comparitive design study bs8110 vs ec2
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
1/127
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
2/127
BRE material is also published quarterly on CD
Each CD contains BRE material published in the
current year, including reports, specialist reports, and
the Professional Development publications: Digests,
Good Building Guides, Good Repair Guides and
Information Papers.
The CD collection gives you the opportunity to build a
comprehensive library of BRE material at a fraction of
the cost of printed copies.
As a subscriber you also benefit from a 25% discounton other BRE titles.
For more information contact:
BRE Bookshop on 020 7505 6622
BRE Bookshop
BRE Bookshop supplies a wide range of building and
construction related information products from BRE
and other highly respected organisations.
Contact:
post: BRE Bookshop
151 Rosebery Avenue
London, EC1R 4GB
fax: 020 7505 6606
phone: 020 7505 6622email: [email protected]
website: www.brebookshop.com
Prices for all available BRE
publications can be obtained from:
BRE Bookshop
151 RoseberyAvenue
London, EC1R 4GB
Tel: 020 7505 6622
Fax: 020 7505 6606
e-mail: [email protected]
BR455
ISBN 1 86081 611 8
Copyright BRE 2003
First published 2003
Currentlyavailable only in electronic
format.
On CD-ROM ISSN 1471-2032.
Produced from authors material as
supplied.
BRE is committed to providing
impartial and authoritative
information on all aspects of the
built environment for clients,
designers, contractors, engineers,
manufacturers, occupants, etc. We
make every effort to ensure the
accuracy and quality of information
and guidance when it is first
published. However, we can take no
responsibility for the subsequent
use of this information, nor for any
errors or omissions it may contain.
Publishedby
BRE Bookshop
by permission of
Building Research Establishment Ltd
Requests to copy any part of this
publication should be made to:
BRE Bookshop
Building Research Establishment
Bucknalls Lane
Watford, WD25 9XX
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
3/127
iii
Summary report
Design calculations to Eurocode 2
Design calculations to BS 8110
Reinforcement drawings for a typical floor
Material quantities and construction costs
Contents
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
4/127
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
5/127
5HLQIRUFHGFRQFUHWHIUDPHGVWUXFWXUH
FRPSDUDWLYHGHVLJQVWXG\WR(&DQG%6
6XPPDU\UHSRUW
6FRSH
7KLVGHVNVWXG\ZDVFRPPLVVLRQHGE\%XLOGLQJ5HVHDUFK(VWDEOLVKPHQW/WG%5(DVSDUWRI7DVNRIWKH'7/5QRZ2'30)UDPHZRUN3URMHFWIRUWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRI(XURFRGHIRUWKHGHVLJQRIFRQFUHWHVWUXFWXUHVLQWKH8.,WVSXUSRVHZDVWRSUHSDUHDQGFRPSDUHSDUDOOHOGHVLJQVRIDW\SLFDOUHLQIRUFHGFRQFUHWHIUDPHGVWUXFWXUHWR(&DQG%6LQRUGHUWRDVVHVVWKHLUGLIIHUHQFHVLQWHUPVRIHFRQRP\RIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGGHVLJQSURFHVV7KLVVWXG\ZLOOKRSHIXOO\SURYLGHSDUWRIWKHFDOLEUDWLRQGDWDUHTXLUHGWRDVVLVWWKHFRPPLWWHHSUHSDULQJWKH8.1DWLRQDO$QQH[WR(&
7KHIROORZLQJVHFWLRQVDUHLQFOXGHGLQWKHPDLQUHSRUW
'HVLJQFDOFXODWLRQVWR(XURFRGH'HVLJQFDOFXODWLRQVWR%65HLQIRUFHPHQWGUDZLQJVIRUDW\SLFDOIORRU0DWHULDOTXDQWLWLHVDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQFRVWV
,ZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQN'U7RQ\-RQHVRI$UXS5HVHDUFKDQG'HYHORSPHQWIRUSURYLGLQJWKHJHQHUDODUUDQJHPHQWGHWDLOVIRUDVHFWLRQRIDW\SLFDOWHQVWRUH\IUDPHGVWUXFWXUH
'HVLJQVROXWLRQ
7KHSODQFKRVHQIRUWKHVWXG\ZDVVHOHFWHGEHFDXVHLWKDVDVOLJKWO\LUUHJXODUOD\RXWZLWKIDLUO\W\SLFDOVSDQVRIDQGP$VZHOODVFRQWDLQLQJDOORIWKHHOHPHQWVQHFHVVDU\IRUWKHVWXG\WKHUHLVDSUREOHPDWLFORQJIUHHHGJHVSDQRQWKHZHVWVLGH7KLVLVWKHW\SHRIOD\RXWUHJXODUO\IRXQGLQHYHU\GD\SUDFWLFHDQGZDVWKRXJKWWREHPRUHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHWKDQDPRUHUHJXODUDUUDQJHPHQW
)ODWVODEFRQVWUXFWLRQKDVEHHQVHOHFWHGIRUWKHIORRUVDVWKLVLVFRPPRQO\WKHSUHIHUUHGDQGPRVWHFRQRPLFVWUXFWXUDOVROXWLRQ+RZHYHUWZREHDPVKDYHEHHQLQWURGXFHGZLWKLQWKHFDQWLOHYHUHGDUHDDWWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHULQRUGHUWROLPLWGHIOHFWLRQV
,QRUGHUWRSURYLGHDEHWWHUFRPSDULVRQEHWZHHQWKHWZRGHVLJQFRGHVFRQYHQWLRQDOEDVHPHQWUHWDLQLQJZDOOVKDYHEHHQHPSOR\HGLQSUHIHUHQFHWRDFRQWLJXRXVSLOHGZDOOVROXWLRQDQGSDGIRRWLQJVDWDQXQUHDOLVWLFN1PJURXQGEHDULQJSUHVVXUHKDYHEHHQVHOHFWHGLQSUHIHUHQFHWRSLOHFDSV
'HVLJQSDUDPHWHUV
7KHIROORZLQJJHQHUDOEULHILWHPVZHUHDJUHHGIURPGLVFXVVLRQZLWK'U5LFKDUG0RVVRI%5(DQGPHPEHUVRIWKH&,(*&RQFUHWH,QGXVWU\(XURFRGH*URXS
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
6/127
'HVLJQ&RGHV (XURFRGHUHYLVHGILQDOGUDIWRISU(1%63DUWDQG3DUW$VVRFLDWHGORDGLQJFRGHV
1DWLRQDO$QQH[ $VVXPH8.YDOXHIRUFFLV
/RDGLQJ $SSOLHGGHDGORDGN1P
)ORRULPSRVHGORDGLQJN1PSOXVN1PIRUSDUWLWLRQV5RRILPSRVHGORDGLQJN1P
3HULPHWHUFODGGLQJN1P
'HIOHFWLRQOLPLWV (&TXDVLSHUPDQHQWGHIOHFWLRQ/%6ORQJWHUPWRWDOGHIOHFWLRQ/$IIHFWLQJSHULPHWHUFODGGLQJ/
&RQFUHWH &ROXPQVDQGVKHDUZDOOVEHORZOHYHOJUDGH&
(OVHZKHUHJUDGH&IFNYDOXHVRIDQG1PP
DUHDQH[DFWPDWFKIRU%6JUDGHV&DQG&DQGKDYHEHHQXVHG
LQSUHIHUHQFHWRURXQGHGGRZQFRGHPL[HVLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHDWUXHFRPSDULVRQ
5HLQIRUFHPHQW +LJK\LHOGGHIRUPHG(&I\N1PP%6I\1PP
([SRVXUH 0RGHUDWH )LUHSHULRG 2QHKRXU
6ODEVDQGFROXPQVVKRXOGKDYHPLQLPXPVL]HVWRUHOHYDQWFRGHUHTXLUHPHQWV
$Q\DGYDQWDJHWREHJDLQHGIURPHTXDWLRQVDDQGELQSU(1VKRXOGEH
XWLOLVHG
6RIWZDUH
7KHIROORZLQJGHVLJQVRIWZDUHKDVEHHQXVHGLQWKHSUHSDUDWLRQRIWKHDWWDFKHGFDOFXODWLRQVDQGTXDQWLWLHV
)ORRUVODEV )(03ODWH6NDQVND,76ROXWLRQV6KHDUZDOOV )(06XSHU6WUXFWXUH$OORWKHUPHPEHUV 5&&6SUHDGVKHHWVIRU&RQFUHWH'HVLJQ
EHWDYHUVLRQVXVHGIRU(&ODWHVWGUDIW
%DU6FKHGXOLQJ %DU6FKHG[OW&%XN]NRZVNL
/RDGLQJ
7KHJDPPDIDFWRUVIRUGHVLJQDW8/6GLIIHUVXEVWDQWLDOO\EHWZHHQWKHWZRFRGHV7KHIDPLOLDU*N4NLVXVHGIRU%6EXWIRUWKH(&GHVLJQ*N4NHTXDWLRQELQSU(1LVSHUPLWWHGWKLVEHLQJPRUHRQHURXVLQWKLVFDVHWKDQWKH*N4NGHULYHGIURPHTXDWLRQD7KLVUHGXFWLRQLQXOWLPDWHORDGLQJFRPSDUHGZLWK%6FDQUHGXFHUHLQIRUFHPHQWQHHGHGDW8/6WKXVLQFUHDVLQJWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIFKHFNVDW6/6ZKHUHGHIOHFWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVFDQFRQWURO
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
7/127
7KHSDWWHUQRIORDGLQJLVDOVRGLIIHUHQWLQ(&%6UHTXLUHVWKDWWKHDOOVSDQVORDGHGDQGDOWHUQDWHVSDQVORDGHGFDVHVEHFRQVLGHUHGZKHUHDV(&UHTXLUHVWKDWDGMDFHQWVSDQVDQGDOWHUQDWHVSDQVORDGHGVLWXDWLRQVEHFKHFNHG7KLVKDVWKHHIIHFWRIVLJQLILFDQWO\LQFUHDVLQJSHDNVXSSRUWPRPHQWVDQGKHQFHVKHDUVDOWKRXJKWKHGHVLJQPRPHQWVDWFROXPQIDFHVDUHPDUJLQDOO\OHVVDIIHFWHG&RQYHUVHO\EHFDXVH(&GRHVQRW
UHTXLUHGHDGORDGWREHSDWWHUQHGSRVLWLYHVSDQPRPHQWVDUHPDUJLQDOO\UHGXFHG
,WVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWERWKGHVLJQVDUHIRUDQLPSRVHGORDGLQJRIN1PZKHUHDVWKH%6ORDGLQJFRGHFDOOVIRUN1PDQG(XURFRGHVIRUN1P
6ODEV
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
0RGHOOLQJ 7KHDUHDVRFFXSLHGE\FROXPQVKDYHEHHQPRGHOOHGDVGHHSHUUHJLRQVDVRSSRVHGWRSRLQWVXSSRUWVWRJLYHDEHWWHUHVWLPDWHRIGHIOHFWLRQV)RUWKHVDPHUHDVRQDIWHUGHWHUPLQLQJUHLQIRUFHPHQWUHTXLUHGWKHPRGHOVZHUHUHUXQZLWKDSSOLHGUHLQIRUFHPHQW
$VWKHGHIOHFWLRQVDIIHFWLQJWKHZHVWHUQSHULPHWHUFODGGLQJSURYHGWREHFULWLFDOLQ
GHWHUPLQLQJVODEWKLFNQHVVLWZDVQHFHVVDU\WRFDUU\RXWWKUHHUXQVIRUHDFKFRGHZLWKYDU\LQJFUHHSIDFWRUVD XQGHUTXDVLSHUPDQHQWORDGLQJWRFRPSDUHZLWKWKH/OLPLWE XQGHUVHOIZHLJKWDWWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIFODGGLQJDQGF XQGHUWRWDOORDGORQJWHUPFEWREHFRPSDUHGZLWK/
)RUHDFKRIWKHDERYHFRQGLWLRQVDFRPSRVLWHFUHHSIDFWRUZDVGHWHUPLQHGIURPWKHPDJQLWXGHDQGDJHDWDSSOLFDWLRQRIHDFKUHOHYDQWORDGFRPSRQHQW
6L]LQJ 7KHILQDOVODEGHSWKVUHTXLUHGWRVDWLVI\WKHSHULPHWHUGHIOHFWLRQOLPLWZHUHPPIRU(&DQGPPIRU%67KHUHDUHVHYHUDOUHDVRQVIRUWKLVGLIIHUHQFH
WKHSULQFLSDOUHDVRQVEHLQJ
7KHLQVWDQWDQHRXV(&IRUJUDGH&LV1PPWR(&EXWRQO\1PPWR%6
7KHFUDFNLQJVWUHVVLV1PPWR(&EXWRQO\1PP
WR%6
7R(&WHQVLRQVWLIIHQLQJLQFUHDVHVZLWKDJHEXWWR%6LWUHGXFHV
$OORIWKHVHWHQGWRSURGXFHVPDOOHUGLVSODFHPHQWVWR(&DOWKRXJKWKHVHHIIHFWVDUHSDUWLDOO\RIIVHWE\DJUHDWHUGHQVLW\IRUFRQFUHWHN1PDVRSSRVHGWRPPPRUHERWWRPFRYHUDQGWKHVOLJKWO\GLIIHUHQWUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQVXSSRUWDQGVSDQVWHHO
,QHYHU\GD\SUDFWLFHWKHDERYHVHOHFWHGVODEGHSWKVPD\KDYHEHHQURXQGHGXSWRWKH
QHDUHVWPPJLYLQJPPDQGPPUHVSHFWLYHO\
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
8/127
'HWDLOLQJ)URPWKHDWWDFKHGGUDZLQJVLWFDQEHVHHQWKDWVLPLODUEDUOD\RXWVKDYHEHHQDGRSWHGIRUERWKFRGHV$OWKRXJK(&ODSVDUHVOLJKWO\JUHDWHUPDLQWRSVWHHOFXUWDLOPHQWSRLQWVKDYHEHHQPDLQWDLQHGDWDVWDQGDUG/WKHDPRXQWRIVSDQWRSVWHHOSURYLGHGEHLQJGHWHUPLQHGIURPWKDWUHTXLUHGDW/7KHSULQFLSOHRISURYLGLQJWZRWKLUGVRIFROXPQKHDGVWHHOZLWKLQWKHFHQWUDOKDOIRIFROXPQVWULSVKDVDOVREHHQPDLQWDLQHG
1HLWKHUFRGHVKRZVDUHTXLUHPHQWIRUDJUHDWPDQ\OLQNVDWFROXPQKHDGVDVSXQFKLQJVKHDULVQRWUHDOO\FULWLFDODWWKHVHOHFWHGVODEGHSWKV7KHDUUDQJHPHQWVRIOLQNVDUHKRZHYHUYHU\GLIIHUHQWZLWKUHFWDQJXODUSHULPHWHUVWR%6DQGZLWKUDGLDORUEHDPW\SHVSXUVWR(&
0DWHULDOTXDQWLWLHV
&RQFUHWH 6RIILW 9HUWLFDO 5HEDU &RVW6/$%6
P IRUPVP IRUPVP 7RQQHV
(&
%6
7KLVLVDQH[WUHPHO\GLVDSSRLQWLQJRXWFRPHDVLWVKRZVDUHGXFWLRQLQVODEFRQVWUXFWLRQFRVWIRUWKHQHZFRGHRIRQO\,IHTXDWLRQZHUHWRKDYHEHHQXVHGLQVWHDGRIHTXDWLRQVDDQGEWKH(&GHVLJQZRXOGEHWKHPRUHH[SHQVLYHVHHEHORZ7KHUHTXLUHPHQWWRLQFOXGHWKHDGMDFHQWVSDQVORDGLQJSDWWHUQDQGWKHWKLQQHUVODEDUHWKHSULQFLSDOUHDVRQVIRUWKH(&UHLQIRUFHPHQWTXDQWLWLHVEHLQJKLJKHU
7KHWDEOHEHORZJLYHVDQLQGLFDWLRQRIWKHGLIIHUHQWUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWRSDQGERWWRP
UHLQIRUFHPHQW%WPVWHHO 7RSVWHHO
7
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
9/127
%HDPV
7KHWZREHDPVGRQRWKDYHWRZRUNYHU\KDUG7KH\GROLWWOHPRUHWKDQSURYLGHH[WUDVWLIIQHVVZKHUHUHTXLUHG$VDUHVXOWUHLQIRUFHPHQWLVPRUHRUOHVVQRPLQDOWRERWKFRGHV
&ROXPQV/RDGWDNHGRZQ $OWKRXJKWKH(&VHUYLFHORDGLQJIRUDVLQJOHIORRULVDURXQGOHVVWKDQIRU%6UHIHUHQFHFROXPQ'WKHDFFXPXODWHGVHUYLFHORDGDWEDVHOHYHOLVPRUHEHFDXVHWKH%6LPSRVHGORDGUHGXFWLRQVDUHIDUJUHDWHU$OVRWKH(&DFFXPXODWHG8/6ORDGZKLFKREYLRXVO\JRYHUQVUHLQIRUFHPHQWOHYHOVLVRQO\OHVVWKDQ%6LQVSLWHRIWKHVLQJOHIORRUWRWDOEHLQJQHDUO\OHVV,QDQXWVKHOOWKHUHVWULFWLYH(XURFRGHLPSRVHGORDGUHGXFWLRQPHWKRGKDVHDWHQXSQHDUO\KDOIRIWKHDGYDQWDJHREWDLQHGIURPORZHUIDFWRUVDQGFDQDFWXDOO\JLYHPRUH6/6ORDGWRIRXQGDWLRQV
6L]LQJ ,QWKLVEXLOGLQJFROXPQVL]HVDUHJRYHUQHGE\WKHPD[LPXPDPRXQWRI
YHUWLFDOUHLQIRUFHPHQWSHUPLWWHGE\HDFKFRGH7KH%6XSSHUOLPLWRIDWODSVKDVVHHPHGWRZRUNZHOOIRUPDQ\\HDUVEXWWR(&WKHJHQHUDOOLPLWRIRQO\KDVEHHQWDNHQ7KLVVHHPVXQIDLUO\UHVWULFWLYHDQGDVDUHVXOWFROXPQVL]HVDUHH[WUHPHO\VLPLODULQERWKVROXWLRQV7KHFRGHGRHVSHUPLWWKHOLPLWWREHH[FHHGHGLQFHUWDLQFLUFXPVWDQFHVEXWLWLVOLNHO\WKDWGHVLJQHUVZLOOEHYHU\UHOXFWDQWWRH[FHHGWKLVOLPLWXQOHVVVSHFLILFJXLGDQFHLVJLYHQLQUHFRJQLVHGSXEOLFDWLRQV
'HWDLOLQJ (&FROXPQODSVDUHDURXQGORQJHUWKDQLQ%67KHUHLVDOVRDUHTXLUHPHQWWRUHGXFHOLQNVSDFLQJDWODSVDQGFORVHWRMRLQWV2WKHUZLVHPHWKRGVDUHYHU\VLPLODU
0DWHULDOTXDQWLWLHV
&RQFUHWH 9HUWLFDO 5HEDU &RVW&2/8016
P IRUPVP 7RQQHV
(&
%6
7KLVDJDLQLVDGLVDSSRLQWLQJRXWFRPHDVWKHGLIIHUHQFHLQFRVWLVRQO\
6KHDUZDOOV$QDO\VLV 7KHUHDUHTXLWHVWULNLQJGLIIHUHQFHVKHUH7R%6KRUL]RQWDOIRUFHVDUHWDNHQDVWKHPD[LPXPRIZLQGORDGDQGRIGHDGORDG+RZHYHUZLWK(&KRUL]RQWDOORDGVWRDOORZIRULPSHUIHFWLRQVDUHDGGHGWRZLQGORDGVERWKEHLQJPRGLILHGE\DIDFWRU:DOOVDUHPPWKLFNIRUERWKVROXWLRQVEXWEHFDXVHRIWKLVVOLJKWO\LQFUHDVHGKRUL]RQWDOORDGLQJDQGDOVREHFDXVHRIVOLJKWO\OHVVGHDGORDGIURPWKHVODEVJUHDWHUWHQVLRQVGHYHORSUHTXLULQJPRUHUHLQIRUFHPHQWDWORZHUOHYHOV
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
10/127
0DWHULDOTXDQWLWLHV
&RQFUHWH 6RIILW 9HUWLFDO 5HEDU &RVW6+($5:$//6
P IRUPVP IRUPVP 7RQQHV
(& %6
+HUHWKH%6VROXWLRQLVFKHDSHU
5HWDLQLQJZDOOV
+HUHPHWKRGVDUHYHU\VLPLODUGLIIHUHQFHVEHLQJGXHPDLQO\WRLQWHQVLW\RIYHUWLFDOORDGLQJ(&UHTXLUHVVOLJKWO\OHVVORQJLWXGLQDOVWHHOEXWWKLVLVPRUHWKDQRIIVHWE\WKHLQFUHDVHLQEDVHVL]H
&RQFUHWH 9HUWLFDO 5HEDU ([FDYDWH &RVW5(7$,1,1*:$//6
P IRUPVP 7RQQHV P
(&
%6
)RXQGDWLRQEDVHV
$OWKRXJKWKH(&YHUWLFDOORDGVDW8/6DUHDOLWWOHOHVVWKDQIRU%6SDGVWHQGHGWR
EHPDUJLQDOO\PRUHKHDYLO\UHLQIRUFHG7KHUHDVRQVIRUWKLVDUHTXLWHFRPSOH[DQGZLOOUHTXLUHIXUWKHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQ
&RQFUHWH 5HEDU ([FDYDWH &RVW3$'%$6(6
P 7RQQHV P
(&
%6
2YHUDOOFRQVWUXFWLRQFRVWV
6RIILW 9HUWLFDO29(5$//
&RQFUHWHIRUPZRUN IRUPZRUN
5HEDU ([FDYDWH 7RWDO
(&
%6
7KLVVKRZVDQRYHUDOO(&VDYLQJRIRQO\
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
11/127
&RQFOXVLRQV
7KHIDFWWKDWRYHUDOOFRQVWUXFWLRQFRVWVDUHDOPRVWLGHQWLFDOLVIHOWWREHYHU\GLVWXUELQJSDUWLFXODUO\DVWKHDGYDQWDJHVRIXVLQJHTXDWLRQVDDQGEKDYHEHHQWDNHQ)RUWKLVVWUXFWXUHWKHXVHRI(XURFRGHZRXOGKDYHEHHQXSWR
PRUHH[SHQVLYHLIHTXDWLRQKDGEHHQHPSOR\HG7KHDGRSWLRQRIDQHZGHVLJQFRGHVKRXOGVKRZDVWHSIRUZDUGLQWHUPVRIHFRQRP\
,WLVIHOWWREHLPSHUDWLYHWKDWWKH1DWLRQDO$QQH[WR(1VKRXOGSHUPLWWKHXVHRIHTXDWLRQVDDQGE7KHVHHTXDWLRQVZHUHVXUHO\FRPSLOHGDVDUHVXOWRIH[WHQVLYHVWDWLVWLFDOUHVHDUFKVRGHVLJQHUVVKRXOGEHJLYHQWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIWKHP
$QRWKHUUHDVRQIRUWKHKLJKFRVWRIWKH(&VODEVLQWKLVGHVLJQVWXG\LVWKHLQFUHDVHGDPRXQWRIFROXPQKHDGUHLQIRUFHPHQWJHQHUDWHGE\WKHLQFOXVLRQRIWKHDGMDFHQWVSDQVORDGFDVH1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJP\HDUOLHUYLHZVUHJDUGLQJSDWWHUQ
ORDGLQJWKLVVWXG\KDVQRZOHDGPHWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIRPLWWLQJWKHUHTXLUHPHQWWRLQFOXGHWKLVORDGFDVHH[FHSWLQXQXVXDOFLUFXPVWDQFHVHJYHU\KLJKSRLQWRUOLQHORDGVZKHUHDPRUHGHWDLOHGH[DPLQDWLRQRIUHOHYDQWORDGFRPELQDWLRQVPD\EHUHTXLUHG
7KH1DWLRQDO$QQH[WR(&DQGWHFKQLFDOJXLGDQFHOLWHUDWXUHVKRXOGLGHDOO\GHILQHWKHFLUFXPVWDQFHVLQZKLFKWKHPDLQVWHHOOLPLWLQFROXPQVPD\EHH[FHHGHGDQGE\KRZPXFK
5RG:HEVWHU&(QJ),6WUXFW(
$XJXVW
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
12/127
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
13/127
Calculations
toEurocode 2
July 2002
Comparative Design Study
toEC2 & BS8110
of aTypical RC Framed Structure
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
14/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
1Typical Floor GA
1 hour fire period external exposure = severe internal exposure = moderate.
Slabs, beams and walls - C32/40 concrete. All reinforcement f = 500 N/mm (high bond).yk
Imposed dead load = 1.0 kN/m on floors and roof (h same as floors).
Perimeter cladding = 1.0 kN/m on external elevation.
Superimposed load = (4+1) kN/m on floors, 1.5 kN/m on roof.
A
2 64
1 53
B
C
D
E
F
1668
985
625
325
3600
Lineofzerorotat
ion
400 sq
500 sq
500 sq
500 sq 400 sq450 sq
500 sq 400 sq
400 sq 350 f
350 f
350 f350 f
260 Solid slab
Allow for one 150 sq holeat centre of face ofinternal columns
In Ec2 FE analysis, assumefctm = value at10 days.
Composite f values fromAnnex B of EC2.
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
15/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
2Basement GA
Pilecaps and ground bearing slab not included in design.
Ground bearing slab assumed to be 225 thick with 2.5 kN/m imposed load.
Max ground bearing pressure taken as 600 kN/m
.
Foundations & retaining walls - C32/40 concrete - 40mm cover.
Columns and core walls - C48/60 concrete (reducing to 32/40) - 1 hour fire period.
72003600 5050
230063508400
1450
4750
2125
8400
8400
4370
A
2 64
1 53
B
C
D
E
F
Retaining walls resistinggranular backfill with 10
kN/m surcharge andwater pressure to 1mabove basement level.
3200 sq x 900base
3600 sq x 1100base
2400 x 4200x 600 base
3050 sq x 800base
1800 x 350 base300 wall
2400 x 500 base300 wall
1800x350base
300wall
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
16/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
3Typical Floor
Typical Floor Loading260 Slab = 6.50 at 25 kN/m to EN 1991
Applied Dead = 1.00
7.50 = Gk
Partitions = 1.00
Imposed = 4.00 Qk = 5.00 kN/m
Total = 12.50 kN/m characteristic
Quasi permant loading y2 = 0.3 from EN 1990 (office loading)
QP UD load = 7.5 + 0.3 x 5 = 9.00 kN/m
Perimeter line load from cladding = 3.6 kN/m
CLAUSES 6.10a & 6.10b of EN 1990 y0 = 0.7 x = 0.85
to 6.10a, ultimate UDL = 15.38
to 6.10b, ultimate UDL = 16.11
Therefore, Clause 6.10b will control at ULS
IE 1.15 Gk + 1.5Qk
Parameters for FE Analysisfck = 32 N/mm 40 N/mm
Ecm28 = 1.05 x 9.5 x 401/3
= 34.114 kN/mm
from Table 3.1, fctm = 0.3 fck2/3
= 3.0238 N/mm
Assuming first cracking at 10 days,
fctm7= Exp{0.25[1-(28/10)]} x fctm = 2.5553 N/mm (3.4)
LOADING SEQUENCE kN/m at days
Self weight 6.50 10
Applied dead 2.00 60
Permanent imposed 1.20 60
Variable load 2.80 COMPOSITE E and f VALUES
Annex B.1
0 Et 0 EtSelf weight 2.63 9.39 2.63 9.39
Applied dead 1.87 11.88 1.87 11.88Permanent imposed 1.87 11.88 1.87 11.88
Variable load 0 36.02 (t,t0) Et
Composite 2.38 10.09 1.84 12.03 1.21 15.47
SW + applied deadTo 60 days
1.35 x 7.5 + 0.7 x 1.5 x 5 =
1.35 x 0.85 x 7.5 + 1.5 x 5 =
fcm28 = fck + 8 =
Longterm QP Longterm Total
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
17/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
4Typical Floor
IMPOSED LOADSShowing pattern loading regions FEM-Design
1 2 3 4
56 7
8
9 10 11
12 1314
Regions for
pattern loading
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
18/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
5Typical Floor
DEAD LOADS2
Perimeter line loading = 3.6 kN/m FEM-Design
ULS LOADING PATTERNS1.15Gk on all spansplus 1.5Qk on alternate, adjacent spans
in both directions.
SLS LOADINGS1.0 Gk on all spans
QP run with 0.3Qk, & f = 2.38 (for check against L/250)Full run with 1.0Qk & f = 1.84 (total long-term)
Final run with Qk = 0 & f = 1.21 (at erection of cladding)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
19/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
6Typical Floor
FINITE ELEMENT MESH FEM-Design
Lineofzero
rotation
Areas over all columnsmodelled as deep regions
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
20/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
7Typical Floor
As REQUIRED BTM X FEM-Design
400800120016002000240028003200
0
SecionA
Se
cionB
WHITE = nominal steel(T12 @ 275)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
21/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
8Typical Floor
FEM-DesignAs REQUIRED BTM Y
SectionC
Section D
WHITE = nominal steel(T12 @ 275)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
22/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
9Typical Floor
FEM-DesignAs REQUIRED TOP X
SectionE
SectionG
Section
H
SectionF
WHITE = nominal steel
(T12 @ 275)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
23/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
10Typical Floor
FEM-DesignAs REQUIRED TOP Y
WHITE = nominal steel(T12 @ 275)
Section J
Section K
Section L
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
24/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
11Typical Floor
T20 @ 150
= 2094
T12 @ 200
= 565
T12 @ 200
= 565
T12 @ 225
= 503
T12 @ 225
= 503
T16 @ 250
= 1084
Section A
Section C
Bottom steel X direction
Bottom steel Y direction
Section B
Section D
T16 @ 150
= 1340
T16 @ 225
= 894
T12 @ 175
= 646
T12 @ 175
= 646
T12 @ 250
= 452
T12 @ 200
= 565
T12 @ 250
= 452
T12 @ 275
= 411
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
25/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
12Typical Floor
Top steel X direction
Section F Section E
Section G
T20 @ 70
= 4488
T20 @ 125
= 2513 T20 @ 225
= 1396T16 @ 250
= 804
T16 @ 125
= 1608
T20 @ 100
= 3142
T12 @ 250
= 452
T12 @ 225
= 503
9 T20
in 800
=3534
10 T20
in 925
=3396
T12 @275
= 411
T16@125= 1608
T16@250
= 804
T20@90
= 3491
T20@175
= 1795
T20@110
= 2856
T20@225
= 1396
T20@80
= 3927
T20@150
= 2094
T12@175
= 646
T16@250
= 804
T20@200
= 1571
T20@125
= 2513
T12@275
= 411
T12@275
= 411
T12@275
= 411
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
26/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
13Typical Floor
Top steel Y direction
Top steel X direction
Section J
Section H
T16@150
= 1340
T16@150
= 1340
T12@150
= 754
T12@275
= 411
T12@275
= 411
T20@100
= 3142
T20@100
= 3142
T20@200
= 1571
T20@200
= 1571
T16@200
= 1005
T12@275
= 411
T12@275
= 411
T12@275
= 411
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
27/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
14Typical Floor
5178
6049
Top steel Y direction
Section L
Section K
T12@200
= 565
T12@275
= 411
T12@175
= 646
T12@250
= 452
T20@80
= 3927
T20@150
= 2094
T16@150= 1340
T20@150
= 2094
T20@125
= 2513
T20@250
= 1257
T20@75
= 4189
T20@150
= 2094
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
28/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
15Typical Floor
Quasi Permanent Defelectionswith Applied Reinforcement
-21.9
-27.1
-0.3
All QP deflections are
within L/250 limit
2 x 4900/250 = 39.2
> 27.1 - 0.3 = 26.8 mm
-6.1
400
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
29/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
16Typical Floor
Dead Only Defelectionswith Applied Reinforcement
Max = 15.5 - 0.2 = 15.3 mm
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
30/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
17Typical Floor
Total Load Defelectionswith Applied Reinforcement
Max = 35.1 - 0.2 = 34.9 mm
Max D affecting cladding
= 34.9 - 15.3 = 19.6 mm
= L / 500 OK
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
31/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
18Typical Floor
Full ULS Column Momentswith Applied Reinforcement
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
32/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
19Typical Floor
Column Reactions
132.2 116.6 79.1
385.7 346.1 205.2
502.4
151.8
162.5
124.9
25.4
20.8
11.8
17.6
250.7 358.0211.3
79.5137.2
Full ULSDead onlyFull ULSDead only
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
33/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
20Typical Floor
Project EC2 Comparative Design REINFORCED CONCRETE COUNCIL
Client BRE Made by Date Page
Location Column D2 RMW 01-Jun-2002
PUNCHING SHEAR to prEN 1992-1 : 2001 Checked Revision Job No
Originated fromRCCen13.xls on CD 2002 BCA for RCC COLUMN - 2156
MATERIALS fck N/mm2 32 STATUS LEGEND
fyk N/mm2
500 VALID DESIGN
DIMENSIONS A mm 500 E mm 250
B mm 500 F mm -75
G mm 150 H mm 150
LOADING VEd kN 1066.8 0 1364.0
ult UDL kN/m2 16.13
SLAB h mm 260 dx mm 225 Asx mm2/m 4189 in B + 6d
dy mm 205 Asy mm2/m 3927 in A + 6d
d mm 215 100rL % 1.888
RESULTS bVEd = 1226.8 kN vRd,c = 0.9251 N/mm2
Equation (6.48)
At col. face, vEd = 3.073 N/mm2 At 2d perimeter, vED,red = 1.3239 N/mm2
Uout required = 5364 mm Equation (6.55)
SOLUTION 6.22 (B)
12 link spurs of 3 T10 @ 155 36 links
.
St = 250 mm Sr = 155 mm
Asw/Sr req = 5.938 (6.53) & (9.11)Asw/Sr prov = 6.081 mm
First link perimeter 105 mm from column face
Uout = 5440.7 mm > 5,364 mm
See GEOMETRY page for link locations. Plan
Some links shown may need to be re-located to avoid holes.
INTERNAL
Punching at Column D2B2 and B4 similar
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
34/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
May 2002
21Typical Floor
Punching at Column A2A4 similar - No links required at Column B6
Project EC2 Comparative Design REINFORCED CONCRETE COUNCIL
Client BRE Made by Date Page
Location Column A2 RMW 01-Jun-2002 1
PUNCHING SHEAR to prEN 1992-1 : 2001 EDGE Checked Revision Job No
Originated from RCCen13.xls on CD 2002 BCA for RCC COLUMN 0 - 2156
MATERIALS fck N/mm2 32 STATUS LEGEND
fyk N/mm2 500 VALID DESIGN
DIMENSIONS A mm 400 E mm 0
B mm 400 F mm -200
G mm 0
D mm 0 H mm 0
LOADING VEd kN 258.8 0 980
ult UDL kN/m2 16.13
SLAB h mm 260 dx mm 225 Asx mm2/m 804 in B + 3d+D
dy mm 205 Asy mm2/m 1156 in A + 6d
d mm 215 100rL % 0.449
RESULTS bVEd = 362.3 kN vRd,c = 0.5731 N/mm2
Equation (6.48)
At col. face, vEd = 1.390 N/mm2 At 2d perimeter, vED,red = 0.6541 N/mm2
Uout required = 2101 mm Equation (6.55)
SOLUTION 6.22 (B)
9 link spurs of 3 T6 @ 160 36 links
#NUM!
St = 190 mm Sr = 160 mm
Asw/Sr req = 1.256 (6.53) & (9.11)
Asw/Sr prov = 1.590 mm
First link perimeter 105 mm from column face
Uout = 3161.7 mm > 2,101 mm
See GEOMETRY page for link locations. PlanSome links shown may need to be re-located to avoid holes.
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
35/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
22
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN D2 500 500 SW = 20.9
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar523.3 97.8
reduction 0.0
523.3 97.8
523.3 326.0
reduction 0.0
1046.6 423.8
523.3 326.0
reduction 0.0
1569.8 749.9
523.3 326.0
reduction 107.6
2093.1 968.3
523.3 326.0reduction 102.7
2616.4 1191.6
523.3 326.0
reduction 100.7
3139.7 1416.9
523.3 326.0
reduction 99.8
3662.9 1643.2
523.3 326.0reduction 99.2
4186.2 1870.0
523.3 326.0
reduction 98.9
4709.5 2097.2
523.3 326.0
reduction 98.6
5232.8 2324.6
179.2 10 T32
Ground floor
C48/607557.3 9504.5 20.7 135.8 12 T32
1st
floor
C48/606806.6 8561.6 27.5
179.2 10 T20
2nd floorC48/60
6056.2 7619.1 27.5 179.2 10 T25
3rd floor
C48/605306.1 6677.1 27.5
179.2 6 T32
4th
floor
C32/404556.6 5736.0 27.5 179.2 6 T40
5th
floor
C32/403808.0 4796.3 27.5
179.2 6 T12
6th
floor
C32/403061.4 3859.5 27.5 179.2 6 T16
7th
floor
C32/402319.7 2930.1 27.5
6 T12
8th floor
C32/401470.4 1839.3 27.5 179.2 6 T12
Axial Force Moments
Roof
C32/40621.1 748.5 19.0 126.0
See reinforcement calculations on following sheets
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
36/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
23
Project EC2 Comparative Design Concrete Innovation & Design
Client BRE Made by Date Page
Location 500 x 500 Basement Columns RMW 6-Jun-02
Checked Revision Job No
Originated from RCCen53.xls on CD 2002 BCA for RCC - 2156
MATERIALSfck 48 N/mm gs 1.15 Cover to link 30 mmfyk 500 N/mm gc 1.5 dg 20 mm
f 2.0 fef 1.0 Dc = 5 mmSECTION
h 500 mm .b 500 mm
with 3 bars per 500 face X Xand 5 bars per 500 face
ie. 500 x 500 columns with 12 bars
RESTRAINTS Storey Top Btm CONNECTING BEAMS/SLABS for slendernessheight(mm) Condition Condition Braced ? b (mm) h (mm) L (m)
X-AXIS 3600 F P Y Top West 8400 260 7.2
Y-AXIS 3600 F P Y Top East 8400 260 5.875
Top North 7200 260 8.4
Top South 5335 260 8.4
L (mm) L0 (mm) h0 (mm) Bottom West
X-AXIS 3340 2509 250 Bottom East
Y-AXIS 3340 2637 Bottom North
Bottom South
BAR ARRANGEMENTS BAR CENTRES (mm)Bar Asc % Link 500 Face 500 Face Nuz (kN) Checks
T 32 3.86 8 196 98 9915 ok
T 25 2.36 8 200 100 8701 ok
T 20 1.51 6 204 102 8017 ok
T 16 0.97 6 206 103 7579 ok
T 12 0.54 6 208 104 7238 ok
T 10 0.38 6 209 105 7104 ok
LOADCASES AXIAL TOP MOMENTS (kNm) BTM MOMENTS (kNm)N (kN) M0x M0y M0x M0y
D2 9504.5 20.7 135.8
DESIGN MOMENTS (kNm) X AXIS Y AXIS Biaxial CheckMEd x MRd x MEd y MRd y REBAR
52.2 191.8 190.1 216.112 T32
#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
SYMMETRICALLY REINFORCED RECTANGULAR COLUMN DESIGN, BENT ABOUT TWOAXES TO prEN 1992-1 : 2001
Equation (5.39)
0.915#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
D2
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
37/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
24
Project EC2 Comparative Design Concrete Innovation & Design
Client BRE Made by Date Page
Location Column D2 RMW 6-Jun-02
Checked Revision Job No
Originated from RCCen53.xls on CD 2002 BCA for RCC - 2156
MATERIALSfck 48 N/mm gs 1.15 Cover to link 30 mmfyk 500 N/mm gc 1.5 dg 20 mm
f 2.0 fef 1.0 Dc = 5 mmSECTION
h 500 mm .b 500 mm
with 3 bars per 500 face X Xand 4 bars per 500 face
ie. 500 x 500 columns with 10 bars
RESTRAINTS Storey Top Btm CONNECTING BEAMS/SLABS for slendernessheight(mm) Condition Condition Braced ? b (mm) h (mm) L (m)
X-AXIS 3600 F F Y Top West 8400 260 7.2
Y-AXIS 3600 F F Y Top East 8400 260 5.875
Top North 7200 260 8.4
Top South 5335 260 8.4
L (mm) L0 (mm) h0 (mm) Bottom West 8400 260 7.2
X-AXIS 3340 2375 250 Bottom East 8400 260 5.875
Y-AXIS 3340 2534 Bottom North 7200 260 8.4
Bottom South 5335 260 8.4
BAR ARRANGEMENTS BAR CENTRES (mm)Bar Asc % Link 500 Face 500 Face Nuz (kN) Checks
T 32 3.22 8 196 131 9396 ok
T 25 1.96 8 200 133 8385 ok
T 20 1.26 6 204 136 7814 ok
T 16 0.80 6 206 137 7449 ok
T 12 0.45 6 208 139 7165 ok
T 10 0.31 6 209 139 7054 ok
LOADCASES AXIAL TOP MOMENTS (kNm) BTM MOMENTS (kNm)N (kN) M0x M0y M0x M0y
8561.6 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
7619.1 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
6677.1 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
DESIGN MOMENTS (kNm) X AXIS Y AXIS Biaxial CheckMEd x MRd x MEd y MRd y REBAR
61.4 276.3 215.4 286.7 10 T32
57.7 227.7 211.4 234.8 10 T2553.9 279.1 207.4 284.5 10 T20#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A#N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
SYMMETRICALLY REINFORCED RECTANGULAR COLUMN DESIGN, BENT ABOUT TWOAXES TO prEN 1992-1 : 2001
1st - 2nd
2nd - 3rd
Grnd - 1st
1st - 2nd
2nd - 3rd
Equation (5.39)
0.7070.875
0.576
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Grnd - 1st
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
38/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
25
Project EC2 Comparative Design Concrete Innovation & Design
Client BRE Made by Date Page
Location Column D2 RMW 6-Jun-02
Checked Revision Job No
Originated from RCCen53.xls on CD 2002 BCA for RCC - 2156
MATERIALSfck 32 N/mm gs 1.15 Cover to link 30 mmfyk 500 N/mm gc 1.5 dg 20 mm
f 2.0 fef 1.0 Dc = 5 mmSECTION
h 500 mm .b 500 mm
with 2 bars per 500 face X Xand 3 bars per 500 face
ie. 500 x 500 columns with 6 bars
RESTRAINTS Storey Top Btm CONNECTING BEAMS/SLABS for slendernessheight(mm) Condition Condition Braced ? b (mm) h (mm) L (m)
X-AXIS 3600 F F Y Top West 8400 260 7.2
Y-AXIS 3600 F F Y Top East 8400 260 5.875
Top North 7200 260 8.4
Top South 5335 260 8.4
L (mm) L0 (mm) h0 (mm) Bottom West 8400 260 7.2
X-AXIS 3340 2375 250 Bottom East 8400 260 5.875
Y-AXIS 3340 2534 Bottom North 7200 260 8.4
Bottom South 5335 260 8.4
BAR ARRANGEMENTS BAR CENTRES (mm)Bar Asc % Link 500 Face 500 Face Nuz (kN) Checks
T 40 3.02 10 380 190 7036 ok
T 32 1.93 8 392 196 6135 ok
T 25 1.18 8 399 200 5511 ok
T 20 0.75 6 408 204 5159 ok
T 16 0.48 6 412 206 4934 ok
T 12 0.27 6 416 208 4759 ok
LOADCASES AXIAL TOP MOMENTS (kNm) BTM MOMENTS (kNm)N (kN) M0x M0y M0x M0y5736 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
4796.3 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
3859.5 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
2390.1 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
1839.3 27.5 179.2 27.5 179.2
748.5 19.0 126.0 27.5 179.2
DESIGN MOMENTS (kNm) X AXIS Y AXIS Biaxial CheckMEd x MRd x MEd y MRd y REBAR
50.2 337.4 203.4 381.16 T40
46.5 309.1 199.5 345.1 6 T3242.8 223.0 195.5 233.0 6 T1637.0 316.6 189.3 332.6 6 T1234.8 313.4 187.0 333.6 6 T1227.5 212.8 179.2 217.1 6 T12
SYMMETRICALLY REINFORCED RECTANGULAR COLUMN DESIGN, BENT ABOUT TWOAXES TO prEN 1992-1 : 2001
4th - 5th
5th - 6th
6th - 7th
3rd - 4th
4th - 5th
5th - 6th
6th - 7th
7th - 8th
8th - roof
7th - 8th
8th - roof
Equation (5.39)
0.4500.357
0.830
0.520
0.547
0.933
3rd - 4th
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
39/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
26
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN A2 & A4 400 400 SW = 13.4
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar145.6 21.4
reduction 0.0
145.6 21.4
145.6 71.2
reduction 0.0
291.1 92.5
145.6 71.2
reduction 0.0
436.7 163.7
145.6 71.2
reduction 23.5
582.2 211.4
145.6 71.2reduction 22.4
727.8 260.2
145.6 71.2
reduction 22.0
873.4 309.3
145.6 71.2
reduction 21.8
1018.9 358.7
145.6 71.2reduction 21.7
1164.5 408.3
145.6 71.2
reduction 21.6
1310.0 457.9
145.6 71.2
reduction 21.5
1455.6 507.5
82.4 4 T12
Ground floor 1963.1 2435.2
1st
floor
C48/601767.9 2193.3 4.2
82.4 4 T12
2nd floorC48/60
1572.7 1951.6 4.2 82.4 4 T12
3rd floor
C48/601377.7 1709.9 4.2
82.4 4 T12
4th
floor
C32/401182.7 1468.4 4.2 82.4 4 T12
5th
floor
C32/40988.0 1227.2 4.2
82.4 4 T12
6th
floor
C32/40793.6 986.7 4.2 82.4 4 T12
7th
floor
C32/40600.4 747.8 4.2
4 T16
8th floor
C32/40383.7 473.6 4.2 82.4 4 T12
Axial Force Moments
Roof
C32/40166.9 199.4 2.9 56.5
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
40/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
27
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN B2 500 500 SW = 20.9
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar406.6 77.0
reduction 0.0
406.6 77.0
406.6 256.6
reduction 0.0
813.2 333.5
406.6 256.6
reduction 0.0
1219.7 590.1
406.6 256.6
reduction 84.7
1626.3 762.0
406.6 256.6reduction 80.8
2032.9 937.7
406.6 256.6
reduction 79.3
2439.5 1115.0
406.6 256.6
reduction 78.5
2846.0 1293.1
406.6 256.6reduction 78.1
3252.6 1471.6
406.6 256.6
reduction 77.8
3659.2 1650.3
406.6 256.6
reduction 77.6
4065.8 1829.3
Axial Force Moments
483.5 583.0
1146.7 1435.4
12.2 156.7
17.4 226.3
1809.8 2287.8 17.4 226.3
2388.3 3013.2 17.4 226.3
2970.6 3744.4 17.4 226.3
3554.5 4477.9 17.4 226.3
4139.1 5212.5 17.4 226.3
17.4 226.3
4724.2 5947.9 17.4 226.3
6 T20
6 T12
6 T12
6 T12
6 T16
6 T25
6 T12
6 T16
5th
floor
C32/40
4th
floor
C32/40
3rd floor
C48/60
2nd floorC48/60
Roof
C32/40
8th floor
C32/40
7th
floor
C32/40
6th
floor
C32/40
1st
floor
C48/60
Ground floor
C48/60
6 T25
6 T325895.0 7419.6 13.2 170.8
5309.5 6683.6
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
41/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
28
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN B4 500 500 SW = 20.9
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar367.0 69.6
reduction 0.0
367.0 69.6
367.0 231.9
reduction 0.0
734.0 301.5
367.0 231.9
reduction 0.0
1100.9 533.4
367.0 231.9
reduction 76.5
1467.9 688.8
367.0 231.9reduction 73.1
1834.9 847.7
367.0 231.9
reduction 71.7
2201.9 1007.9
367.0 231.9
reduction 71.0
2568.8 1168.9
367.0 231.9reduction 70.6
2935.8 1330.2
367.0 231.9
reduction 70.3
3302.8 1491.8
367.0 231.9
reduction 70.2
3669.8 1653.6
Axial Force Moments
Roof
C32/40436.6 526.4 77.6 150.2 4 T32
8th floor
C32/401035.5 1296.3 111.7 216.0 4 T20
7th
floor
C32/401634.3 2066.2 111.7
6th
floor
C32/402156.7 2721.3 111.7
3381.6 111.7
216.0 4 T16
216.0 4 T16
216.0 4 T20
4th
floor
C32/403209.8 4044.0 111.7 216.0 4 T32
5th
floor
C32/402682.6
3rd floor
C48/603737.7 4707.5 111.7
2nd floorC48/60
4266.0 5371.5 111.7
6036.0 111.7
216.0 4 T16
216.0 4 T16
216.0 4 T25
Ground floor
C48/605323.4 6700.6 84.4 163.2 4 T25
1st
floor
C48/604794.6
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
42/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
29
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN B6 400 400 SW = 13.4
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar218.6 33.8
reduction 0.0
218.6 33.8
218.6 112.6
reduction 0.0
437.1 146.4
218.6 112.6
reduction 0.0
655.7 259.0
218.6 112.6
reduction 37.2
874.2 334.5
218.6 112.6reduction 35.5
1092.8 411.6
218.6 112.6
reduction 34.8
1311.4 489.4
218.6 112.6
reduction 34.5
1529.9 567.6
218.6 112.6reduction 34.3
1748.5 645.9
218.6 112.6
reduction 34.1
1967.0 724.4
218.6 112.6
reduction 34.1
2185.6 802.9
Axial Force Moments
Roof
C32/40252.3 302.0 24.8 45.7 4 T16
8th floor
C32/40583.5 722.3 35.8 66.6 4 T12
7th
floor
C32/40914.7 1142.5 35.8
6th
floor
C32/401208.7 1507.1 35.8
1874.1 35.8
66.6 4 T12
66.6 4 T12
66.6 4 T12
4th
floor
C32/401800.8 2242.2 35.8 66.6 4 T12
5th
floor
C32/401504.4
3rd floor
C48/602097.5 2610.8 35.8
2nd floorC48/60
2394.4 2979.6 35.8
3348.7 35.8
66.6 4 T12
66.6 4 T12
66.6 4 T16
Ground floor 2988.5 3717.8
1st
floor
C48/602691.4
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
43/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
30
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN E1 450 450 SW = 16.9
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar267.6 45.9
reduction 0.0
267.6 45.9
267.6 152.9
reduction 0.0
535.2 198.8
267.6 152.9
reduction 0.0
802.8 351.7
267.6 152.9
reduction 50.5
1070.4 454.2
267.6 152.9reduction 48.2
1338.0 559.0
267.6 152.9
reduction 47.3
1605.7 664.6
267.6 152.9
reduction 46.8
1873.3 770.8
267.6 152.9reduction 46.5
2140.9 877.2
267.6 152.9
reduction 46.4
2408.5 983.7
267.6 152.9
reduction 46.3
2676.1 1090.4
Axial Force Moments
Roof
C32/40313.5 376.6 117.8 274.7 6 T40
8th floor
C32/40734.0 913.7 165.6 390.1 6 T40
7th
floor
C32/401154.6 1450.9 165.6
6th
floor
C32/401524.6 1912.3 165.6
2377.2 165.6
390.1 6 T32
390.1 6 T40
390.1 6 T40
4th
floor
C32/402270.3 2843.5 165.6 390.1 6 T40
5th
floor
C32/401897.0
3rd floor
C48/602644.0 3310.4 165.6
2nd floorC48/60
3018.0 3777.7 165.6
4245.3 165.6
390.1 6 T32
390.1 6 T32
390.1 6 T32
Ground floor 3766.5 4713.1
1st
floor
C48/603392.2
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
44/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
31
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN E3 500 500 SW = 20.9
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar378.9 68.7
reduction 0.0
378.9 68.7
378.9 229.0
reduction 0.0
757.8 297.7
378.9 229.0
reduction 0.0
1136.6 526.7
378.9 229.0
reduction 75.6
1515.5 680.1
378.9 229.0reduction 72.1
1894.4 837.0
378.9 229.0
reduction 70.8
2273.3 995.2
378.9 229.0
reduction 70.1
2652.1 1154.2
378.9 229.0reduction 69.7
3031.0 1313.5
378.9 229.0
reduction 69.4
3409.9 1473.0
378.9 229.0
reduction 69.3
3788.8 1632.8
Axial Force Moments
Roof
C32/40447.6 538.8 83.5 123.6 4 T32
8th floor
C32/401055.5 1318.0 120.4 179.0 4 T16
7th
floor
C32/401663.3 2097.2 120.4
6th
floor
C32/402195.6 2763.0 120.4
3434.0 120.4
179.0 4 T16
179.0 4 T16
179.0 4 T20
4th
floor
C32/403268.5 4107.1 120.4 179.0 4 T25
5th
floor
C32/402731.4
3rd floor
C48/603806.3 4781.2 120.4
2nd floorC48/60
4344.5 5455.9 120.4
6130.9 120.4
179.0 4 T16
179.0 4 T16
179.0 4 T25
Ground floor 5421.5 6806.2
1st
floor
C48/604882.9
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
45/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
32
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN E5 400 400 SW = 13.4
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar224.7 30.4
reduction 0.0
224.7 30.4
224.7 101.5
reduction 0.0
449.3 131.9
224.7 101.5
reduction 0.0
674.0 233.4
224.7 101.5
reduction 33.5
898.6 301.4
224.7 101.5reduction 32.0
1123.3 370.9
224.7 101.5
reduction 31.4
1348.0 441.0
224.7 101.5
reduction 31.0
1572.6 511.4
224.7 101.5reduction 30.9
1797.3 582.0
224.7 101.5
reduction 30.8
2021.9 652.7
224.7 101.5
reduction 30.7
2246.6 723.5
Axial Force Moments
Roof
C32/40255.1 304.0 1.2 32.6 4 T12
8th floor
C32/40581.2 714.6 1.8 47.4 4 T12
7th
floor
C32/40907.4 1125.1 1.8
6th
floor
C32/401200.0 1485.5 1.8
1848.1 1.8
47.4 4 T12
47.4 4 T12
47.4 4 T12
4th
floor
C32/401788.9 2211.6 1.8 47.4 4 T12
5th
floor
C32/401494.2
3rd floor
C48/602084.0 2575.6 1.8
2nd floorC48/60
2379.3 2939.9 1.8
3304.3 1.8
47.4 4 T12
47.4 4 T12
47.4 4 T12
Ground floor 2970.1 3668.8
1st
floor
C48/602674.6
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
46/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
33
Column Design SummaryDiameter
COLUMN A6 350 SW = 8.0
Moment
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M Rebar
87.1 12.5
reduction 0.0
87.1 12.5
87.1 41.8
reduction 0.0
174.3 54.3
87.1 41.8
reduction 0.0
261.4 96.0
87.1 41.8
reduction 13.8
348.5 124.0
87.1 41.8reduction 13.2
435.7 152.6
87.1 41.8
reduction 12.9
522.8 181.5
87.1 41.8
reduction 12.8
609.9 210.5
87.1 41.8reduction 12.7
697.1 239.5
87.1 41.8
reduction 12.7
784.2 268.6
87.1 41.8
reduction 12.6
871.3 297.7
Axial Force
Roof
C32/4099.7 119.0 6 T12
8th floor
C32/40228.6 281.8 34.8 6 T12
23.8
6 T12
6th
floor
C32/40472.6 586.8 34.8 6 T12
7th
floor
C32/40357.4 444.7 34.8
6 T12
4th
floor
C32/40704.3 873.4 34.8 6 T12
5th
floor
C32/40588.3 729.9 34.8
6 T12
2nd floorC48/60
936.6 1160.9 34.8 6 T12
3rd floor
C48/60820.4 1017.1 34.8
1st
floor
C48/601052.8 1304.7 34.8 6 T12
Ground floor 1169.1 1448.6
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
47/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
34
Column Design SummaryDiameter
COLUMN C6 350 SW = 8.0
Moment
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M Rebar
159.8 26.4
reduction 0.0
159.8 26.4
159.8 87.9
reduction 0.0
319.7 114.3
159.8 87.9
reduction 0.0
479.5 202.1
159.8 87.9
reduction 29.0
639.3 261.0
159.8 87.9reduction 27.7
799.2 321.2
159.8 87.9
reduction 27.2
959.0 382.0
159.8 87.9
reduction 26.9
1118.8 442.9
159.8 87.9reduction 26.7
1278.7 504.1
159.8 87.9
reduction 26.6
1438.5 565.3
159.8 87.9
reduction 26.6
1598.3 626.6
Axial Force
Roof
C32/40186.2 223.4 93.9 6 T20
8th floor
C32/40433.9 539.0 116.6 6 T20
6 T20
6th
floor
C32/40900.4 1126.8 116.6 6 T25
7th
floor
C32/40681.6 854.6 116.6
6 T25
4th
floor
C32/401341.0 1675.8 116.6 6 T32
5th
floor
C32/401120.4 1400.9 116.6
6 T20
2nd floorC48/60
1782.8 2226.6 116.6 6 T25
3rd floor
C48/601561.8 1951.1 116.6
6 T25
Ground floor 2225.0 2778.0
1st
floor
C48/602003.8 2502.3 116.6
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
48/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
35
Column Design SummaryDiameter
COLUMN F1 350 SW = 8.0
Moment
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M Rebar
87.5 11.9
reduction 0.0
87.5 11.9
87.5 39.6
reduction 0.0
175.1 51.5
87.5 39.6
reduction 0.0
262.6 91.0
87.5 39.6
reduction 13.1
350.1 117.6
87.5 39.6reduction 12.5
437.7 144.7
87.5 39.6
reduction 12.2
525.2 172.0
87.5 39.6
reduction 12.1
612.7 199.5
87.5 39.6reduction 12.0
700.3 227.0
87.5 39.6
reduction 12.0
787.8 254.6
87.5 39.6
reduction 12.0
875.3 282.2
Roof
C32/4099.4 118.5 105.9
278.5 153.2
Axial Force
6 T25
579.0 153.2
6 T32
7th
floor
C32/40353.6 438.6 153.2 6 T32
8th floor
C32/40226.5
862.0 153.2
6 T32
5th
floor
C32/40582.3 720.3 153.2 6 T32
6th
floor
C32/40467.7
1145.9 153.2
6 T32
3rd floor
C48/60812.2 1003.9 153.2 6 T25
4th
floor
C32/40697.2
1430.0
6 T20
1st
floor
C48/601042.4 1287.9 153.2 6 T25
2nd floorC48/60
927.3
Ground floor 1157.6
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
49/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Column Loads & Design
June 2002
36
Column Design SummaryDiameter
COLUMN F3 350 SW = 8.0
Moment
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M Rebar
145.2 21.0
reduction 0.0
145.2 21.0
145.2 70.1
reduction 0.0
290.5 91.1
145.2 70.1
reduction 0.0
435.7 161.2
145.2 70.1
reduction 23.1
580.9 208.1
145.2 70.1reduction 22.1
726.2 256.1
145.2 70.1
reduction 21.7
871.4 304.6
145.2 70.1
reduction 21.4
1016.6 353.2
145.2 70.1reduction 21.3
1161.9 402.0
145.2 70.1
reduction 21.2
1307.1 450.8
145.2 70.1
reduction 21.2
1452.3 499.7
Axial Force
Roof
C32/40166.3 198.6 54.3 6 T12
6 T16
7th
floor
C32/40596.9 742.8 79.4 6 T16
8th floor
C32/40381.6 470.7 79.4
6 T16
5th
floor
C32/40982.3 1219.3 79.4 6 T16
6th
floor
C32/40789.1 980.3 79.4
6 T20
3rd floor
C48/601369.8 1698.9 79.4 6 T16
4th
floor
C32/401176.0 1459.0 79.4
6 T16
1st
floor
C48/601757.9 2179.4 79.4 6 T16
2nd floorC48/60
1563.8 1939.1 79.4
Ground floor 1952.0 2419.7
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
50/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Typical Floor Beams
June 2002
37
Beam on line EMoments
Beam on line 5Moments
Beam on line EShears
Beam on line 5Shears
3 T16 top
3 T20 top 3 T16 top
3 T16 top
3 T12 btm
3 T12 btm
500 x 400 beams
Actions taken from FE analysis
2 Legs of T10 @ 325throughout
2 Legs of T10 @ 325
throughout
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
51/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Stability Loading
June 2002
38
Wind Loading EWPressure = 1.5 kN/m
Width of elevation = 26.345 m Wind load per floor = 142.3 kN
50% taken by core in this section
Wind Loading NSPressure = 1.5 kN/m
Width of elevation = 17.475 m Wind load per floor = 94.4 kN
Imperfections to Section 5.2 q0 = 1/ 200 m = 14 per storey
l m q1 S Gk S Qk Hi G Hi Q H WEW H WNSRoof 4.6 14 0.0034 3681 1776 12.56 6.06 55.3 73.4
Level 8 8.2 28 0.0025 7362 3553 5.94 2.87 71.1 94.4
Level 7 11.8 42 0.0024 11043 5329 7.84 3.78 71.1 94.4
Level 6 15.4 56 0.0024 14724 6395 8.68 2.50 71.1 94.4
Level 519 70 0.0024 18405 7549 8.68 2.71 71.1 94.4Level 4 22.6 84 0.0024 22086 8739 8.68 2.80 71.1 94.4
Level 3 26.2 98 0.0024 25767 9947 8.68 2.84 71.1 94.4
Level 2 29.8 112 0.0024 29448 11165 8.68 2.87 71.1 94.4
Level 1 33.4 126 0.0024 33129 12389 8.68 2.88 71.1 94.4
Grd Flr 36.4 140 0.0024 36811 13618 8.68 2.89 35.6 47.2
Summary of Horizontal Loading
Vertical Loading - Wall on Grid DOverall length = 6.39 Centreline length = 6.14
Equivalent trapezoidal loading
Left Right
Dead 123.38 -18.56
Total load Imposed 74.07 -12.39Add stairs 6.03
5.61
Dead only
kN/m
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
52/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Wall Loading
June 2002
39
Vertical Loading - Wall on Grid D/EOverall length = 6.39 Centreline length = 6.14
Equivalent trapezoidal loading
Left Right
Total load Dead 137.08 -21.64Imposed 81.54 -14.58
Add stairs 6.03
Vertical Loading - Wall on Grid 3/4 5.61Overall length = 2.84
Equivalent trapezoidal loading
Left Right
Dead 73.28 245.45
Imposed 48.57 178.56
Vertical Loading - Wall on Grid 6Overall length = 2.84
Equivalent trapezoidal loading
Left Right
Dead 1.94 0.13
Imposed 1.19 -0.08
Total load Dead only
kN/m
kN/m
Total load Dead only
Dead only
kN/m
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
53/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Wall Design
June 2002
40
Core Wall model, includingimperfections & pD
West WallRequired vertical steel
South & East WallsRequired vertical steel
South & East WallsRequired horizontal steel
West WallRequired horizontal steel
2mm /m
on each face
See next sheet for abbreviated reinforcement summary
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
54/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Wall Design
June 2002
41
BasementLevel
T20@
125
T20 @ 125 T12 @ 200
T20 @ 200
T20@
200
Vertical ReinforcementT10 @ 250 EF UNO
Ground to First
T20@12
5
T25@
100
T25 @ 100
T25 @ 100
T12 @ 175for 1600
T12 @ 200
T20 @ 200
T25@
100
T12@
250
First to 2nd
T12@
175
T12 @ 175
T16 @ 150
T16 @ 150
T16@
150
T16@150
T12 @ 250for 1600
A
B
BC
E
ED
2nd to 3rd
A = T12 @ 200B = T12 @ 250C = T10 @ 250D = T10 @ 250E = T12 @ 150
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
55/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Wall Design 42
June 2002
Ground Floor Transfer
Lintels
Horizontal ReinforcementMax of T10 @ 300 & 25% vertical steel elsewhere
T16@
250=804
T16@
250=804
1 T25 EF 1 T25 EF
Grnd - 1st
1st - 2nd
2nd - 3rd
T16 @ 250 = 804
T12 @ 250 = 452
T10 @ 300 = 262
1 T25 EF
1 T25 EF
1 T25 EF
1 T16 EF
1 T16 EF
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
56/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Retaining Walls
June 2002
43
IDEALISED STRUCTURE and FORCE DIAGRAMS DESIGN STATUS : VALID
DIMENSIONS (mm)H = 3835 B = 1800 Tw = 300
Hw = 1150.5 BI = 450 Tb = 350
He = 3815
MATERIAL PROPERTIESfck = 32 N/mm
2 gc = 1.50 concretefyk = 500 N/mm
2 gs = 1.15 steelCover to tension reinforcement (co) = 40 mm
Allowable design surface crack width (Wmax) = 0.3 mm
Concrete density = 25.0 kN/m
Cement type = N (S, N, R or RS)
Backfill at 21 days
SOIL PROPERTIESDesign angle of int'l friction of retained mat'l () = 30 degree
Design cohesion of retained mat'l (C ) = 0 kN/m (Only granular backfill considered, ie "C" = 0)
Density of retained mat'l (q ) = 20 kN/m
Submerged Density of retained mat'l (qs ) = 13.33 kN/m (default=2/3 of q), only apply when Hw >0
Design angle of int'l friction of base mat'l (b) = 20 degree = 13.33
Design cohesion of base mat'l (Cb ) = 0 kN/m ASSUMPTIONSDensity of base mat'l (qb ) = 10 kN/m a) Wall friction is zero
Allowable gross ground bearing pressure (GBP) = 600 kN/m b) Minimum active earth pressure = 0.25qH
LOADINGS (unfactored) c) Granular backfill
Surcharge load -- live (SQK) = 10 kN/m h) Design not intended for walls over 3.5 m highSurcharge load -- dead (SGK) = 5 kN/m
Line load -- live (LQK) = 0 kN/m
Line load -- dead (LGK) = 0 kN/m
Distance of line load from wall (X) = 250 mm
Wall load -- live (WQK) = 202.17 kN/m
Wall load -- Dead (WGK) = 70.49 kN/m
LATERAL FORCES Ko = 0.50 default Ko = (1-SIN ) = 0.50Kac = 1.41 = 2Ko
Force (kN) Lever arm (m) gf Ultimate Force (kN)PE = 70.56 LE = 1.299 1.35 95.26
PS(GK) = 9.54 LS = 1.91 1.35 12.88PS(QK) = 19.07 LS = 1.91 1.50 28.61
PL(GK) = 0.00 LL = 3.61 1.35 0.00
PL(QK) = 0.00 LL = 3.61 1.50 0.00
PW = 6.62 LW = 0.38 1.50 9.93
Total 105.79 146.68
i)Does not include check for temp or shrinkage effects
Wall Geometry
LL
LWLE L
S
S , S in kN/mGK QK2
L , L in kN/mGK QK
W , W in kN/mGK QK
X
B1
TW
Tb
B
HW
HE H
Propby Ground FloorEXTERNAL
WATER
BASEMENT
Wall on Grid A
114 kg/m
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
57/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
44Retaining Walls
Wall on Grid A
EXTERNAL STABILITY STABILITY CHECK : OK
ANALYSIS - Assumptions & Notes
1) Wall idealised as a propped cantilever ( i.e. pinned at top and fixed at base )
2) Wall is braced.
3) Maximum slenderness of wall is limited to 15, i.e [ 0.9*(He-Tb/2)/Tw < 15 ]
4) Maximum Ultimate axial load on wall is limited to 0.1fck times the wall cross-sectional area
5) Design Span (Effective wall height) = He - (Tb/2)
6) -ve moment is hogging ( i.e. tension at external face of wall )+ve moment is sagging ( i.e. tension at internal face of wall )
7) " Wall MT. " is maximum +ve moment on the wall.
8) Estimated lateral deflections are used for checking the PD effect .
UNFACTORED LOADS AND FORCES
Force Lever arm Base MT. Wall MT. Reaction at Reaction at Estimated Elastic
Lateral Force (kN) to base (m) (kNm) (kNm) Base (kN) Top (kN) Deflection D (mm)
PE = 64.66 1.24 -31.93 14.56 51.56 13.10 0.8
PS(GK) = 9.10 1.82 -4.19 2.35 5.72 3.38 0.2
PS(QK) = 18.20 1.82 -8.37 4.71 11.44 6.76 0.1
PL(GK) = 0.00 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
PL(QK) = 0.00 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0PW = 4.76 0.33 -1.25 0.22 4.68 0.08 0.0
Total 96.72 -45.74 21.85 73.40 23.32 1.1
GROUND BEARING FAILURELOAD CASE: Wall Load MAX 1
Taking moments about centre of base (anticlockwise "+") Surcharge MAX 1
Vertical FORCES (kN) Lever arm (m) Moment(kNm)
Wall load = 272.66 0.30 81.798
Wall (sw) = 26.14 0.30 7.84
Base = 15.75 0.00 0.00
Earth = 28.78 0.68 19.43
Water = 3.60 0.68 2.43Surcharge = 6.75 0.68 4.56
Line load = 0.00 0.70 0.00
V = 353.68 Mv = 116.06
MOMENT due to LATERAL FORCES, Mo = -45.74 kNm
RESULTANT MOMENT, M = Mv + Mo = 70.31 kNm
ECCENTRICITY FROM BASE CENTRE, M / V = 0.20 m
MAXIMUM GROSS BEARING PRESSURE = 326.70 kN/m2 < 600 OK
SLIDING AT BASE (using overall factor of safety instead of partial safety factor) F.O.S = 1.50
SUM of LATERAL FORCES, P = 73.40 kN
BASE FRICTION, Fb = - ( V TANb + B.Cb ) = -128.73 kN
Factor of Safety, Fb / P = 1.75 > 1.50 OK
BEARING PRESSURE (kN/m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.00 1.80
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
58/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
45Retaining Walls
Wall on Grid A
STRUCTURAL DESIGNS (ultimate) DESIGN CHECKS : OKprEN 1992-1
WALL ( per metre length ) reference
AXIAL LOAD CAPACITY ( Limited to 0.1fck ) = 960.00 kN > 398.4165 OK
Force gf Ultimate Ult. Moment Ult. Shear Ult. ShearLateral Force (kN) Force (kN) at base (kNm) at base (kN) at top (kN)
PE = 64.66 1.35 87.29 -43.11 69.61 17.68
PS(GK) = 9.10 1.35 12.28 -5.65 7.72 4.56
PS(QK) = 18.20 1.50 27.30 -12.56 17.16 10.14
PL(GK) = 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PL(QK) = 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PW = 4.76 1.50 7.14 -1.88 7.02 0.12Total 96.72 134.01 -63.20 101.50 32.51
Design Bending Moments
On INTERNAL face due to lateral forces, M int = 29.60 kNm
On EXTERNAL face due to lateral forces, Mext = -63.20 kNm
Eccentricity of Axial Loads = 125 mm 6.1 (3)P
LATERAL DEFLECTION " D " = 1.1 mmDue to eccentricity of axial loads, Mecc = 49.8 kNm
Due to PD effect, Mp = 0.42 kNm
Total Mmt on INTERNAL face (Mint+0.5Mecc+Mp) = 54.9 kNmTotal Mmt on EXTERNAL face (M ext+0.5Mecc) = -88.1 kNm
EXTERNAL FACE INTERNAL FACE
WALL REINFORCEMENT : Min. As = 396 399 mm2
9.2.1.1 (1)
f = 16 12 mmcentres = 200 < 250 200 < 250 mm OK 9.3.1.1 (3) & (4)
Asprov = 1005 > 396 565 > 399 mm2
OK
MOMENT of RESISTANCE : d = 252 254 mm
z = 239.4 241.3 mm Fig 3.5
As' = 0 0 mm2
3.1.7 (3)
Mres = 104.6 > 88.1 59.3 > 54.9 kNm OK
CRACK WIDTHS: X = 79.08 62.43 mm 7.3.4 (2)
esm-ecm = 0.00046 0.00017 (7.9)Wk = 0.145 < 0.3 mm 0.000 < 0.3 mm mm OK
. Section is Uncracke d
BASE of WALL TOP of WALL
SHEAR RESISTANCE: As = 1005 f = 10 @200 mm = 393 mm2/mr = 100As/bd = 0.40% = 0.15%
vRd,ct = 0.530 0.480 N/mm2
(6.2)
Vres = 133.6 > 101.5 121.9 > 32.5 kN OK 6.2.2
REINFORCEMENT SUMMARY for WALL
f centres As Min. As
mm mm mm2
mm2
EXTERNAL FACE T 16 200 1005 396 OK
INTERNAL FACE T 12 200 565 399 OK
TRANSVERSE T 10 300 262 201 OK
Temp & shrinkage effects not included
Type
-100 -50 0 50
0.00
0.73
1.46
2.20
2.93
3.66
EXT MOMENT (kNm) INT
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
59/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
46Retaining Walls
Wall on Grid A
OUTER BASE ( per metre length ) prEN 1992-1Composite gf= 1.41 reference
Ult. Shear = 41.38 kN (AT d from FACE of WALL)
Ult. MT. = 32.75 kNm TENSION - BOTTOM FACE
BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT : Min. As = 478 mm2
9.2.1.1 (1)
f = 12 mmcentres = 200 mm < 400 OK 9.3.1.1 (3) & (4)
Asprov = 565 mm2 > 478 OK
MOMENT of RESISTANCE : d = 304 mm
z = 288.8 mm Fig 3.5
As' = 0 mm2 3.1.7 (3)
Mres = 71.01 kNm > 32.75 OK
SHEAR RESISTANCE: r = 100As/bd = 0.22%vRd,ct = 0.480 N/mm
2(6.2)
Vres = 145.9 kN > 41.38 OK 6.2.2
CRACK WIDTHS: Temp & shrinkage effects not included
X = 69.12 mm esm-ecm = 0.00004 7.3.4 (2)Wk = 0.000 mm < 0.3 mm OK (7.9)
Section is Uncracke d
INNER BASE ( per metre length )
Ult. Shear = -112.41 kN (AT d from FACE of WALL)
Ult. MT. = 97.39 kNm TENSION - BOTTOM FACE
BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT : Min. As = 475 mm2
9.2.1.1 (1)
f = 16 mmcentres = 250 mm < 400 OK 9.3.1.1 (3) & (4)
Asprov = 804 mm2 > 475 OK
MOMENT of RESISTANCE : d = 302 mm
z = 286.9 mm Fig 3.5
As' = 0 mm2
3.1.7 (3)
Mres = 100.32 kNm < 97.39 OK
SHEAR RESISTANCE: r = 100As/bd = 0.27%vRd,ct = 0.480 N/mm
2(6.2)
Vres = 144.9 kN > 112.41 OK 6.2.2
CRACK WIDTHS: Temp & shrinkage effects not included
X = 80.12 mm esm-ecm = 0.00034 7.3.4 (2)Wk = 0.103 mm < 0.3 mm OK (7.9)
.
REINFORCEMENT SUMMARY for BASE
Type f centres As Min. Asmm mm mm
2mm
2
TOP T 12 200 565 475 OK
BOTTOM T 16 250 565 475 OKTRANSVERSE T 8 400 126 113 OK
Wall on Grid 6 Wall on Grid E,similar. 2400 x 500 base due to heavier column loads.
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
60/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
Pad Foundations
June 2002
47
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
61/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
48Pad Foundations
(Base B4 similar, but 3050 sq x 800)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
62/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
EC2 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
49Pad Foundations
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
63/127
Calculations
toBS 8110
July 2002
Comparative Design Study
toEC2 & BS8110
of aTypical RC Framed Structure
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
64/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
1Typical Floor GA
1 hour fire period external exposure = severe internal exposure = moderate.
Slabs, beams and walls - C32/40 concrete. All reinforcement f = 460 N/mm (high bond).y
Imposed dead load = 1.0 kN/m on floors and roof (h same as floors).
Perimeter cladding = 1.0 kN/m on external elevation.
Superimposed load = (4+1) kN/m on floors, 1.5 kN/m on roof.
A
2 64
1 53
B
C
D
E
F
1668
985
625
325
3600
Lineofzerorotat
ion
375 sq
550 sq
550 sq
550 sq 400 sq400 sq
550 sq 375 sq
375 sq 350 f
350 f
350 f350 f
280 Solid slab
Allow for one 150 sq holeat centre of face ofinternal columns
In Ec2 FE analysis, assumefctm = value at10 days.
Composite f values fromAnnex B of EC2.
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
65/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
2Basement GA
Pilecaps and ground bearing slab not included in design.
Ground bearing slab assumed to be 225 thick with 2.5 kN/m imposed load.
Max ground bearing pressure taken as 600 kN/m
.
Foundations & retaining walls - C32/40 concrete - 40mm cover.
Columns and core walls - C48/60 concrete (reducing to 32/40) - 1 hour fire period.
72003600 5050
230063508400
1450
4750
2125
8400
8400
4370
A
2 64
1 53
B
C
D
E
F
Retaining walls resistinggranular backfill with 10
kN/m surcharge andwater pressure to 1mabove basement level.
3150 sq 850base
3600 sq x 1100base
2400 x 4000x 600 base
3000 sq x 850base
1750 x 350 base300 wall
1750x350base
300wall
2250 x 450 base300 wall
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
66/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
3Typical Floor
Typical Floor Loading280 Slab = 6.72 at 24 kN/m
Applied Dead = 1.00
7.72 = Gk
Partitions = 1.00
Imposed = 4.00 Qk = 5.00 kN/m
Total = 12.72 kN/m characteristic
Permant imposed loading = 0.25 x Imposed load 3.3.3; Part 2
Permanent UD load = 7.72 + 0.25 x 5 = 8.97 kN/m
Perimeter line load from cladding = 3.6 kN/m
ULS UD loading = 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk = 18.81 kN/m
Parameters for FE Analysisfcu = 40 N/mm
Ecm28 = 28 kN/mm Table 7.2; Part 2fct = 1.0 N/mm at tensi on steel
Tension stiffening = 0.55 N/mm long-term from Fig 3.1: Part 2
LOADING SEQUENCE kN/m at days
Self weight 6.72 10
Applied dead 2.00 60
Permanent imposed 1.00 60
Variable load 3.00 COMPOSITE E and f VALUESf values from Annex B.1 of EC2
0 Et 0 EtSelf weight 2.60 7.77 2.60 7.77
Applied dead 1.85 9.81 1.85 9.81
Permanent imposed 1.85 9.81 1.85 9.81
Variable load 0 28.00 (t,t0) Et
Composite 2.37 8.30 1.81 9.95 1.18 12.86
Longterm Permanent
To 60 days
Longterm Total
SW + applied dead
Loading regions = as for EC2, but BS 8110 pattern loading applied
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
67/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
4Typical Floor
As REQUIRED BTM X FEM-Design
SecionA
Sec
ionB
WHITE = nominal steel(T12 @ 300)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
68/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
5Typical Floor
FEM-DesignAs REQUIRED BTM Y
SectionC
Section D
WHITE = nominal steel(T12 @ 300)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
69/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
6Typical Floor
FEM-DesignAs REQUIRED TOP X
SectionE
SectionG
SectionH
SectionF
WHITE = nominal steel(T12 @ 300)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
70/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
7Typical Floor
FEM-DesignAs REQUIRED TOP Y
Section J
Section K
Section L
WHITE = nominal steel(T12 @ 300)
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
71/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
8Typical Floor
Section A
Bottom steel X direction
Section B
Section C
Bottom steel Y direction
Section D
T12 @ 150= 754
T12 @ 175= 646
T12 @ 175= 646
T20 @ 175= 1795T16 @ 175
= 1149
T16 @ 225
= 894
T12 @ 200= 565
T16 @ 150
= 1340
T16 @ 250= 804
T12 @ 200= 565
T12 @ 150= 754
T16 @ 200= 1005
T16 @ 250
= 804
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
72/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
9Typical Floor
Top steel X direction
Section F
Section E
Section G
T25 @ 150= 3272
T20 @ 175
= 1795T20 @ 275
= 1142 T16 @ 250
= 804
T16 @ 125= 1608
T20 @ 125= 2513
T12 @ 225
= 503
T12 @ 200
= 565T12 @ 225
= 503
4 T20
in 800=1571
8 T25in 925
=4245
T12 @200
= 565
T12 @200
= 565
T16@150
= 1340
T16@300
= 670
T16@100
= 2011
T20@150
= 1340
T16@100
= 2011
T16@200= 1005
T16@200= 1005
T16@275
= 731
T16@150= 1340
T20@150= 2094
T12@225
= 503
T12@225
= 503
T12@250
= 452
T16@250
= 804
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
73/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
10Typical Floor
Top steel Y direction
Top steel X direction
Section J
Section H
T16@100
= 2011 T16@150= 1340
T12@150
= 754
T12@200= 565
T12@225= 503
T20@100= 3142 T20@125
= 2513T20@225
= 1396 T20@250= 1257 T16@150
= 1340
T12@275= 411
T12@275
= 411T12@250
= 452
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
74/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
Top steel Y direction
Section K
T16@275
= 731T16@250
= 804T12@250
= 452
T20@100
= 3142
T20@200= 1057
T16@225= 894
T20@150= 2094
Section L
T12@225= 503
T12@250= 452
T20@125= 2513
T20@250
= 1257
T25@75= 6545
T25@175
= 2805
11Typical Floor
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
75/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
12Typical Floor
Permanent Load Defelectionswith Applied Reinforcement
All permanent load deflections are
within L/250 limit
2 x 4900/250 = 39.2> 26.6 - 0.3 = 26.3 mm
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
76/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
Dead Only Defelections (f = 1.18)with Applied Reinforcement
Max = 15.4 - 0.2 = 15.2 mm
13Typical Floor
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
77/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
14Typical Floor
Total Load Defelections (f = 1.81)with Applied Reinforcement
Max = 35.1 - 0.3 = 34.8 mm
Max D affecting cladding= 34.8 - 15.2 = 19.6 mm
= L / 500 OK
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
78/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
Full ULS Column Momentswith Applied Reinforcement
15Typical Floor
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
79/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
16Typical Floor
Column Reactions
Full ULSDead onlyFull ULSDead only
128.6
404.2
530.7
254.9
78.8
366.3
145.2
213.4
113.7
360.6
76.1
213.1
154.5
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
80/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
Punching at Column D2B2 and B4 similar
17Typical Floor
Project BS8110 Comparative Design REINFORCED CONCRETE COUNCIL
Client BRE Made by Date Page
Location Column D2 rmw 30-Jun-2002
PUNCHING SHEAR to BS8110:1997 Checked Revision Job No
Originated fromRCC13.xls on CD 1999-2002 BCAfor RCC - 2156
MATERIALS fcu N/mm2 40 STATUS Legend
fyvN/mm2
460VALID DESIGN
link mm 10
DIMENSIONS A mm 500 E mm 250B mm 500 F mm -75
G mm 150 H mm 150
LOADING Vt kN 1299.3 0 0 3397.1ult UDL kN/m2 18.81
SLAB h mm 280 dx mm 242.5 Asx mm2/m 3272
dy mm 220 Asy mm2
/m 3142ave d mm 231.25 ave As % 1.389
RESULTS Veff = 1494.2 kN vc = 0.9458 N/mm2 (Table 3.8)At col. face, v max = 3.480 N/mm2 At 1.5d perimeter, v = 1.4327 N/mm2
At 3d perimeter, v = 0.8775 N/mm2
PROVIDE LINKS (single leg) .
Perimeter 1 115 from col face
Perimeter 2 289 from col face
Perimeter 3 463 from col face
0 00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 Plan0 0
0
COLUMN
INTERNAL
0
10 T10 @ 33514 T10 @ 33018 T10 @ 325
0000
Links not required at perimeter columns
-
7/28/2019 Comparitive Design Study BS8110 vs EC2
81/127
RMW
Project name Project No
Calc sheet No
Date
Part of structure
Drawing ref Calculations by Checked by
CiDConcrete Innovation & Design
BS8110 Comparative Design 2156
June 2002
18Column Loads & Design
Column Design SummaryH B
COLUMN A2 & A4 375 375 SW = 11.7
Dead Imposed Service Ultimate M M - Rebar140.3 19.3
reduction 0.0
140.3 19.3
140.3 64.4
reduction 8.4
280.5 75.4
140.3 64.4
reducti