EN BS - Uk

Transportation Engineering
The impact of the steel Eurocodes and implications

for Technical Approval
Chris Hendy
Head of Bridge Design and Technology -
Atkins
Eurocodes 3 and 4
Introduction
Eurocodes needed for steel-concrete composite
bridge design
New terminology
Some comparisons with BS 5400
Technical Approval
Impacts on costs
Summary
Title goes here 1

Eurocodes 3 and 4
Eurocodes needed for steel-concrete

composite bridge design
Eurocodes needed for steel composite design
Eurocode Equivalent
BS5400
EN 1990 Basis of structural design BS5400 Part 1 and 2
ACTIONS
EN 1991-1-1 Densities, self weight and imposed loads

EN 1991-1-2 Actions on structures exposed to fire
EN 1991-1-3 Snow loads
EN 1991-1-4 Wind loads BS5400 Part 2
EN 1991-1-5 Thermal loads
EN 1991-1-6 Actions during execution
EN 1991-1-7 Accidental actions
EN 1991-2 Traffic loads on bridges
CONCRETE
EN 1992-1-1 General rules and rules for buildings BS 5400 Part 4
EN 1992-2 Bridges
Title goes here 2

Eurocodes needed for steel composite design
Eurocode Equivalent
BS5400
STEEL
EN 1993-1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
EN 1993-1-5 Plated structural elements
EN 1993-1-7 Strength of planar plated structures
loaded transversely
EN 1993-1-8 Design of joints BS5400 Part 3
EN 1993-1-9 Fatigue
EN 1993-1-10 Brittle fracture
EN 1993-1-11 Cables
EN 1993-2 Bridges
STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE
EN 1994-1-1 General rules and rules for buildings

BS 5400 Part 5
EN 1994-2 General rules and rules for bridges
Eurocodes 3 and 4
New terminology
Title goes here 3

New terminology
Euro-speak
Action
- force or imposed displacement
Verification
- check
Resistance
- capacity
Execution
- construction / fabrication
Isostatic
- primary
Characteristic, frequent, quasi-permanent
New terminology
Notation
Member sign convention more compatible

with analysis packages i.e. x-x along member
z z
v
z
y y
u
y y
y y
u
z z z v
Title goes here 4

New terminology
Notation
Extensive use of subscripts sometimes helpful:

Ed = design internal effect
e.g. NEd = design axial force
Rd = design resistance
e.g. NRd = design resistance to axial force
Extensive use of subscripts sometimes tedious:

E.g. Ac,eff,loc = effective compression area due to
plate sub-panel local buckling
Eurocodes 3 and 4
Some comparisons with BS 5400
Title goes here 5

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993
Material properties - steel
Yield strength varies with thickness as

BS 5400 Part 3 : 2000
Rules for maximum thickness allowed to
prevent brittle fracture covered in EC3-1-
10 gives similar results to BS5400 Part
3
Rules for through thickness ductility
(Z quality steel) now given in EC3-1-10
Material properties steel/concrete composite
EN 1994 limited to use with concretes between C20/25 and

C60/75
E = 210,000 MPa for structural steel and reinforcement (for
simplicity, c.f. 200,000 MPa in EN 1992-1-1)
Coefficient of thermal expansion:
- Structural steel = 12 10-6 K-1
- Concrete = 10 10-6 K-1
- Steel-concrete composite for differential temperature = 10 10-6 K-1
- Steel-concrete composite for direct temperature change = 12 10-6 K-1
Title goes here 6

Material factors
Resistance type Factor Recommended
Value
- resistance of cross sections to M0 1.00
excessive yielding including
local buckling
- resistance of members to M1 1.10
instability assessed by
member checks (shear)
- resistance of cross sections in M2 1.25
tension to fracture
Different subscript when different

value applies
Other material factors for bolt design
Material factors
Recommended values of material factors are:

Reinforcement s =1.15
Concrete c =1.5
Headed stud shear connectors v =1.25
Title goes here 7

Global analysis
Second order analysis is default analysis

Effect of shear lag has to be considered
Effect of plate buckling on stiffness has to be
considered if significant generally it isnt
Joint stiffness has to be included if joint
semi-continuous
Generally, none of these actually need
considering if they werent considered to
BS5400
Effects of cracking in elastic analysis

Cracking accounted for by one of two possible methods:
1. General method: Envelope of moments and shears is first calculated

for characteristic combinations of actions, assuming un-cracked
sections. The section is assumed to crack if the extreme-fibre tensile
stress in concrete exceeds twice the mean value of the axial tensile
strength.
2. Cracked section properties assumed as below (for beams with the
deck slab above the steel beams and ratio of adjacent spans at least
0.6)
0.15L1 0.15L2
L1 L2
Title goes here 8

Section classification
Class 1
M
- plastic global analysis M
Mpl
Mpl
Mel
Class 2 Mel
- plastic section analysis but

Class 1

limited rotation capacity Class 2

Class 3
M M
Mpl - achieves first yield but local Mpl
Mel
Mel
buckling prevents further load
increase
Class 3
Class 4 Class 4

- local buckling prevents

attainment of yield
Section classification
Internal compression parts
(typically webs)
Section classification based on
plastic stress block for Class 1 or
2 cross-sections
Section classification based on
elastic stress block for Class 3 or
4 cross-sections
If Class 3 limit not met, reduced
plate areas used for Class 4
elements (or reduced stresses)
c measured clear of root fillets
and weld toes
Title goes here 9

Shear lag steel

1.20
only
Effective width fraction

1.00
0.80
SLS
Must be considered
0.60
ULS
0.40
at ULS but generally 0.20

0.00
insignificant 0 0.1 0.2

bo/L
0.3 0.4 0.5
No significant
Effective width at internal supports
difference to BS5400
at SLS but potential b01 b02 C/L
difference at ULS
Could be significant
for wide orthotropic
boxes
Shear lag in composite sections

Le=0.25(L1 +L2)
Effective width based on Le/8 for beff,2 for beff,2
each side of stud group where Le=0.85L1 Le=0.70L2

Le = distance between points of for beff,1 for beff,1
contraflexure
Approximate values of Le given
L1 L2
beff = b0 + bei where bei is lesser
of Le/8 and bi L1/4 L1/2 L1/4 L2/4 L2/2 L2/4
Simpler than those in BS
beff,o beff,1 beff,2 beff,1 beff,2
5400:Part 5, and similar to those
b0
in BS 5950:Part 3.1:1990 b1 b2
Same effective width for ULS

and SLS be1 be2
centre-
Smaller effective width line
beneficial for shear connection
Title goes here 10

Cross section bending resistance

Essentially same as to BS5400 Part 3 except for
longitudinally stiffened beams or beams with Class
4 webs
For Class 1 and 2 sections, plastic cross-section
resistance is determined using fyd
For elastic section analysis with Class 3 sections,
stresses limited to fyd at mid-plane of flanges (rather
than outer fibre)
Plastic bending resistance (Class 1 or 2) - sagging

0.85 fcd
N.A
fyd
In EC4-2, fcd = fck / c and rectangular stress block extends

down to N.A
Differs from EC2 where fcd = cc fck / c and rectangular stress
block extends over 80% of compression zone only
Scope for error as recommended value for cc = 0.85,
particularly for checks of local + global
Title goes here 11

Plastic bending resistance (Class 1 or 2) - hogging

fsd
fyd
In EC4-2, fsd = fsk / s

Strength of concrete in tension is ignored
Elastic bending resistance (Class 3)

Stress limits to use are as follows
Concrete in compression: fcd
Structural steel: fyd
Reinforcement: fsd
- Stresses from different construction stages are summed. The
self-equilibriating effects of shrinkage should be included for Class
3 and 4 cross sections (except in cracked zones)
- Appropriate modular ratio used to allow for creep (long term)
Ma,Ed Mc,Ed shrinkage
Title goes here 12

Class 4 cross-section in bending

2
0.6beff
thickness
t bc
0.4beff
1
=2 / 1 beff=bc
For internal elements:

p 0.055(3 + ) fy fy b/t
= 1.0 p = = =
p2 cr k 2 Et 2 28.4 k with = (235 / fy )

12(1 2 )b 2

1 1>>0 0 0 > > -1 -1 -1 > > - 3
k 4.0 8.2/(1.05 + ) 7.81 7.81 6.29 + 9.782 23.9 5.98(1- )2
Longitudinally
stiffened girders
EC3 allows
redistribution from
overstressed stiffeners
and panels to occur by
using an effective
section
Design to EC3
Title goes here 13

Longitudinally Based on calculated

stresses, check
stiffened girders effective section as
a strut between
transverse restraints
BS5400 Part 3 required

separate web panel and
stiffener checks, based
on stresses calculated Based on calculated Based on calculated
on the gross web stresses, check
stiffener plus
stresses, check
panels for buckling
attached web of
width 32 x web
thickness as a strut
between transverse
restraints
Design to BS5400 Part 3
Stiffened girders
All elements optimally
used due to load
shedding - individual
weak panel or stiffener
doesnt limit resistance
Title goes here 14

1.4
Shear resistance 1.2
Shear buckling resistance 1
based on rotated stress 0.8

Rigid end post
w
field theory different but: 0.6
Non-rigid end post
w f yw hwt
Resistances generally
0.4
Vbw, Rd =
3 M 1
similar to BS5400 Part 3 0.2
hw
0 w =
37.4t k
At low slenderness, shear 0 1 2 3 4 5
Slenderness w
stresses in excess of yield
are permitted f yw hw t
Vb , Rd = Vbw, Rd + Vbf , Rd
Rigid end posts 3 M 1
- two double sided
c
stiffeners
- resist longitudinal web Vbf ,Rd V bf ,Rd
membrane forces
a
Combined bending
and shear
V
Shear interacts only with
moment cross section
Vbw ,Rd
resistance, not LTB
Shape of interaction in
EC3 is curved linear in Vbw ,Rd
BS5400 Part 3 2
Interaction can use

plastic bending
M f ,Rd M pl ,Rd M
resistance even if section
is Class 3 or 4
Title goes here 15

Combined bending
and shear
Shear interacts only with V
moment cross section
resistance, not LTB Vbw ,Rd
Shape of interaction in
EC3 is curved linear in Vbw ,Rd
BS5400 Part 3 2
Interaction can use

plastic bending
resistance even if section M f ,Rd M el ,Rd M
is Class 3 or 4
Flexural buckling under axial load

Buckling curves virtually identical to those in BS5400 Part 3
same imperfections and Perry-Robertson formula
Slenderness written differently and one additional curve

Af
= y
N cr
Title goes here 16

Other buckling under axial load

Check of torsional buckling / flexural torsional buckling
also necessary; new check
More calculation little influence
3 2 2 2
N cr ,TF (i s u s v s ) N cr ,TF
2
[(N u + N v + N cr ,T )i s N v u s N u v s
2 2 2
] + N cr ,TF i s (N u N v + N v N cr ,T + N cr ,T N u ) N u N v N cr ,T i s = 0
2 2
N N N Nu
N Nv Nu Nv
Nv , Nu Nu
Nv
Ncr,T Ncr,T Ncr,TF
Ncr,T Ncr,T
Ncr,TF
L L L L
u u u u u u u u
Torsional buckling Flexural torsional buckling
Lateral torsional
fy
buckling M b , Rd = LT W y
M1
1
BS5400 Part 3 has LT =
LT + LT LT
2 2
extensive guidance
EC3 tends to
compel the user to
use finite element
modelling or
simplified flange LT =
Wy f y
[
LT = 0.5 1 + LT ( LT 0.2 ) + LT
2
]
M cr
strut models 0.5

2 EI z k I w
2
(kL) 2 GI T
+ (C 2 z g C 3 z j ) (C 2 z g C 3 z j )

2
M cr = C1 +
(kL) k w I z
2
2
EI z

Title goes here 17


N
Combined bending and
axial
Increasing
BS5400 Part 3 had simple slenderness
guidance for overall buckling,
based on linear interactions
EC3 is highly theoretical and
complex to use, leading to
concave interactions in some Mz
instances My
Rules dont apply for asymmetric
beams - can do elastic critical N Ed M y , Ed + M y , Ed M z , Ed + M z , Ed
buckling analyses or second z N Rk
+ k zy
M y , Rk
+ k zz
M z , Rk
1.0
order analysis with imperfections LT
M1 M1 M1
Possible to simplify with M y , Ed + M y , Ed M z , Ed + M z , Ed
N Ed
experience y N Rk
+ k yy
M y , Rk
+ k yz
M z , Rk
1.0
LT
M1 M1 M1
Intermediate Stiffeners
Check for stiffness and strength (like BS 5950)
Rules less conservative than those in BS5400 Part 3 where
beam has unequal flanges (but same as BS 5950)
1 f yw hw t
Pshear = V Ed
w 2
3 M 1
Pshear
VEd
Title goes here 18

EN 1993-2: Non-linear analysis
Non-linear analysis
Non-linear analysis permitted by EN 1993-1-5
Rules given for stress-strain relationships and
imperfections
Can lead to greater economy than the basic design rules,
but time-consuming
Transverse stiffeners is again an example
Comparison made with tests by Rockey, Valtinat and Tang (1981)

Non-linear finite element model set up following rules of EN 1993-1-5
188 kN actual test load at failure

Predicted usage factor of
stiffener = 6.5 to Eurocode 3
Predicted usage factor of

panel = 1.18 to Eurocode 3
Title goes here 19

Physical test Finite element model
Real test failure was by bowing of stiffener at load of 188 kN

Same failure mode in FE at load of 180 kN
Test failure load = 188 kN

Non-linear FE model predicted failure load = 180 kN
EC3 predicted failure load (based on web resistance) = 160 kN
EC3 predicted failure load (based on stiffener) = 29 kN !!
Test TGV8 - Load / Deflection Curves of FE and Model
Testing
25
20
Applied Load (tons)
15
10
FE Results (Imperfection 1)
5 Lab Test Results Scaled
from Figure 8
FE Results (Imperfection 2)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vertical Midspan Deflection (mm)
Title goes here 20

Serviceability
Stress checks similar to BS 5400
New check for web-breathing
Increased buckle
under load
Initially dished
plate panel
SLS crack widths

Crack width calculation must allow for the effects of tension
stiffening in reinforcement stress calculation, s:
s = s,0 + s
0.4 f ctm AI
where s = with st = and s,0 is calculated neglecting concrete in tension
st s Aa I a
A, I are area and second moment of area of the composite section, ignoring concrete in tension
Aa, Ia are area and second moment of area of the structural steel section
s is the reinforcement ratio
Reinforcement stress calculation should include both local and

global effects
Crack criterion depends on environmental exposure class to EN
1992
Title goes here 21

Exposure Reinforced members and prestressed Prestressed members with bonded

Class members with unbonded tendons tendons
Quasi-permanent load combination Frequent load combination
X0, XC1 0.31 0.2
XC2, XC3, XC4 0.22
0.3
XD1, XD2, XD3
Decompression
XS1, XS2, XS3
Note 1: For X0, XC1 exposure classes, crack width has no influence on durability and this limit is set to guarantee
acceptable appearance. In the absence of appearance conditions this limit may be relaxed.
Note 2: For these exposure classes, in addition, decompression should be checked under the quasi-permanent
combination of loads.
Recommended values of crack width (mm) for bridges
SLS crack widths

Check reinforcement stress s is less than allowable for
given bar diameter or bar spacing:
Stresses for bar spacing Stresses for bar diameter

Steel stress Maximum bar spacing [mm] Steel stress Maximum bar size [mm]
[MPa] wk=0,4 mm wk=0,3 mm wk=0,2mm [MPa] wk=0,4 mm wk=0,3 mm wk=0,2mm
160 40 32 25
160 300 300 200
200 32 25 16
200 300 250 150 240 20 16 12
240 250 200 100 280 16 12 8
280 200 150 50 320 12 10 6
360 10 8 5
320 150 100 -
400 8 6 4
360 100 50 - 450 6 5 -
Title goes here 22

Eurocodes 3 and 4
Impacts for Technical Approval
Effect on AIPS
Eurocodes offer far more flexibility and

choice to Designers
TAAs need to decide whether to maintain or
relax grasp the former will require more
effort than currently needed
Decision affects AIP choices section may
be needed to maintain current level of control
TAS schedule needs revising and BDs and
BAs need retaining, revising or deleting
Other parts of AIP need revising to make
consistent..
Title goes here 23

(1) AIP changes required and problems encountered

in pilot studies
AIP Topic Change Original AIP Comments
Section Text
Reference
3.5 Articulation Minor References to EC7 does not deal specifically with reinforced earth, but the
arrangements BS 8006 Principles are meant to apply to all geotechnical works. BS
8006 conflicts.
3.6 Parapet type Major Metal P2/113 Parapet specification will now need to be to BS EN 1317.
vehicle / The equivalent of P2/113 metal parapet is a normal
pedestrian containment class N2 parapet, 1.0m high.
parapet
3.8.1 Materials Major Concrete grades revised to Cxx/xx format to BS EN 206-1.
Reinforcement specification revised to B500B format to DD
ENV 10080, which is not yet a final code.
3.8.2 Finishes Minor Concrete finishes (standard Fn, Un, specification), silane,
steel finishes not covered by Eurocodes so existing spec
requirements can remain.
3.8.3 Exposure classes Major N/A It is suggested that an additional table is included in the AIP
to declare exposure classes for structural elements. These
classes are referred to when selecting cover and performing
SLS stress / crack width checks to EC2.
(2) Choices
Many design method choices given throughout

Eurocodes
Useful to declare which methods are intended to be
used
Suggested additional section in AIP which:
- Lists all clauses where choice is given
- Summarises choices to be made
- Allows one or more choices to be declared at AIP stage
Title goes here 24

(2) Choices Example for EN1993-2

EC3-2 Design subject Choice of method Method to be
Clause used [tick one
or more]
5.2.2(3) Treatment of second order 5.2.2(3)a) entirely modelled in a second order analysis
effects 5.2.2(3)b) partially modelled in a second order analysis
5.2.2(3)c) effective lengths used with member resistance checks to clause 6.3 9
5.3.2 Imperfections for analysis 5.3.2(3) combination of local bow and global sway imperfections
5.3.2(11) unique imperfection from shape of critical buckling mode
5.4.1 Non-linear analysis of Use of 3-1-5/C.6(2) curve a)
plates to EC3-1-5 Annex C Use of 3-1-5/C.6(2) curve b)
stress-strain curve Use of 3-1-5/C.6(2) curve c)
Use of 3-1-5/C.6(2) curve d)
6.2.2.4 Treatment of local Effective sections to 3-1-5/4 9
buckling Limiting stresses to 3-1-5/10
6.3.1.5(1) Use of Class 3 sect. prop. Use Class 4 section properties 9
with stress limits Use Class 3 section properties with stress limit
6.3.3 Members in bending and Use of 3-2/6.3.3(1)
axial compression Use of 3-1-1/6.3.3(5) alternative 1
Use of 3-1-1/6.3.3(5) alternative 2
Use of 3-1-1/6.3.4
Use of 3-2/6.3.4.2(2) 9
9.4.1 Fatigue stress spectra Use method of EN 1993-2/9 9
Use stress histories
(2) Choices
Impacts on TAA
- Greater transparency in design methods
- Cost benefits where TAA could specify use of a more
appropriate method
Impacts on safety
- Approver can ensure right people are doing right things at
right level
Impacts on Checker
- Greater cost certainty can see what to price for
- Transparent design method less likely to disagree with
Designer fundamentally
Title goes here 25

(3) TAS changes
Major changes required for:

BD13, BD16, BD24 to enable relevant Eurocode
BA42 for integral bridges to complement EN1997 principles
BD28 & BA24 for early thermal cracking only covered in
EN1992-3
BA40 for tack welding of reinforcement revise fatigue checks
BD74, BD31 & BD12 for foundations/buried boxes ref EN1997
BD30, BD42, BD68, BD41 & BD70 for retaining walls
BD51 for sign gantries
BD20 for bridge bearings
(3) TAS changes
Originally BDs were being produced for each of the bridge

codes e.g. for EN 1992-2, EN 1993-2 and EN 1994-2
The new BDs were to have lower status than the current ones
more akin to a BA
BDs were to be enabling documents giving guidance and
missing information
This material has been produced but documents wont now be
BDs; rather PDs
Title goes here 26

Eurocodes 3 and 4
Impact on costs
Impact on costs
Design
Initially, design costs will be significantly
greater (challenge to keep down)
- unfamiliarity, misunderstanding, mistakes, extra
checking, training
IStructE report of July 2004 could be 2

years profit for a medium sized
consultancy!
In long term, design costs will be similar
but probably slightly more expensive
Title goes here 27

Impact on costs
Construction
Economics affected by loading, resistances
and National Annex parameters (tried to
calibrate)
Design rules lead to specification of similar
materials e.g. steel grades for toughness
On average, costs about the same, possibly
slight reduction
But, greater scope for economy and
innovation
Impact on costs
Pilot study findings

Steel-concrete composite bridge 1
Title goes here 28

Impact on costs

Element Eurocode Usage Factor BS5400 Usage Factor
Mid Span bending 0.94 1.00
Shear at abutment 0.96 0.87
Transverse 0.52 0.57

reinforcement
Shear connectors 0.44 0.62
Bearing Stiffener 0.85 0.79
Impact on costs

Location Type of action Eurocode BS5400

Pier girder Max Hogging moment 0.80 0.93
Mid span of internal span Max Sagging moment 0.66 0.85
At splice of end span Max Hogging moment 0.48 0.53
Pier girder Max shear 0.44 0.50
At splice of end span Max shear 0.67 0.72
At splice of end span Web bolts 0.60 0.70
At splice of end span Top flange bolts 0.63 0.68
At splice of end span Bottom flange bolts 0.90 0.88
Pier girder Transverse reinforcement 0.74 0.87
Pier girder Shear connectors 0.72 0.88
End Abutment support Bearing Stiffener 0.59 0.61
Deck slab Crack width 0.56 0.79
Title goes here 29

Summary
Challenges
Cultural and technical differences

Extensive training and guidance needed
Changes to Technical Approval process and HA documents
Positives
Many similarities to BS 5400 practice

Pilot studies reveal designers adapt quickly
Less prescriptive, greater scope for economy and innovation
Different, not more difficult
Title goes here 30

EN BS - Uk

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EN BS - Uk

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transportation Engineering

The impact of the steel Eurocodes and implications

Title goes here 1

Eurocodes needed for steel-concrete

Eurocodes needed for steel composite design

EN 1991-1-1 Densities, self weight and imposed loads

Title goes here 2

Eurocodes needed for steel composite design

EN 1994-1-1 General rules and rules for buildings

Title goes here 3

Characteristic, frequent, quasi-permanent

Member sign convention more compatible

Title goes here 4

Extensive use of subscripts sometimes helpful:

Extensive use of subscripts sometimes tedious:

Some comparisons with BS 5400

Title goes here 5

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

Material properties - steel

Yield strength varies with thickness as

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1994

Material properties steel/concrete composite

EN 1994 limited to use with concretes between C20/25 and

Title goes here 6

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

Different subscript when different

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1994

Recommended values of material factors are:

Title goes here 7

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

Second order analysis is default analysis

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1994

Effects of cracking in elastic analysis

1. General method: Envelope of moments and shears is first calculated

Title goes here 8

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

- plastic section analysis but

- local buckling prevents

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

Title goes here 9

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

Shear lag steel

Effective width fraction

at ULS but generally 0.20

insignificant 0 0.1 0.2

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

Shear lag in composite sections

each side of stud group where Le=0.85L1 Le=0.70L2

Same effective width for ULS

beneficial for shear connection

Title goes here 10

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1993

Cross section bending resistance

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1994

Plastic bending resistance (Class 1 or 2) - sagging

In EC4-2, fcd = fck / c and rectangular stress block extends

Title goes here 11

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1994

Plastic bending resistance (Class 1 or 2) - hogging

In EC4-2, fsd = fsk / s

Some comparisons with BS 5400 EN 1994

Elastic bending resistance (Class 3)

Ma,Ed Mc,Ed shrinkage