May 2011, Issue 5
CEN/TC250 “Structural Eurocodes”.
Editorial .....................................................................1
Joint IABSE-fib international conference “Codes in
structural engineering” ..............................................2
The European high-speed railway network: examples
of composite bridges ................................................5
Book on seismic design, assessment and retrofitting
of concrete buildings based on Eurocode 8 .............8
Workshop on “Dynamics, structural and earthquake
engineering: research and practice” .........................9
News from JRC ........................................................11
14th Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering ..............................................................12
Editorial
The last TC250 Newsletter was published in May
2010 and many events took place since this date. One
of the major events was the finalisation of the
European Commission’s “Programming Mandate
M/466” concerning the future work for the Eurocodes.
Programming Mandate in the field of Eurocodes
The mandate M/466 addressed to CEN in the field of
Structural Eurocodes was formally sent to CEN on the
25th of May 2010. It was drafted in collaboration with
experts of CEN/TC250 “Structural Eurocodes”.
The aim of this programming mandate is to provide an
overall framework for the planning of the Eurocodes
work, allowing for the identification and definition by
CEN of all specific tasks and steps needed in order to
successfully finalize this work. CEN is invited to
develop a detailed standardisation work programme
based on the existing Eurocodes.
The mandate will result in the development of new
standards or new parts of existing standards as well
as incorporation of new performance requirements
and design methods in more than one of the existing
standards.
In its Resolution BT C94/2010, the CEN Technical
Board decided to accept mandate M/466
“Programming mandate to CEN in the field of
Structural Eurocodes” and allocated the work to
A lot of work was produced by SCs to establish
project proposals for the revision and evolution of the
existing Eurocodes as well as for the development of
new Eurocodes or Parts of Eurocodes. The reply to
the Mandate is being finalized and specific mandates
should be established by the European Commission.
Construction Products Regulation
The second important event is the adoption by the
European Parliament and the Council of the
Construction Products Regulation on the 18th of
January 2011. Article 3 of Section I “Basic
requirements for construction works and essential
characteristics of construction products” mentions:
o The basic requirements for construction works
set out in Annex I shall constitute the basis for
the preparation of standardisation mandates
and harmonized technical specifications.
o The essential characteristics of construction
products shall be laid down in harmonised
technical specifications in relation to the basic
requirements for construction works.
Annex I gives the general principle: “Construction
works as a whole and in their separate parts must be
fit for their intended use, taking into account in
particular the health and safety of persons involved
throughout the life cycle of the works. Subject to
normal maintenance, construction works must satisfy
these basic requirements for construction works for an
economically reasonable working life”.
The basic requirements are:
1. mechanical resistance and stability
2. safety in case of fire
3. hygiene, health and the environment
4. safety and accessibility in use
5. protection against noise
6. energy economy and heat retention
7. sustainable use of natural resources.
Jean-Armand Calgaro
Chairman of CEN/TC250
The newsletter of CEN/TC250 is available at
http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu
Editors
Jean-Armand Calgaro, Chairman of CEN/TC250
Georgios Tsionis, University of Patras
1
 Joint IABSE-fib international conference “Codes in structural engineering”
This joint conference was organised on 3-5 May 2010 in
the Croatian town of Cavtat in the Dubrovnik-Neretva
County. The main objectives of the conference were to
provide:
o an overview of the present state of codes
worldwide,
o comparisons of major codes,
o feedback from practical applications,
o incentives for harmonisation and
o development of future codes.
General overview of structural codes
For the sake of simplicity, the major (existing or under
development) design codes for construction works which
may be considered as prominent are now:
o the Eurocodes,
o the US codes (UBC, AASHTO, etc), and
o Asian codes.
In parallel, other international codes (fib Model Code
2010) or “prenormative” standards (ISO standards) may
be used as reference codes.
Dubrovnik single-pylon cable-stayed bridge
The Eurocodes
First, the increasing influence of the Eurocodes in many
countries outside the EU should be underlined: this
influence is particularly obvious in Africa (French or
English cultural tradition) due to historical links, but is
also extending to south Africa and to Egypt. This
demonstrates the quality of the Eurocodes and that the
European technical culture influences the evolution of
other design codes.
The Eurocodes are not globally used and an important
question for countries outside the EU is their “adoption”
or “adaptation”. In general, their approach is closer to
“adoption” taking into account, of course, local conditions
like climatic actions, economic data or seismicity. It
seems obvious that the adaptation of the European
2
standards needs many expensive and long studies in
order to reach a consistent set of local standards.
Several authors insisted on the danger of mixing rules
from different codes that are based on different concepts
and different approaches of structural reliability: such
amalgamations could lead to an uncontrolled safety level.
For example, it would be nonsense to adopt
representative values of actions from one code and
representative values of resistance from another.
Design codes in the USA
It has been reminded that for historical reasons and due
to a liberal political system, various codes had been used
in different States or groups of States. Sometimes, local
codes were established for specific cities and several
authors mentioned that this situation entailed an
important loss of energy and efficiency: the design
companies had to know the various standards or codes
applicable to each type of construction work for any
project outside their traditional zone of activity; of course,
with an increased risk of errors in the design and in
execution.
Since 1998, a long and difficult harmonisation was
undertaken for the three major existing codes: BOCA
(Building Officials Code Administrators International),
SBC (Standard Building Code) and UBC (Uniform
Building Code). Many variants were developed by several
organisations. This harmonisation was carried out in line
with an ANSI process aiming to reach a balanced
consensus, i.e. independent of any particular interest.
The output was a standard called IBC (International
Building Code), applicable in all States. This code takes
into account the most recent evolutions of design
concepts.
Asian codes
An important Chinese delegation participated to the
conference, demonstrating the interest for the
international evolution of the technical culture in civil
engineering. But this interest is not at the level of the
future national activity and influence of China: note that
2
the construction of buildings amounts to 500 million m
per year.
China initiated the development of its national codes in
the 70s and in 1984 reached a consistent set of codes
that were independent of historical external influence, but
similar to ISO Standards. This set was deeply revised in
2003 so as to produce a new building code that was
voluntarily similar to international standards and to take
into account globalisation. Its architecture is not far from
the Eurocodes family, including basic requirements,
design standards for every material and specific
standards for various techniques.
In parallel, Japan and several other countries, in
particular Australia and India, partially associated with
China, tried to harmonise their national codes. Their
objective for concrete structures is to develop an “Asian
Concrete Model Code”. This new standard is intended
to improve the competitiveness of Asian countries in the
international market of construction.
The conclusion is that there is strong competition
between the major design codes and this reflects the
global economic competition mentioned as an obvious
fact by several authors.
The fib Model Code 2010
The former fib Model Code was published in 1990 and an
evolution was necessary. The new version, dated 2010,
takes into account the most advanced research results
and is intended to be the state-of the-art for the design of
concrete construction works. It includes new concepts to
give a new dimension to the art of construction. The final
version will be published in 2011.
Evolution of design codes and of their approaches
Evolution of design codes
The various presentations showed that a design code,
independently of its quality, needs to be regularly revised
in order to:
take into account the evolution of theories and the
o
results of the most advanced research, allowing a
better approach of the behaviour of materials and
structures;
o bring answers to new societal needs or
requirements like, for example, durability,
robustness and, of course, quality of the
environment. This is not a matter of fashion, but a
need to take decisions that are more respectful of
our world, in permanent transformation due to the
human activity. These requirements are
sometimes contradictory with the wish to reduce
or eliminate any kind of risk whereas, in the same
time, investment for new infrastructures and
maintenance of existing structures are poorly
funded.
It is also necessary to extend the field of application of
design codes to new materials like HPFC or fibre-
reinforced polymers.
It can be noted that these evolutions are accelerating, the
“working life” of a design code being now around 10 to 15
years. The case of the USA is exceptional: the various
codes (before harmonisation) were systematically revised
every 3 years, employing all the energy and financial
support needed to carry out the revision.
Evolution, as well as the recently-launched
harmonisation, are intended to be the result of a technical
and scientific consensus which is not always easy to
reach. Indeed, some deviations, which are to be avoided,
may be due to non-scientific reasons (personal/national
prestige or commercial interests) that may lead to mental
blocks, as was described for example in Australia. But
also in the USA as well as in Europe or in Asia, the
standardisation activity is never a very easy task.
Nevertheless, many participants underlined the loss of
time and energy due to the big variety of codes and the
competition between them.
As already mentioned, it is dangerous to mix (more or
less voluntarily) codes which are not based on the same
approach of structural reliability. The risk is an
uncontrolled safety of construction works.
Finally, as the basic principles are now relatively
harmonised (which is logical, because all materials have
the same behaviour in all continents, even if
environmental conditions are not homogeneous!) a
harmonisation of design codes may be envisaged. It is a
wish, but it is not unrealistic. When will the first
international activities for harmonisation of design codes
start?
Concepts and approaches
Many codes are based on similar concepts, such as
the limit states and the verifications by the partial
factor method. New concepts, which are not yet
incorporated in all codes, may be identified:
o Performance criteria (USA and Asian codes) are
applied mainly to concrete structures in the fields,
for example, of ULS resistance in bending or
crack width for SLS. This last concept is not
revolutionary but derives naturally from the
concept of limit states.
o Life-cycle cost (Japan code and fib Model Code
2010) and life-cycle management (Asian codes)
highlight the need to control all stages of the
working life of a structure. They include the
assessment of the structural performance and of
the remaining life and even the limitation of the
influence of the work on its environment, not only
during its construction, but also during the service
life and the demolition.
Guides
A large majority of participants expressed the need to
draft guides and textbooks to help designers. As no
standard can be directly used to design a structure,
technical documentation is necessary to give guidance
on the methodology and to provide background
information on methods and rules given in the standard.
A difficult evolution
The evolution of codes is difficult not only due to the
natural resistance of people when being asked to change
their habits, but also because this evolution is expensive
for design companies (cost of software, purchasing the
standards and continuing education, including
appropriate documentation). Indirect costs due to the
reduced professional activity during the period of
adaptation to the new rules should also be taken into
account. Financially, this last point may represent up to
75% of the total cost imposed to engineering companies.
Moreover, let us not forget the cost of teaching
(engineering schools and universities, continuing
education, etc).
3
 Simulation of the future Pelješac bridge in Croatia, with a main span of 568 m
This evolution is also difficult because of different
expectations. Indeed, the designer’s objective is to find
the best compromise between simplification, accuracy
and economy of the project. The qualities of the designer
are productivity and efficiency, while the researcher has
other priorities: rigour and subtlety. Simplified rules
should not restrict the field of application of standards
which can be used also for complex structures. Simplified
rules should in any case reflect fundamental knowledge.
Nevertheless, sophisticated rules are needed for the
design of complex structures, the aim being to ensure the
required reliability level and to reach the most economical
project. Following the phrase of Albert Einstein “A theory
should be as simple as possible, but not simplistic!”,
simplification is one of the major new challenges for the
development of the future design codes.
Assessment and rehabilitation of existing structures
In modern societies, a great number of infrastructures
need to be maintained with the objective to limit the
development of new constructions and subsequently the
environmental impact of new construction works on
territories where the population is increasing. This
explains the interest for the strengthening of existing
structures and their adaptation to new societal needs like
heat control, acoustic comfort or energy saving.
In short, we try to improve the durability of existing
structures and to renovate more than to re-construct. The
rate of renovation of buildings increased from 20% in the
80s to about 40% at the beginning of the new millennium.
It concerns the refurbishment of construction works
damaged by environmental conditions or the repair of
structures damaged by accidental events. In the case of
bridges, some damages may be due to the increase of
traffic loads. More and more bridges are strengthened in
order to avoid the construction of new bridges.
The current codes do not include specific rules or
principles for the assessment and retrofitting of existing
structures. One can mention the loading standards
developed for new structures, or the use of special
materials used to repair structures, like high-performance
concrete or synthetic fibres, but should not forget, for
example, that the properties of steel in old steel
structures are not perfectly known.
As a consequence, the assessment of existing structures
4
becomes an important challenge for engineers and draws
the attention of code drafters. Design codes need to
include specific rules that give guidance on this major
topic.
Structural safety in case of fire
Many civil engineering structures are concerned by fire
actions: buildings, of course, but also tanks, chimneys,
and, in special cases, bridges.
In this field, the Eurocodes brought a fantastic evolution
with the adoption of the performance concept that
replaced the traditional prescriptive style. The most
advanced methodology is based on the concept of
“scenarios”, influencing substantially the process of
verification and taking into account the life cycle and the
frequency of inspections.
This evolution is due, in particular, to specialised
software. The new approach of fire safety would not have
been possible without the development of powerful
calculation tools.
Conclusion
All participants recognised that the IABSE-fib conference
was very successful for the following reasons:
o the quality of presentations and papers,
o a rigorous selection of the topics perfectly in line
with the general theme (no dispersion between
several topics) and
o a perfect technical and practical organisation.
The final feeling is the existence, from a technical point of
view, of a general will to reach some kind of
harmonisation between engineering approaches: this is
one of the most positive effects of globalisation. The full
harmonisation of design codes, though, is not for
tomorrow because many problems need to be solved, in
particular intellectual and economical rivalry.
Nevertheless, this does not have to prevent all the people
of willingness from pursuing this objective.
Jean-Armand Calgaro
Chairman of CEN/TC250
The European high-speed railway network: examples of composite bridges

European high-speed railway network in December 2008 (left) and forecast for 2025 (right)

Arroyo Las Piedras viaduct, Spain, 2005

The structural form is a continuous beam with a total

length of 1208.9 m. The piers are remarkably high, up to
93 m. The deck’s longitudinal support condition was a
fundamental problem because:
o the site’s seismic acceleration (0.10 g) was high
compared to usual levels in Spain, and
o the bridge was too long for just one fixed point in
one abutment, because of the total movement
accumulated in the opposite one.
The expansion joints in the rails are situated at the two
ends of the bridge. The thermal fixed point is located in
the middle part of the viaduct, by constructing fixed displacement. Slow movements due to thermal actions
supports on the highest piers P-8 to P-11. In supplement, are able to develop with hardly any resistance. Of course,
shock transmitters were fitted on both abutments against the central piers acting as a frame system with the main
braking and seismic forces. These horizontal forces are girder contribute not only as a thermal fixed point, but
transmitted to both abutments with hardly any also to resist part of the longitudinal forces.
Shortened version of a contribution given to the 7th Danube Bridge Conference, 14-16 October 2010, Sofia

5
 High-speed railway bridges in France

A104 crossing at Pomponne. Length: 75 m (37,25 + 37,75)

A31crossing in the TGV East line. Length: 91 m. No expansion

devices for the rails.

Moselle viaduct in the TGV East line. Length: 1510 m.

Expansion joints in the rails are marked “AD”.

At SNCF, the expansion devices for the rails are limited

13.200
to an expansion length up to maximum 450 m. As the
4.350
2.250
4.500
2.250
4.350
Moselle viaduct is very long, regarding the expansion of
.885
Piste
1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 .885
Piste
rails, the bridge was constructed in five individual parts:
T1 from C0 to PC2, 80m (2x40)
.400

ZP
REF ZP
.450
1.555

.070

T2 from PC2 to PC10, 445 m (45+50+4x55+75+55)

.875

.140
.646
.591

.550

ZP - 0.875
.030

A4 crossing in the TGV East line. Length: 163.6 m – 5 spans. T3 from PC10 to PC11, 50m
Expansion devices for the rails are situated on one side of the T4 from PC11 to PC26, 830m (51+13x56+51)
bridge, as there is a fixed point on the other abutment.
T5 from PC26 to C28, 105 m (52.5+52.5)
Half-through bridges with two lateral main girders
(welded plates) are a solution if the construction height is Three expansion devices were used for each part of the
limited. The deck plate is a concrete slab with embedded deck at C0, PC2 and P3, PC10 and PC11, P18 and P19,
cross-girders. and PC26 and P27.

6
Bowstring bridges
Donzère viaduct (la Garde Adhémar) in the TGV Mediterranean
line, 2000. 2 central spans of 115.4 m, 325 m total length.
Mornas-Vénéjan viaduct, 1999. Span: 121.4 m.
A7 toll viaduct at Bonpas, 1998. Span: 124 m.
Concrete deck over two welded steel plate main
girders
Erfttalstrasse overpass in the Köln - Aachen line, Germany.
Embedded girders. Span: 24.6 m.
Sesia viaduct in the Milano - Torino line, Italy, 2003. Simple
beams. Length: 322 m (7x46 m). No expansion devices are
needed for the rails.
M5 Bridge in the Vienna - Salzburg Line, Austria, 1994. Twin
parallel continuous girder. Total length: 145 m ( 33 + 48 + 33 +
31 m)
Marcel Tschumi
Dr. h.c. from the Technical University of Bucharest;
former Head of Civil Engineering at the Fixed Asset
Management Department of Swiss Federal Railways
(SBB) and former vice-convenor of the CEN/TC250
Project Team for traffic loads on bridges
7
 Book on seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings
based on Eurocode 8
SEISMIC DESIGN,
ASSESSMENT AND
RETROFITTING OF
CONCRETE BUILDINGS
based on EN-Eurocode 8
by Michael N. Fardis
The book is an impressive source of information to
understand the response of reinforced concrete buildings
under seismic loads with the ultimate goal of presenting
and explaining the state of the art of seismic design.
Underlying the contents of the book is the in-depth
knowledge of the author in this field and in particular his
extremely important contribution to the development of
the European Design Standard EN1998 - Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake resistance. However,
although Eurocode 8 is at the core of the book, many
comparisons are made to other design practices, namely
from the US and from Japan, thus enriching the contents
and interest of the book.
The book is devoted to the seismic design of new
buildings as well as to the assessment and retrofit of
existing buildings, covering essentially the contents of
Parts 1 and 3 of Eurocode 8. It must be stressed that its
contents which refer to Assessment and Retrofitting is a
very important support tool to the application of Part 3 of
Eurocode 8 which deals with Assessment and Retrofitting
of Buildings and which in itself is a quite innovative
document.
The book is organized in 6 chapters dealing sequentially
with: the General Principles of Seismic Design; the
Conceptual Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake
Resistance; the Behaviour of Concrete Members under
Cyclic Loading; the Analysis and Modelling for Seismic
Design; the Detailing and Dimensioning and finally the
Seismic Assessment and Retrofitting.
Chapter 1 presents the general principles of seismic
design as currently accepted in Europe and the US,
emphasising the similarities as well as the differences in
the two approaches. Basic concepts, as for instance the
performance requirements, hazard levels, energy
dissipation capacity, ductility, capacity design procedures
and the trade-off between strength and ductility are
clearly presented and set the base for the development of
the following chapters.
Chapter 2 deals with the very important issue of
conceptual design of concrete buildings for earthquake
resistance, enumerating the different aspects and
attributes that should be addressed and fulfilled for the
8
achievement of a sound structural solution. It illustrates
the importance of conceptual design and justifies the
recommended structural characteristics that should be
sought at the onset of the development of the structural
system, as the first step of earthquake resistant design.
Chapter 3 naturally follows, addressing the behaviour of
reinforced concrete members subject to cyclic loading.
The behaviour of the two basic components – steel and
concrete – are dealt in a first instance with regard to their
individual response, followed by the presentation of their
interaction, namely in what concerns confinement and
bond. From there, this chapter proceeds into a detailed
presentation of the cyclic behaviour of concrete members
covering both those controlled by bending or by shear as
well as the cases with flexure-shear interaction. Several
types of structural members are covered – beams,
columns, walls and beam-column joints – and, besides
presenting the physical phenomena relevant for each
type of behaviour, this chapter presents in great detail
numerous expressions for the evaluation of the
deformation and strength capacities of members. The
presentation of the many expressions is made against a
large set of experimental data and such presentation is
extremely important in view of the possible development
of computer-aided design tools.
Proceeding in a logical sequence as regards seismic
design, Chapter 4 deals with analysis and modelling. A
very thorough presentation of the many aspects that
should be considered in the modelling and analysis for
seismic design of buildings is made, accompanied by a
critical presentation of the pros and cons of different
alternatives and providing practical guidance to the
ordinary designer on how to apply the various
alternatives allowed by seismic design codes. Of
particular interest is the clear distinction between
methods more suitable for design of new structures and
those more suitable for assessment and retrofit
situations, recognising the much greater difficulty that
force-based and linear methods have in tackling the
seismic assessment of existing structures.
Chapter 5 covers the detailing and dimensioning of new
buildings in accordance with Eurocode 8. It provides a
systematic presentation of all detailing rules to be
checked with the corresponding background justification,
enabling the designer to clearly understand its purposes
in view of all the material presented in the preceding
chapters regarding the objectives and performance
requirements of seismic design as well as the cyclic
behaviour of reinforced concrete members of various
kinds. This chapter, besides being very helpful to
illustrate the application of the code, for which it includes
two design examples presented in a very detailed way, is
also of great interest for those that may be involved in the
development of design software. In fact, it lists the
sequence of verifications and checks that have to be
made in the framework of the capacity design

TC250/SC8 chairman E. C. Carvalho and past chairmen M.
N. Fardis and P. E. Pinto at the 14th European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering in 2010 (from left to right)
approach which is at the heart of seismic design for
Ductility Classes M and H in Eurocode 8.
Finally, Chapter 6 is devoted to seismic assessment
of existing buildings illustrating, to start with, the more
common deficiencies in such cases and identifying the
features that make the usual force-based, linear
methods based on the q factor approach inherently
non suitable for the assessment of existing structures.
From this, the presentation of the performance and
displacement based approach of Eurocode 8 for the
assessment of existing structures ensues, addressing
the gathering of information, seismic analysis,
modelling and verifications for brittle and ductile failure
modes. Retrofitting strategies for concrete members
are also presented in this chapter with the discussion
of the field of application of different alternatives and
illustrative examples. Finally, two case studies of
seismic retrofit are presented. These two case studies
are related to examples of real structures already
presented in the previous chapters (illustrating the
actual seismic response and the present ability to
effectively model it analytically), which enables an
interesting link throughout the various chapters of the
book.
Summing up, the book is extremely valuable and
represents a much updated state of the art in seismic
design of concrete structures not only in Europe but
also in other parts of the world. It is very carefully
written with the clear intent to cover all aspects of
seismic design and not leaving behind any aspect
relevant for such. It shall be very useful and an
authoritative source for the understanding and
application of Eurocode 8 at several different levels,
from the ordinary practitioner to the knowledgeable
researcher passing by the software developer.
The book reflects the very solid knowledge of the
author in earthquake engineering and his leading role
in the recent developments of Eurocode 8, as well as
the extreme care that was devoted to its planning and
writing. No doubt, it shall become a reference in the
field.
Eduardo C. Carvalho
Chairman of CEN/TC250/SC8
Workshop on “Dynamics, structural
and earthquake engineering:
research and practice”
A workshop on the occasion of Michel Géradin’s
65th birthday and retirement from the JRC, 17 July
2010
Michel Géradin attended the TC250 meeting in
Helsinki on 17th and 18th of June 2010 for the last
time, because he was retiring from the JRC.
After graduating from the University of Liège in
Belgium in 1967, he obtained his PhD with a thesis on
structural dynamics. He was nominated professor at
the University of Liège, where, in the context of the
Aerospace Laboratory, he developed a research
group in structural dynamics, with internationally
renowned competence in finite element methodology,
computational methods in structural dynamics,
numerical analysis, kinematics and dynamics of
flexible multibody systems, experimental vibrations,
aeroelasticity, analysis and identification of rotating
machinery, dynamic model updating and parallel
processing in structural mechanics.
Michel Géradin has been awarded several scientific
prizes. He is Doctor Honoris Causa from the
Technical University of Lisbon and from the Ecole
Centrale de Nantes in France. In 2000 he was
nominated member of the Royal Academy of
Sciences of Belgium. He is one of the authors of the
finite element software SAMCEF and has participated
actively in the creation of the Samtech company in
1986, which has now become a European leader in
finite element software for structural mechanics.
Together with his research team and with the
Samtech team, he has been a consultant to many
companies and organisations in Europe, mainly in the
aerospace field. He is author of about 130
international papers and of two widely diffused books:
on Mechanical Vibrations and on Flexible Multibody
Dynamics.
He joined the Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy in
October 1997 as Unit Head of the European
Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) at the
Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
(IPSC). He assumed the management and the
scientific leadership of a group of 30 permanent staff
working on structural mechanics with focus on
aspects relevant to the protection of the citizen:
earthquake engineering and seismic risk mitigation,
standardisation for construction, vulnerability
assessment of buildings and infrastructures under
natural and manmade hazards, vulnerability of critical
infrastructures under severe loads due to terrorist
attacks. He kept links with his former institution, the
University of Liège, where he remains “Professeur
Extraordinaire” in the area of Structural Dynamics.
Progressively, JRC became a vital partner for
CEN/TC250. Michel Géradin fell in love with the
Eurocodes and developed decisive actions with his
9
 M. Géradin addressing the audience of the workshop
brilliant staff. Everybody knows the various components
of the activity of JRC, but I would particularly underline
the actions to promote the Eurocodes outside the
European Union: the first important workshop held in
Varese on the use of the Eurocodes in the Mediterranean
countries in 2006 and the workshop held in Moscow in
2008 in the framework of the EU-Russia cooperation on
standardisation for construction.
The number of actions for the promotion of the
Eurocodes is strongly increasing in all continents, which
is a chance for the European industry, and all that has
been originated by Michel Géradin and the JRC.
On the occasion of Michel Géradin’s 65th anniversary
and retirement from the JRC, a workshop was organised
in Ispra on the 17th of July 2010. The program comprised
selected scientific presentations from several experts:
o Welcome by the Director of IPSC, S. Lechner,
JRC
o Review of Michel’s career, D. Rixen, TU Delft, The
Netherlans & G. Solomos, A. Pinto, JRC
o Presentation of the ELSA Unit, M. Géradin, JRC
o Pseudo-dynamic testing: history and JRC
contribution, G. Magonette, P. Pegon, J. Molina,
JRC
o Simulation of blast effects on structures and land-
mass transport equipment, F. Casadei, G.
Solomos, JRC
o Post-earthquake field missions: experience,
relevance and needs, F. Taucer, P. Negro, A.
Pinto, JRC
o Evolution of the Eurocodes - the new challenges,
J.-A. Calgaro, Chairman of CEN-TC250
o Synergies in seismic testing among European
research infrastructures, M. Fardis, University of
Patras, Greece
o Choice of material for steel structures for design in
seismic areas, G. Sedlacek, M. Feldmann, B.
Hoffmeister, D. Schäfer, RWTH Aachen,
Experts gathered for the workshop “Dynamics, structural and
earthquake engineering: research and practice”
Germany
o Seismic vulnerability reduction of existing
buildings: modelling the FRC reinforcement in RC
structures, J. Mazars, C. Desprez, Grenoble
Institute of Technology, France & P. Kotronis,
Ecole Centrale de Nante, France
o Dynamic effects on short span culverts for high
speed trains. E. Alarcón, J. Vega, E. Montañés, A.
Frail, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain
o Cyclic response of load-bearing wood-framed
glass panels, R. Žarnić, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia & V. Rajčić, University of Zagreb, Croatia
o Multi-stage cyclic symmetry applied to rotor
dynamics, N. Kill, SAMTECH S.A., Belgium
o Recent advancements on computational
techniques for the simulation and identification of
structural dynamic systems, O. Bursi, University of
Trento, Italy
o Cable dynamics used in smart sensors for power
lines applications, J.-L. Lillien, University of Liège,
Belgium
o Approaches of the dynamic behaviour of large
roofs under turbulent wind, V. de Ville de Goyet,
Greisch, Belgium
o Site specific response analysis, A. Ansal, G.
Tönük, Bogazici University, Turkey
o Displacement based seismic design with damage
control, G. Ayala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, Mexico
o Flexibilities and stiffnesses: A continuing dual-primal
story, D. Rixen, TU Delft, The Netherlands
On behalf of the whole TC250, I thank Michel Géradin
very much for all that he has done.
Jean-Armand Calgaro
Chairman of CEN/TC250
The presentations are available at:
http://elsa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/events.php?id=9

10
News from JRC
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre
(JRC) continues to provide support to the implementation
of the Eurocodes by developing informatics tools and
producing policy support documents, fostering training
and promotion of the Eurocodes within and outside
Europe and by facilitating further harmonisation. JRC’s
activities also aim to expand the concept of Eurocodes to
additional fields of design and incorporating sustainability
and other emerging issues in the European design
standards in line with the recently approved Construction
Products Regulation.
The European Commission’s website on Eurocodes is
currently being upgraded and updated with detailed
information on the progress of national implementation,
such as publication of National Standards and National
Annexes, training and awareness events, publications
and other material on the Eurocodes. The JRC
encourages the contribution of information on events and
publication related to the Eurocodes for inclusion in the
website.
Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) Database
The formerly established database of Nationally
Determined Parameters (NDPs Database) is becoming
more important as the Eurocodes are reaching their final
stage of national implementation by the Member States.
JRC is maintaining and monitoring the status of
uploading of NDPs to the database to carry out analysis
for further development and harmonisation of the
Eurocodes.
With recent contributions of Cyprus and Slovenia within
2011, 23 Member States, two EFTA Countries and one
Candidate Country are registered and uploading their
NDPs to the database. Moreover, positive contacts and
communication was established with Germany, Spain
and Iceland to register to the database.
30%
25%
Percentage of uploaded NDPs
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
EN EN EN EN
1990 1991 1992 1993
Approximately 20% of all NDPs are uploaded and this
ratio has increased in an accelerated manner since the
first quarter of 2011. Most countries continue uploading
their NDPs to the database and some countries have
already completed or almost completed their uploading
(i.e. Czech Republic-100%, Romania-77%).
Training Workshops
Following the workshop “Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry
Structures” held in Brussels in April 2009, the series of
dissemination of information for training activities
organized by JRC continued with a workshop dedicated
to the design of bridges with the Eurocodes. The
workshop on “Bridge Design to Eurocodes” was held in
Vienna (4-6 October 2010) and was organised by the
JRC, CEN/TC250 Horizontal Group Bridges and the
Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and
Technology. It was the first training event organized at
European level with strong emphasis on worked
examples and focused on the presentation of a bridge
design example drawing illustrations from the major
Eurocode parts relevant to bridge design, with sessions
covering different aspects of the design (concrete
bridges, steel bridge, seismic design, etc).
A workshop on “Eurocode 8: Seismic Design of
Buildings’’ addressed the seismic design of reinforced
concrete and steel building structures following Eurocode
8 using worked examples. An overview of issues related
to the design and detailing of secondary seismic
elements and local effects due to infills was also
presented, along with the basic concepts of the design of
base isolated buildings. One workshop session was
dedicated to the assessment and retrofitting of buildings.
The workshop was held in Lisbon (10-11 February, 2011)
and was organized in collaboration with the CEN/TC250
SC8 and the National Laboratory for Structural
Engineering (LNEC).
Nov-08…June-10
Jul-10
Nov-10
May-11
20% of all NDPs
are uploaded in
the database. The
rate of uploading
increased
EN EN EN EN EN EN remarkably in the
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 last months.
11

140 participants from Europe and abroad attended the
workshop on bridge design with the Eurocodes
The majority of EU Member States sent national
delegates to the above mentioned workshops, as well
as the Candidate Countries and EFTA Member
States. Participants also came from countries outside
of Europe (Chile, Mexico, Canada, Israel, Syria, South
Korea, Malaysia) showing keen interest in the
European standards for construction.
All the presentations from the two workshops are
published in the Eurocodes website. JRC technical
reports containing all the background information and
the worked design examples presented in the
workshops are currently under final review and will be
available for download from the JRC Eurocodes
website soon.
A workshop on “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Buildings” with worked examples is planned for next
October in Brussels (20-21 October, 2011). Details
are currently being discussed and finalised within the
organising committee (JRC and CEN/TC250 SC2)
and the lecturers. Interested participants can submit
their application for registration online not later than
15 July 2011 at https://jrc-meeting-
registration.jrc.ec.europa.eu.
Further details for the workshop are published in the
JRC Eurocodes website.
Eurocodes promotion in the third countries
A TAIEX (Technical Assistance and Information
Exchange Instrument) workshop “Training for
trainers – Eurocode Basis of Design, EC1, EC2’’
was organized in Moscow (9-10 December 2011),
following the successful first training event in 2008.
The workshop was held at the Moscow State
Construction University of Civil Engineering and was
targeted at experienced Russian engineers and
academics.
Russian partners commented that since the last
Eurocodes workshop in Russia in 2008, large
progress in acceptance of the Eurocodes codes has
been made. Along these lines, Russian and European
partners agreed to continue the regulative dialogue
between EU and Russian Federation on
standardisation for construction and to extend it also
in education and training.
Furthermore, Russian partners confirmed that
Eurocodes should be translated to the Russian by the
12
end of 2012 and that the option of having the
Eurocodes in parallel with the Russian standards is
under serious consideration.
Contact points from the two sides were proposed for
monitoring the technical regulation changes on both
sides and activating the work along the educational
dimension.
Artur Pinto, Martin Poljanšek, Adamantia
Athanasopoulou, Bora Acun
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
For further information contact
eurocodes@jrc.ec.europa.eu, or visit
http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu
14th Danube-European Conference
on Geotechnical Engineering
th
From the 2nd to the 4 of June 2010, the 14th
Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering was held in Bratislava, Slovakia with 300
participants.
Under the topic “From research to design in European
practice” the programme included a Keynote Lecture
“Why do we need standards?” by the immediate past
chairman of Eurocode 7, Bernd Schuppener. The
Session on “Case studies using Eurocode 7” started
with the Main Lecture: “General presentation of
Eurocode 7 on Geotechnical design” by Roger Frank.
In this Session a number of papers were presented,
dealing with projects where Eurocode 7 “Geotechnical
design” had been applied.
A German speaking Slovak radio station interviewed B.
Schuppener, together with Prof. H. Brandl (University of
Vienna) on Eurocodes and Eurocode 7
Furthermore, there were papers comparing the partial
factor design of Eurocode 7 with a design using
reliability analyses. Jean-Louis Briaud, the new
president of the International Society for Soils
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE),
proposed to have Webinars to discuss geotechnical
standards worldwide.
Bernd Schuppener
former Chairman of SC7; Federal Waterways
Engineering and Research Institute, Karlsruhe,
Germany