Proceedings of ICE

EN1992 Eurocode 2:
Civil Engineering 144 November 2001
Pages 23–28 Paper 12643
Design of concrete structures
Keywords R. S. Narayanan
codes of practice & standards;
concrete structures;
design methods & aids

EN1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures is of

fundamental importance to civil engineers given the
predominance of concrete in civil engineering construction.The
first part of the code, covering common design rules and design
requirements for fire, is likely to be approved in January 2002
and should be released in EN standard form by 2003.The second
and third parts, covering design of bridges and liquid-retaining
structures respectively, are due for release in 2005.This paper
Nary Narayanan looks primarily at the two sections that make up the first part.
It explains the principles of ultimate and serviceability limit
is a consultant to Cadogan Tietz
state design and the requirements for shear, durability and fire
in particular. It also lists the other European standards to which
concrete designers will need to refer.

The preparation of the first part of • structural analysis

EN1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete • ultimate limit state
structures is well advanced. In January • serviceability limit state
2002, the drafts for the two sections • detailing of reinforcement
should be approved by the Comité • detailing of members
Européen de Normalisation (CEN)—the • additional rules for precast elements
European standardisation body—as being and structures
technically competent to go forward for • lightweight aggregate concrete
voting by member states. The voting itself • plain concrete.
has been programmed for May 2002 for
EN1991-1-1 and July 2002 for EN1991- There are separate parts dealing with
1-2. If a positive vote is received, the EN the design of bridges (part 2) (Fig. 1) and
(EuroNorm) standards are likely to come liquid retaining structures (part 3). These
into force in spring 2003. Subject to vari- are expected to be released in EN form in
ous CEN rules for coexistence of codes, 2005.
conflicting UK code BS 8110 will be This second section of the first part of
withdrawn soon after that date. EN1992 (EN1992-1-2) deals with the
The first section of the first part of design of concrete structures exposed to
Eurocode 2 (EN1991-1-1) gives the gener- fire. It is concerned with the passive resis-
al basis for the design of structures in rein- tance of the structure—active methods of
forced and prestressed concrete made with fire protection are not covered by this
normal and lightweight concrete together part. The general recommendations are
with specific rules for building structures. limited to concrete strength classes up to
The application rules given are mainly C50/60 for normal-weight concrete and
aimed at building structures. class LC55/60 for lightweight concrete.
When published, EN1992-1-1 will There is a separate chapter dealing with
replace not only the pre-standard high-strength concrete.
ENV1992-1-1 (ENV stands for EuroNorm The code starts with basic principles,
Vornorm) but also the pre-standards for followed by material properties at elevat-
plain concrete (part 1-2), pre-cast concrete ed temperatures, then various design
(part 1-3), use of lightweight concrete methods and ends with a chapter on high-
(part 1-4) and the use of unbonded and strength concrete.
external prestressing tendons (part 1-5).
The new code will thus be a more com- Related Eurocodes and product
prehensive document than its predecessor. standards
The scope is similar to many current EN1992-1-1 belongs to a family of
national codes in Europe. The main chap- Eurocodes for concrete. Other main
ters of the first part of the code deal with codes/standards relevant to practising
concrete design engineers are
• basis of design
• materials • EN1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural
• durability design

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G 23
 NARAYANAN

Fig. 1. Specific rules for concrete bridge design will be provided in the second part of Eurocode 2, due out in 2005

• ENV13670 Execution of concrete for material to be applied in the nation the symbol fck (characteristic values of
structures concerned. The items to be covered in the parameters are denoted by k and design
• EN206-1-2000 Concrete: perfor- national annex are very limited—six in values—which are the characteristic val-
mance, production, placing and com- 1992-1-1 and three in 1992-1-2. ues modified by a partial safety factor—
pliance criteria The date of publication of the related are denoted by d).
• BS 8500 (parts 1–4, complementary documents cannot be predicted with cer- The quality control of concrete can still
British Standard to EN206) tainty. The following is anticipated. be carried out using the conventional
• prEN10080 Reinforcement steels EN1990 together with a number of load- cube test and the code tabulates the rela-
• prEN10138 Pre-stressing steels. ing codes are likely to precede the publi- tionship between the cylinder and cube
cation of EN1992-1-1. EN206 has already strengths. For fck values up to 60 MPa the
Of these, EN1990 is fundamental to been published and the complementary cube strengths can be approximately
designers as it specifies partial factors for British Standard is expected to be pub- taken as 1⋅25 × cylinder strength. The
loads and load combinations.1 There will lished soon. The product standards will code recommendations are valid for fck
also be a number of product standards for follow closely after the publication of values in the range 12 MPa–90 MPa for
particular precast concrete products (Fig. EN1992-1-1. normal concrete.
2). These may provide additional design In common with other Eurocodes, In Eurocode 2 the sign convention for
rules complementing those in EN1992-1- Eurocode 2 adopts limit-state design prin- compressive stress is negative.
1. Product standards currently in prepara- ciples and verification by the partial-factor For partial factors for loads and actions,
tion include method. In general, ultimate and service- all Eurocodes are required to refer to
ability limit states are considered. EN1990 Eurocode: Basis for structural
• EN1168-1 Pre-stressed hollow-core design,1 which provides recommended
elements Design expressions based on values. The actual values to be used in
• EN1168-2 Reinforced hollow-core ele- cylinder strength of concrete any country will be indicated in their
ments All the expressions in the code use the respective national annex.
• EN13743 Precast floor plates (parts cylinder strength of concrete, the charac- The recommended values of partial fac-
1–3) teristic value of which is represented by tors for ‘permanent’ dead loads (γG) is 1⋅35
• EN13224 Ribbed elements (1⋅4 in BS 8110) and for ‘variable’ imposed
• EN13225 Linear structural elements loads (γQ) is 1⋅5 (1⋅6 in BS 8110). Wind
• WI 002 290 10 Beams and block load is treated as any other imposed load
floor systems and γQ of 1⋅5 applies. The recommended
• WI 002 290 04 Stairs. value for partial factor on pre-stressing
loads (γp) is 1⋅0 when it is favourable and
Eurocode 2 along with the other design 1⋅3 when it is unfavourable.
Eurocodes 3–9 is generally expected to be Eurocode 2 recommends values for par-
used in conjunction with EN1991 tial factors for materials γM and these are
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures.2 Other also to be confirmed by national annexes.
loading codes can also be used but the The recommended values are shown in
designer should then be satisfied that Table 1. Partial factors for materials for
overall reliability of design is adequate. Fig. 2. Structural concrete designers will also serviceability limit states is 1⋅0. Annex A
When published, EN1992-1-1 and 1-2 need to refer to EN standards for concrete indicates possible methods of reducing
will contain national annexes, which will products, such as EN1168-2 for reinforced the values of γM on the basis of quality-
hollow-core elements
deal with matters such as partial factors control measures.

24 C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
 EN1992 EUROCODE 2:
DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

‘‘ ’’
The durability requirements of Eurocode 2 are related to the exposure classes
defined in EN206

Table 1. Partial factors to be used for concrete materials in verifying ultimate limit state

Design situation Partial safety factors

Concrete (γc) Steel reinforcement (γs) Prestressing tendons (γs)
forcement. It will also allow the selection
of the best concrete for each situation.
EN206 specifies in appendix F the mini-
Permanent and variable 1⋅5 1⋅15 1⋅15 mum cement content, maximum
Accidental 1⋅2 1⋅0 1⋅0 water–cement ratio, minimum air content
BS 8110 comparison 1⋅5 (but 1⋅25 for shear, 1⋅05 1⋅05
and other requirements. Indicative
1⋅4 for bond) strength classes which are likely to satisfy
the requirements of minimum cement con-
tent and maximum water-cement ratios
Table 2. Minimum cover requirements for Eurocode 2 exposure classes and how these compare are given in annex C of EN1992-1-1.
with BS8110 (without allowance for tolerances)
Table 4.3 of Eurocode 2 gives the mini-
Exposure class XO XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4 XD1 XD2 XD3 XS1 XS2 XS3 mum cover requirements for various expo-
Cover requirement (mm) Eurocode 2 10 15 25 30 45 45 sure classes. The cover shown in
construction drawings should include an
BS 8110
comparison 15–20 15–30 25–45 45
additional allowance for tolerance. A value
of 10 mm has been recommended in
EN13670 Execution of concrete structures.
The code lists many relevant design Many designers will find EN10080, the There are only approximate compar-
parameters in Table 3.1. Values for creep standard for reinforcement steel, very isons of the exposure classes in Eurocode
and shrinkage are given but these need unusual as it only specifies general require- 2 and in BS 8110 (Table 2). Unlike the
only be used in the absence of better data ments and definitions for the essential British Standard, Eurocode 2 provides no
for particular concretes. In addition to properties. It also only specifies the tests explicit guidance on the trade-off between
drying shrinkage, it is now required to to be carried out to verify the properties cover and concrete strength.
consider autogenous shrinkage, which declared by the manufacturer and does
occurs during the hardening of the con- not specify any properties itself. Eurocode All proven methods of structural
crete. It is proportional to the strength of 2 has thus been compelled to provide the analysis acceptable
concrete and is therefore significant for data necessary for designers. These are Any proven method of structural analy-
high strength concrete. listed in Table 3.4 of the code and they sis appropriate to the problem being con-
Stress-strain relationships for structural include yield strength, ductility parameters sidered is acceptable. Thus linear elastic
analysis and section design are provided. (three classes), bendability requirements methods, with and without redistribution,
For the latter there are three choices and bond characteristics. Three ductility and plastic methods (static methods such
classes are included, namely classes as strip and strut-and-tie and kinematic
• parabolic rectangular A(least ductile), B and C (most ductile). methods such as yield-line) can be used.
• bilinear The code is valid for steels, covered by The redistribution formula currently in
• rectangular. EN10080, with yield strength up to 600 the draft is
MPa. By implication plain bars are not
Most practical designs will be carried out recognised by Eurocode 2 as they are not δ ≥ 0⋅4 + [0⋅6 + (0⋅0014/εcu)] (χ/d)
using the simplified rectangular stress block covered by EN10080. ≥ 0⋅7 for class B and C reinforcement
as shown in Fig. 3. The value of λ is 0⋅8 for ≥ 0⋅8 for class A reinforcement
fck up to and including 50 MPa and 0⋅9 – Durability to meet one of six
(fck/500) for fck over 50 MPa. The value of categories of exposure In this expression δ is the ratio of the
the compressive stress is fcd = fck/γc. The The durability requirements of Eurocode redistributed moment to the elastic bend-
resulting stresses will be considerably high- 2 are related to the exposure classes defined ing moment, χ is the depth of the neutral
er than currently used in the UK, so the UK in EN206. Six classes are designated axis after redistribution, d is the effective
national annex is likely to reduce them. depth and εcu is the ultimate strain. This
• no risk of corrosion (XO) formula is the subject of further discus-
εcu3 fcd • corrosion induced by carbonation sion and may change.
(XC1 to XC4) Unlike the pre-standard ENV version,
Fc
Ac x λx • corrosion induced by chlorides (XD1 the EN version of Eurocode 2 now deals
to XD3) with the second-order effects (such as
d
• corrosion induced by chlorides from slender columns) under analysis, which is
As Fc sea water (XS1 to XS3) logical. For individual members, three
εs • freeze-thaw attack (XF1 toXF4) methods are given
• chemical attack (XA1 to XA3).
Fig. 3. The simplified rectangular stress block is • general
likely to be the most frequently used of the three
stress-strain methods provided in Eurocode 2
The idea of this elaborate classification • nominal stiffness
is to clarify the risks to concrete and rein- • curvature.

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G 25
 NARAYANAN

Compression chord Strut Shear to be checked by variable

V cot θ strut inclination method
Fcd
1 z
The shear checks are now to be carried
α M
d 2 N out using only the variable strut inclina-
θ z = 0.9d
1 z tion method. The basic model is shown in
2 V
V Fig. 4. The resistance of members without
Ftd shear reinforcement is given by
s Tensile chord Shear reinforcement

VRd,ct = [(018/γc) κ (100ρl fck)0⋅333 – 0⋅15σcp]bwd

where κ is a size factor with values

between 1⋅0 and 2⋅0, ρl is the area of lon-
gitudinal reinforcement expressed as a
fraction of (bwd) and σcp is the axial stress
bw if any. Fig. 5 shows the values of VRd, ct
bw = (b1 + b2)/2 for different values of ρl and three values
of member depth for fck = 20 MPa.
If shear reinforcement is required it is
b1 bw obtained from the following for vertical
b2
links

Fig. 4. Basic model for checking shear resistance of reinforced concrete sections
As,w V 1
= b ED
bss w.d 0.9fywdcotθ
Criteria for neglecting the second-order are similar to those in BS 8110.
effects are the same as before The ultimate limit-state requirements
for the design of members in bending where VED is the applied shear force,
λ ≤ 25(2- (M01/M02)) with or without axial forces have not fywd is the design yield strength of shear
changed. However, the value of the con- reinforcement, bw is the web width and s
where the slenderness ratio λ = effec- crete stress in the ENV pre-standard was is the spacing of links. The value of cot θ
tive length/radius of gyration and M01 α fcd, with a general value of α = 0⋅85. should lie between 2⋅5 and 1⋅0.
and M02 are the first-order moments in Now α = 1⋅0. This means that the Maximum value of the applied shear
non-sway frames. moment of resistance of sections (based stress is limited to
Limited calibration suggests that the on concrete strength) will be higher than
proposals for the curvature method give in the pre-standard. Similarly, there will
VED 0.9 υ fcd
similar results to the ENV version and be some enhancement in the axial load [ ] max =
bw.d (cotθ + tanθ )
BS 8110. The nominal stiffness method capacity of columns when controlled by
appears to be more conservative. compression—that is for combinations of
At the request of the UK, a section on axial load and bending moment above the where υ = 0⋅6[1–fck/250]. There are
flat slabs is now included. The provisions balance point in the interaction diagram. requirements for minimum and maximum

VRd,ct 0⋅9 VEd 0⋅8

d=200mm
bc*d 0⋅8 bc*d 0⋅7
fck = 50 N 2
[ mm2 ] 0⋅6 mm
[ ]
N 0⋅7
mm2
0⋅6
d=500mm
0⋅5
0⋅5 d=1000mm 0⋅4
fd = 20 N 2 d = 500mm
0⋅4 0⋅3 mm
fck = 20 N 2 ρ1 = 1⋅00%
0⋅3 mm 0⋅2
0⋅2 Act 0⋅1 fywd = 460 = 400 N 2
1⋅15 mm
pe =
0⋅08

0⋅12

0⋅1 bc*d 0⋅0

0⋅0 0⋅2 0⋅4 0⋅6 0⋅8 1⋅0 1⋅2 1⋅4 1⋅6 1⋅8 2⋅0
0⋅0 Asw[%]
0⋅0 0⋅2 0⋅4 0⋅6 0⋅8 1⋅0 1⋅2 1⋅4 1⋅6 1⋅8 2⋅0
cot
2⋅5 1⋅0 ρw = *
cot s bw
100ρ1 2⋅5 1⋅0

Fig. 6. Determining relationship between shear reinforcement (rw) and

Fig. 5. How shear resistance (VRd,ct) of concrete elements without shear
applied shear force (VED) for two different concrete strengths (fck) using
reinforcement varies with longitudinal reinforcement (rl) and depth (d)
the variable strut inclination metho

26 C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
 EN1992 EUROCODE 2:
DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES

‘‘
Generally the results of Eurocode 2 and BS8110 will be comparable

reinforcement. Fig. 6 shows a typical rela-

tionship between the various parameters
discussed above for concrete strengths
fck = 20 MPa and 50 MPa, for a beam
the three aspects covered are

•
•
stress checks
crack control
’’
pre-standard. The partial factor for concrete
is 1⋅8 instead of 1⋅5 for reinforced concrete

Designing for accidental fire

with d = 500 mm and ρl = 1%. • deflection control. This second section of the first part of
Torsion is treated exactly in the same Eurocode 2 (EN1992-1-2) deals with the
way as it was in the ENV pre-standard, The clauses dealing with stress checks design of concrete structures exposed to
that is all cross sections are transformed are now reduced to two principles leaving fire. It is supplementary to the first sec-
into hollow sections and the shear flow in the limiting values for stresses to national tion for normal-temperature design. The
the hollow section is then considered. annexes. Historically, the UK has not recommendations apply to design situa-
Expressions are given for shear and longi- checked stresses at serviceability in rein- tions in which fire is an accidental
tudinal reinforcement. forced concrete. action—that is, it does not apply to struc-
The capacity of a member subject to There are differences to the clauses tures permanently exposed to elevated
shear and torsion simultaneously, is gov- dealing with cracking compared to the temperatures. The methods given are
erned by the following interaction rela- ENV pre-standard. These relate to the applicable to concrete grades up to 50
tionships strain in the reinforcement to be used and MPa for normal concrete and 55 MPa for
the formula for maximum crack spacing. lightweight concrete. For higher-strength
2 2 The final shape of these are yet to be concretes, guidance is given in chapter 5
( )( )
TED
TRd,max
+
VED
VRd,max
for solid
≤ 1 cross
sections
agreed. The provisions for control of
cracking without direct calculations are
but with some limitations.
The aim of fire design is to provide the
given by way of tables for maximum bar structure with
( )( )
TED
TRd,max
+
VED
VRd,max
for hollow
≤ 1 cross
sections
diameters and some spacing for various
levels of steel stress. • adequate load-bearing capacity for the
The most significant difference in the duration
TEd and VEd are the applied torsion and section dealing with deflection is the inclu- • adequate insulation to limit the tem-
shear respectively and TRd,max and VRd,max sion of a formula for span/depth ratios. perature rise on the far side of the
are the maximum capacities controlled by The UK always felt that the table in the structure not exposed to fire
the failure of struts in the model. ENV pre-standard was too simplistic and • adequate integrity to prevent the for-
Punching shear is checked at the basic unduly conservative. The use of the for- mation of cracks that will allow the
control perimeter 2d from the face of the mulae is likely to result in span-depth passage of fire and gases.
load. For rectangular loaded areas, the ratios comparable to current UK practice.
perimeter is rounded at the corners. Requirements for spacing of bars, The time-temperature relationship to be
Expressions are given for shear reinforce- bends, laps and anchorages are similar to used is the curve defined in EN13501-1
ment when the resistance at the basic those in the ENV pre-standard. Minimum for fully developed fire in a compartment.
control perimeter exceeds that of con- and maximum amounts of reinforcement Three types of structural analysis are per-
crete. This formula is still under debate. for various member types are also given. mitted
EN1992-1-1 gives better guidance for For flexural members, minimum steel is
design using strut-and-tie models. These 0⋅13% and the maximum is 4%. • member
models are powerful design tools in dis- Minimum shear reinforcement is related • part of the structure
continuity regions where plane sections to the steel and concrete strengths. For • global.
cannot be assumed to be plane. Members commonly used grades of concrete, it is
with holes and notches can also be around 0⋅10% for high-tensile links and Design using tabulated data comes
designed using these models. 0⋅18% for mild steel links. For columns under member analysis although this
Generally the results of Eurocode 2 and the minimum and maximum steel per- approach does not involve any structural
BS 8110 will be comparable. If the UK centages are 0⋅2% and 4% respectively analysis.
national annex allows higher values for Additional requirements are given for When calculations are undertaken,
compression stress blocks, some members lightweight concrete, which the code EN1990 recommends the following load
now reinforced for compression will not defines as concrete having a closed struc- combination
need to be. However, the status quo is like- ture and air oven-dry density not exceed-
ly to prevail. The shear design in Eurocode ing 2200 kg/m3. The strength range is Gk + ψ1Qk + Ad
2 will be more economic, particularly for from fck = 12 MPa to 80 MPa. The
high strengths of concrete. There will be strength class designations for lightweight where Gk is the characteristic dead load,
very little difference in column design. concrete are prefixed with LC. The value Qk is the characteristic imposed load, ψ1
of α for the stress block for lightweight is the combination factor (with value less
Serviceability stresses need to be concrete is 0⋅85. than 1⋅0) and Ad is the accidental action.
checked The design provisions for plain concrete There is a debate at present whether a
In verifying serviceability limit states, do not differ significantly from the ENV lower factor than ψ1 should be used.

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G 27
 NARAYANAN

The code permits simplifications for the allowance for the risk of spalling is built tice but inevitably they will need to go
various analyses. It is also stated that into the tabulated data, where the mois- through a learning curve. On the whole
member analysis is sufficient to establish ture content is less than 3%. In the interi- the designs resulting from the two codes
the resistance with respect to standard or of most buildings with low humidity are likely to be reasonably comparable.
fire. Partial factors for materials are to be this is likely to be the case. Where neces- A number of initiatives are already
confirmed in national annexes but the rec- sary the local loss of cover concrete could afoot to produce design aids, manuals and
ommended value is 1⋅0 for both concrete be taken into account and a reduced load books on Eurocode 2 and these should
and reinforcement. bearing capacity arrived at. In general sur- assist the practitioner. It is hoped that the
face reinforcement should be provided above summary is also helpful.
Using tabular data for fire design when the cover is 50 mm or more.
In practice the majority of structures are Chapter 5 gives guidance for high-
designed using tabular data. The informa- strength concrete. A number of anti-
tion given is similar to that found in spalling measures are recommended and References
BS 8110 but considerably greater empha- at least one of these is required to be 1. GULVANESSIAN H. EN1990 Eurocode:
sis is given to detailing requirements. incorporated in the design. These include Basis for structural design (this issue).
Good detailing is essential for structures 2. ENV13670 Execution of concrete struc-
to survive fire conditions. The data have • surface reinforcement tures, CEN, Brussels.
been assembled on the basis of tests con- • protective layers 3. EN206-1-2000 Concrete: performance,
ducted in various countries in Europe. • addition of propylene fibres production, placing and compliance crite-
Minimum dimensions and axis distance • testing to demonstrate that the risk is ria, CEN, Brussels.
(the distance from the face of a member acceptable. 4. BS 8500 (parts 1–4, complementary
to the centre of the reinforcement) are British Standard to EN206), BSI, 2000.
given for slabs, beams, columns and walls The general verification procedure for 5. prEN10080 Reinforcement steels, CEN,
for fire periods from 30 minutes to 240 normal-strength concrete can also be used Brussels.
minutes. Where the reinforcement is in for high-strength concrete. The tabular 6. prEN10138 Pre-stressing steels, CEN,
several layers, the concept of weighted method for columns will be valid if the Brussels.
average is accepted to determine the axis axis distance is increased by 35%. For 7. EN1168-1 Pre-stressed hollow-core ele-
distance. The critical temperature beams and slabs the tabulated axis dis- ments, CEN, Brussels.
assumed is 500°C for reinforcement, tance values are required to be increased 8. EN1168-2 Reinforced hollow-core ele-
400°C for pre-stressing bars 300°C for by 10%. ments, CEN, Brussels.
strands and wires. The values of axis-dis- Other information is provided in annexes 9. EN13743 Pre-cast floor plates (parts
tance are given on the basis of the critical 1–3), CEN, Brussels.
temperature being just reached to support • annex A provides temperature profiles 10. EN13224 Ribbed elements, CEN,
the loading under fire conditions. for beams, slabs and columns Brussels.
The table for columns now introduces • annex B is concerned with simplified 12. EN13225 Linear structural elements,
the combinations of mechanical reinforce- calculation methods. Two alternatives CEN, Brussels.
ment ratio and load levels on the column are given—500°C isotherm and zone 13. WI002 290 10 Beams and block floor
(indicative of the reserve strength) in the methods systems.
normal temperature designed to arrive at • annex C gives the details of proce- 14. WI002 290 04 Stairs.
minimum dimensions. The current dures for assessing the buckling 15. GULVANESSIAN H. EN1991 Eurocode 1:
requirements could result in larger strength of columns—it includes a Actions on structures (this issue).
columns for the higher fire resistance peri- number of tables for minimum dimen-
ods. This matter is still under discussion. sions related to slenderness ratio and
The tabular data apply to normal weight load levels
What do you
concrete made with siliceous aggregates. • annex D provides a simplified practi- think?
Where calcareous aggregates are used in cal procedure for designing beams If you would like to comment on
this paper, please email up to
beams and slabs the axis distance in the and slabs. 500 words to the editor at
tables should be reduced by 10%. simon.fullalove@ice.org.uk.
If you would like to write a paper up
Reductions are also allowed for light- Conclusions to 2000 words about your own
experience in this or any related
weight concrete depending on the density. Designers who had familiarised them- area of civil engineering, the
editor will be happy to
Some advice on the risk of explosive selves with the ENV version of Eurocode provide any help or advice
you need.
spalling is given. The risk is a function of 2 will find that there are some significant
moisture content, aggregate type, perme- changes in a number of areas. However,
ability of concrete and the heating rate. the general process remains the same.
When the moisture content of the con- Those familiar with the methods in
crete is less than 3% by weight spalling is BS 8110 will find the Eurocode proce-
unlikely to occur. The code states that dures not too dissimilar to current prac-

28 C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G