[PPT] - Adopting the Eurocodes: Why, When and How? Professor David A PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Adopting the Eurocodes:

Why, When and How?

Professor David A Nethercot Tan Swan BEng Endowed Professor

1

TSB Public Lecture Wednesday, 6th August 2014

SLIDE 2

2

IStructE View of Structural Eurocodes

The Structural Eurocodes are the most wide-ranging

change to codification of Structural Design ever experienced in the UK.

They are in many ways the most technically advanced

suite of structural design codes anywhere in the world.

SLIDE 3

Structural Eurocodes

1973, UK (Denmark and Ireland) sign the “Treaty of

Rome

Removal of barriers to free movement of goods and

services within the EEC

National Standards for construction works seen as one

such “barrier”

Elimination of National Standards for Structural

Engineering

Work commenced on common standards for use within

all member countries

Cover all aspects of structural design and execution

3

SLIDE 4

Current Position

40 years on
10 Structural Eurocodes
Cover all materials, including Geotechnics, as

well as Basis of Design, Loading and Seismic

58 parts
Thousands of pages
Now implemented throughout Europe

4

SLIDE 5

5

SLIDE 6

6

SLIDE 7

7

SLIDE 8

8

SLIDE 9

9

SLIDE 10

10

SLIDE 11

11

SLIDE 12

12

The Structural Eurocodes - Scope

The structural Eurocodes are

– EN 1990 Basis of structural design – EN 1991 Actions on structures – EN 1992 Design of concrete structures – EN 1993 Design of steel structures – EN 1994 Design of composite steel and concrete structures – EN 1995 Design of timber structures – EN 1996 Design of masonry structures – EN 1997 Geotechnical design – EN 1998 Design of structures for earthquake resistance – EN 1999 Design of aluminium structures

SLIDE 13

Development

European Commission – Project teams (1975)
Considerable variability in scope and style
CEN (European body responsible for Standardisation)
CEN TC 250 – overall responsibility (1989)
New Project teams

ENV and EN

Input from National Standards Organisations
Limited use in practice of ENVs
National Application Documents
Gulliotine

13

SLIDE 14

14

Particular Features

No duplication of material

Efficient in theory
Inconvenient to refer to different sections when

conducting a single task

Even more so if moving across several documents e.g.

composite bridge

Navigation through and between documents

SLIDE 15

15

Axis System

Follows that used by computer software xx - along the member yy - axis of the cross-section zz - axis for the cross section

SLIDE 16

16

Language

Equivalent meaning in several European

languages

“Actions” and “Loads”

SLIDE 17

17

Arrangement

Similar sequence in documents
Grouped by task not by need i.e. shear

checks not beam design

Scope to repackage

SLIDE 18

18

Code not “Textbook”

English speaking

guidance, procedure

Mainland Europe principles

SLIDE 19

19

What does adoption mean for countries outside the EU?

Switzerland, Norway...
Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore...
USA, China, Australia...

SLIDE 20

Role of Structural Codes

Codes don’t provide imagination, concepts

and flair

Codes don’t replace personnel experience,

knowledge and understanding

Therefore use them wisely and creatively, not

in an unthinking and prescriptive fashion

20

SLIDE 21

Assist in ensuring the integrity of structural

designs and thence the production of safe structures

Modus Operandus varies e.g. Italy vs UK
Invoked in contracts, insurance etc
Questionable value of “designed according to

the Code”

21

SLIDE 22

22

1975 Commission of the European Community

Common design criteria
Common understanding
Facilitate exchanges
Facilitate marketing
Common basis for R & D
Increase competitiveness

SLIDE 23

23

BS0 A Standard for Standards – 6 aims

f Standardisation

i. To simplify the growing variety of products and procedures

ii. To improve communications
iii. To promote overall economy
iv. To ensure safety
v. To protect consumer and community interests
vi. To eliminate trade barriers

Obvious potential for conflict

SLIDE 24

24

Dr Flint – chairman Part 3 of BS5400 writing in 1980

“Designers have different priorities. Many plead for simplicity in a

Code both for speed of application and to enable it to be used by Engineers with limited experience. Some expect rules to be both simple and all embracing. Others expect that they should refer to fundamental knowledge when designing major bridges and want freedom for experienced designers to work beyond the scope of a

Code. Those competing for worldwide markets require the Code to

produce the “most economical” bridges. Simplicity of design rules and economy in the material content of a bridge are incompatible for other than simple structures”.

“Researchers desire a code to be technically perfect and

comprehensive, making use of the most recent research results.”

SLIDE 25

25

Use of Codes

Part of the portfolio of assistance available to the

structural designer:

Manufacturers literature
Design guides
Software
Textbooks
Worked examples
Substantial infrastructure supporting the use of a

(major) code

SLIDE 26

26 Design Guides Textbooks Software Manuals Worked Examples Codes Designer Product Standards Manufacturers Literature Education, Experience and Understanding Amplify Simplify Supplement

SLIDE 27

27

“The onset of new or revised regulations invariably

heralds a trying period of the unfortunate people who have to work such regulations. This applies both to those who have to comply with, and those who have to administer, such regulations”.

Transition

SLIDE 28

28

Transition Costs

£2500M -

UK Steel Construction Industry

£200M -

Total Design Costs

£100M -

Fraction directly Code related

£10M
Efficiency loss
?
Consequence of misapplication

failure

SLIDE 29

29 Item £ Cost of purchasing 1 set of Structural Eurocodes including National Annexes (estimate) 2,750 Cost of buying guidance documents (assumed) 1,000 Cost of updating software (assumed) 20,000 Attendance at technical seminars (assume 3 days per person)  Cost of seminars (assume £150 net each seminar) = 16 x 3 £150  Cost of attendance = 16 x 3 x 7.5 x £50 7,200 18,000 Familiarisation with codes in the office (assume 12 man-days for each person) = 16 x 12 x 7.5 x £50 72,500 Alterations to standard ‘in house’ specification documents (allow 14 documents at an average of 1 man-day each ) = 14 x 7.5 x £50 5,250 Loss of productivity during first year of change (assume average annual billing (productive time) = 1600 and 10% loss of productivity) = 1600 x 16 x 0.1 x £50 128,000 Tota tal 254,7 ,700 Note: The cost rate is based on costs averaged over all staff, from junior technician to director/partner and is not intended to include an element of profit.

SLIDE 30

Why adopt

Comprehensive and up to date coverage
Widespread adoption throughout Europe –

and possibly beyond

Supporting infrastructure will migrate to

Eurocode basis

Clients and Insurers likely to specify
Basis for Technical Education (in Europe)

30

SLIDE 31

Supporting Infrastructure

General information on available resources
Simplified and/or more limited presentations of the Code

Rules

Explanatory texts aimed at experienced Engineers unfamiliar

with the particular provisions of the Codes.

Supplementary material expanding on Code provisions and/or

making their use easier

Text-books giving background and explanation of how the

provisions should be used

Illustrative worked examples
Computer software
Short courses for practicing Engineers
Teaching materials aimed at undergraduate students

31

SLIDE 32

32

Eurocode Expert

SLIDE 33

33

Structural Codes

SLIDE 34

IStructE Manuals
Thomas Telford’s “Designer’s Guide to…” - 14

34

SLIDE 35

35

SLIDE 36

NCCI Non Contradictory Complimentary Information

Provides amplification and explanation
“Fills (some) gaps”
User friendly

36

SLIDE 37

Appraisal

Suite of Structural Eurocodes represent a major

technical resource

They are already implemented in virtually all

European countries, with substantial interest from

utside Europe
They aren’t perfect; to be used effectively they require

the supporting infrastructure to be in place

Adopting (or adapting and adopting) represents a

major task requiring planning and resourcing

Events are moving quickly; the situation is much

changed from 5 years ago

37

SLIDE 38

38

Background to the study

IStructE approached by ODPM in December

2003

‘National Strategy for Eurocodes’ Committee

formed

– Chairman Professor David Nethercot, President IStructE

Work commenced, 1 February 2004
Report submitted to ODPM, 30 April 2004

SLIDE 39

39

SLIDE 40

40

SLIDE 41

41

SLIDE 42

APPRAISAL

Only a part of the designer’s available material
Balance – competitive and comprehensive vs

ease of use

Facilitate not restrict – assist and guide vs

prevent

Need to “sell the benefits”
All estimates of production time will be

exceeded

42

SLIDE 43

Conclusion – 1

The Structural Eurocodes are:

Comprehensive in their coverage
Written in a consistent style across the

different parts

A reflection of the most up to date knowledge

43

SLIDE 44

Conclusion – 2

The Structural Eurocodes are not:

Easy to use
A continuation of the style of earlier National

Codes

44

SLIDE 45

A planned approach
Realisation that resources will be needed
Recognition of the importance of supporting

material

Appreciation of the scale of the task

45