PD 6687-2 2008

PD 6687-2:2008
PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
Recommendations for
the design of structures
to BS EN 1992-2:2005
ICS 91.010.30; 91.080.40; 93.040
Licensed copy:HIGH-POINT RENDEL, 18/11/2009, Uncontrolled Copy, © BSI
NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

PD 6687-2:2008
Publishing and copyright information

The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates when the
document was last issued.
© BSI 2008
ISBN 978 0 580 58681 1
The following BSI references relate to the work on this standard:

Committee reference B/525/2
Publication history
First published July 2008
Amendments issued since publication
Amd. no. Date Text affected

PD 6687-2:2008
Contents
Foreword ii
Introduction 1
1 Scope 1
2 General 2
3 Basis of design 2
4 Materials 3
5 Durability and cover to reinforcement 4
6 Structural analysis 4
7 Ultimate limit states 9
8 Serviceability limit states 19
9 Detailing of reinforcement and prestressing tendons –
General 20
10 Detailing of members and particular rules 24
11 Additional rules for precast concrete elements and
structures 27
12 Additional rules for external prestressing 28
Bibliography 29
List of figures
Figure 1 – Imperfections for pier built in at both ends 5
Figure 2 – Limiting strain distributions 10
Figure 3 – Illustration of increment size for shear reinforcement
design 13
Figure 4 – Reinforcement ΣAsw to include in punching check 16
Figure 5 – Illustration of quadruply staggered laps 21
Figure 6 – Corner pile within 2d of a column base 26
List of tables
Table 1 – Effective height, l0, for columns 8
Table 2A – Limiting stress ranges – Longitudinal bending for unwelded
reinforcing bars in road bridges 18
Table 2B – Limiting stress ranges – Transverse bending for unwelded
reinforcing bars in road bridges 18
Table 3 – Minimum spacing of post-tension ducts 23
Table 4 – Minimum radius of curvature of tendons in the deviators 24
Summary of pages
This document comprises a front cover, an inside front cover,
pages i and ii, pages 1 to 30, an inside back cover and a back cover.
© BSI 2008 • i
PD 6687-2:2008
Foreword
Publishing information
This Published Document is published by BSI and came into effect
on 31 July 2008. It was prepared by Subcommittee B/525/10, Bridges,
under the authority of Subcommittee B/525/2, Structural use of
concrete and Technical Committee B/525, Building and civil
engineering. A list of organizations represented on this committee can
be obtained on request to its secretary.
Relationship with other publications

This Published Document gives non-contradictory complementary
information for use in the UK with the Eurocode for concrete bridges,
BS EN 1992-2 and its UK National Annex. Background is provided to
some of the National Annex provisions where these differ from
recommended values.
Presentational conventions
The provisions in this standard are presented in roman (i.e. upright)
type. Its recommendations are expressed in sentences in which the

principal auxiliary verb is “should”.
Commentary, explanation and general informative material is
presented in smaller italic type, and does not constitute a
normative element.
The word “should” is used to express recommendations of this standard.
The word “may” is used in the text to express permissibility, e.g. as an
alternative to the primary recommendation of the clause. The word
“can” is used to express possibility, e.g. a consequence of an action or
an event.
Notes and commentaries are provided throughout the text of this
standard. Notes give references and additional information that are
important but do not form part of the recommendations. Commentaries
give background information.
Contractual and legal considerations

This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions
of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
This Published Document is not to be regarded as a
British Standard.
ii • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
Introduction
When there is a need for guidance on a subject that is not covered by
the Eurocode, a country can choose to publish documents that contain
non-contradictory complementary information that supports the
Eurocode. This Published Document provides such information and has
been cited as a reference in the UK National Annex to BS EN 1992-2.
It is recommended that reference also be made to PD 6687:20061)
which contains non-contradictory complementary information that
supports BS EN 1992-1. Parts of PD 6687:2006 are relevant to the
design of structures to BS EN 1992-2.
NOTE 1 Many of the clauses in BS EN 1992-1-1 are called up in
BS EN 1992-2. Although the information provided in this Published
Document relates to designs undertaken to BS EN 1992-2, for clarity,
clause references are generally provided to the Eurocode part in which the
relevant clause is given.
NOTE 2 References are also included to papers and publications that
provide additional background or more detailed information associated
with a specific issue. It should be noted that these papers and publications
might also include material that is not fully in accordance with Eurocode
requirements.
1 Scope
This Published Document contains non-contradictory complementary
information for use with BS EN 1992-2 and its UK National Annex for
the design of concrete structures. It does not cover assessment.
This Published Document gives:
a) background to the decisions made in the National Annex to
BS EN 1992-2 for some of the Nationally Determined Parameters;
b) commentary on some specific subclauses from BS EN 1992-2;
c) commentary on the application to bridge structures of some
specific subclauses of BS EN 1992-1-1 that are called up in
BS EN 1992-2;
d) guidance on subjects not covered by BS EN 1992-2, but previously
included in British Standards and other standards and codes of
practice.
1) PD 6687:2006 is being revised and is to be renumbered PD 6687-1.
© BSI 2008 • 1
PD 6687-2:2008
2 General
2.1 Definition of National Authority
[BS EN 1992-2:2005, Foreword]
Several clauses in BS EN 1992-2:2005 make reference to the
“National Authority”. In UK there is no single such body and, therefore,
the NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005 defines the National Authority as “the
body with a statutory responsibility for the safety of the structure”. Such
bodies will not necessarily have “national” coverage, for example in the
case of a local Highway Authority. This definition aims to draw those
aspects of the design for which reference has to be made to the
“National Authority” within established processes of technical approval.
3 Basis of design
3.1 Actions and environmental influences
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2.3.1]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2.3.1 allows thermal effects, settlements, and

creep and shrinkage to be neglected at ultimate limit state provided they
are not significant or because the ductility and rotation capacity of the
elements affected are sufficient.
In assessing whether the ductility and rotation capacity of elements are
sufficient it should be noted that there will be additional demand on the
rotation capacity: a) when moment redistribution is carried out;
and, b) to cater for differences between the stiffnesses assumed in an
elastic design and the true element stiffnesses as the ultimate limit state
is approached.
In the absence of a rigorous analysis, for solid sections of constant
width, b, it may be assumed that the rotation capacity required to
accommodate the differences between the stiffnesses assumed in an
elastic design and the true element stiffnesses will not exceed 50% of
the allowable plastic rotation capacity determined in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.6.3 (4) for sections where the area of main
reinforcement exceeds 0.005bd.
Generally, it will be reasonable to neglect thermal effects, settlements,
and creep and shrinkage at ultimate limit state when moment
redistribution is not carried out.
3.2 Partial factors for materials

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2.4.2.4 (3) and Annex A]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Annex A should only be used in conjunction with
an execution specification that aligns fully with the special control and
testing processes required by BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Annex A and any
additional special requirements of the National Authority.
2 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
4 Materials
4.1 Creep and shrinkage
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 3.1.4]
In the absence of more specific data, the relative humidity may be taken
as 70% for the design of bridge structures in the UK.
4.2 Design compressive and tensile strengths

[BS EN 1992-2:2005, 3.1.6 (101)P]
The value of αcc in BS EN 1992-2:2005, Expression (3.15) is
recommended to be 0.85 for bridges. This value is appropriate for
calculations on bending and axial force in BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.1.
However, there are other cases where a value of 1.0 is reasonable,
such as for shear calculations, as the empirical model for shear is
deemed to account for αcc. Similarly, the membrane rules in
BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.109 already incorporate a 0.85 factor in the
formula for direct compressive strength and, therefore, a value of 1.0
for αcc is clearly justified. The NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005, therefore,

identifies the clauses for which the value of αcc should be taken as 0.85.
For other clauses the value should be taken as 1.0.
The clauses for which the value of αcc should be taken as 0.85 were
determined to achieve consistency with the use of 0.85 for bending
and axial force and 1.0 for shear. For example, αcc is taken equal to 1.0
in the compression strut limit in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004,
Expression (6.56), as this compression limit corresponds to that used
in the variable angle shear truss model given in BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2
where αcc is also taken as 1.0. Conversely, in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004,
Expression (6.63), αcc is given the value of 0.85 in the partially loaded
area rules in order to give parity between these rules and those used for
calculations of bending and axial force in BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.1 when
the entire cross-sectional area is loaded.
4.3 Confined concrete [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 3.1.9]

The general detailing requirements given in BS EN 1992-2:2005 should
not be assumed to provide sufficient confinement for the model for
increased concrete strength and strain capacity given in
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 3.1.9 (2) to be used in the general design of
elements for bending, axial force, shear and torsion.
The expressions provided for confined concrete may be used in
checking triaxially confined nodes, in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.5.4 (6).
4.4 Ductility characteristic

[BS EN 1992-2:2005, 3.2.4]
BS EN 1992-2:2005, 3.2.4 (101)P allows the classes of reinforcement
that may be used in bridges to be defined. The recommended classes are
Class B and Class C. The NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005 relaxes this
requirement and allows the use of Class A fabric reinforcement provided
it is not taken into account in the evaluation of the ultimate resistance.
© BSI 2008 • 3
PD 6687-2:2008
The restriction on taking account of Class A fabric reinforcement in the

evaluation of the ultimate resistance stems from the fact that the
ultimate limit state deformation capacity of structures with Class A
reinforcement can be very low compared with structures with Class B
or Class C reinforcement [1], particularly for lightly reinforced
elements. Therefore, its use as primary reinforcement for bridges is not
allowed, including its use as shear reinforcement.
Class A fabric reinforcement may be used in the verification of
serviceability criteria given in BS EN 1992-2:2005, Section 7 and the
minimum reinforcement requirements given in BS EN 1992-2:2005,
Section 9.
5 Durability and cover to

reinforcement
5.1 Requirements for durability
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 4.3]
Half-joints should not be used in bridges unless there are adequate

provisions for inspection and maintenance.
6 Structural analysis
6.1 Second order effects
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.1.4 (1)P]
For externally prestressed members, second order effects between
deviators, or other points where the tendon position in the section
is fixed, need not be considered when the spacing between these
points does not exceed 10 times section depth if the tendon force
at the ultimate limit state is determined using
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.10.8 (2). If non-linear analysis is used to
determine the tendon force, second order effects should be considered.
6.2 Geometrical imperfections

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.2]
The disposition of imperfections used in analysis should reflect the
behaviour and function of the structure and its elements. The shape of
imperfection should be based on the anticipated mode of buckling of the
member. For example, in the case of bridge piers, an overall lean
imperfection should be used where buckling will be in a sway mode
(“unbraced” conditions), while a local eccentricity within the member
should be used where both ends of the member are held in position
(“braced” conditions).
4 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
In using BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (5.2) the eccentricity, ei,

derived should be taken as the amplitude of imperfection over the half
wavelength of buckling; Figure 1 shows the imperfection suitable for a
pier rigidly built in for moment at each end. A lean imperfection should
however be considered in the design of the positional restraints for
braced members. Further guidance and background are given in Hendy
and Smith [2].
Figure 1 Imperfections for pier built in at both ends
ei e
ei
l0
l
l0 = l/2
e = 2ei = θl/2
a) Sinusoidal imperfection b) Angular imperfection
6.3 Linear elastic analysis

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.4]
The use of fully cracked section properties to derive internal effects in
members from indirect actions at the serviceability limit state is not
permissible, as the formation of wide cracks implicit in this assumption
cannot be accepted at the serviceability limit state. If cracking is
considered in global analysis, the member stiffness used should be
commensurate with the degree of cracking permitted at the
serviceability limit state. This leads to the requirement in
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.4 (3) that a “gradual evolution of cracking
should be considered”, which requires a non-linear analysis allowing for
the effects of cracking and tension stiffening. Un-cracked global
analysis in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.4 (2) may always
be used as a conservative alternative to such considerations.
© BSI 2008 • 5
PD 6687-2:2008
6.4 Linear elastic analysis with limited

redistribution [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.5]
If a linear elastic analysis with limited redistribution is undertaken,
shears and reactions used in the design should be taken as those either
prior to redistribution or after redistribution, whichever is greater.
6.5 Plastic analysis [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.6]

BS EN 1992-2:2005, 5.6.1 (101)P allows the use of plastic analysis
when permitted by National Authorities. Permission for the use of
plastic analysis should therefore be sought from the relevant body on a
project-specific basis, see 2.1 of this document. Typically this will be
part of the technical approval process.
BS EN 1992-1-1:2005, 5.6.2 (5) allows the use of plastic methods to be
extended to non-solid slabs if their response is similar to solid slabs.
Plastic methods assume that structures have sufficient ductility for a
complete collapse mechanism to form before any loss of section
resistance occurs. Establishing whether such a condition is generally
satisfied is not straightforward [3]. The assessment of whether the
response of a non-solid slab is similar to a solid slab should include

consideration of whether the non-solid slab will exhibit similar ductility
to a solid slab. Particular caution is therefore necessary in cases where
torsional hinges might form, because of their limited ductility.
6.6 Rotation capacity [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.6.3]

BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.6.3 provides a method for verifying rotation
capacity. The allowable rotation capacity may be determined from
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 5.6N, in which the variations in plastic
rotation capacity with relative neutral axis depth, xu/d, are plotted for
Class B and Class C reinforcement and for different concrete strengths.
The curves plotted in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 5.6N show an initial
increase in rotation capacity with increasing neutral axis depth up to a
peak value, beyond which the rotation capacity decreases. For neutral
axis depths lower than that corresponding to the peak value, the
rotation capacity is governed by reinforcement fracture. For higher
neutral axis depths it is governed by concrete crushing.
Research has shown that rotation capacity might be subject to a size
effect [1], whereby the rotation capacity of geometrically similar
elements decreases with increasing size, and might also be lower for
non-solid sections compared with rectangular beams and slabs [4].
Neither of these effects is explicitly dealt with in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004,
Figure 5.6N.
The issue of size effect was recognized in BS 5400-4:1990, which placed
a limit of 1.2 m on the maximum section depth for which moment
redistribution was permitted. Therefore, it is recommended that
moment redistribution is not used for sections deeper than 1.2 m unless
a rigorous analysis of rotation capacity is undertaken.
6 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
The reduced rotation capacity of non-solid sections stems from the

reduced compressive strain capacity of concrete compression flanges,
as discussed in 7.1.1 of this document. This issue is also recognized in
BS 5400-4:1990, with the expression for rotation capacity being
dependent upon the relative neutral axis depth, xu/de, taking de as equal
to the effective depth for solid slabs or rectangular beams in a similar
manner to BS EN 1992-2:2005, but, for non-solid sections, de is taken
equal to the depth of the compression flange. This approach may be
used conservatively in determining θpl,d in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 5.6N. Alternatively, it is recommended
that either moment redistribution is avoided or a rigorous analysis of
rotation capacity is undertaken.
It will generally be reasonable to assume that the rotation capacity of
large or non-solid sections will be sufficient for thermal effects,
settlements, and creep and shrinkage to be neglected at the ultimate
limit state, provided that no redistribution of moments is undertaken in
the analysis. (See also 3.1 of this document.)
A comprehensive review of research on rotation capacity is given in fib
Bulletin D’Information No. 242 [1].
6.7 Analysis of second order effects with axial load

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.8]
6.7.1 Slenderness and effective length of isolated members

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.8.3.2]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 5.7 of which shows effective lengths of
isolated members does not cover typical bridge cases. The more usual
bearing types for cantilever bridge piers are not included and
cases a) to e) assume infinitely stiff end restraint. For these reasons,
additional examples are given in Table 1 of this document.
The values given in Table 1 are based on the following assumptions:
a) rotational restraint is at least 4(EI)/l for cases 1, 2 and 4 to 6,
and 8(EI)/l for case 7, where (EI) is the flexural rigidity of the
column;
b) lateral and rotational rigidity of elastomeric bearings are
negligible;
c) the height of bearing is negligible compared with that of the
column.
Case 4 in Table 1 may also be used with roller bearings provided that
the rollers are held in place by an effective means, such as racks.
Where a more accurate evaluation of effective length is required, or
where the end restraint stiffness is less than that given in item a)
above, the effective length should derived from first principles
(see Jackson [5]).
© BSI 2008 • 7
PD 6687-2:2008
Table 1 Effective height, l0, for columns

Case Idealized column and buckling mode Restraints Effective
height,
Location Position Rotation l0
1 Top Full Full A) 0.70l
Bottom Full Full A)
2 Top Full None 0.85l

Bottom Full Full A)
l
3 Top Full None 1.0l

Bottom Full None
4 Top None A) None A) 1.3l

Bottom Full Full A)
Elastomeric
bearing
l
5 Top None None 1.4l

Bottom Full Full A)
A) Assumed value (see 6.7.1).
8 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
Table 1 Effective height, l0, for columns (continued)

Case Idealized column and buckling mode Restraints Effective
height,
Location Position Rotation l0
6 Top None Full A) 1.5l
Bottom Full Full A)
7 Top None None 2.3l

Bottom Full Full A)
A) Assumed value (see 6.7.1).
6.7.2 Creep [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.8.4]

Because of the use of design ULS moment in the denominator of
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (5.19), it will not give full creep even
for 100% permanent load. This, however, has been shown by
Westerberg [6] to be safe for second order analysis.
7 Ultimate limit states

7.1 Bending with or without axial force
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.1]
7.1.1 Strain distributions

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.1 (5) and 6.1 (6)]
In determining the bending and axial resistance of a section which is
wholly in compression, the limiting strain in the concrete has to be
reduced from the ultimate value, εcu2 or εcu3, in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004, 6.1 (6) and Figure 6.1. Similarly for wide
flanges wholly in compression, the strain in the concrete should also
be reduced in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.1 (6) and
Figure 6.1, or in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.1 (5).
Cases where the attached width of flange either side of the web is less
than 3 times the flange depth can generally be assumed not to be wide.
© BSI 2008 • 9
PD 6687-2:2008
The application of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.1 (6) and Figure 6.1 to a

section wholly in compression, or to a wide flange wholly in
compression, requires the strain in the concrete to be taken as either εc2
at a distance of (1 – εc2/εcu2)h from the more compressive face, or εc3 at
a distance of (1 – εc3/εcu3)h from the more compressive face, depending
upon the concrete stress-strain model used, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Thus, when the neutral axis occurs at one face of the section, the
limiting strain at the other face is equal to εcu2 or εcu3 (Case B in
Figure 2). When the eccentricity of the loading is zero, so the section is
in pure compression, the strain in the concrete throughout the section
should be taken as εc2 or εc3 (Case D in Figure 2).
Case A in Figure 2 corresponds to a section that is not wholly in
compression (i.e. the neutral axis lies within the depth of the section),
in which case the limiting strain in the concrete is taken as equal to the
ultimate value, εcu2 or εcu3. Case C corresponds to a combination of axial
load and bending that gives rise to a stress distribution between the
limiting Cases B and D.
Figure 2 Limiting strain distributions

0 1 1
Case B
Case D
Case C
Tension Compression
Case A
Case A Strain diagram for section with neutral axis within section
Case B Strain diagram for section with neutral axis at face of section
Case C Strain diagram for section fully in compression but with some bending
Case D Strain diagram for section in pure compression
1 εc2 or εc3
2 (1 − εc2/εcu2)h or (1 − εc3/εcu3)h
7.1.2 External prestressing strain between fixed points

[BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.1 (108)]
The wording in BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.1 (108) differs from that in
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.1 (8) to allow for the possibility of sliding
caused by the difference in force on either side of “contact points”
(i.e. deviators).
10 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
7.1.3 Robustness of prestressed elements

[BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.1 (109)]
One permissible way of preventing brittle fracture is to ensure that
there is sufficient longitudinal reinforcement to compensate for the
loss of resistance when the tensile strength of the concrete is lost due
to cracking. This is achieved by providing a minimum area of
reinforcement in accordance with BS EN 1992-2:2005,
Expression (6.101a). This reinforcement is not additional to
requirements for other effects and may be used in ultimate bending
checks. Further guidance and background are given by Hendy and
Smith [2].
The cracking moment forms the basis for the minimum steel. The NA to
BS EN 1992-2:2005 recommends that it is calculated on the basis of the
lower characteristic tensile strength rather than the mean value
recommended in the BS EN 1992-2:2005. The use of the mean is
considered unduly onerous and the lower characteristic value had been
used in the UK for a number of years with no adverse effects.
Shear [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2]

7.2
7.2.1 Evaluation of chord forces

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.1 (1)P]
For members with designed shear reinforcement, the forces in the
tension and compression chords should be calculated from the truss
model adopted and should be in equilibrium with the applied bending
moment, axial force and shear force. The chord forces should not
generally be assumed to be MEd/z as this could lead to significant error.
If inclined chords are considered, the horizontal components of the
chord forces may be obtained in the usual way for horizontal chords.
7.2.2 Shear enhancement [BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.2 (101)

and BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.2 (6)]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.2 (6) enables shear enhancement to be
taken into account for a single load applied within 2d of the edge of a
support, or centre of bearing where flexible bearings are used, by
applying a reduction factor to this load. As acknowledged in
PD 6687:2006, this approach is not suitable for cases with multiple,
indirect or distributed loads. Therefore, in the NA to BS EN 1992-2 the
expression for CRd,c has been modified from the recommended value so
that the effects of shear enhancement are taken into account through
increasing the shear resistance of members near to supports.
Modifying the expression for CRd,c in this way makes the approach
consistent with that used for punching shear resistance in
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.4.4 (2) and with previous UK practice.
7.2.3 Shear resistance of uncracked prestressed members

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.2 (2)]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.2 (2) limits the shear resistance of regions
uncracked in bending and without designed shear reinforcement so that
the tensile strength of the concrete is not exceeded.
© BSI 2008 • 11
PD 6687-2:2008
Often the maximum principal tension will occur at the level of the
centroid and BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (6.4) enables the
principal tension to be checked at that level. Strictly, Expression (6.4)
only applies to prismatic sections [2]. It is noted in
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.2 (2), however, that the maximum principal
tension might occur elsewhere in the section.
For prismatic sections, the requirement to limit the maximum principle
tension to the tensile strength of the concrete at locations other than the
centroidal axis may be checked using the following equation:
Ibw
VRd,c = ( fctd )2 + σ fctd
S
where the symbols are as defined in BS EN 1992-1-1, 2004, 6.2.2 (2),

except that:
bw is the width of the cross section at the location being checked,

allowing for the presence of ducts, in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1, 2004, 6.2.3 (6);
S is the first moment of area of the part of the section excluding any
area below the location being checked, calculated about the

centroidal axis of the whole section;
σ is the total direct stress in the section due to bending and axial
load effects, and prestress effects, at the location being checked.
7.2.4 Members requiring design shear reinforcement

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.3]
7.2.4.1 Evaluation of inner lever arm
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.3 (1)]
In the design of members requiring shear reinforcement,
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.3 (1) suggests that the lever arm, z,
“normally” may be taken as 0.9d. This value is not always appropriate,
for example if: a) there is an axial force or prestress, or b) the width at
the centroid is greater than the minimum cross-section width in
compression, or c) the cross section has a tension flange but no
compression flange (e.g. T-sections under reversed moment). In such
cases the lever arm should be determined based on an analysis of the
section under the applied actions and is generally the distance between
the centroid of the more tensile chord and the more compressive chord.
7.2.4.2 Web crushing limits [BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.3 (103)]

BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.3 (103) can give very significant increases in
the web crushing limit (the upper limit for shear) compared with past
practice. This was investigated in the UK. The increases were found
generally to be justified but there were some areas where there was
insufficient evidence. In particular, the very high increases that can
arise with inclined links did not appear to have been proved and the
tests did not extend to sufficiently slender webs to cover all cases found
in practice. Because of this, additional restrictions have been added in
the NA to BS EN 1992-1-1 and the NA to BS EN 1992-2. Fuller details
of the background are given by Jackson and Salim [7].
12 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
7.2.4.3 Design for smallest value of VEd in an increment

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.3 (5)]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.3 (5) allows shear reinforcement within an
increment of length up to zcotθ to be designed based on the smallest
value of VEd in that increment provided that there is no discontinuity of
VEd. However, no explicit explanation is given of what would constitute
such a discontinuity.
The method for designing shear reinforcement based on a truss analogy
is most clear for regions of constant shear force, where there is no load
applied within an increment and the shear force at the left end of the
increment is the same as at the right end of the increment. However, in
loaded regions the shear force at the left end of an increment will be
different to the shear force at the right end of that increment. It is also
possible that the truss angle would be different at the left and right ends
since a steeper angle could be required to prevent concrete crushing.
The presence of loading within an increment causes an increase in the
shear force at one end of the length increment relative to the other end.
However, the load in the length increment does not necessarily affect
the forces in the shear reinforcement within that increment if the
inclined struts transfer the load into the adjacent increment, as

illustrated in Figure 3. Hence the shear reinforcement within the
increment may be based on the minimum shear force in the increment,
as long as the increment size is no greater than zcotθ (see Figure 3).
However, the truss angle for the increment and the increment size
should be chosen to ensure that the maximum shear force in the
increment does not exceed VRd,max. Furthermore, the lever arm, z,
should be based on the minimum value within the length increment,
which will typically correspond to the location of maximum force in the
compression zone.
This approach is based on the assumption that there are no
discontinuities of loading within a single increment, and might not be
valid if the load increases within an increment or if there is a
concentrated load within an increment. In these cases the increment
size can be reduced to avoid any discontinuity, or the shear
reinforcement can be based on the maximum shear force in the
increment.
Figure 3 Illustration of increment size for shear reinforcement design
A
L
z cot
Links in shaded region based on the shear force at A
© BSI 2008 • 13
PD 6687-2:2008
7.2.4.4 Additional tensile force [BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.3 (107)]

Where unbonded tendons are used, the additional force required for
shear will often be taken by bonded reinforcement. In cases where
bonded reinforcement is not provided (as with segmental structures
with no bonded secondary reinforcement) the force can be taken by the
tendons themselves. However, because of the lack of bond, it is
necessary to check that the force is adequate, and not just that there is
sufficient steel to resist it. See also 10.2.1.3 in this document.
7.2.4.5 Segmental construction [BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.3 (109)]

In applying BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.3 (109), hred should be taken as
the depth of concrete in compression under the applied ultimate load. It
will normally be greater than the depth used in a section analysis to
determine the flexural resistance.
7.2.5 Shear between web and flange [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004,

6.2.4]
The rate of change of the flange forces can be underestimated if the
effects of web shear on the flange forces are not included, particularly
for compression flanges. The chord forces as determined for the design
of the web reinforcement should therefore be used as the basis of the
flange forces in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.4.
For compression flanges, Fd may be calculated as follows:
b − bw
Fd = eff Fcd when hf > xc
2beff
b − bw
Fd = eff fcd hf when hf - xc
2
where:
xc is the depth of the compression zone;

Fcd is the total force in the compression chord of the shear truss in
the web.
For tension flanges, Fd may be calculated by determining the proportion

of the total tension chord force, Ftd, carried in each side of the flange.
7.2.6 Shear at the interface between concrete cast at

different times [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.5]
Where a stepped distribution of transverse reinforcement is used in
accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2.5 (3), the total resistance
within any band of reinforcement should be not less than the total
longitudinal shear in the same length and the longitudinal shear stress
evaluated at any point should not exceed the resistance evaluated locally
by more than 10%.
14 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
7.3 Punching [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.4]
7.3.1 Distribution of shear with eccentric support reaction

The expressions for W1 in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.4.3 are derived for
the basic perimeter, u1, at a distance 2d from the load. Theoretically,
they need adjustment for other perimeters at a distance ri from the load.
However, these expressions for W1 may be used for perimeters inside
the basic perimeter at 2d, except in the design of bases in accordance
with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.4.4, because the punching rules were
calibrated against tests basing W1 on the u1 perimeter.
For the design of bases in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.4.4,
the expressions for Wi have to be modified for the actual perimeter
before being used in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (6.51).
Therefore, from BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (6.40) it follows that
for a general perimeter at ri with length ui, the simplified expressions
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expressions (6.41) and (6.42) need adjustment
as follows:
For a square column and a general perimeter at ri with length ui:
c12
Wi = + c1c2 + 2c2 ri + 4 ri 2 + πri c1
2
For an internal circular column and a general perimeter at ri with

length ui:
e
β = 1 + 0.6π
D + 2ri
7.3.2 Distribution of shear reinforcement

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.4.5]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (6.52) has been presented assuming
a constant area of shear reinforcement on each perimeter moving away
from the loaded area as shown in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 6.22. In
cases where the reinforcement area varies on successive perimeters the
required shear reinforcement may be determined by checking
successive perimeters, ui, between the basic control perimeter at 2d and
the perimeter uout, to ensure that shear reinforcement of area ∑ Asw
satisfies the following expression:
( vEd − 0.75vRd,c ) ui d
∑ Asw = fywd,ef sinα
where ∑ Asw is the total shear reinforcement, shown in Figure 4, placed

within an area enclosed between the control perimeter, ui, chosen and
one 2d inside it, except that shear reinforcement within a distance
of 0.3d from the inner perimeter and 0.2d from the control perimeter
should be ignored.
Further guidance and background are given by Hendy and Smith [2].
© BSI 2008 • 15
PD 6687-2:2008
Figure 4 Reinforcement ∑ Asw to include in punching check
2d
0.3d 0.2d
uout
1
ui
Key
ui is between u1 and uout
1 Reinforcement ΣAsw to include for check on perimeter ui
7.4 Design with strut and tie models

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.5]
7.4.1 Struts [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.5.2]

The compressive stress that a concrete strut can carry is strongly
affected by its multi-axial state of stress. Transverse compression is
beneficial while transverse tension reduces the concrete strut’s
compressive resistance. Therefore the two simplified and conservative
limits are given in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.5.2.
The limit given in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (6.56) relates to a
safe lower bound stress that can be assumed for all compression struts,
provided that the strut and tie idealization does not depart significantly
from elastic stress trajectories. It is the same limit for strut compressive
stress used in the calculation of VRd,max. This limit does not distinguish
between cracking running parallel to the strut and the more detrimental
cracking skew to the strut, or between applied transverse tensile forces
that are carried by reinforcement and those which arise purely from an
elastic bulging of the struts between nodes. Further, it does not account
for the actual magnitude of tensile strain, which is also relevant.
16 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
In reality, different limits apply in different situations, and this is

acknowledged in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.5.2 (2) which allows a more
rigorous approach to be used.
Further guidance on strut compressive limits is given by Hendy and
Smith [2] and Schlaich, Shafer and Jennewein [8].
7.5 Partially loaded areas

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.7]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.7 (1)P requires that partially loaded areas are
designed accounting for both local concrete crushing and for transverse
tensile forces. Reference is made to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.5 for the
latter indicating that transverse tensile forces should be determined
from a strut and tie model.
Transverse tensile forces can arise in the localized area near a
concentrated load and also from any further spread of load outside this
localized area. The strut and tie model used should account for both of
these potential sources of transverse tensile forces. Further guidance
and background are given by Hendy and Smith [2].
7.6 Fatigue [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.8]
7.6.1 Verification conditions

[BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.8.1 (102)]
Because of the high live load to dead load ratio, deck slabs are likely to
be amongst the elements most affected by fatigue calculations.
However, tests show that the actual stress ranges in the reinforcement
in these are much lower than conventional elastic calculations suggest.
Because of this, the NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005 identifies cases where
fatigue assessment is not required and provides conservative rules.
7.6.2 Verification of concrete under compression or shear

[BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.8.7 (101)]
S-N curves needed to undertake a fatigue verification of concrete under
compression or shear in accordance with BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.8.7
(101), are unlikely to be available from National Authorities. In the
absence of such data, the simplified approach given in
BS EN 1992-2:2005, Annex NN may be used for railway bridges, but
no such option exists for highway bridges. The fatigue verification
may however be undertaken in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.8.7 (2).
7.6.3 Limiting stress range for reinforcement under tension

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.8.6 (1)]
The stress range given in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.8.6 (1) is applicable
in all situations and to all loadings and so, effectively, has to be a
non-propagating stress range. For specific types of loading, where the
numbers of load cycles within the design life are limited, it is possible
to devise higher deemed to satisfy limits and the NA to
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 allows these to be agreed with “appropriate
authorities”. For the purposes of design to BS EN 1992-2:2005 the
© BSI 2008 • 17
PD 6687-2:2008
“appropriate authorities” should be taken to be the National Authority

as defined in the NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005. For UK highway bridges,
the values in Table 2 may be used for straight reinforcement. These are
based on bars conforming to BS 4449. For bars not conforming to
BS 4449, the rules for bars >16 mm diameter should be used for all sizes
unless the ranges for bars u16 mm diameter can be justified.
Table 2A Limiting stress ranges – Longitudinal bending for unwelded

reinforcing bars in road bridges
Span Adjacent spans loaded Alternate spans loaded
Bars u16 mm Bars >16 mm Bars u16 mm Bars >16 mm

m MPa MPa MPa MPa
u3.5 150 115 210 160
5 125 95 175 135
10 110 85 175 135
20 110 85 140 110
30 to 50 90 70 110 85
100 115 90 135 105
W200 190 145 200 155

NOTE 1 Intermediate values may be obtained by linear interpolation.
Table 2B Limiting stress ranges – Transverse bending for unwelded

reinforcing bars in road bridges
Span Bars u16 mm Bars >16 mm
m MPa MPa
u3.5 210 160
5 120 90
W10 70 55
NOTE 2 Intermediate values may be obtained by linear interpolation.
NOTE 3 Table 2 applies to slabs but need only be applied to those

slabs which do not conform to the criteria given the NA to
BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.8.1 (102).
7.7 Shell elements [BS EN 1992-2:2005, Annex LL]

BS EN 1992-2:2005, Annex LL Clause 112 has been amended in the
NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005 to allow the use of alternative realistic
models instead of those given in BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.109 and
Annex F. For the design or verification of shell elements subject to
bending alone (i.e. with zero membrane forces) the approaches given by
Wood [9] Armer [10] and Denton and Burgoyne [11] may generally be
used.
18 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
8 Serviceability limit states

8.1 Stress limitation [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 7.2]
8.1.1 Concrete in compression
[BS EN 1992-2:2005, 7.2 (102)]
In areas exposed to environments of exposure class XD, XF or XS, it is
recommended that the stress limit for concrete in compression
specified in BS EN 1992-2:2005, 7.2 (102) should be applied.
8.1.2 Reinforcement [BS EN 1992-1-1:2005, 7.2 (5)]

Satisfying the stress limitations for reinforcement given in
BS EN 1991-1-1:2004, 7.2 (5) does not remove the requirement to
verify crack control and deflection control in accordance with
BS EN 1992-2:2005, 7.3 and 7.4, respectively.
8.2 Crack control [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 7.2]

8.2.1 Recommended values of wmax

[BS EN 1992-2:2005, Table 7.101N]
The background to the changes in the NA to
BS EN 1992-2:2005, NA.2.2 and Table NA.2, from the recommended
values in BS EN 1992-2:2005, Table 7.101N is as follows.
a) For XD or XS exposure, BS EN 1992-2:2005, Table 7.101N requires
only decompression. While this will be satisfactory in the immediate
vicinity of prestressing tendons, cracking could still occur in parts
remote from the tendons. The NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005 has
therefore given a crack width limit for these zones.
b) The decompression requirement is specified for durability of
tendons. The recommended distance from the tendons where
decompression has to be checked is given in BS EN 1992-2:2005
as 100 mm. Since 100 mm is likely to be greater than the cover
required for durability, this introduces an anomaly. For example,
only 50 mm of concrete in compression might be deemed adequate
to protect the tendons, whereas 60 mm of concrete in compression
plus 40 mm not in compression would not, which is clearly illogical.
Changing the distance from the recommended value of 100 mm to
the cover required for durability, cmin,dur, is more logical.
c) Because the exposure is defined at the surface but decompression
is checked at the tendon, there was a lack of clarity when the
surface with the most severe exposure classification is not the
most tensile face.
d) It has been clarified that the exposure used is the worst the surface
is exposed to, even if the cracking will arise at a different time.
e) It has been found that compliance with the recommended rules is
unduly restrictive in the case of tops of the precast beams at the
supports that have been made continuous for live load. The
recommendations in the NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005 relax the rules
in line with past practice as given in BD 57 [12] and
BS EN 15050:2007, Annex D.
© BSI 2008 • 19
PD 6687-2:2008
8.2.2 Concrete cover to be used in the evaluation of crack

spacing and crack width [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 7.3.4]
In BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (7.11) the cover, c, should
be taken as cnom. The use of the resulting value of sr,max in
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (7.8) will then provide an estimation
of the crack width at the surface of the concrete. In some situations,
such as structures cast against the ground, cnom will be significantly
greater than the cover required for durability. Where there are no
appearance requirements it is reasonable to determine the crack width
at the cover required for durability and verify that it does not exceed the
relevant maximum crack width.
This may be done by multiplying the crack width determined at the
surface by (cmin,dur + Δcdev)/cnom to give the crack width at the cover
required for durability, and verifying that it is not greater than wmax.
This approach assumes that the crack width varies linearly from zero at
the bar. Given the accuracy of crack calculation methods this
simplification is considered reasonable.
NOTE It is planned that such an approach will be included in revisions
to the National Annexes to BS EN 1992-1-1 and BS EN 1992-2.
8.2.3 Crack width due to restrained imposed deformation

BS EN 1992-2:2005 does not provide guidance on calculating crack
widths due to early age restraint of imposed deformation, which can
arise due to early thermal contraction and shrinkage. Such effects
should be taken into account in design. Complementary guidance is
provided in CIRIA Report C660 [13].
9 Detailing of reinforcement and

prestressing tendons – General
9.1 Laps [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7]
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7.2 (2) requires that laps should normally be
staggered. This should be regarded as good practice but there might be
situations where this requirement cannot be fulfilled. The definition of
a staggered lap is effectively a lap where the longitudinal distance
between it and adjacent laps is not less than 0.3l0.
Where the provisions of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7.2 (3) and Figure 8.7
are met, BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 8.7.2 (4) allows 100% of the bars in
tension detailed in this way to be lapped when the bars are all in one
layer. Different patterns of staggering will however lead to different
required lap lengths through the parameter α6. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004,
Table 8.3 and Figure 8.8 introduce a definition of the percentage of laps
in a section. This definition is used solely for determining α6 and
transverse reinforcement requirements in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7.4.
It is not the same as the definition of the percentage of lapped bars
used in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7.2 (4), which effectively states that
when all the bars in a layer are lapped in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 8.7, 100% lapping of the reinforcement
is achieved. Thus, if all the bars in a layer are staggered alternately
in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 8.7, this will
20 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
constitute 50% lapping in a section in accordance with

BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Table 8.3. If the bars are in several layers,
only 50% of bars may be lapped in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7.2 (4). In this situation, this may be
interpreted as a requirement not to have identical lapping arrangements
overlying each other in each layer. This may be achieved by ensuring the
staggering requirement of maintaining a distance of 0.3l0 between
adjacent laps is maintained between layers as well as within layers. This
requirement need not applied to bars in opposite faces of a beam or slab
where the sign of the stress is different in each face. Further guidance
The intention of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7.4.1 (2) is to permit the
minimum transverse reinforcement already provided as links or
distribution reinforcement to be used to satisfy the requirement for
transverse reinforcement provision without any further justification
when laps are quadruply staggered, see Figure 5. Therefore, the
criterion that less than 25% of the reinforcement has to be lapped in one
section may be taken as less than or equal to 25%.
Figure 5 Illustration of quadruply staggered laps

0.3 l0 0.3 l0 0.3 l0
l0 l0 l0 l0
II
III
IV
II
III
IV
Where the diameter of the lapped bars is greater than or equal

to 20 mm, BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 8.7.4.1 (3) requires transverse
reinforcement to be provided with a total area, ΣAst , of not less than the
area, As, of one lapped bar assuming that the lapped bar is fully stressed.
The transverse reinforcement is required to be placed perpendicular to
the direction of the lapped reinforcement at no more than 150 mm
centres. For skew reinforcement with reinforcement ratio ρ x at an
angle φ from the perpendicular to the lapping bars, the effective
reinforcement ratio transverse to the lapping bars should be taken
as ρ x cos4 φ . This effective reinforcement ratio should be used in the
calculation of ΣAst .
© BSI 2008 • 21
PD 6687-2:2008
In cases where transverse reinforcement is required by

BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.7.4.1 (3), that clause states that it should be
placed between the lapped bars and the concrete surface. Clearly, this
is only practical to apply in beams and one-way spanning slabs; the rules
cannot conveniently be applied to two-way spanning slabs. In such
circumstances, where it is impractical or impossible to comply with this
requirement, the lapped bars should either be quadruply staggered or a
value of α3 of 1.0 should be used in lap length calculation.
9.2 Spacing of post-tension ducts

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.10.1.3]
In the absence of the provision of reinforcement between ducts to
prevent splitting of the concrete, designed in accordance with the strut
and tie rules given in BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.5, the minimum centre to
centre duct spacings should be as given in Table 3. These spacings are
as given in BS 5400-4:1990.
9.3 Anchorage zones of post-tensioned members

[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.10.3]

The design of anchorage zones in post-tensioned members should
include consideration of the following:
• the highly stressed compression concrete in the immediate vicinity
of the anchorages;
• spalling at the loaded face;
• bursting stresses generated in the localized area of the anchorage;
• transverse tensile forces arising from any further spread of load
outside this localized area.
Forces in reinforcement resulting from the above factors may be
determined using the methods given in CIRIA Guide 1 [14] as
a satisfactory method of compliance with
BS EN 1992-2:2005, 8.10.3 (104) of. The design pretressing force
should be taken as γ p,unfav Pmax.
BS EN 1992-2:2005, Annex J should be used with caution as, for
bursting and spalling, it leads to minimum reinforcement requirements
only and does not consider the dispersal of load beyond the primary
prism. The bearing pressure behind the bearing plate should be verified
in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.10.3 (3). Further guidance
22 • © BSI 2008
Table 3 Minimum spacing of post-tension ducts

Radius of Duct internal diameter (mm)
curvature of
duct (m) 19 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Tendon force (kN)
296 387 960 1337 1920 2640 3360 4320 5183 6019 7200 8640 9424 10336 11248 13200
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
2 110 140 350 485 700 960
4 55 70 175 245 350 480 610 785 940 Radii not
6 38 60 120 165 235 320 410 525 630 730 870 1045 normally used
8 90 125 175 240 305 395 470 545 655 785 855 940
10 80 100 140 195 245 315 375 440 525 630 685 750 815
12 160 205 265 315 365 435 525 570 625 680 800
14 140 175 225 270 315 375 450 490 535 585 785
16 160 195 235 275 330 395 430 470 510 600
18 180 210 245 290 350 380 420 455 535
20 200 220 265 315 345 375 410 480
22 240 285 310 340 370 435
24 265 285 315 340 400
26 260 280 300 320 370
28 345
30 340
32
34
36
38
PD 6687-2:2008
40 38 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
© BSI 2008
NOTE 1 The tendon force shown is the maximum normally available for the given size of duct (taken as 80% of the characteristic strength of the tendon).
NOTE 2 Values less than 2 × duct internal diameter are not included.
•
23
PD 6687-2:2008
9.4 Deviators [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 8.10.5]

Analysis to determine the forces in unbonded tendons is normally
arranged to give a low estimate of tendon force because this is safe for
the overall check of the structure. However, this means it is not safe to
use it to design the deviators. Deviators, therefore, have to be checked
for the ultimate limit state for the characteristic strength of the tendons.
Although it might be argued a factor of γm should be applied to increase
this, it is considered that other conservative features of the analysis
make this unnecessary and a factor of 1.0 may be used. Where
serviceability checks are required, the tendon forces before long term
losses should be used.
In the absence of test results or other investigations justifying smaller
values, the radius of curvature of tendons in the deviators should be not
less than the values given in Table 4.
Table 4 Minimum radius of curvature of tendons in the deviators

Tendons Minimum radius of
curvature
Number of strands Diameter
mm m
19 13 2.5
12 15 2.5
31 13 3.0
19 15 3.0
53 13 5.0
37 15 5.0
The limits given in Table 4 are based on recent UK practice and

were originally taken from the SETRA document External
prestressing [15].
10 Detailing of members and particular

rules
10.1 Shear reinforcement and torsion reinforcement
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 9.2.2 and 9.2.3]
BS EN 1992-2:2005, 9.2.2 (101) and BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 9.2.3 (1)
give requirements for the angle between the shear reinforcement and
the axis of the structural element and between the torsion reinforcement
and the axis of the structural element, respectively. These
requirements can be impractical for haunched elements and
reinforcement links perpendicular to either surface of the element
generally may be used.
24 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
10.2 Compression reinforcement of beams and

columns
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 9.2.1.2 (3) and 9.5.3 (6)]
Where the design of a section has included the contribution of any
longitudinal compression reinforcement in the resistance calculation,
such longitudinal compression reinforcement should be effectively
restrained by transverse reinforcement. Effective restraint may be
achieved by satisfying all of the following conditions.
a) Links should be so arranged that every corner and alternate bar or
group in an outer layer of compression reinforcement is held in
place by a link anchored in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Figure 8.5 a) or b).
b) All other compression reinforcement should be within 150 mm of a
bar held in place by a link.
c) The minimum size of the transverse reinforcement and links,
where necessary, should be in accordance with
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 9.5.3 (1).
For circular columns, where the longitudinal reinforcement is located

round the periphery of a circle, adequate lateral support is provided by
a circular tie passing round the bars or groups.
10.3 Additional longitudinal reinforcement with

unbonded tendons
[BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 9.2.1.3 (2)]
If unbonded tendons are used to resist the additional force ΔFtd it is
necessary [as discussed in the comments on 6.2.4 (see 7.2.5 of this
document)] to check that the tendon force is adequate. This can be done
by considering equilibrium from first principles or by undertaking the
flexural checks ignoring increases in prestress force or eccentricity in
the distance αl from the section considered.
10.4 Pile caps

Where the distance between the edge of a pile and a pier is less than 2d,
some of the shear force in the pile cap will be transmitted directly
between the pier and the pile via a strutting action. The basic punching
perimeter cannot be constructed without encompassing a part of the
support as shown in perimeter (a) in Figure 6. In such cases, it is
recommended that the tension reinforcement is provided with a full
anchorage beyond the line of the pile centres and that the shear design
takes into consideration the following in addition to other verifications
required by BS EN 1992-2:2005.
a) Flexural shear on planes passing across the full width of the
pile cap. Flexural shear should be checked on planes passing
across the full width of the pile cap, such as plane (b) in Figure 6.
Shear enhancement should be taken into account by an increase to
the concrete resistance and not by a reduction in the shear force,
see 7.2.2 of this document. Where the spacing of the pile centres
is less than or equal to 3 pile diameters, the short shear span
enhancement may be applied over the whole section. Where the
© BSI 2008 • 25
PD 6687-2:2008
spacing is greater than this, the enhancement may only be applied

on strips of width 3 pile diameters centred on each pile. The shear
span, av, should be taken as the distance between the face of the
column or wall and the nearer edge of the piles plus 20% of the
pile diameter.
b) Maximum permissible shear stress for punching. The
maximum permissible shear stress at the face of piles and piers
should be checked in accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004,
Expression (6.53). The shear perimeter for corner piles should be
the pile perimeter, or a perimeter passing partially around the pile
and extending out to the free edges of the pile cap, whichever is
less.
c) Punching resistance of corner piles. Corner piles should be
checked for punching resistance at a 2d perimeter (without
support enhancement) ignoring the presence of the pier or
support and any vertical reinforcement within it.
Figure 6 Corner pile within 2d of a column base

(a) (b)
Key
(a) 2d perimeter
(b) Flexural shear plane across cap
10.5 Requirements for voided slabs
10.5.1 General
The recommendations given in 10.5.2 to 10.5.5 should be used for the
design of voided slab bridge decks cast in situ.
26 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
10.5.2 Transverse shear

The effects of cell distortion due to transverse shear should be
considered. In particular:
a) the increased stresses in the transverse reinforcement and shear
links due to cell distortion resulting from transverse shear should
be calculated by an appropriate analysis (e.g. an analysis based on
the assumption that the transverse section acts in a manner similar
to a Vierendeel frame);
b) the resistance of the flanges and webs to the local moments
produced by the transverse shear effects should be verified.
The top and bottom flanges should be designed as solid slabs, each to
carry a part of the global transverse shear force proportional to the
flange thickness.
10.5.3 Longitudinal shear

The longitudinal ribs between the voids should be designed as beams to
resist the shear forces in the longitudinal direction, including any shear
due to torsional effects.
10.5.4 Punching
Guidance on the punching of loads through a voided slab as a whole is
given by Clark and Thorogood [16].
Punching of wheel loads through the top flange of decks with circular
voids generally need only be considered for unusually thin flanges,
typically those with void diameter to slab depth ratios of greater
than 0.75 [17], [18]
10.5.5 Transverse reinforcement

In the absence of a detailed analysis, the minimum transverse
reinforcement provided should be as follows [19]:
a) in the predominantly tensile flange either 1 500 mm2/m or 1% of
the minimum flange section, whichever is the lesser;
b) in the predominantly compressive flange either 1 000 mm2/m or
0.7% of the minimum flange section, whichever is the lesser.
The spacing of the transverse reinforcement should not exceed twice
the minimum flange thickness.
In skew voided slabs, it is preferable for the transverse steel to be placed
perpendicular to the voids and the longitudinal steel to be placed
parallel to the voids.
11 Additional rules for precast concrete

elements and structures
11.1 Dynamic effects [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 10.2 (2)]
In the absence of more accurate analysis, dynamic factors of 0.8 and 1.2
may typically be used for precast elements for lifting and transport.
© BSI 2008 • 27
PD 6687-2:2008
12 Additional rules for external

prestressing
The following additional rules are recommended for the design of
structures with external prestressing. The need for their application
should be determined on a project-specific basis.
a) All external and unbonded tendons should be replaceable. Where
the detailing does not enable tendons to be removed and replaced
without damage to either the tendons or the structure, a method
statement defining how the tendons can be replaced should be
provided. A method statement defining how the structure can be
demolished should also be provided.
b) Where it is necessary to restrict traffic on the bridge to replace the
tendons, the extent of this restriction should be agreed with the
client and defined in a method statement
c) Bridges should be checked to ensure that the removal either of any
two tendons or of 25% of those at one section, whichever has the
more onerous effect, will not lead to collapse at the ultimate limit
state under the design ultimate permanent loads.

d) Where tendon restraints are widely spaced (typically at distances
greater than 12h) checks should be made to ensure the natural
frequency of the free length of tendons is not resonant with that of
the structure as a whole.
28 • © BSI 2008
PD 6687-2:2008
Bibliography
Standards publications
For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated
references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any
amendments) applies.
BS 4449, Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Weldable
reinforcing steel – Bar, coil and decoiled product – Specification
BS 5400-4:1990, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 4: Code
of practice for the design of concrete bridges
BS EN 15050:2007, Precast concrete products – Bridge elements
PD 6687:20062), Background paper to the UK National Annexes to
BS EN 1992-1
Other publications
[1] fib Bulletin D’Information No. 242. Ductility of reinforced
concrete structures. Lausanne: Comite Euro-International du
Beton, 1998.
[2] HENDY, C.R., and D.A. SMITH. Designers’ guide to EN 1992-2.
London: Thomas Telford, 2007. ISBN: 0727731599.
[3] DENTON, S.R., The strength of reinforced concrete slabs and
the implications of limited ductility. PhD Thesis, Cambridge
University, 2001.
[4] CLEMENTS, S.W., CRANSTON, W.B. and M.G. SYMONS.
Influence of section breadth on rotation capacity. Cement and
Concrete Association, Technical Report 533, Slough, 1980.
[5] JACKSON, P.A. Slender concrete bridge piers and the effective
height provisions of BS 5400: Part 4: 1984. Wexham Springs:
Cement and Concrete Association, June 1985. Publication 42.561.
[6] WESTERBERG, B. Second order effects in slender concrete
structures: Background to the rules in EC2. KTH TRITA-BKN
Report 77. 2004.
[7] JACKSON, P. and S. SALIM. Web crushing in EN 1992. The
Structural Engineer. 2006, 84 (23), 50–57.
[8] SCHLAICH, J., SCHAFER, K. and M. JENNEWEIN, Toward a
consistent design of structural concrete, PCI Journal. 1987,
32(3), 74–150.
[9] WOOD, R.H. The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a
pre-determined field of moments. Concrete. 1968, 2, 69–76.
[10] ARMER, G.S.T. Correspondence on Wood, R.H. [17], Concrete.
1968, 2, 319–320.
[11] DENTON, S.R., and C.J. BURGOYNE. The assessment of
reinforced concrete slabs. The Structural Engineer. 1996,
74 (9), 147–152.
2) PD 6687:2006 is being revised and is to be renumbered PD 6687-1.
© BSI 2008 • 29
PD 6687-2:2008
[12] HIGHWAYS AGENCY, BD 57/01 Design for Durability.

Highways Agency, 2001. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
Vol. 1 Section 3 Part 83).
[13] CIRIA Report C660, Early age thermal crack control in
concrete. London: CIRIA, 2007.
[14] CIRIA Guide 1, A guide to the design of anchor blocks for
post-tensioned prestressed concrete members. London: CIRIA,
1976.
[15] SERVICE D’ETUDES DES ROUTES ET AUTOROUTES. External
prestressing. Bagneux, France: SETRA, 1990.
[16] CLARK, L.A. and P. THOROGOOD. Flexural and punching
shear strengths of concrete beams and slabs. Transport and
Road Research Laboratory, Contractor Report 60, 1987.
[17] ELLIOTT, G., CLARK, L.A. and R.M. SYMMONS. Test of a
quarter-scale reinforced concrete voided slab bridge. Cement
and Concrete Association. 1979
[18] WALKER, G. Strength assessment of reinforced concrete
voided slab bridges. PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 2006.
[19] CLARK, L.A. and G. ELLIOTT. Crack control in concrete bridges.

The Structural Engineer. 1980, 58A(5), 157–162.
3) Available from http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/index.htm
30 • © BSI 2008
This page deliberately left blank

PD 6687-2:2008
PD 6687-2:2008
BSI – British Standards Institution

BSI is the independent national body responsible for preparing British Standards.
It presents the UK view on standards in Europe and at the international level. It is
incorporated by Royal Charter.
Revisions
British Standards are updated by amendment or revision. Users of British Standards
should make sure that they possess the latest amendments or editions.
It is the constant aim of BSI to improve the quality of our products and services.
We would be grateful if anyone finding an inaccuracy or ambiguity while using this
British Standard would inform the Secretary of the technical committee responsible,
the identity of which can be found on the inside front cover.
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9000 Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7400
BSI offers members an individual updating service called PLUS which ensures that
subscribers automatically receive the latest editions of standards.
Buying standards
Orders for all BSI, international and foreign standards publications should be
addressed to Customer Services. Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9001

Fax: +44 (0)20 8996 7001 Email: [email protected]
You may also buy directly using a debit/credit card from the BSI Shop on the
Website http://www.bsigroup.com/shop.
In response to orders for international standards, it is BSI policy to supply the BSI
implementation of those that have been published as British Standards, unless
otherwise requested.
Information on standards
BSI provides a wide range of information on national, European and international
standards through its Library and its Technical Help to Exporters Service. Various
BSI electronic information services are also available which give details on all its
products and services. Contact the Information Centre. Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7111
Subscribing members of BSI are kept up to date with standards developments and
receive substantial discounts on the purchase price of standards. For details of these
and other benefits contact Membership Administration. Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7002
Information regarding online access to British Standards via British Standards Online
can be found at http://www.bsigroup.com/BSOL.
Further information about BSI is available on the BSI website at
http://www.bsigroup.com.
Copyright
Copyright subsists in all BSI publications. BSI also holds the copyright, in the UK, of
the publications of the international standardization bodies. Except as permitted
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic,
BSI Group Headquarters photocopying, recording or otherwise – without prior written permission from BSI.
389 Chiswick High Road, This does not preclude the free use, in the course of implementing the standard, of
London W4 4AL, UK necessary details such as symbols, and size, type or grade designations. If these
details are to be used for any other purpose than implementation then the prior
Tel +44 (0)20 8996 9001 written permission of BSI must be obtained.
Fax +44 (0)20 8996 7001 Details and advice can be obtained from the Copyright & Licensing Manager.
www.bsigroup.com/standards Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7070 Email: [email protected]

PD 6687-2 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6687-2 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6687-2 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 6687-2:2008

NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW

Publishing and copyright information

ISBN 978 0 580 58681 1

The following BSI references relate to the work on this standard:

Amendments issued since publication

Amd. no. Date Text affected

Relationship with other publications

type. Its recommendations are expressed in sentences in which the

Contractual and legal considerations

1) PD 6687:2006 is being revised and is to be renumbered PD 6687-1.

BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2.3.1 allows thermal effects, settlements, and

3.2 Partial factors for materials

4.2 Design compressive and tensile strengths

for αcc is clearly justified. The NA to BS EN 1992-2:2005, therefore,

4.3 Confined concrete [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 3.1.9]

4.4 Ductility characteristic

The restriction on taking account of Class A fabric reinforcement in the

5 Durability and cover to

Half-joints should not be used in bridges unless there are adequate

6.2 Geometrical imperfections

In using BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Expression (5.2) the eccentricity, ei,

Figure 1 Imperfections for pier built in at both ends

a) Sinusoidal imperfection b) Angular imperfection

6.3 Linear elastic analysis

6.4 Linear elastic analysis with limited

6.5 Plastic analysis [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.6]

response of a non-solid slab is similar to a solid slab should include

6.6 Rotation capacity [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.6.3]

The reduced rotation capacity of non-solid sections stems from the

6.7 Analysis of second order effects with axial load

6.7.1 Slenderness and effective length of isolated members

Table 1 Effective height, l0, for columns

2 Top Full None 0.85l

3 Top Full None 1.0l

4 Top None A) None A) 1.3l

5 Top None None 1.4l

A) Assumed value (see 6.7.1).

Table 1 Effective height, l0, for columns (continued)

7 Top None None 2.3l

A) Assumed value (see 6.7.1).

6.7.2 Creep [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 5.8.4]

7 Ultimate limit states

7.1.1 Strain distributions

The application of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.1 (6) and Figure 6.1 to a

Figure 2 Limiting strain distributions

7.1.2 External prestressing strain between fixed points

7.1.3 Robustness of prestressed elements

Shear [BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 6.2]

7.2.1 Evaluation of chord forces

7.2.2 Shear enhancement [BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.2 (101)

7.2.3 Shear resistance of uncracked prestressed members

where the symbols are as defined in BS EN 1992-1-1, 2004, 6.2.2 (2),

bw is the width of the cross section at the location being checked,

area below the location being checked, calculated about the

7.2.4 Members requiring design shear reinforcement

7.2.4.2 Web crushing limits [BS EN 1992-2:2005, 6.2.3 (103)]

7.2.4.3 Design for smallest value of VEd in an increment

inclined struts transfer the load into the adjacent increment, as

Figure 3 Illustration of increment size for shear reinforcement design