12. How to obtain creep parameters as per BS EN 1992- 1- 1.

 ,10  2,9 , the serviceability limit state (SLS) moment is calculated as 27,6 kN.m

ef  2,9  27, 6 51  1,56

  0,35  32 200  24,13150  0,35

K  1  1,56  0,35   1,546  1

As previously stated, the mechanical reinforcement ratio is still unknown and so an initial
value should be assumed for Kr and then checked in an iterative procedure. The starting
value for this example Kr = 1. Assuming a cover of 30 mm and transverse bars of 10 mm and
B16 reinforcing bars:

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 16

D = 300-30-12-(16/2) = 250 mm =>
e 2  1/r  l0 2 /c
1/r  K r K /r0
Kr  1
K  1,55

1  ε yd
r0 0,45d
ε yd  500/1,15  0,00207
210000
1  0,00207  0,0000184
r0 0,45  250
c  10
e 2  1,55   0,0000184   21002 /10  12,57mm

Finally, the elastic moment to check for:

M ED  M 0e  N ED e i  N ED e 2 (see Figure 7).

As previously stated: M 0e  0,6M 02  0,4M 01  0,4M 02

M0e   0,6  51   0,4  30   18,6  0,4  51  20,4 kN.m

MED  20,4   2000  0,00525    2000  0,01257   56,04 kN.m

Using the appropriate interaction charts, d2/h => 30 mm (cover)+16 mm (links) /300 = 0.14

M 56, 04 106 N 2000 103

  0, 065 and   0, 69
bh f ck 300  300  32
2 2
bhf ck 300  300  32

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 17

 Figure 13. Interaction diagram (first iteration)

A S f yk
 0.35 => AS  0,35  300  300  32/500  2016mm2 . Since we have a first estimate of
bhf ck

the amount of reinforcement required, a second iteration can be carried out after the value
of Kr is recalculated:

Kr 
nu  n 
 n u  n bal 
nu  1 ω
n bal  0,4

2016  500/1,15
ω  0,537
300  300  0,85  32/1,5

n u  1  0,537  1,537

Kr 
1,537  1, 225   0, 27 . This means the new value for e2 is
1,537  0, 4 

e2  1,55  0,27   0,0000184   21002 /10  3, 4mm

MED  18,6   2000  0,00525   2000  0,0034   36 kN.m

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 18

 M 36 106
  0, 04
bh 2 f ck 300  3002  32

Figure 14. Interaction diagram (second iteration)

ASf yk
Using the same chart,  0,30 => AS  0,30  300  300 32/500 1728mm 2 , which
bhf ck
yields a value of Kr = 0,22, giving an e2 value of 2,76 mm, which gives an MED value of 34,6
kN.m. It can be safely concluded that a third iteration will more or less be within very close
proximity of 0,22. The moment diagram for column X can be summarized as:

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 19

 Figure 15. Final bending moment diagram of the column

It is clear that the reinforcement should be designed according to the 51 kN.m moment

M 51106 ASf yk
(M02). 2   0, 06 =>  0,35 =>
bh f ck 300  3002  32 bhf ck

AS  0,35  300  300  32/500  2016mm2 provides a total of eight B25 bars (three on each

face) => Asprovided in the direction of bending 6 x area of B25 = 2945 mm2.

This reinforcement must be checked against the minimum reinforcement for columns. As
per Clause 9.5.2, the minimum reinforcement for columns is:

0,1N ED 0,1 2000 1000

Asmin    460mm 2
f yd 500
1,15

And outside the laps the maximum allowed reinforcement is 0,04 AC = 0,04 x 300 x 300 =
3600 mm2

 460<2945<3600 mm2.

Finally, as per BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 9.5.3, the spacing of transverse reinforcement in

the column must not exceed

 20x diameter of longitudinal bars (20 x 25) = 500 mm

 The lesser dimension of the column = 300 mm
 400 mm.

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 20

The spacing of the transverse bars must be 300 mm. As for the diameter, it is to be quarter
of the diameter of longitudinal bars but not less than 6 mm. For this example, 10 mm links
were selected. The cross-section can be depicted schematically as follows:

Figure 16. Final reinforcement drawing

References

British Standards Institution (2002) BS EN 1990:2002, Eurocode – Basis of structural design

British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures — Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings

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

Mosley, W. H., Hulse, R. and Bungey, J. H. (2012) Reinforced Concrete Design: To Eurocode 2. London: Palgrave
Macmillan

Authors
Professor Subhamoy Bhattacharya
Mr Saleh Jalbi
Both at the University of Surrey

Peer reviewers
Francesco Grieco, Senior Engineer, Robert Bird Group
Hassan Moharam, Structural Engineer, Arup

Eurocodes Plus Worked example for Eurocode 2 21