CONCRETE DESIGN

Concrete column design:

simplifying Eurocode 2
The analysis of slender columns is a long-standing problem in reinforced concrete design. Methods based on
rational theory have been available for steel column design for over a century but reinforced concrete is more
difficult: it combines two different materials, one of which has a non-linear stress−strain curve, and there are also
shrinkage, creep and cracking to contend with. As a result, theoretical analysis is complicated and tests must be
based on long-term loading, making them time-consuming and costly. Alasdair N Beal of Thomasons reports.

C
ode design rules for concrete and the moment the section can resist at graphs have been produced, a simpler
columns have tended to rely heavily various different values of axial load, with the method is needed for the design of individual
on the fact that most real reinforced moment expressed as load eccentricity. When columns. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, the
concrete columns are stocky and the two graphs are overlaid, it is possible behaviour of a reinforced concrete column
very slender columns are rare. Code of to see the maximum load that a column is too complicated to cover with a simple
practice CP 114(1) allowed columns to be of any given slenderness ratio can support theoretical formula: the section combines a
designed at full stress up to Le/h = 15, which – and applied load eccentricity and initial simple material (steel) with a very complex
covered most real columns; above this, the imperfections can be allowed for by simply one (concrete) and at some slenderness ratios
allowable column load was reduced linearly offsetting one graph relative to the other by the materials are stressed to their plastic
(Le is the column effective length and h is its the appropriate amount. (Having analysed limits at failure but at other ratios, capacity is
overall depth). pin-ended columns, the effects of different limited by instability and stresses and strains
Its successor CP 110(2) allowed full stress end conditions etc, can be allowed for by at failure are much lower.
up to Le/h = 12 and beyond this additional applying appropriate effective length factors Simple column design methods generally
moments were applied to allow for buckling in the usual way.) allow for the effects of slenderness on load
effects. The additional moments were This method was used to analyse the capacity by either applying reduction factors
calculated on the assumption that at failure behaviour of slender columns for both to the load capacity or else by requiring
the concrete strain would be at its short-term short- and long-term loads over a range additional moments to be allowed for in the
plastic limit and the steel strain would be at of slenderness ratios, load eccentricities, design. The 1999 Beal/Khalil paper showed
its elastic limit. However, slender column reinforcement ratios and concrete strengths. that by using additional moments, which
failure is governed by instability, which can The results were found to agree well with have been set to give results which match
occur before the concrete reaches its plastic published test results. those from accurate analysis, it is possible to
strain limit. On the other hand, most of the Following publication of this initial produce design rules which are more accurate
load on real columns is usually long term, so paper(4), a comprehensive programme of than BS 8110 and also simpler to use. The
creep can cause strains much greater than research, including load tests and detailed present article shows how the same approach
short-term values. As a result, despite their analysis of column behaviour, was carried out can be used to simplify Eurocode 2.
increased complexity, agreement between the at Leeds University. This included analysis
CP 110 rules and test results was not much of the load capacity of pin-ended columns Eurocode 2
better than CP 114. The CP 110 method is made from normal- and high-strength The present Eurocode 2 recommendations
still used in its successor, BS 8110(3). concrete over a range of slenderness ratios are based on research by the Swedish
and load eccentricities and with between 0.8 engineer Bo Westerberg, who carried out a
Research and 4% reinforcement. The effective depth detailed computer analysis of slender column
In 1986, the author proposed a new graphical d of column reinforcement in practice is behaviour taking into account the relevant
analysis method for slender pin-ended usually in the range 0.8–0.9h, so the analysis effects(6). Comparison of the results from the
columns, which allows rapid, accurate analysis was based on d = 0.8h. Initial imperfections Beal − Khalil and Westerberg analyses shows
of non-linear materials such as reinforced were allowed for and a creep factor of 2 was close agreement, as would be expected given
concrete under both axial and eccentric assumed for long-term loading on normal- that both are based on rigorous theory.
loads(4). This involves preparing a graph of strength concrete (maximum strains were Like BS 8110, the Eurocode 2 design
column mid-height deflection against section reduced for high-strength concrete). The rules(7) allow slenderness effects to be ignored
curvature for various values of slenderness results were published in a joint paper by Beal in some situations (Cl. 5.8.3.1(1)) and
ratio (calculated on the assumption that and Khalil in 1999(5). Cl. 5.8.3.3). However, the calculations that are
the column deflected shape follows a sine Although this graphical analysis method required limit the value of this simplification.
curve). Another graph is then prepared allows a range of columns to be analysed When slenderness effects cannot be ignored,
showing the relationship between curvature rapidly once the relevant moment−curvature EC2 offers the engineer a choice of three

concrete
I52 www.concrete.org.uk ,ǘǰǻǹǺȂ
 CONCRETE DESIGN

design methods: the ‘general method’ capacities, which match the results of an column that carries only a concentric load.
(Cl. 5.8.6), the ‘nominal stiffness method’ accurate analysis. The recommended The comparisons have been based on C32/40
(Cl. 5.8.7) and the ‘nominal curvature additional moment is applied in an ultimate strength-class concrete with either 0.8 or 4%
method’ (Cl. 5.8.8). The ‘general’ and section capacity calculation but the stresses reinforcement, which covers most common
‘nominal stiffness’ methods are rarely used in and strains at failure of a slender column may structures. C65/80 strength-class concrete
the UK because of their complexity; engineers be considerably lower than those assumed in has also been considered, to check the effect
generally use the ‘nominal curvature’ method. ultimate capacity calculations, so it should be of varying concrete strength.
The EC2 ‘nominal curvature method’ noted that the additional moment used in the The proposed additional load eccentricities
superficially appears similar to BS 8110 design calculation is not necessarily the same for design are shown in Table 1. They are
but it is more complex in practice: first, in as the real moment present at column failure. calculated from the formula eadd /h = 0.005Le
addition to calculating the nominal curvature, Most real columns carry predominantly /h + 0.00065(Le /h)². Le = effective length, h =
the engineer must also calculate and add long-term loads, so the recommendations section overall depth.
the load eccentricity due to imperfections are based on this. The objective is to produce
(Cl. 5.8.8.2(2)). The calculated nominal a set of additional load eccentricities that Comparison
additional moment is then modified by a includes all necessary allowances for initial The graphs in Figures 1–8 show the
correction factor for axial load (Cl. 5.8.8.3(3)) imperfections, shrinkage and creep and calculated design capacity (including materials
and this in turn is modified for reinforcement is suitable for the design of columns of safety factor) of 300 × 300mm columns
arrangement (Cl. 5.8.8.3(2)), creep all concrete strengths and reinforcement with various reinforcement proportions and
(Cl. 5.8.3(4)), effective creep ratio (Cl. 5.8.4) arrangements. concrete strengths. Results from the proposed
and slenderness ratio (Cl. 5.8.3.1). Although As cracking affects the stiffness of a design rules (labelled ‘proposed’) are based on
this is the simplest column design method column, the effect of slenderness on load section load/moment capacities calculated
offered by EC2, it is still very complicated. capacity will vary with the load eccentricity. with Concrete Centre spreadsheet TCC52.
The Beal − Khalil research found a These are compared with the Beal−Khalil
Simplifying EC2 substantial reduction in capacity between published accurate analysis results(5) (labelled
The 1999 Beal − Khalil 1999 paper showed e = 0 and e = 0.1h but above this the capacity ‘theory’) and also with results from the current
that a simple design method based on reduction was more consistent. As most EC2 ‘nominal curvature method’ (labelled
‘additional moments’ can give reasonably concrete columns carry some moments, ‘EC2’), which have been calculated using
accurate results if the values of these the proposed values are based on eccentric commercial software (TEDDS).
are adjusted empirically to give column loading, so they will be conservative for a Figures 1 and 2 show results for an axially
loaded C32/40 300 × 300mm column
with 0.8% or 4% steel. As can be seen, the
proposed design rules give conservative
results; existing EC2 design rules are
Table 1 – Additional load eccentricities for column design unconservative for Le /h between 5 and 20
Le /h 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 and also for 4% steel. Figures 3 and 4 show
eadd /h 0.04 0.12 0.22 0.36 0.53 0.74 1.24 1.9 2.6 the results for 0.8% reinforcement and load
eccentricities of 0.1h and 0.5h; Figures 5

kN kN

3000
2000 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <
2500

1500
2000
------• Proposed ------• Proposed
- - - Theory - - - Theory
1500 ................ EC2
1000 ""'"""""• EC2

1000

500

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 L,lh 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 L,lh

Figure 1: C32/40, 0.8% steel, e = 0. Figure 2: C32/40, 4% steel, e = 0.

concrete
www.concrete.org.uk ,ǘǰǻǹǺȂ

I 53
 CONCRETE DESIGN

------ •Proposed • - •••• ·Proposed

- - - Theory - - - rneory
................ EC2 ............ .... EC2

Figure 3: C32/40, 0.8% steel, e = 0.1h. Figure 4: C32/40, 0.8% steel, e = 0.5h.

kN

1000

800

•····• · Proposed ------ •Proposed

600
- - Theory - - - Theo<y
............ .... EC2 .... ,.......... , EC2
400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 L,/h

Figure 5: C32/40, 4% steel, e = 0.1h. Figure 6: C32/40, 4% steel, e = 0.5h.

and 6 show the corresponding results for 4% and 4% steel and applied load eccentricity e = Proposed amendments to EC2
reinforcement. As can be seen, the proposed 0.1h. Again, the results agree closely with the The following clause may either be inserted
new rules and the existing EC2 design rules accurate theoretical analysis and comparisons as a replacement for the present Cl. 5.8.8
both agree closely with the results from the for higher load eccentricities up to e = 0.5h ‘Method based on nominal curvature’ or as a
accurate analysis: the proposed new rules are give similar results. For load eccentricities possible alternative design method.
generally slightly conservative, whereas the 0.1h, 0.3h and 0.5h, the average capacity
EC2 rules are slightly unconservative for (proposed/theory) is 0.90, with a minimum of Simple ‘additional moment’ design
4% steel and at low values of Le /h. For load 0.47 and maximum of 1.08; in the important method for columns
eccentricities 0.1h, 0.3h and 0.5h, the average range Le /h 5–20, the average capacity 1. In this method, an additional moment to
capacity (proposed/theory) is 0.95, with a (proposed/theory) is 0.94, with a minimum allow for imperfections and slenderness
minimum of 0.67 and maximum of 1.06; in of 0.82 and maximum of 1.07. effects is added to the first-order design
the important range Le /h 5–20, the average Therefore the proposed additional moment and the section is then designed
capacity (proposed/theory) is 0.98, with a load eccentricities are suitable for design for the axial force and the total bending
minimum of 0.91 and maximum 1.03. of all columns with between 0.8 and 4% moment in accordance with 6.1. The
Figures 7 and 8 show the results for a reinforcement and for all concrete strengths specified additional eccentricities include
C65/80 column with 0.8% steel respectively up to C65/80. an allowance for initial imperfections, so

concrete
I54 www.concrete.org.uk ,ǘǰǻǹǺȂ
 CONCRETE DESIGN

kN

2500

2000

------ •Proposed - - - - - - • Proposed

1500
- - Theory - - - Theo,y
................ EC2 ................ EC2
1000

500
,,.•.
·~·~~·~·~·~·~"4••·'~..~:::..,::...::i.,,,,..,,,.,,,,..,---
0 ,--- ___;.:,:.;=~-
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 L, /h

Figure 7: C65/80, 0.8% steel, e = 0.1h. Figure 8: C65/80, 4% steel, e = 0.1h.

Table 2 – Simple ‘additional moment’ design method: additional load eccentricity eadd
Le /h 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60
eadd /h 0.04 0.12 0.22 0.36 0.53 0.74 1.24 1.9 2.6 References:
eadd /h = 0.005Le /h + 0.00065(Le /h)2 1. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, CP 114. The
structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings. BSI,
where Le = effective length, h = overall section depth in direction of buckling London, 1969.
2. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, CP 110. Code of
practice for the structural use of concrete. Part 1 –
design, materials and workmanship. BSI, London,
1972.
3. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, BS 8110.
Structural use of concrete. Part 1 – Code of practice for
in this design method, imperfections do maximum first-order moment anywhere
design and construction. BSI, London, 1985.
not need to be added to the first-order in its length. If the column is braced, 4. BEAL, A.N. The design of slender columns.
moment. M0Ed = maximum first-order moment Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Part 2,
2. The design moment is: between 0.4L and 0.6L. Vol. 81, September 1986, pp.397–414, available at:
5. BEAL, A.N. and KHALIL, N. Design of normal- and
MEd = (M0Ed + Madd), or M02, whichever is 4. The additional eccentricity eadd to allow
high-strength concrete columns. Proceedings of the
greater, where: for the effects of slenderness and Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings,
- M0Ed is the first-order moment (see imperfections is shown in Table 2. Vol. 134, November 1999, pp.345–357, available at:
item 3 below) Intermediate values may be www.anbeal.co.uk.
6. WESTERBERG, B. Second order effects in slender
- Madd = NEd eadd interpolated. ■ concrete structures. KTH (Royal Institute of Technology
- eadd is an additional load eccentricity in Stockholm), Civil and Architectural Engineering,
to allow for buckling effects and Acknowledgements: Department of Concrete Structures, Report 77, 2004.
imperfections (see item 4 below) Thanks are due to James Massey for assistance with 7. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, BS EN 1992-1-1.
the calculations and to Charles Goodchild and Paul Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1 –
- M02 is the larger end moment. Gregory at The Concrete Centre for assistance with General rules and rules for buildings. BSI, London,
3. If the column is unbraced, M0Ed is the interpretation of some points in EC2. 2004, revised 2008.

Welcome to

Visit: www.concrete.org.uk
and put our experience at your disposal.

concrete
www.concrete.org.uk ,ǘǰǻǹǺȂ

I 55