The Structural Engineer Vol. 64A No. 8, August 1986
The new concrete Code -
A. N. Beal BSc(Eng) CEng MlStructE MICE R. H. Thomason & Partners
The recent history of Codes of Practice for structural concrete work in the UK has hardly been happy. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the sorry case of CP110 , which was introduced as a new Code in 1972 and withdrawn in 1985, while the predecessor it was meant to replace, CP114 , is still in use today. It is widely accepted that CP110 did not live up to expectations, earning a reputation of being cumbersome to use and requiring over-
However, the debate over presentation and approach has tended to divert attention from technical content. In fact, the technical content of BS8110 is less than perfect and it may be advisable to pay more attention to this -
1. Although the rules for accepting concrete strength are now completely changed from those in CP110 and the purposes of the materials factor have been altered somewhat, the value of γm in BS8110 is unchanged at 1.5. This does beg the question of whether there was any scientific basis for the value in CP110 -
2. Table 2.1
The overall safety factor for earth retaining structures has been reduced from 1.6 x 1.15 = 1.84 (CP110) or 1.8 (CP114) to 1.4 x 1.15 = 1.61 in BS8110. In practice, earth pressures tend to be among the least well-
This table is at the heart of BS8110, defining safety levels throughout. Some of the safety factors it gives are difficult to reconcile with past practice -
3. Cl. 3.3.5
Durability is an area where great advances have been claimed. However, the most serious changes in BS8110 concern indoor concrete, where remarkably few problems have occurred in practice. For indoor work, the minimum cover and concrete strength have been raised from 15 mm and 20N/mm² in CP114, through 25 mm and 20 N/mm² or 15 mm and 30 N/mm² in CP110 to 25 mm and 30N/mm² or 20 mm and 35N/mm² in BS8110. Although BS8110 claims that cube strength is the best way to specify durability, the paper  its recommendations were based on showed that specifying grade 30 concrete can result in cement contents anywhere between 250 kg/m³ and 430 kg/m³. It generally results in a figure in the region of 300-
4. Cl. 126.96.36.199 concerns shear near supports: ‘Account may be taken of enhancement in any situation where the section considered is closer to the face of a support or concentrated load than twice the effective depth, d . . . to be effective, tension reinforcement should extend on each side of the point where it is intersected by a possible failure plane for a distance at least equal to the effective depth, or be provided with an equivalent anchorage’. Does this mean we can reduce links close to supports (although we know this is the failure zone in tests)? What anchorage is ‘equivalent’ to the effective depth? Why is this anchorage satisfactory in beams, while in pilecaps ‘full anchorage’ is required (cl. 188.8.131.52.)? When asked to comment on this BS8110 clause, a leading expert on shear described it as ‘a terrible mess’ .
5. Cl.184.108.40.206 gives a simplified method for slabs, allowing design and detailing to be based an ‘all spans loaded’ for certain slabs. It allows this to be applied where there are cantilevers of length up to one-
The recommendations given in this clause are potentially extremely dangerous.
6. The standard moments for flat slabs (Table 3.19) are now restricted in application; they also reduce the top reinforcement in column strips at internal columns from the traditional 46% of panel moment to 33% of panel moment. Not only will this increase difficulties with shear (reducing the strength of a given slab by 10%) and make cracking more likely, but it also implies a moment redistribution of at least -
7. As in CP110, BS8110 tells us (cl. 220.127.116.11) that column reactions can be calculated ignoring elastic shear, even though this can easily increase column loads by 10-
8. The design of slender columns in BS8110 (cl. 3.8.3) is still a complicated iterative process. Recent research by the author  has shown that the results from the CP110/BS8110 method are not very accurate -
9. The design of prestressed beams and slabs with unbonded tendons (cl. 18.104.22.168), as in CP110, appears to provide an overall safety factor of only 1.4-
BS8110: Part 2 has its flaws too:
11. Cl. 2.2.2 allows safety factors to be derived by statistical methods but then requires these to lead to probabilities of failure ‘similar to those implicit in the use of the factors given in BS8110: Part 1’. However the safety factors in BS8110: Part 1 are based on ‘calibration with preexisting practice, together with a subjective assessment of the relative uncertainties inherent in the various aspects of loadings and strength’ -
12. The limiting lateral deflection of frames under wind loads given in cl. 3.2.2 (H/500) is much stricter than the figure used in steel designs to BS449 (H/325). Is such a strict limit necessary?
13. A procedure for fire engineering calculations similar to those in the Institution’s ‘red book’ is given in section 4.5. In this method, design is based on calculating reduced strengths of sections in a fire. The Institution’s publication gives a set of charts for estimating the temperature of reinforcement in a fire and another for estimating the effect these temperatures have on strength; BS8110: Part 2 cl. 4.5 gives only the latter -
The above is not simply an exercise in ‘nitpicking’ -
1. CP110 The structural use of concrete, London, British Standards Institution, 1972.
2. CP114 The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings, London, British Standards Institution, 1969.
3. BS8110 Structural use of concrete, London, British Standards Institution, 1985.
4. Manual for the design of reinforced concrete building structures, London, Institution of Structural Engineers, 1985.
5. CP114 revised A draft Code of Practice for the structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings, London, Campaign for Practical Codes of Practice, 1985.
6. Deacon, C. and Dewar, J.: ‘Concrete durability -
7. Regan, P. B.: letter to the author, 15 March 1985.
8. Regan, P. E.: ‘Shear combs, reinforcement against punching’, The Structural Engineer, 63B, No. 4, December 1985.
9. Beal, A. N.: ‘The design of slender columns’, forthcoming paper in ICE Proceedings, Part 2.
10. Design and detailing of concrete structures for fire resistance, London, IStructE and Concrete Society, April 1978.