No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Eurocodes– Overcoming the barriers to global adoption
Abstract
In 2010 the Eurocodes replaced the equivalent national structural design standards in the European Union (EU) member states. They are claimed to be the most technically advanced structural codes in the world and are intended to provide global access to designers. Many non-EU countries with historical connections to the UK are now adopting Eurocodes, though this is primarily due to previously adopted British standards being withdrawn. Unfortunately, adoption outside Europe is proving challenging as it may not be possible to source construction products complying to European product standards listed in Eurocodes. Designers outside Europe are thus faced with the dilemma of identifying what local products and structures can be deemed equivalent, and whether the magnitudes of the partial factors recommended by Eurocodes remain valid. Using steel construction as an example, this paper describes the different approaches that are being used in the Asia-Pacific region and identifies what resources are required to support the EU’s aim of increasing international trade and competitiveness.
... Secondly, Eurocodes are also claimed to be the most technically advanced structural codes in the world and are proposed to provide worldwide access to designers and mostly adopted in countries that having historical relations with UK [21]. At the same time, the Chinese companies working on international projects also use them as a reference [22]. ...
This study presents the seismic performance evaluation of the reinforced concrete (RC) frame designed as per Ethiopian (based on EN1998-1) and Chinese seismic codes to realize best practices within them. In the study, three-model RC frames with 4-, 8-, and 12-story are designed with the respective codes. Then, their seismic performances are evaluated using the nonlinear static (pushover) procedures of FEMA 356 and ATC 40 provisions. To validate the analysis result, dynamic nonlinear time history analysis is also made. The comparison parameters include elastic stiffness, peak strength, target displacement, and plastic hinge formation patterns in the structures. The results display many similarities in the global and local performances of the structures. Despite these, some noteworthy discrepancies are also noted. Besides, the performance point analysis revealed a significant difference in target displacement that reflects the two codes’ demand spectrum essential disagreements, particularly for the period of vibration greater than 2.0’s. In conclusion, the study highlighted the beneficial aspects of both codes, which will be useful for the future studies.
... Applicability of these requirements to imported steels is considered to be limited. Therefore, AS/NZS 1554.1 recommends considering verification testing in these cases, which can be restrictive [39]. ...
This paper develops a new method to select steel grades manufactured to Australian and New Zealand standards. The current materials selection procedure is currently given in the design standards AS 4100, NZS 3404.1 and AS/NZS 5100.6, which is based on test data on the notch toughness characteristics from a previous generation of steel products originally manufactured in Australia or New Zealand. The existing procedure is limited to temperatures down to −40 °C. Moreover, it does not consider the effect of welding, detailing, stress utilisation, seismic loading rates, defects and other important factors. This paper includes a critical review of other international material selection procedures, before preparing a new design method based on fracture mechanics. The method extends the temperature range down to −120 °C, which is much lower than considered in many other international standards. It also includes New Zealand specific requirements for seismic loading rates. In comparison with the new method, it is demonstrated that the current materials selection procedure is much more conservative for plate thickness up to 75 mm for non-seismic design. The paper presents selection tables that can be considered for the development of new brittle fracture provisions for future versions of the Australian and New Zealand steel structures design standards.
... Provided that an alternative steel product is manufactured to a national standard recognized by these two guides, the steel mill is required to supply: a factory production control (FPC) certificate issued by a notified body; and a test certificate for each batch of steel product delivered to the project issued by an independent third-party inspection agency (the latter is consistent with the level of traceability required by EN 1090-2 [7] for grade S355JR and S355J0 steel in EXC2, EXC3 and EXC4 structures). Depending on the alternative steel product satisfying certain requirements [8], three product classes are defined with different partial factor values, viz. Class 1 with γ M0 = 1.0 (i.e. ...
This study evaluates the performance of the design equations given in the Australian/New Zealand bridge and steel structures design standards AS 5100.6, AS 4100 and NZS 3404.1 based on reliability analysis. For this evaluation, the following two methods were utilised: (i) a capacity factor calibration method to meet the target reliability level when there are a limited number of steel yield strength tests; and (ii) an inverse reliability analysis method to calculate the required minimum number of steel yield strength tests to achieve the target reliability level when using capacity factors provided in the design standards. The methods were applied to steel and composite members including I-beams, hollow section columns, CFST columns, and composite beams. To ensure the adoptability of imported steel for these members, structural steel that conforms to European, Korean, Japanese, American, Chinese and Australasian manufacturing standards were considered in the analyses. The results showed that, for an infinite range of manufacturing data, the capacity factors were insensitive to the different manufacturing tolerances. Furthermore, when a limited number of mechanical tests were available, a much larger number of results were needed to achieve the target capacity factor for composite members in comparison with non-composite members. Finally, when considering hollow sections used as columns, the current design equations were unable to deliver the target reliability levels for any of the manufacturing standards used internationally.
During the past decades, significant advances have been made in the field of structural design and the use of probability-based safety methods. The motivation to use such methods is clear: By conducting probability-based analyses, designers can propose more comprehensive design models due to the exploitation of reserves, while simultaneously guaranteeing a certain safety level for structural components or systems. With reduced partial safety factors, material consumption can be lowered, and economic and sustainable gains can be attained. Notwithstanding, despite the seemingly sound logic for the use of probability-based approaches, a widespread acceptance by the designing communities might not have fully occurred yet. To this, the product regulatory framework seems to play a relevant role. By targeting practitioners of structural products manufacturing, this paper investigates the perceived challenges to adopt probability-based methods through a survey questionnaire. The results confirm that these practitioners still experience difficulties in recognising the add-value of all the regulations and in homogeneously adopting their provisions during product design procedures. Consequently, alleged difficulties associated with the interpretation of regulations raise concerns regarding the safety level of certain design decisions. This seems to introduce additional barriers to modern design practices regarding the adoption of these approaches, which already lack popularity amongst professionals for being perceived as complex and somewhat difficult to fit in the current regulatory framework. The results of this investigation are relevant to setup a Guideline that is being developed in Germany aiming at supporting and encouraging the adoption of probability-based safety methods.KeywordsStructural Products ManufacturersProbability-based Safety Methods
Construction Products RegulationGuideline
This study conducts a capacity factor calibration for steel and steel-concrete composite columns with helical seam pipe (also known as spiral welded tube) sections considering the following three member types: (i) steel columns under axial compression, (ii) concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) under axial compression, and (iii) CFSTs under combined axial compression and uniaxial bending due to load eccentricity. The calibration has been conducted for both forward and inverse reliability analyses. The forward analysis calibrates the capacity factor of steel contribution in the design models given in NZS 3404.1, AS 4100, AS/NZS 5100.6 and AS/NZS 2327 to meet the target reliability level provided in both ISO 2394 and AS 5104 when using API 5L products in non-composite and composite column applications. Whilst the inverse analysis estimates the required minimum number of steel tensile tests when the target reliability level and the capacity factors are all provided. In these analyses, a total of 68 experimental data collected from the literature are utilised to estimate the modelling uncertainty in terms of bias and scatter. For all member types, the design models achieve similar or higher reliability than the target reliability, and the corresponding required minimum amount of steel material tests are calculated and provided.
The performance of the design equations given in the Australian Bridge and Steel Standards AS 5100.6 and AS 4100 have been evaluated when structural steel is used that conforms with the tolerances within the following overseas manufacturing standards: EN 10034, KS D 3502, JIS F 3192, JIS A 5526, ASTM A6/A6M-07 and AS/NZS 5100.6. From a consideration of the experimental results from full-scale bending tests, reliability analyses according to AS 5104:2005/IS0 2394:1998 and EN 1990 were conducted. From these analyses, a capacity factor of between 0.93 and 0.95 was determined for beams that have compact, not-compact and non-compact cross-sections when a target reliability index of 3.04 was used, based on the standardised FORM (first order reliability method) sensitivity factor for resistance given in AS 5104:2005/IS0 2394:1998. This finding demonstrates that the capacity factor of 0.90 given in AS 4100 and AS 5100.6 for beams in bending is on the conservative side for steel sections complying with overseas manufacturing standards, and supports the design practice that has been adopted in NZS 3404.1 for the last 35 years.
The terms safety and reliability play a crucial role in building and civil engineering. The safety formats used in this context are as much subject to evolution as are construction methods and materials. With the aim of harmonizing the technical regulations of EU member states, with the introduction of DIN EN 1990 Eurocode EN 1990 is established as a national standard. Like the latest valid German standard DIN 1055-100, the current semi-probabilistic safety concept of DIN EN 1990 applies partial safety factors to actions as well as resistance. In this respect DIN EN 1990 does not include a new safety concept but, compared with DIN 1055-100, expands the range of theoretical reliability aspects through differentiation by consequences classes. The resulting potentials will be shown and, to address the problems of possible combinations of actions arising from the semi-probabilistic safety concept, a study will be presented on the identification of decisive combinations. Finally, potential safety deficits concerning the definition of service life in accordance with DIN EN 1990 are pointed out.
Half TitleEditorial BoardTitleCopyrightTable of ContentsForewordPreface
The performance of the design equations given in the Australian Bridge and Steel Standards AS 5100.6 and AS 4100 have been evaluated when structural steel is used that conforms with the tolerances within the following overseas manufacturing standards: EN 10034, KS D 3502, JIS F 3192, JIS A 5526, ASTM A6/A6M-07 and AS/NZS 5100.6. From a consideration of the experimental results from full-scale bending tests, reliability analyses according to AS 5104: 2005/ISO 2394:1998 and EN 1990 were conducted. From these analyses, a capacity factor of between 0.93 and 0.95 was determined for beams that have compact, not-compact and non-compact cross-sections when a target reliability index of 3.04 was used, based on the standardised FORM (fi rst order reliability method) sensitivity factor for resistance given in AS 5104: 2005/ISO 2394:1998. This fi nding demonstrates that the capacity factor of 0.90 given in AS 4100 and AS 5100.6 for beams in bending is on the conservative side for steel sections complying with overseas manufacturing standards, and supports the design practice that has been adopted in NZS 3404.1 for the last 35 years.
The completed set of Eurocodes is on course to become the world's leading suite of structural design standards by 2010. Haig Gulvanessian, chairman of the ICE/IStructE Eurocodes Expert initiative, says design engineers in the UK are better placed than most to exploit them.
Directive 89/106/EEC Council Directive of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products
EC (European Community) (1989) Directive 89/106/EEC Council Directive
of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction
products. Official Journal of the European Communities L40/12.
Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC
EU (European Union) (2011) Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised
conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing
Council Directive 89/106/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union
L88/5.
International Organization for Standardization and European Committee for Standardization) (1991) ISO Council Resolution 18/1990 and the CEN General Assembly Resolution 3/1990 (Vienna Agreement)
- Cen Iso
ISO and CEN (International Organization for Standardization and European
Committee for Standardization) (1991) ISO Council Resolution 18/1990
and the CEN General Assembly Resolution 3/1990 (Vienna Agreement).
Atmospheric icing of structures
- Iso
ISO (2001) ISO 12494: 2001 Atmospheric icing of structures. ISO, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Actions from waves and currents on coastal structures
- Iso
ISO (2007) ISO 21650: 2007 Actions from waves and currents on coastal
structures. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dimensions, mass and permissible variations of hot rolled steel sections
JIS (Japanese Standards Association) (2005) JIS G 3192: 2005. Dimensions,
mass and permissible variations of hot rolled steel sections. JIS, Tokyo,
Japan.
Eurocode No 4: Common Unified Rules for Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. Commission of the European Communities
- R P Johnson
- G H Mathieu
- K Roik
- Jwb Stark
Johnson RP, Mathieu GH, Roik K and Stark JWB (1985) Eurocode No 4:
Common Unified Rules for Composite Steel and Concrete Structures.
Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, report EUR
9886 EN.
Use of EN Eurocodes Outside EU-EFTA
JRC (Joint Research Centre) (2015) Use of EN Eurocodes Outside EU-EFTA.
See http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/showpage.php?id=8 (accessed
14/04/2015).
Steel and composite construction
SA (2004) AS 5100.6: 2004 Bridge design, Part 6: Steel and composite
construction. SA, Sydney, Australia.
Eurocodes Plus -Making Eurocodes Simple, The Day After Eurocodes, BSI Hong Kong Symposium
- J Tomlinson
Tomlinson J (2014) Eurocodes Plus -Making Eurocodes Simple, The Day After
Eurocodes, BSI Hong Kong Symposium 2014, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon
Annual Crude Steel Production Per Country and Region
- Worldsteel
Worldsteel (2014a) Annual Crude Steel Production Per Country and Region
1980-2013. Worldsteel, Belgium, Brussels. See http://www.worldsteel.org/
statistics/statistics-archive/annual-steel-archive.html (accessed 14/04/2015).
Steel Statistical Yearbook
- Worldsteel
Worldsteel (2014b) Steel Statistical Yearbook 2014. Worldsteel, Belgium,
Brussels. See http://www.Worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/
yearbook-archive.html (accessed 14/04/2015).
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures -Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
- Bs En
BSI (2004a) BS EN 1994-1-1: 2004: Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel
and concrete structures -Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
BSI, London, UK.
BS EN 10025-1: 2004: Hot rolled products of structural steels -Part 1: General technical delivery conditions
BSI (2004b) BS EN 10025-1: 2004: Hot rolled products of structural steels -Part 1: General technical delivery conditions. BSI, London, UK.
Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures -Part 2: Technical requirements for steel structures
BSI (2008) BS EN 1090-2: 2008+A1: 2011: Execution of steel structures and
aluminium structures -Part 2: Technical requirements for steel structures.
BSI, London, UK.
Partial Safety Factors for Resistance of Steel Elements to EC3 and EC4 -Calibration for Various Steel Products and Failure Criteria
- B Charbrolin
Charbrolin B (2002) Partial Safety Factors for Resistance of Steel Elements
to EC3 and EC4 -Calibration for Various Steel Products and Failure
Criteria. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg, EUR 20344 EN.
Eurocode No 3: Common Unified Rules for Steel Structures. Commission of the European Communities
- P J Dowling
- L Finzi
- J Janss
Dowling PJ, Finzi L, Janss J et al. (1984) Eurocode No 3: Common Unified
Rules for Steel Structures. Commission of the European Communities,
Luxembourg, report EUR 8849 DE EN FR.
What do you think?
If you would like to comment on this paper, please email up to 200 words
to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk.
Eurocode -Basis of structural design
- Bs En
BSI (2002) BS EN 1990: 2002+A1: 2005. Eurocode -Basis of structural
design. BSI, London, UK.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures -Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
- Bs En
BSI (2005) BS EN 1993-1-1: 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures -Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. BSI, London, UK.