CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087

CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

12 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure C12.3.1. Anchorage of links a)-e) and closing stirrups f)-h) (Figure 12.2 FprEN1992-1-1:2023)

For torsion links in T-sections a further example of an acceptable link has been added to figure 12.3 of
FprEN1992-1-1:2023. This allows “U-Stirrups” to form the link if the laps are confined within the flange. This
removes the risk of anchorage being compromised by corner spalling which occurs in beams predominantly
loaded in torsion. There is also a requirement to design the lap for 1.2fyd to ensure ductile yielding rather than a
brittle bond failure that may invalidate the design model.
It should be noted that the Figure 12.3d) does not show the full lap length within the depth of the flange and this
is an area where further national guidance may be helpful to reflect national traditions.

12.4 Reasons for change

Slabs
In addition to placing the majority of the NDPs within a Table, clarification has been added in the form of notes
in the table to support the requirements given.

12.5 Reasons for change

Slab-column connections
The punching shear reinforcement requirements required updating to be consistent with the revised punching
and column bases shear models in clause 8.

12.5.1. Punching Shear Reinforcement

To be consistent with the model in Section 8 this section removes the NDP for the position of the outer row of
reinforcement relative to the control perimeter where reinforcement was not required. In addition, the limitations
of shear reinforcement spacing further than 2.0d from the column have been relaxed. Headed studs are now
included explicitly. Finally, the effective area of one leg of shear reinforcement is limited based on the effective
depth of the slab. These revised limits are based on the experimental data used to calibrate the punching shear
rules in clause 8.

See separate paper by Schmidt and Hegger, “Background Document to sub-section 12.5.1(3)”

12.5.2 Integrity reinforcement against progressive collapse of flat slabs

See Separate background document by Muttoni and Ruiz.

12.6 Reasons for change

Columns
In addition to placing the majority of the Nationally Determined Parameters within a Table, clarification has been
added in the form of notes in the table to support the requirements given. The previous rules were also not
easily interpreted for prestressed columns.

Table 12.3(NDP) – Detailing requirements for reinforcement in columns - Row 1

During the revision of the table some effort was made to understand the basis of the requirements for minimum
longitudinal steel. One reason cited for the requirements was to reduce the risk of creep and shrinkage in the
concrete causing yielding of the reinforcement under serviceability conditions. Such yielding would have the
potential to lead to unacceptable cracking. The 0.1NEd/fyd in EN1992-1-1:2004 was shown to be a reasonable
minimum to reduce the risk of such cracking in practical cases for the range of concrete strengths covered.
However, it was considered that the 0.002Ac provided a sensible lower bound for lightly loaded columns. In
addition, as the issue of compression yielding was not relevant for prestressed columns, and the effect of
considering axial load was to penalize the prestressing, the requirements for prestressed columns are relaxed
with just the 0.002Ac minimum applied.

Table 12.3(NDP) – Detailing requirements for reinforcement in columns – Row 2

In EN1992-1-1:2004 there was no limit to the spacing of the longitudinal bars. A limit of ≤400mm has been
added to provide consistency with the requirements for walls. The minimum number of longitudinal bars in
circular columns has increased from 4 to 6 so that the behaviour is less dependent on the orientation of the
reinforcement cage.

Table 12.3(NDP) – Detailing requirements for reinforcement in columns - Row 3

A number of nations chose to vary the limit for link spacing preferring ≤12 to 15 times the longitudinal bar
diameter rather than the recommended value of ≤20. It was agreed that to control bar buckling, when the
concrete cover has spalled, a value of link spacing ≤15 time the diameter of the main bar was required.
However, it was also noted that the recommended values required the link spacing to reduce to 0.6 x 20 x the
longitudinal bar diameter at the ends of columns where such spalling is most likely to occur. It was therefore
decided to leave the recommended values as per the current version of EN1992-1-1:2004. As it is an NDP a
country may decide to use ≤12 or 15 diameters over the full length of the column.
In non-seismic design a limited amount of ductility is required for column members to ensure compatibility with
current analysis methods and to provide a degree of robustness. As concrete strength increases columns

T Jones, L. C. Hoang, A. Muttoni 20.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 493
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

become less ductile, however ductility can be increased by confinement. If only the concrete is considered, a
measure of the plastic rotation capacity can be found by considering the difference between the yield strain of
the concrete and the ultimate strain. In accordance with 5.1.6(3) of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, this can be presented
as shown in Figure C12.6.1.

Figure C12.6.1. Ultimate Strain compared to Strain at Maximum Stress.

It can be seen that whilst the rotation capacity reduces as fcm increases there is a substantial drop off at fcm =
58MPa. However, the above graph ignores the requirement for requirement for minimum confinement links in all
columns and this increases the ductility for all grades of concrete. The current minimum confinement rules do
not necessarily produce consistent ductility even for the same concrete strength. The column ductility can be
related to the ratio of the confinement stress to the design strength of the concrete. It was found that by using
confinement stress of 0.02fcd the ductility of higher strength concrete columns was similar to that of normal
strength concrete columns using the historical deemed to satisfy link requirements. Thus, for concretes with
fck>50 MPa, transverse reinforcement shall be provided to achieve a minimum confinement of k.fcd, where k is a
NDP with recommended value of 0.02. Away from end regions where ductility is less important the principal
function of the minimum links is to prevent buckling of reinforcement. For prestressed columns this is not
relevant and so the minimum spacing based on bar size can be ignored for columns where all longitudinal bars
are prestressed.

12.7 Reasons for change

Walls and deep beams
In addition to placing the majority of the Nationally Determined Parameters within a Table, the requirements for
walls and deep beams have been combined. It is often difficult in practice to determine when a wall is behaving
as intended for walls and when it is behaving as a deep beam. By including both cases in a revised table and
differentiating between the behavior of elements predominantly axially loaded with some out of plane bending
and elements carrying normal and shear forces it was considered this would improve ease of use. Reference is
made to the design methods in section 8.5 for strut and tie and Annex G for Shell Elements for walls carrying
normal and shear forces and the minimum reinforcement quantities given are consistent with these models.

12.8 Reasons for change

Foundations
It was considered that most of the text in the equivalent clause 9.8 of EN1992-1-1:2004 was related to design
and therefore not appropriate for the new clause 12.8. Instead, clauses are given dealing with the typical strut
and tie assumptions that may be used in the detailing of foundations and particularly pile caps.

In addition, specific rules are given for footings and pile caps without shear reinforcement where the effective
lever arm may be less than that assumed for plane sections remaining plane. Further details are given in [5] and
[6].

12.9 Reasons for change

Tying systems for
robustness of buildings The current version of the EN1992-1-1:2004 was published before EN1991-1-7:2006, which covers accidental
actions. Therefore, there has been a discrepancy between the tie force requirements in EN1992 and EN1991. In
addition to the difference in the force requirements, EN1991-1-7 also considers the consequence class of the
building whereas EN1992-1-1:2004 treats all buildings in the same way.
A comparison of the tie force requirements for EN1992-1-1:2004 and EN1991-1-7:2006 was carried out,
generally it was shown that EN1991-1-7 required the design to consider greater horizontal tie forces than
EN1992-1-1. It was however, noted that EN1991-1-7 did not explicitly include horizontal ties to edge
columns/walls. Overall, recognising that the table will need to be subject to National Choice, it was considered
appropriate to adopt the current EN1991-1-7 approach to avoid the current inconsistency. For clarity, the

T Jones, L. C. Hoang, A. Muttoni 20.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 494
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

existing horizontal tie requirements for walls and columns were maintained.
The tie requirements are summarized in table 12.5(NDP) recognizing that the final values chosen will be NDPs
and ease of use is improved by combining them in a single table.
It should be noted that the second generation version of EN1991-1-7 was not available when FprEN 1992-1-
1:2023 was written, the expectation is that the tie forces will generally align with those given in the first
generation, however as the table is an NDP national bodies can modify if required.

12.10 Reasons for change

Supports bearings and
In EN1992-1-1:2004 section 10 “Additional rules for precast concrete elements and structures” gave a number
expansion joints of detailing rules that could be applicable to situations other than precast concrete. It was considered helpful to
bring these more general rules into clause 12 of FprEN1992-1-1:2023.

EN1992-1-1:2004 section 10 also included several tables giving minimum dimensions and “ineffective” bearing
lengths. These values could not be justified from first principles and in some situations could be either
conservative or unsafe. Therefore, whilst the need to consider ineffective edge distances is stated it is expected
that the Engineer will use both their judgement, the other material Eurocodes and NCCI to determine the
requirements for their design. Similarly, matters of deviation are dealt with in project specifications and whilst the
need to consider them is stated no values are recommended.

12.10(5) Nominal bearing lengths

Whilst Figure 12.12 of FprEN1992-1-1:2023 is largely based on Figure 10.5 of EN1992-1-1:2004, it is

recognized that the requirements for vertical bends can be onerous as they require the start of the bend to be
beyond the end of the bearing. Therefore, where measures are taken to avoid spalling, a relaxation is
introduced to allow the bend to start at the centre line of the support. This is consistent with the strut and tie
modelling for supports.

[1] CEN-TC250-SC2-WG1_N0265_Collection_of_EN_1992-1-1_NDPs_2015-08.pdf
References
[2] Hoang, Linh Cao; Ruiz, Miguel Fernández: Minimum reinforcement rules for robustness –
Performance based calculation of As,min for bending problems. Presentation at the 23rd CEN/TC
250/SC2/WG1 meeting, 7-8 November, 2018, Delft.
[3] Hoang, Linh Cao; Hallgren, Mikael: Minimum reinforcement rules for robustness – Performance
based verification by use of NLFEA and simplified Rigid-plastic modelling. Presentation at the 24th
CEN/TC 250/SC2/WG1 meeting, 25-26 March, 2019, Copenhagen.
[4] Ruiz et al. Post-Punching Behaviour of Flat Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, September-
October 2013.
[5] Simões J.T., Faria D.M.V, Fernández Ruiz M., Muttoni A., Strength of reinforced concrete
footings without transverse reinforcement according to limit analysis, Engineering Structures,
2016
[6] Muttoni A, Fernández Ruiz M, Simões JT. The theoretical principles of the critical shear crack
theory for punching shear failures and derivation of consistent closed-form design
expressions. Structural Concrete, 2017

List of versions of this document

07.01.2021. 1st draft
03.03.2021. 2nd draft
11.03.2021 3rd draft – Additional text on minimum reinforcement for unbonded tendons added
22.11.2022 4th draft – General update to align with FprEN1992-1-1 2022.
12.12.2022 Final – Issued to CDG.
20.03.2023 Updated following Peer reviewed

T Jones, L. C. Hoang, A. Muttoni 20.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 495
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause 12.2(4)

Minimum shear reinforcement for ductility
classes B and C

Aurelio Muttoni Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,

Miguel Fernández Ruiz Switzerland
Frédéric Monney
Linh Cao Hoang Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Report EPFL-IBETON 17-01-R3 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 496
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.2 (4) Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction This document has been prepared to clarify the background of the design provisions of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
with respect to the provisions of 12.2(4) concerning the minimum amount of shear reinforcement for ductility
classes B and C. These provisions are new as the topic was not specifically addressed by EN 1992-1-1:2004.
Since the phenomena governing the minimum reinforcement ratio are the same as those governing the
minimum inclination of the compression field in webs, the values of cotmin defined in 8.2.3(4) are also modified
for class A reinforcement.
The clause on minimum shear reinforcement is also applicable to minimum torsion reinforcement. Since torsion
is resolved into shear, the considerations in this document are equally applicable to torsion.

Reasons for change The shear design of beams and slabs is performed in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023on the basis of a variable-angle
truss model. Such approach, consistent with EN 1992-1-:2004, is an equilibrium-based model for design
grounded on the application of limit analysis [C12.2(4).1-4]. Other than equilibrium, the strength conditions of
the materials have to be respected and the materials shall present sufficient deformation capacity. In particular,
it is considered that reinforcement in tension is sufficiently ductile so that failure in the compression field governs
before rupture of the stirrups.
In usual design situations, the deformation capacity of the reinforcement is not relevant to limit the shear
resistance. This might however be the case for members with relatively low amounts of shear reinforcement (as
for members designed with minimum amounts of shear reinforcement). This is justified in these cases by the
fact that relatively flat angles of the compression field can be required to ensure equilibrium, leading to large
deformation demands in the stirrups. Following the relatively high deformation demand of the stirrups, the
ductility class of the reinforcement (defining its deformation capacity together with its hardening properties) can
be governing. With this respect, it is worth mentioning that according to 7.3.3.1(5), “Plastic analysis shall only be
used for reinforcement steel in Class B or C.”
Theoretically, when failure occurs by rupture of the stirrups, the shear resistance depends on the deformation
capacity of the reinforcement. This is due to the fact that rupture of the reinforcement will limit the minimum
angle of the compression field and thus the number of activated stirrups at ultimate. Consequently, when
rupture of the stirrups governs, a reinforcement class A for the stirrups leads to a lower shear resistance than a
Class B or C reinforcement. Other consequence is that, in order to ensure a certain level of resistance with a
minimum amount of reinforcement (assuming stirrup rupture), the amount of stirrups can be lowered for a Class
B or C reinforcement with respect to a Class A reinforcement. These considerations allow for savings in the
amounts of reinforcement and ensure a more uniform level of safety and enhanced consistency with the values
of the compression field recommended in 8.2.3(4).

Design approach, Remark: The material presented hereafter is a concise version of [C12.2(4).7] which is referred to for further
background details.
The main aim of the minimum amount of shear reinforcement is to allow for a safe application of shear design
provisions (VATM) of Section 8.2.3 (“Members with shear reinforcement”). This implies two aspects:
 Control of cracking: Avoid crack localization and ensure that the strength reduction factors of the
compression field  in 8.2.3 are applicable
 Allow for redistribution of internal stresses (variable orientation of compression struts, sufficient
deformation capacity)
The VATM is based on limit analysis and allows for design based only on equilibrium conditions. Nevertheless,
the state of strains is also implicitely considered by means of the efficiency factors for the compression field
(depending on the principal tensile strains) and the limits of compression field inclination cotmin (8.2.3(4)). An
explicit calculation of such strain state is considered in Formula (8.45), where the maximum tensile strain (1) is
estimated assuming that the compressive strain in concrete is 0,001 and that the strain tensor is parallel to the
stress field (assuming cracks to have the same inclination  as the compression field):
1 = x +( x + 0.001)∙cot2 (C12.2(4).1)
Consistently with that approach, depending on the horizontal strains (x), the vertical strains can also be
determined (see Mohr’s circle in Figure C12.2(4).1):
 y =( x + 0.001)∙cot2- 0.001 (C12.2(4).2)

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz, F. Monney, L.C. Hoang 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 497
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.2 (4) Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure C12.2(4).1: Mohr’s circle of strains

Such vertical average strain increases as the angle of the compression field reduces as can be seen in Figure
C12.2(4).2 and also for higher levels of longitudinal deformation (x).

1.4
x/y [-]
1.2
0.5
1.0 0.375
0.25
w,ave [%]

0.8
0.125
0.6
0
0.4

0.2 wy

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
cot  [°]

Figure C12.2(4).2: Average vertical strain in the compression field according to Formula (C12.2(4).2)
For some of the cases shown in Fig. C12.2(4).2, the vertical strains reach 1.3%, which indicates the risk of
failures in tension for brittle reinforcement when tension-stiffening effects are considered [C12.2(4).5] (roughly
estimated as half of the rebar strain at rupture uk = 2.5%).
When compared to an extensive database of members with varying deformation capacity of the reinforcement,
such effect can be clearly observed. This fact is presented in Figure C12.2(4).3, where the model of FprEN
1992-1-1:2023 has been compared to selected slender shear beams [C12.2(4).6] by considering a constant
value  = 0.5 and cot = 2.5. In that Figure, the value of w,min is adopted as 0.08fc1/2/fy according to Formula
(12.4) of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (without modification for other ductility classes). The results show that all tests
with ductility Class C are safely estimated by the code, only one of Class B is (slightly) estimated in an unsafe
manner, but a large number of tests with reinforcement Class A are unsafe, independently of the shear
reinforcement ratio (in some cases, tests with brittle reinforcement and w = 2÷3ꞏw,min show insufficient
resistance). On the other side, tests with ductile reinforcement (classes B and C) and a shear reinforcement
ratio smaller than the minimum value show sufficient resistances.

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz, F. Monney, L.C. Hoang 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 498
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.2 (4) Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

2.5

Class A
2.0
Class B
Class C
1.5

test /R [-]

1.0

0.5
prEN 1992-1-1:2018(D3)
v = 0.5 ; cot = 2.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
ρw /ρw,min [-]

Figure C12.2(4).3: Comparison to test results assuming cotmin = 2.5 for all ductility classes

2.5

Class A
2.0
Class B
Class C
1.5
test /R [-]

1.0

0.5
prEN 1992-1-1:2020-11(D7)
(variable limits cotmin)
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
ρw /ρw,min [-]

Figure C12.2(4).4: Comparison to test results with a penalty for Class A reinforcement in the definition of
cotmin

Changes in 8.2.3(3) and Following these observations:

12.2(4)  A penalty for Class A stirrups has been introduced in the allowable angles of the compression field for
Class A reinforcement (20% reduction of cotmin, refer to 8.2.3(4)). The results of this consideration
show a more uniform level of safety, as shown in Figure C12.2(4)4.
 It is proposed in 12.2(4) that the minimum amount of shear reinforcement can be reduced to 10% for
Class B reinforcement and to 20% for Class C reinforcement. These limits are in agreement to the
experimental results of Figure C12.2(4)4, where no deviation on the model predictions is observed for
reductions up to 20% of the minimum amount of shear reinforcement.

References [C12.2(4).1] Nielsen M. P., Braestrup M. W. and Bach F. “Rational Analysis of Shear in Reinforced Concrete
Beams.” IABSE Colloquium Proceedings P-15, Vol. 2, 1978, 16 p.
[C12.2(4).2] Thürlimann B. “Plastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams.” IABSE Colloquium - Plasticity in
Reinforced Concrete, Reports of the working commissions, Vol. 28, 1979, p. 71-90.
[C12.2(4).3] Nielsen M.P., Hoang L.C. Limit analysis and concrete plasticity. 3rd ed. Boca Raton (USA), CRC
Press, 2011, 788 p.

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz, F. Monney, L.C. Hoang 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 499
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.2 (4) Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[C12.2(4).4] Sigrist, V., Bentz, E., Fernández Ruiz, M., Foster, S.J., Muttoni, A., Background to the Model
Code 2010 Shear Provisions - Part I: Beams and Slabs, Structural Concrete, Vol. 14, No. 3,
2013, pp. 204--214
[C12.2(4).5] Marti, P., Alvarez. M., Kaufmann, W. and Sigrist, V., “Tension chord model for structural
concrete”, Structural Engineering International, IABSE, Vol 8, No 4, 1998, 287–298.
[C12.2(4).6] Test results from: Huber P., Huber T., Kollegger J., 2016; Yoon Y.-S., Cook W. D., Mitchell D.,
1996; Piyamahant S., Shima H., 2002; Angelakos D., 1999; Bresler B., Scordelis A. C., 1963;
Vecchio F.J., Shim W., 2004; Yoshida Y., 2000; Cladera A., Mari A. R., 2005; F. Monney 2019;
Campana S. et al., 2013
[C12.2(4).7] Monney F, Fernandez Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Influence of amount of shear reinforcement and its
post-yield response on the shear resistance of reinforced concrete members. Structural Concrete.
2022. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200331

List of versions of this document

15.02.2021, AM, MFR, FM, LCH 1st draft
26.02.2021, AM some improvements
02.03.2021, AM minor changes
22.02.2023, MH peer reviewed and updated to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 version
24.02.2023, AM final review

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz, F. Monney, L.C. Hoang 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 500
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to
clauses 12.5.1 and 12.4.2
Detailing of punching shear reinforcement -
maximum diameter of punching shear
reinforcement

Dr.-Ing. Philipp Schmidt Institute of structural concrete (IMB)

Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Josef Hegger RWTH Aachen University

24.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 501
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.4.2 and 12.5.1 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to give a background to the proposed EC2 provisions for the
maximum allowable diameter of punching shear reinforcement Øsw,max in flat slabs and column bases as well as
shear reinforcement assemblies in slabs. The proposal was derived from database evaluations published in [1]
and previously discussed in CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4.

12.5.1 (3) Reasons for change

(+ 12.4.2 (6)) To obtain the highest possible level of maximum punching strength (Vmax), an upper limit defining the maximum
permissible punching shear reinforcement diameter Øsw,max should be given in design provisions to guarantee
sufficient and uniform activation of shear reinforcement. Few shear reinforcement elements with large diameters
Detailing of punching and thus large spacings to adjacent bars negatively affect the resulting punching load, even if allowable
shear reinforcement – maximum tangential spacings are not exceeded. Instead of pursuing a stepwise definition of Øw,max according to
maximum limit of Øsw,max
Model Code 2010 (MC2010) [2], a continuous limitation of Øw,max depending on the slab’s effective depth d was
required. Consequently, a simple mathematical correlation between d and Øw,max was derived in
CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4.

Database evaluation
A punching database evaluation was conducted to derive application limits and to assess current detailing
provisions as systematic test series usable for quantifying the influence of Øsw,max are not available. The
database was discussed in CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4 and is more detailed explained in [1]. All tests failing
with any kind of punching failure inside or outside the shear-reinforced zone or on the level of Vmax were
selected for evaluation to get an overview of experimentally tested values of Øsw. Considering deviating
anchorage and thus activation conditions of different types of shear reinforcement, three different categories are
defined in accordance with the given examples in Figure 12.6 from section 12.5.1 of prEC2. Other shear
reinforcement elements which cannot be clearly classified and specific types such as bent-up bars or I-beam
section cuts were excluded for this database evaluation. However, bent-up bars revealing well anchorage can
generally be assigned to the same category as double headed studs. A summary of all selected punching tests
is given in the appendix in Table A and can also be found in [1].
 Single leg links and open stirrups exhibiting a small anchorage stiffness

 Closed stirrups and bars with similar anchorage exhibiting an average anchorage stiffness

 Bent up bars and headed bars exhibiting a high anchorage stiffness

Evaluating and deriving Øsw,max depending on the slab’s effective depth d turned out to be the most suitable
method as the Øsw/d-ratio strongly influences the bond conditions and thus the activation of punching shear
reinforcement [3–5]. Figure X.1 visualizes the database selection and also depicts corresponding permissible
upper limits according to MC2010, Eurocode 2 in combination with the German National Annex (EC2/NAD) and
prEC2.

J.Hegger, P.Schmidt 24.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 502
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.4.2 and 12.5.1 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

32 MC2010
32 32
(a) (b) (c)

Shear rfct diameter Øsw [mm]

EC2/NAD
prEC2
24 test 24 24
0.05∙d 16 d /200

16 16 16
11 d / 200 10 d /200

8 8 8
MC2010 MC2010
prEC2 prEC2
d >160 mm d >160 mm test d > 160 mm test
0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Effective depth d [mm] Effective depth d [mm] Effective depth d [mm]

Figure X.1: Database evaluation of punching tests for determining Øw,max

The point cloud evolving from the selected punching tests reveals a degressive trend of the upper limit of tested
Øsw for increasing d and indicates that better anchorage of shear reinforcement may go along with larger
permissible bar diameters. Slabs reinforced with stiffly anchored double headed studs principally featured larger
diameters than slabs with stirrups. The filtered database for shear links is small and represents only a very
limited range of d.

It is now interesting to compare the database with current detailing provisions. The stepwise graduated upper
limit for Øsw,max according MC2010 does not distinguish between the type of shear reinforcement and only
reflects double headed studs adequately. Whereas general EC2 does not mention any upper limit for Øsw at all,
EC2/NAD provides a linear relationship for stirrup-reinforced slabs resulting in overestimating Øsw,max for larger
values of d compared to the experimentally tested values. The prEC2 square root approach, recently defined by
CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4 using the presented database, represents the upper limit quite well by introducing
simple factors to differentiate between the three shear reinforcement categories (formula shown in Figure X.1).
An additional limitation ensuring proper anchorage of shear reinforcement in slabs is the minimum slab height
specified as hslab ≥ 200 mm according to EC2, EC2/NAD and prEC2 or alternatively defined as dv ≥ 160 mm
according to MC2010 which is also plotted in Figure X.1.

Conclusions
All in all, the presented database evaluation allows for a more profound definition of Øsw,max replacing the roughly
estimated upper limits of MC2010 or EC2/NAD and paves the way for the novel prEC2 approach enabling a
straightforward formula. This continuous definition of Øsw,max distinguishing between three different anchorage
categories can be extended by further categories at any time. Future punching test series with systematically
varying Øsw in combination with different tangential spacings and types of shear reinforcement may allow for
deriving more progressive upper limits.
Although the derivation is based on a punching test database, the proposed limitations for shear links shall also
be applied to shear reinforcement assemblies in slabs (cf. clause 12.4.2. (6)).
Detailed list of database entries can be presented if required.

[1] Schmidt P, Kalus M, Hegger J. Discussion of the level of maximum punching strength of flat slabs
References
and column bases using database evaluations. Structural Concrete 2021 (submitted for publication).
[2] fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2013.
[3] Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Applications of the Critical Shear Crack Theory to Punching of RC
Slabs with Transverse Reinforcement. ACI SJ 2009;106(4):485–94.
[4] Brantschen F. Influence of bond and anchorage conditions of the shear reinforcement on the
punching strength of RC slabs. PhD-Thesis. Lausanne, Switzerland; 2016.
[5] Schmidt P. Punching in Shear-reinforced Flat Slabs and Column Bases. Dissertation. Aachen; 2021.

List of versions of this document

18.03.2021 1st draft
11.06.2021 2nd draft
24.01.2023 Final Draft
06.03.2023 peer reviewed and editorially updated

J.Hegger, P.Schmidt 24.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 503
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 AhG Detailing FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause 12.5.2

Integrity reinforcement against progressive
collapse of flat slabs

Aurelio Muttoni Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,

Miguel Fernández Ruiz Switzerland

Report EPFL-IBETON 17-01-R6 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 504
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

This document has been prepared to clarify the background of the design provisions of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
Introduction
with respect to clause 12.5.2 (“Integrity reinforcement against progressive collapse of flat slabs”). These
provisions extend and complete clause 9.4.1(3) of EN 1992-1-1:2004, providing a consistent design approach
for integrity reinforcement in flat slabs.

Flat slabs are particularly vulnerable to punching shear failures. This is due to the fact that a brittle failure at a
Reasons for change
slab-column connection leads to a significant loss of its load-carrying capacity (unless specific measures are
adopted). Thus, following a first punching failure, neighbouring connections are overloaded, with the risk of also
triggering punching failure at them. As a consequence, a local punching at one connection can propagate
through the whole flat slab, leading to its eventual progressive collapse [C12.5.2-1].
The clause 9.4.1(3) of EN 1992-1-1:2004 provides guidance on the detailing of integrity reinforcement, stating
that at least two well-anchored bars shall be arranged in each orthogonal direction on the compression side of a
slab passing over a column. Some Countries had supplementary rules for these bars that required them to have
a tensile capacity equal to the accidental load reaction at the column. If the aim is that such bars would carry the
whole accidental reaction, greater deformation and ductility would be required than is available. These
provisions give good guidance, but are relatively incomplete in terms of design and detailing of such
reinforcement. Recent state-of-the-art on this topic [C12.5.2-1,2] has shown that rational approaches can be
proposed for design of integrity reinforcement. In addition, these works have shown that previous assumption
(full activation of the yield strength of integrity bars in vertical direction to carry the shear force) is clearly too
optimistic. On that basis, Model Code 2010 [C12.5.2-3] provisions a number of rules for the design of the
integrity reinforcement, accounting for the rebar arrangement and ductility class of the reinforcement. In the
revision of EN 1992-1-1:2004, this state-of-the-art was incorporated in an effort to provide design guidance for
integrity reinforcement of new structures and an assessment method for existing ones.
In addition, since punching shear reinforcement is increasingly used in many Countries, there is a need for
consistent provisions on how to combine integrity and punching shear reinforcement.

Slabs without shear Several strategies can be followed to enhance the post-punching resistance of a slab-column connection after a
reinforcement punching failure. They normally consist of arranging shear reinforcement in the form of vertical or bent-up bars
(enhancing the deformation capacity and toughness of the connection) and/or providing the so-called integrity
12.5.2(1) reinforcement. The latter is typically a horizontal reinforcement provided in the compression zone which can
carry the shear force after punching by catenary action. This reinforcement can be activated in tension following
the significant deformations occurring after a punching shear failure.
The performance of the different solutions is highly variable, particularly with respect to the integrity
reinforcement. This is for instance shown in Figure C12.5.2.1 with reference to a number of tests performed by
[C12.5.2-1] considering different integrity reinforcement details. As can be seen, without any shear
reinforcement or reinforcement arranged on the compression side (Figure C12.5.2.1a), a sudden drop in the
load occurs after punching with a relatively low residual resistance (this residual resistance after punching being
associated to the catenary action of hogging reinforcement which is limited by the dowel resistance associated
to the concrete tensile strength [C12.5.2-1]). When longitudinal reinforcement is placed on the compression side
(Figure C12.5.2.1b) or bent-up bars (Figure C12.5.2.1c) are provided, the performance is significantly better,
and levels of load comparable to those leading to first punching can be attained after a reasonable
displacement. These tests also show (Figure C12.5.2.1d) the significance of the anchorage conditions of the
hogging reinforcement, governing both the punching and post-punching performances.

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 505
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure C12.5.2.1: Deviation forces of curved reinforcement: (a) deviation forces; and (b) spalling resistance
(from [C12.5.2-1])
Following these experimental findings, a rational model was proposed by [C12.5.2-1,2] for calculating the post-
punching resistance of flat slabs. The model considered notably:
 The contribution of the reinforcement in the compression zone which can be activated by catenary
action after some vertical displacement following punching failure. The performance of such
reinforcement is shown to be highly dependent on its ductility class and the capacity of the concrete
core around the column to anchor it;
 The contribution of bent-up bars intersected by the punching cone, whose angle with the slab plane
makes their contribution more efficient for post-punching resistance than straight bars (the catenary
action being activated for significantly smaller deformations);
 The contribution of the hogging reinforcement. This contribution depends on the tensile strength of the
concrete cover and its anchorage conditions.
On the basis of the rational model of [C12.5.2-1], simple design provisions were implemented in fib Model Code
2010 [C12.5.2-3]. For such provisions, the following considerations were accounted for:
 The contribution of the hogging reinforcement is neglected (as it depends on the tensile strength of
concrete, it only contributes to a relatively low post-punching resistance, Figure C12.5.2.1a and its
efficiency highly depends on the anchorage conditions [C12.5.2-1], Figure C12.5.2.1d);
 The contribution of the reinforcement in the compression zone or of bent-up bars is considered by
means of their strength at rupture and their angle b associated to catenary action (refer to Figure
C12.5.2.2a). For calculation of the angle, the deformation capacity of the reinforcement is governing;
 A condition is introduced limiting the catenary action by rupture (pull-out) of the concrete core around
the column (Figure C12.5.2.2b).

(a) (b)

Figure C12.5.2.2: Post-punching resistance: (a) dowelling of compression reinforcement and resulting angle
(ult); and (b) rupture (pull-out) of concrete core limiting the angle of dowelled bars (from
[C12.5.2-1])
The resulting expression of fib Model Code 2010 reads:

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 506
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

0.5 fck
VRd ,int   As fyd (ft / fy )k sin b  d res bint (C12.5.2.1)
c

where As refers to the sections of reinforcement in the compression zone suitably anchored over the column or
passing through it (see definition in Figure C12.5.2.3), fyd to their design value of the yield strength, (ft/fy)k to the
characteristic ratio between tensile and yield strength, b to the angle of the integrity reinforcement at rupture
(0° for class A, 20° for class B and 25° for class C and 40° for bent-up bars class BC, fck to the characteristic
value of the compressive strength of concrete, C to its partial safety factor, dres is the core height between layers
(Figure C12.5.2.2b) and bint the integrity perimeter. As it can be noted, in Formula (C.12.5.2.1), the left-hand
side part refers to the capacity of the catenary action of the reinforcement (initially horizontal or bent-up bars)
while the right-hand side refers to the upper limit related to the capacity of the concrete core to carry the shear
force in the integrity reinforcement.
The value of the post-punching resistance provided by the integrity reinforcement (Formula (C.12.5.2.1)) is to be
compared to the action considering an accidental design situation (with reduced partial safety factors for the
actions, refer to commentary to §7.3.5.6 of MC2010). Also, MC2010 indicates that integrity reinforcement
according to Formula (C.12.5.2.1) is not required provided that the deformation capacity of the slab is sufficient
(MC2010 commentary to §7.3.5.1), which can be ensured by arrangement of conventional shear reinforcement
(MC2010 §7.3.5.6, designed to comply with the minimum amount given in Formula (7.3-68) of MC2010).
Based on the Model Code 2010 provisions, a design expression was proposed for FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, by
considering some simplifications:
 The considerations of ductility Class of reinforcement, influencing both ult and (ft/fy)k in Formula
(C.12.5.2.1), can be lumped into one single parameter
 The check for the capacity of the concrete core is only governing in special cases (low concrete
strength and/or shallow slabs). It is thus disregarded for the purpose of ease-of-use.
From these considerations, the following design formula results:

VRd ,int   As ,int  f yd  k int  VEd (12.10)

where As,int refers to the sections of reinforcement suitably anchored over the column or passing through it (see
Figure C12.5.2.3), kint defines the performance of the integrity reinforcement and depends on the ductility class
and VEd refers to the action under accidental situation. The value of coefficient kint, lumping the information on
the angle of the reinforcement related to catenary action and tensile strength, results 0.37 for Class B
reinforcement and 0.49 for Class C reinforcement. As it can be noted, this formulation is comparable to that of
MC2010 (Formula (C.12.5.2.1)). Due to its limited deformation capacity, class A reinforcement is not allowed as
integrity reinforcement (as in fib MC2010).

Slabs with shear As previously stated, in MC2010, no integrity reinforcement is required provided that shear reinforcement is
reinforcement provided (complying with the conditions of minimum amount given in Formula (7.3-68) of MC2010). Different to
that consideration, FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 states that integrity reinforcement is required for shear-reinforced
12.5.2(2)
slabs when the contribution of the shear reinforcement during the post-punching regime (VRd,w,int) is not sufficient
to ensure the resistance of the connection under accidental actions (VEd):

VRd ,w,int   w  f ywd  sin  w  b0 ,5  dv  VEd (12.11)

This Formula considers that, during the post-punching regime, the displacements are sufficiently large to ensure
yielding of the shear reinforcement. This can be considered as a reasonable assumption according to test
results (refer for instance to Figure C12.5.2.1).
When the resistance of the shear reinforcement in the post-punching regime (VRd,w,in) is lower than the shear
demand (VEd), integrity reinforcement has to be arranged according to Formula (12.10) providing a resistance
higher than VEd – VRd,w,int . This considers thus that a part of the shear force is carried by the shear reinforcement
and the remaining part by the integrity reinforcement.
Tests conducted with slabs reinforced with bent-up bars have shown that this type of reinforcement is not only
efficient in increasing the punching shear resistance, but can also be easily activated as integrity reinforcement
[C12.5.2-1] (see also Fig. C12.5.2.1c). For this reason, in fib MC 2010 [C12.5.2-3], bent-up bars are mentioned
as an efficient type of integrity reinforcement. In the approach of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, such reinforcement can
be considered as a shear reinforcement leading in fact to the same result.

Detailing rules for It is worth mentioning that to ensure the required efficiency, integrity reinforcement should fulfil the detailing
integrity reinforcement rules defined in 12.5.2(1). The bars considered in the design Formula (12.10) should be:
 of ductility class B or C (ductility class A reinforcement does not have sufficiently deformation capacity
12.5.2(1)
to activate catenary action),
 anchored in the column or passing through it (see in Figure C12.5.2.3 the sections which may be
considered) and
 placed on the compression side of the slab within the vertical column reinforcement (ideally, integrity

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 507
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

reinforcement should be placed as a 1st and 2nd layer of reinforcement to ensure sufficient resistance
against rupture of concrete core (see Figure C12.5.2.2b), otherwise, the verification according the
rigth-hand side part of Formula (C12.5.2.1) of Model Code 2010 becomes governing. Concerning the
requirement of the position with respect to the column reinforcement, it is necessary to avoid local
failures at the edge of the column, which can potentially limit the capacity of the integrity
reinforcement to transmit its force to the column).
In addition, punching shear reinforcement which is considered in the reduction of the required integrity
reinforcement according to Formula (12.11) shall enclose the hogging reinforcement according to 12.4.2(4)
(studs should be arranged so that the upper level of their heads is at the upper level of the hogging
reinforcements, see Figure 12.2e) and fulfil the requirements of 12.5 (particularly with respect to the distance
between the column face and the first shear reinforcement in Figure 12.7).

Figure C12.5.2.3: Example of integrity reinforcement over an edge column with 6 sections of bars which may
be considered

Contribution of hogging As shown in Figure C12.5.2.1a, the contribution of significant flexural reinforcement is not negligible. As already
reinforcement described above, the residual resistance after punching associated to hogging reinforcement results from the
catenary action which is limited by the dowel resistance associated to the concrete tensile strength [C12.5.2-1]).
12.5.2(3)
According to [C12.5.2-1], this contribution can be calculated as:

f ck
VRd ,hog  nhog     bef ,hog (12.12)
C
where nhog is number of bars crossing the control perimeter b0,5 (for the sake of simplicity, compared to [C12.5.2-
1], only the bars inside the control perimeter are considered) and fully anchored at a distance 4d from the
control perimeter (bars crossing two times the control perimeter can be considered twice, whereas bars
anchored within the column are considered only once in a similar manner as shown in Figure C12.5.2.3).
According to [C12.5.2-1], the catenary action of the hogging reinforcement has to be transferred to the concrete
of the slab through dowel action activating the concrete tensile strength (approximated as 0 ,5 f ck ) over an

area 2∙∙ bef,hog for every bar, where bef,hog can be calculated as:

bef ,hog  min  s- ; 6 ;4c  (C12.5.2.2)

where s is the spacing of the hogging reinforcement and c is the cover of the hogging reinforcement.

Alternative forms of Alternatives to the forms of integrity reinforcement described above can consist of special shear reinforcements
integrity reinforcement or shearheads, providing a significant deformation capacity and a sufficient residual resistance after punching
(an instance based on bars ensuring significant dowel action with ductile behaviour and efficient anchorages is
described in [C12.5.2-4]).

Economic considerations With respect to EN 1992-1-1:2004, the provisions of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 require more integrity reinforcement
in slabs without punching shear reinforcement and with moderate hogging reinforcement. On the other side, the
new provisions allow combining the contributions of shear, hogging and integrity reinforcement. From an
economic perspective, in most cases, it is more efficient to invest in a reinforcement which can be used for both
the accidental as well as for persistent and transient design situations, allowing to reduce the slab thickness
or/and the column dimensions.

[C12.5.2-1] Fernández Ruiz, M., Mirzaei, Y., Muttoni, A., Post-punching behavior of flat slabs, American
References

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 508
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
12.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Concrete Institute, Structural Journal, Vol. 110, No. 5, 2013, p. 801—812

[C12.5.2-2] Habibi, F., Cook, W.D., Mitchell, D., Predicting Post-Punching Shear Response of Slab-Column
Connections, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1, 2014, p. 123-134
[C12.5.2-3] International Federation for Structural Concrete, “fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010,”
Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 434 p., 2013.
[C12.5.2-4] Cantone, R., Fernández Ruiz, M., Bujnak, J., Muttoni, A., Enhancing the punching strength and
deformation capacity of flat slabs by arrangement of horizontal dowel studs, American Concrete
Institute, Structural Journal, Vol. 116, No. 5, 2019, pp. 261--274

List of versions of this document

26.02.2021, AM, MFR 1st draft
02.30.2021, AM review, with some additional content
24.02.2023, AM comment to 12.5.2(3) added, references to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 updated

A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 509
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause 13.5.1

Minimum concrete cover for pre-tensioning
tendons

Dr.-Ing. Philipp Schmidt Institute of structural concrete (IMB)

Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Josef Hegger RWTH Aachen University
24.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 510
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
13.5.1 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document was prepared in order to provide background information to the specifications regarding the
minimum concrete cover for pre-tensioning tendons. A sufficient concrete cover (cmin,b) and clear tendon spacing
(s) shall guarantee crack-free transfer of prestressing within the anchorage area and shall ensure the bond
between concrete and prestressed tendon.

13.5.1 Reasons for change

Table 13.1 While in current EC2 the requirements for clear spacing between tendons are given in clause 8.10 and the
Minimum concrete cover specifications regarding the required minimum concrete cover can be found in a Note of clause 4.4.1.2, the
regulations are merged for the new EC2 in clause 13.5 (illustrated by Figure 13.1 and specified by Table 13.1).

Background
In general, it should be differentiated between the required minimum concrete cover for strands and indented
wires due to the different bond mechanisms.
For strands, the specifications of Table 13.1 are in accordance with the work of NITSCH [1] to avoid splitting of
concrete and were also discussed by GEßNER [2]. In contrast to Model Code 2010 provisions [3], no distinction
is made between normal-strength and high-strength concrete since higher concrete strengths are automatically
accompanied by shorter transfer lengths and thus higher bond stresses leading to larger splitting forces [4].
Even if the tests of DEN UIJL [5] seem to allow smaller concrete covers for high-strength concrete, this effect is
omitted to provide minimum concrete covers on the safe side. The illustration of DEN UIJL [5] shown in Figure
13.1, which was also picked up by GEßNER [2], summarizes the interplay of occurring bond-splitting cracks
depending on concrete cover and clear spacing of tendons.

Figure 13.1: Occurrence of bond-splitting cracks in normal- and high-strength concrete as a function of
strand spacing and concrete cover reproduced from DEN UIJL [5]
Note: “1/3” means 1 specimen with splitting cracks out of 3 test specimens. Grey marked
zone for specimens without splitting cracks
Overall, it must be considered that most tests such as of NITSCH [1] and DEN UIJL [5] were conducted with 0.5’’
strands and that it is not clearly verified whether the relative values of cmin,b/Ø and s/Ø can also be directly
applied for larger strand diameters. In case of members with multiple prestressing tendons in one layer and little
or no transverse reinforcement, NITSCH [1] pointed out that splitting can not be totally ruled out regarding the
recommended minimum concrete cover values. The use of the provisions of clause 13.5 should, without further
evidence, be limited to a maximum strand diameter of 15.7 mm.
For indented wires, previous specifications were given in Model Code 2010 [3]. However, an experimental test
campaign by GEßNER [2] revealed that prestressed indented wires failed more often due to longitudinal cracks
compared to tests with strands or smooth wires. Consequently, a concrete cover of cmin,b/Ø = 2.5 is insufficient
for indented wires. Tests with cmin,b/Ø = 3.5 showed better results [2] but anchorage failure could still not be
excluded with certainty. As a result, an increased concrete cover of cmin,b/Ø = 4.0 is proposed for indented wires,
which is nevertheless smaller compared to the specifications of corresponding technical approvals. In the tests
of GEßNER [2], the clear spacing of prestressed tendons was s > 2.5Ø. To account for smaller clear spacings of
s = 2.0Ø, the concrete cover for indented wires should be increased by 0.5Ø in accordance to the approach of
NITSCH [1] for strands.
Furthermore, the values for the minimum concrete cover given in the technical approvals of pre-tensioning
tendons have generally to be considered. For example for special applications such as hollow-core slabs, other
values of tendon spacing and concrete cover may be used for pre-tensioned members to fullfill all requirements
regarding the ultimate limit state as well as serviceability limit state and providing that satisfactory behaviour in
service is demonstrated by testing or permitted by the specific European product standard with factory
production control.

P. Schmidt, J. Hegger 02.06.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 511
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
13.5.1 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[1] A. Nitsch, “Spannbetonfertigteile mit teilweiser Vorspannung aus hochfestem Beton“, Dissertation,
References
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 2001.
[2] S. Geßner, “Bond and anchorage of pre-tensioning tendons“, Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen, 2019.
[3] International Federation for Structural Concrete, “fib Model Code for Concrete Structures (Model
Code 2010)”, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2013.
[4] G. Bertram, “Zum Verbund- und Querkrafttragverhalten von Spannbetonträgern aus Ultra-hochfestem
Beton“, Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 2012.
[5] J.A. den Uijl, “Transfer length of prestressing strand in HPC“, Progress in Concrete Research, Vol. 4,
TU Delft, 1995.

List of versions of this document

02.06.2021. 1st draft
01.03.2023 Final Draft

P. Schmidt, J. Hegger 02.06.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 512
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clauses

13.5.3 and 13.5.4
Transmission length and anchorage length
of pre-tensioning tendons

Hans Rudolf Ganz Switzerland

30.09.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 513
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
13.5.3 and 13.5.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2022

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to explain the slight modifications in the presentation of transmission
length and anchorage length of pre-tensioning tendons introduced in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 when compared
with EN 1992-1-1:2004. These changes are mainly of editorial character with the intent not to significantly
change the actual transmission and anchorage length.

13.5.3 and 13.5.4 Reasons for change

Transfer of prestress and Current provision for the transfer of prestress in EN 1992-1-1:2004 (clause 8.10.2.2) starts with the definition of
anchorage of tensile force the design bond strength of pretensioning tendons, Formula (8.15), and using it then to calculate the
at ULS transmission length in Formula (8.16). In line with the changes introduced for anchorage of reinforcing steel, the
concept of bond strength has been removed in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 also for the transmission length of
pretensioning tendons. Instead, the two formulae have been merged into one providing the design value of the
transmission length directly, FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Formula (13.4). This was felt to improve ease of use.
In EN 1992-1-1:2004 the design value of the concrete tensile strength was used for the determination of the
design bond strength. The design value of the concrete tensile strength was determined with a recommended
value of ct = 1,0. In FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 ct was replaced by ktt with a recommended value of 0,8 or 0,7. To
avoid a significant change in the value of the transmission length, it was decided to avoid the use of fctd and
instead, similar to other provisions in Clause 8, use fck instead of fctd.
The transmission length in EN 1992-1-1:2004 includes, through the use of the design value of bond strength,
the partial factor for concrete C. Hence, to give NSBs the opportunity to adapt the safety level, and in order to
use the formula for transmission length also for fire design with different partial factors, the partial factor C was
introduced directly into the formula for the transmission length in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, with a coefficient
(C/1,5), i.e. setting this coefficient to 1,0 if the recommended value of C = 1,5 is used.
The same approach was used for the presentation of the design anchorage length of pretensioning tendons
under Clause 13.5.4.

Summary of results
The above changes resulted in the formulae (13.4) and (13.9) for transmission length and anchorage length,
respectively, in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. There were no changes in the coefficient 1 for release of tendons, nor
for the coefficient 1 for bond conditions:

H.R. Ganz 30.09.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 514
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
13.5.3 and 13.5.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2022

Comparison of results
Figures C13-5.1 and C13-5.2 show a comparison of transmission and anchorage length according to EN 1992-
1-1:2004 and FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 as a function of the concrete compressive strength at the relevant time,
fck(t). For the comparison, good bond conditions and gradual release of tendons were assumed. In addition, for
the anchorage length, a ratio (pd - pm)/pm0 = 0,38 was assumed. The vertical axis has been made
dimensionless by presenting (lpt x 1)/(p x 1) and (lbpd x 1)/(p x 1), respectively.

Figure C13-5.1: Comparison of transmission length between EN 1992-1-1:2004 and FprEN 1992-1-1:2022

Figure C13-5.2: Comparison of anchorage length between EN 1992-1-1:2004 and FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Conclusions
‐ The two approaches in EN 1992-1-1:2004 and FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 give very similar results for
transmission length at relatively low concrete strength which is considered typical for transmission.
The differences between the two approaches are slightly larger for wires.
‐ The two approaches in EN 1992-1-1:2004 and FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 give very similar results for
anchorage length at medium to higher concrete strength which is considered typical for ULS
verifications. The differences between the two approaches are slightly larger for wires.
‐ According to the knowledge of the author of this background document, there is no testing available
for strands diameters larger than 15.7mm. Hence, the use of provisions 13.5.3 and 13.5.4 should
without further evidence be limited to a maximum strand diameter of 15.7mm.

References

H.R. Ganz 30.09.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 515
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
13.5.3 and 13.5.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2022

List of versions of this document

26.02.2021. 1st draft prEN 1992-1-1:2020-11
30.09.2022 Updated to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
22.02.2023 Final draft

H.R. Ganz 30.09.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 516
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause 13.5.5

Shear resistance of precast members
without shear reinforcement

Mikael Hallgren Tyréns AB

Josef Hegger RWTH Aachen
Simon Wijte Eindhoven University of Technology
14.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 517
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
13.5.5 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared to explain the changes regarding pure shear tension capacity of prestressed
members without shear reinforcement.

13.5.5 Reasons for change

Shear resistance of In EN 1992-1-1 [2004] the shear resistance of precast members without shear reinforcement is described by
precast members without equation 6.4:
shear reinforcement

Ibw
 fctd 
2
VRd,c =   l cpfctd (1)
S
In equation (1) the shear resistance is verified by checking the principal tensile stress to the design tensile
strength.
This description of the shear resistance is moved to main clause 13 as it applies only to prestressed members
which usually refers to precast elements. It should be noted that the limitation to simply supported members as
contained in EN 1992-1-1:2004 was removed during the preparation of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 since the verification
method applies to continuous members also.
The provision in this clause is limited to the effective depth d not larger than 500 mm unless the size effect is
considered in a refined analysis. This is to conservatively consider the size effect on the brittle type of failure
caused by exceeding the tensile strength of plain concrete. The Commentary to EC2 [1], i.e. the background to
EN 1992-1-1:2004, specifically refers to prestressed hollow core slabs when exemplifying special cases where
pure shear tension failure can occur. Hollow core slabs typically do not have effective depths exceeding 500 mm.
There are very few tests on prestressed beams failing in pure shear tension and with d exceeding 500 mm that
are reported in the literature. The ACI-DAfStB database of shear tests on prestressed beams without shear
reinforcement contains only a few tests with d ranging from 575 mm to 825 mm, and only one test with d = 1025
mm, see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Number of tested prestressed beams versus the effective depth d, adopted from [2].

Tests by Bertram [3] include tests on prestressed girders with d up to 917 mm, but these beams also contained
steel fibres. However, the test [3] indicate a decreasing load reserve after shear cracking with increase of beam
height, se Figure 2.

Figure 2: Shear test results of prestressed girders of SFRC without shear reinforcement, from [3].
Resent research by Roosen [4] on shear failure of prestressed girders in regions without flexural cracks also
confirms that the shear strength depends on the size of the region subjected to high tensile stresses.

M. Hallgren, J. Hegger, S. Wijte 14.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 518
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
13.5.5 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The provisions for shear resistance of 13.5.5 based on principal stress may be applied to members with larger
effective depth than 500 mm only if the size effect is considered in a refined analysis. However, since beams
typically have a minimum shear reinforcement to Clause 12, it is suggested to alternatively verify shear capacity
with the refined provisions of 8.2.3 accounting for the provided minimum shear reinforcement and considering the
minimal inclination of the compression field under the design prestressing force.
Equation (1) describes the resistance based on the principal tensile stress in the cross section at the centroidal
axis. In case of irregular shaped cross sections, it is very well possible that the maximum principal tensile stress
is found in another fibre than that at the centroidal axis. Therefore, the new clause 13.5.5(2) introduces a limit of
the tensile stress in concrete based on the general formulation of principal tensile stress using Mohr´s circle:

x,Ed x,Ed
𝜎1,Ed 𝑦 𝜏Ed 𝑦 (2)

where the normal stress σx,Ed(y) and the shear stress τEd(y) in the cross section are assessed in a fibre at distance
y from the centroidal axis. The shear stress is defined by
Ed
𝜏Ed 𝑦 (3)
⋅

where VEd is the design shear force at the cross section, S(y) is the first moment of the cross section area, I is the
second moment of the cross section area, b(y) is the width at y.
With this general formulation, the maximum principal tensile stress can be assessed for a cross section with any
given cross-sectional shape.
The design condition follows
ctk,0,05
𝜎1,Ed (4)

where the design tensile strength is given by fctk0.05/C, and is not affected by a factor for high sustained load for
this design.
Another elaboration of this verifcation can be found in EN 1168 [2008], in which the method for prestressed hollow-
core slabs is given and in which also the shear stress due to the transfer of the prestress is considered.

[1] Eurocode 2 – Commentary. European Concrete Plattform ASBL, June 2008.

References
[2] Dunkelberg D, Sneed LH, Zilch K, Reineck K-H. The 2015 ACI-DAfStb data base of shear tests on
slender prestressed concrete beams without stirrups—Overview and evaluation of current design
approaches. Structural Concrete. 2018;19:1740–1759.
[3] Bertram G. Zum Verbund- und Querkrafttragverhalten von Spannbetonträgern aus Ultra-hochfestem
Beton. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen, 2012.
[4] Roosen M.A. Shear failure of prestressed girders in regions without flexural cracks. PhD dissertation
TU Delft, ISBN 978-94-6421-285-3, 2021.

List of versions of this document

12.05.2021 1st draft
06.02.2023 Peer review
14.02.2023 Final draft

M. Hallgren, J. Hegger, S. Wijte 14.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 519
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG6 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Additional background information to

Clause 14.4.5.2
Simplified design method for unreinforced
walls and columns

Simon Wijte Eindhoven University of Technology

03.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 520
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to provide additional background information to the revision of the
design rule to the determine the ultimate load bearing resistance of a braced unreinforced concrete wall loaded
by an axial force with a maximum first order eccentricity.

Reasons for change

14.4.5.2 In EN 1992-1-1:2004 in clause 12.6.5.2 a simplified design rule, equation 12.11, is given for the determination of
Simplified design method the axial load resistance of a braced unreinforced concrete wall.
for walls and columns
NRd = b hw fcd  (1)

where N Rd is the axial load resistance, b is the width of the cross-section, hw is the height of the cross-section,
fcd is the design value of the compressive strength of unreinforced concrete and  is a factor taking into account
eccentricity, second order effects and normal effects of creep. The factor  is described by formula (2)

1,14(1 – 2 etot/hw) – 0,02 lo/hw  1 – 2 etot/hw (2)

where etot is the sum of the first order eccentricities caused by the loads, the floor wall interaction and additional
eccentricity covering the effects of geometrical imperfections and l0 is the effective length of the wall.

While discussing prEN 1992-1-1:2004/A1:2014 it was proposed to change equation 12.11 to:

 = 0,71(1 – 2 etot/hw) – 0,013 lo/hw  1 – 2 etot/hw (3)

By WG1/N132 the French suggested the following equation:

 = 1,07(1 – 2 etot/hw) – 0,026 lo/hw  1 – 2 etot/hw (4)

Thereafter the several proposals were discussed during the 7th WG1 meeting in Ispra. As a result of that
discussion document WG1/N171 [1] is written. In that document the several proposals were compared and
additional also a comparison with results from structural analyses based on the finite difference method was
made. In these structural analyses a bilinear stress-strain-relation as described in figure 3.4 of
EN 1992-1-1:2004 is used as a starting point for the determination of the moment-curvature relation. From this it
is concluded that:
- formula (3) leads to more conservative results than formula (4);
- formula (4) leads to more conservative results than formula (2);
- formula (2) leads to a capacity which is comparable to the capacity that can be found when a structural
analysis, in this case using the finite difference method, is performed;
- the difference between the theoretical results from the structural analysis and formula (1) is covered by
introducing an additional eccentricity due to creep: e = 0,001 l0.

The proposal from N171 was adapted for EN 1992-1-1:2004/A1:2014. So, in EN 1992-1-1:2004/A1:2014
equation 12.11 [1] was not changed, while the variable e is introduced to contribute to etot. Formula (2) was
maintained in the early drafts of prEN 1992-1-1, where the number of the formula was changed to (14.11).

In WG1/N179 again formula (4) is maintained as French proposal for equation 14.11. In the proposal it is stated
that when using formula (4) the addition of e is not required. Formula 4 is the result of many calculations
performed. Also, it is learned that the effective creep coefficient, calculated from annex B of EN 1992-1-1:2004
is considered in the background of that proposal.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 521
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Comparison of several formulas

In [1] a comparison between the formulas (2), (3) and (4) is given without the addition of e. Hereafter additional
to this, a comparison also is made with the m variable in EN 1996-1-1:2005+A1:2012. This variable m is
comparable to the variable  in equation 14.11. It describes the maximum axial load in an unreinforced
masonry wall based on first order eccentricities and a ratio between the effective wall height and the effective
wall thickness.
From figure 14.4.5.2-1 is can be learned that, as already is described in [1], the formula in EN 1992-1-1 (formula
(2)) leads to the highest resistance compared with formula (4) and the proposal for prEN 1992-1-
1:2004/A1:2014 (formula (3)). It also can be learned that approach in EN 1996-1-1:2011 (Eurocode 6 for
masonry structures), for E = 1000 fk leads to an even higher resistance than should follow from the present EN
1992-1-1:2004. So, when these formulas are applied, the capacity of a masonry wall with similar dimensions
and a comparable design value of the compressive strength is higher than that of a unreinforced concrete wall.
In EN 1996-1-1:2022 a revised method to determine m is described in annex F which, when it is compared to
EN 1996-1-1:2012, for smaller ratios of etot/hw and higher ratios of l0/hw even leads to an increase of the m
value, see figure 14.4.5.2-1.
1.0
for 2 (0.05)
for 3 (0.05)
0.9 for 4 (0.05)
EN 1996‐1‐1:2011 (0.05)
EN 1996‐1‐1:2022 (0.05)
0.8
for 2 (0.20)
for 3 (0.20)
0.7 for 4 (0.20)
EN 1996‐1‐1:2011 (0.20)
EN 1996‐1‐1:2022 (0.20)
0.6
for 2 (0.35)
for 3 (0.35)
for 4 (0.35)


0.5
EN 1996‐1‐1:2011 (0.35)
EN 1996‐1‐1:2022 (0.35)
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l0/hw

Figure 14.4.5.2‐1: Comparison of several formulas for F with a variation of l0/hw, for etot/hw ratios of 0,05, 0,20
and 0,35
As a result from the comparison it is learned that when the creep coefficient implictly is taken into account, as
according to the background documentation, is done in formula (4), obvious smaller values for will be found.
Whether the creep coefficient should be applied to a second order analysis for braced unreinforced walls is
discussed between several member states represented in WG1.
It may be noted that from the background information for annex F of prEN 1996-1-1:1999 [2] it can be learned
that in this code for masonry structures creep effects are not considered in the design of vertical loaded walls,
see figure 14.4.5.2-2. In EN 1996-1-1:2005+A1:2012 creep was considered by applying and additional
eccentricity for slender walls (lo/hw  15). In FprEN 1996-1-1:2021 this additional eccentricity is not described.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 522
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure 14.4.5.2‐2: Figure 2 from SC6/N65 background information to annex F of prEN 1996-1-1 [2]
Comparison of the proposed formula with experimental data and the formula for e/h = 0

Therefore a proposal for formula (14.11) in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 is derived in which the creep coefficient is a
variabel.

Background FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 formula (14.11)

To derive an alternative formula for formula (14.11) in which the creep coefficient is a variable, an analysis
model is created according the general method for non-linear analysis as described in 7.4.3.3, in which:
 a braced wall loaded by an axial load with a first order eccentricity etot which is constant over the length of the
wall is considered, see figure 14.4.5.2-3;
 the stress-strain relation presented in figure 5.1 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, is used where instead of Ecm the
value for Ecd is used with, CE = 1,2 and where the strain is increased by the creep coefficient by multiplying
with (1 + eff), see figure 14.4.5.2-4.
 a relation between moment and curvature is determined based on the assumption that plane section remain
plane and the tensile strength as well as the stiffness of concrete in tension is neglected.

Figure 14.4.5.2‐3: Scheme of wall in calculation model

Assuming a first order eccentricity which is constant over the length of the wall leads to the largest second order
effect for the particular wall. Therefore the method can be used as a conservative approach where in case of
lateral loading the largest eccentricity resulting from the lateral loading is used in the formula.
With the analysis model iterative calculations are performed for an increasing axial force in which both material
and geometrical non-linear behaviour are considered. From the maximum value of the axial force for which an
equilibrium can be found, the relative factor  is derived.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 523
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1.1

1.0

0.9

compressive stress / fcd

0.8

0.7

0.6
C20/2
C20/25 5 = e0f f = 0
‐ jeff
0.5

0.4 C20/2
C20/25 5 = e1f f = 1
‐ jeff

0.3 C40/5
C40/50 0 = e0f f = 0
‐ jeff

0.2 C40/5
C40/50 0 = e1f f = 1
‐ jeff
0.1

0.0
0.000 ‐0.001 ‐0.002 ‐0.003 ‐0.004 ‐0.005 ‐0.006 ‐0.007 ‐0.008

strain

Figure 14.4.5.2‐4: Relative stress-strain relation for plain C20/25 en C50/60 with eff equal to 0 and 1

As can be seen from figure 14.4.5.2-4, due to the use of the stress-strain relation as described in figure 5.1 of
FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 the relation between the stress and the strain no longer is linear related to the
compressive strength. Therefore, calculations have to be performed for several concrete grades. For this
C20/25 and C40/50 have been chosen as being a minimum and maximum grade applied in practice of plain
concrete walls.
Results of the several calculations are summarized in table 14.4.5.2-1 and figure 14.4.5.2-5 hereafter.

Table 14.4.5.2‐1: Summary of results from calculation model

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 524
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

0.9

etot/hw fck eff

0.8 G00.05‐20‐0
.05 20 0,0

G00.05‐20‐0.6
.05 20 0,6

G00.05‐20‐1.4
.05 20 1,4
0.7
G00.05‐40‐0
.05 40 0,0

G00.05‐40‐0.6
.05 40 0,6

0.6 G00.05‐40‐1.4
.05 40 1,4

G00.2‐20‐0
.20 20 0,0

G00.2‐20‐0.6
.20 20 0,6

0.5
G00.2‐20‐1.4
.20 20 1,4

G00.2‐40‐0
.20 40 0,0

0.4 G00.2‐40‐0.6
.20 40 0,6

G00.2‐40‐1.4
.20 40 1,4

G00.35‐20‐0
.35 20 0,0
0.3
G00.35‐20‐0.6
.35 20 0,6

G00.35‐20‐1.4
.35 20 1,4

0.2 G00.35‐40‐0
.35 40 0,0

G00.35‐40‐0.6
.35 40 0,6

G00.35‐40‐1.4
.35 40 1,4

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l0/hw

Figure 14.4.5.2‐5: Maximum value of  related to a variation of eccentricity ratio, concrete strength, creep
coefficient and aspect ratio

Based on [3] and the results presented in table 14.4.5.2-1 a new formula for  has been derived. It is similar to
that in [3], but with slight modifications proposed by the author of [3], Bo Westerberg:"


 l e
1   2,1  0,02 0  tot
 h h
= 2 0,6
(5)
 l0   etot  0,8  eff   fcd,pl 
1     0,9  6   20 
h  h 
 1000  

Where etot is the sum of e0 and ei, e0 is the first order eccentricity caused by the load, ei is the additional
eccentricity covering the effects of geometrical imperfections and fcd,pl is the design value of the compressive
strength of plain concrete.

In the figures 14.4.5.2-6 and -7 hereafter the results of the formula (5) are compared with the results
from the analysis model. Each concrete class considered, is presented in a separate figure.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 525
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1.0
e t o t /h w -f c k - eff
e t o t /h w -f c k - eff
0.9
0.05‐20‐0
0.05‐20‐0.6
0.8 0.05‐20‐1.4
0.2‐20‐0
0.7 0.2‐20‐0.6
0.2‐20‐1.4

0.6 0.35‐20‐0
0.35‐20‐0.6
0.35‐20‐1.4
0.5

(5) 0.05‐20‐0
(5) 0.05‐20‐0.6
0.4 (5) 0.05‐20‐1.4
(5) 0.2‐20‐0
0.3 (5) 0.2‐20‐0.6
(5) 0.2‐20‐1.4
0.2 (5) 0.35‐20‐0
(5) 0.35‐20‐0.6
(5) 0.35‐20‐1.4
0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l0/hw
Figure 14.4.5.2‐6: Comparison for C20/25 between calculation results (dots) and result from
formula (5) (line)

1.0

e t o t /h w -f c k - eff
0.9
0.05‐40‐0
0.05‐40‐0.6
0.8 0.05‐40‐1.4
0.2‐40‐0
0.7 0.2‐40‐0.6
0.2‐40‐1.4
0.6 0.35‐40‐0
0.35‐40‐0.6
0.35‐40‐1.4
0.5


(5) 0.05‐40‐0
(5) 0.05‐40‐0.6
0.4 (5) 0.05‐40‐1.4
(5) 0.2‐40‐0
0.3 (5) 0.2‐40‐0.6
(5) 0.2‐40‐1.4
0.2 (5) 0.35‐40‐0
(5) 0.35‐40‐0.6
(5) 0.35‐40‐1.4
0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l0/hw
Figure 14.4.5.2‐7: Comparison for C40/50 between calculation results and formula (5)

From the figures it can be concluded that the formula (5) results in a reasonable value for the factor  when it is
compared to the results of a more detailed calculation according to the general method to determine second
order effects. Formula (5) is presented in prEN 1992-1-1 as formula 14-11.

Influence of CE
In the previous, the partial factor for the modulus of elasticity of concrete is taken as 1,2. In table 4.3 of the final
version of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, the partial factor is a NDP for which a value of 1,5 is advised. Hereafter the
influence of the difference between 1,2 and 1,5 for CE is presented. First this is done by comparing some results
of the general calculations for the different values of CE. For C20/25 and for C40/50 this is done in figure
14.4.5.2-8.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 526
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1.0 1.0

0.9 0.9

0.8 1.2‐ 0.05‐20‐0 0.8 1.2‐ 0.05‐40‐0

1.2‐ 0.05‐20‐1.4 1.2‐ 0.05‐40‐1.4

0.7 0.7
1.5‐0.05‐20‐0 1.5‐0.05‐40‐0

0.6 1.5‐0.05‐20‐1.4 0.6 1.5‐0.05‐40‐1.4

1.2‐ 0.2‐20‐0 1.2‐ 0.2‐40‐0


0.5


1.2‐ 0.2‐20‐1.4 0.5 1.2‐ 0.2‐40‐1.4

1.5‐0.2‐20‐0 1.5‐0.2‐40‐0
0.4 0.4
1.5‐0.2‐20‐1.4 1.5‐0.2‐40‐1.4

1.2‐ 0.35‐20‐0 1.2‐ 0.35‐40‐0

0.3 0.3
1.2‐ 0.35‐20‐1.4 1.2‐ 0.35‐40‐1.4

0.2 1.5‐0.35‐20‐0 0.2 1.5‐0.35‐40‐0

1.5‐0.35‐20‐1.4 1.5‐0.35‐40‐1.4
0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l0/hw l0/hw

Figure 14.4.5.2‐8: Influence of CE equal to 1,2 or 1,5, for C20/25 (left) and C40/50 (right)

From figure 14.4.5.2-8 it shows, that the influence of the variation of CE is limited, and only significant in case of
higher slenderness’s. Based on this small difference a small adjustment of formula (5) is suggested in case CE
is equal to 1,5, see formula (6) hereafter:

 l e
1   2,1  0,02 0  tot
 h h
= 2 0,6 (6)
 l0   etot  1  eff   fcd,pl 
1     0,9  6    
h  h  1000   20 

In case CE is considered a variable, formula (6) can be expressed as:

 l e
1   2,1  0,02 0  tot
 h h
= 2 0,6 (7)
  
l e  0,67  CE  eff   fcd,pl 
1   0   0,9  6 tot    20 
h
   h  1000  

In the figures 14.4.5.2-9 and -10 hereafter the results of the formula (6) are compared with the results
from the analysis model. Each concrete class considered, is presented in a separate figure.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 527
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1.0

0.9
e t o t /h w -f c k - eff

0.8 0.05‐20‐0
0.05‐20‐1.4
0.7
0.2‐20‐0
0.2‐20‐1.4
0.6
0.35‐20‐0
0.35‐20‐1.4
0.5

(6) 0.05‐20‐0
(6) 0.05‐20‐1.4
0.4
(6) 0.2‐20‐0
(6) 0.2‐20‐1.4
0.3
(6) 0.35‐20‐0

0.2 (6) 0.35‐20‐1.4

0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l0/hw
Figure 14.4.5.2‐9: Comparison for C20/25 between calculation results (dots) and result from
formula (6) (line)

1.0

0.9
e t o t /h w -f c k - eff

0.8 0.05‐40‐0
0.05‐40‐1.4
0.7 0.2‐40‐0
0.2‐40‐1.4
0.6
0.35‐40‐0
0.35‐40‐1.4
0.5


(6) 0.05‐40‐0
(6) 0.05‐40‐1.4
0.4
(6) 0.2‐40‐0
(6) 0.2‐40‐1.4
0.3
(6) 0.35‐40‐0

0.2 (6) 0.35‐40‐1.4

0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l0/hw

Figure 14.4.5.2‐10: Comparison for C40/50 between calculation results and formula (6)
From the figures it can be concluded that the formula (6) results in a reasonable value for the factor  in case
CE is equal to 1,5.

[1] Wijte, S.N.M, 2014, CEN TC250/SC2/WG1/N171, Equation 12.11

References
[2] Barkeer, T., Jäger, W.; 2018, Improvement of the reduction factor for slenderness and eccentricity, part
of SC6/N654 – Background document on prEN 1996-1-1;
[3] Westerberg, B.; 2011, Load bearing capacity of unreinforced walls, Design of concrete structures and
bridges using Eurocodes, Bratislava.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 528
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
14.4.5.2 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

List of versions of this document

03.06.2021 1st draft
03.01.2023 2nd draft
28.02.2023 peer reviewed
07.03.2023 final version

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 529
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG7 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex B, B.3-B.8

Time dependent behaviour of materials:

Creep, shrinkage and elastic strain of concrete

Harald S. Müller (Conv. TG 7) SMP Ingenieure, Karlsruhe

Fernando Acosta Urrea Ed. Züblin AG, Stuttgart

20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 530
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction to the background document (BD) to Annex B

The comparison of Annex B in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 [1] with Annex B in EN 1992-1-1:2004/AC:2010-11 [2]
indicates that the new standard represents a fundamental revision and a large extension in terms of content,
structure and layout. Like Sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.5 of [1], Annex B has been developed by the Task Group 7 (TG 7)
"Time dependent effects" of CEN TC 250 SC 2 WG 1. Current members of TG 7 are F. Acosta (DE, secretary), T.
Kanstad (NO), H.S. Müller (DE, convenor), A. Perez (ES), E. Stack (IE), P. Takacs (GB), J.-M. Torrenti (FR), N.
Tosic (SRB), C. Vogt (SE), R. Wan-Wendner (BE).
Firstly, it has to be noted that Annex B in [1] is normative while Annex B in [2] is informative. While Annex B in [2]
is confined to information on the determination of the creep coefficient (magnitude and time development) and
equations for determining the drying shrinkage strain (basic shrinkage is dealt with in Sec. 3.1.4 in [2], Annex B in
[1] covers a much wider scope of concrete data.
Annex B in [1] indicates above all the development of concrete strength and stiffness with time, the basic formulae
for determining the creep coefficient, the basic formulae for determining the shrinkage strain, information on tests
on elastic deformations, creep and shrinkage as well as equations for the detailed analysis for creep at variable
loading. Further, a section on the relaxation of prestressing steel has been added. Similar information was placed
elsewhere in [2]. Introductory subsections of Annex B in [1] deal with the use of the Annex, the scope and field of
application and general information for design.
In this background document (BD) it is neither possible nor necessary to give detailed background information on
the models on creep and shrinkage. The reason is that both models are nearly identical to the corresponding
models given in fib Model Code 2010 (MC 2010) [3], which are scientifically well-founded in comprehensive
documents, see e.g. [4, 5]. Also, the commentary column (parallel to the guideline column) in MC 2010 gives
additional information.
However, for the new FprEN models on creep and shrinkage minor improvements have been introduced in the
underlying MC 2010 models. These improvements are documented in [6, 7], including various further references.
Nevertheless, the background document at hand picks out and summarizes some information, which is considered
to be valuable for the user of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. Experts in the field of creep and shrinkage, who are up-to-
date with the scientific literature will scarcely find really new information. Designers who are interested in more
detailed scientific information on creep and shrinkage beyond the information given in [4, 5, 6, 7], may refer e.g. to
[8, 9, 10, 11].

B.3 General Related to Note (1) it should be mentioned that in contrast to the approach for creep in [2], the new creep approach
in [1] separates distinctly between the components basic creep and drying creep. This distinction is also given by
the creep model in [13].
The time development of drying shrinkage (Note (2)) depends on the migration of water molecules through
hardened concrete, which may be perfectly described by Fick’s 2nd law, i.e. drying shrinkage is a diffusion-type
process. This has to be taken into consideration for the modelling of this process.
It should be mentioned that both deformation components, i.e. creep and shrinkage, depend on the compressive
strength of concrete which serves as a substitute parameter for the effect of the composition of concrete (see
background document (BD) to Section 5.1.5. While basic shrinkage increases with the compressive strength, drying
shrinkage decreases. Related to creep, both components, i.e. basic creep and drying creep decrease with
increasing compressive strength.
Referring to Note (3), it has firstly to be stated that investigations carried out in the past show that the average
shrinkage is not significantly affected by short term varying ambient humidities [30]. However, considering seasonal
changes, pronounced differences are observed. In the winter season shrinkage is much lower than in the summer
season [31, 32], what can be considered in design. However, the average shrinkage over years corresponds to the
shrinkage which is obtained for mean constant ambient conditions. This means that reduced shrinkage in winter is
compensated by an increased shrinkage in summer; for more information see also B.6.
Note (4) does not at all mean that the presented models in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 are not reliable for today’s
concrete. On the contrary, the reliability has been checked carefully even though there are much less experimental
data available from the years 2000 to 2020. However, the reliability is definitively reduced when the concrete
composition deviates from the limiting values defined in EN 206.
Table B.1 indicates the strength development classes of concrete. The related background is indicated in the BD
to Section 5.1.5.
The subsequent Table 1 corresponds very closely to Table B.1 and indicates some editorial improvements and
clarifications. Table 1 was developed by Task Group 7 (TG 7) "Time dependent effects" of CEN TC 250 SC 2 WG
1 during the process of discussing the draft of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, and all changes compared to Table B.1 were
accepted by WG 1 and SC 2. However, due to an oversight Table B.1 was forgotten to be replaced by Table 1 in
the final document.

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 531
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 1: Strength development classes of concrete

Composition and properties of the cement or the binder of the concrete

Concrete containing only cement Concrete containing binder composition
Class Cement
Type of Composition of the binder
strength class b,
cement a (Portland cement clinker c and SCM d)
e.g.
CEM III Portland cement clinker and more than 65 M.-% of ground granulated
CS 32,5 N; 42,5 N blast furnace slag (ggbs) or more than 35 M.-% of fly ash (fa)
CEM II/B
CEM II/A Portland cement clinker and more than 35 M.-% but less
CN CEM I 32,5 R; 42,5 N than 65 M.-% of ground granulated blast furnace slag (ggbs) or more
than 20 M.-% but less than 35 M.-% of fly ash (fa)
CEM II/A 42,5 R; 52,5 N; Portland cement clinker and less than 35 M.-% of ground granulated
CR blast furnace slag (ggbs)or less than 20 M.-% of SCM other than ggbs
CEM I 52,5 R
a CEM IV, CEM V and special cements may be classed considering Portland cement clinker content and strength class
b according to EN 197-1
c observe that the content of Portland cement clinker in CEM I may be 95 M.-%
d considered as binder for the water-binder-ratio according to EN 206

Clause (3) defines the range of validity of the creep and shrinkage models, if the structural concrete complies with
EN 206. For further information see BD to Section 5.1.1.

B.4 Development of The aging function for the mean compressive strength (Formulae (B.1) and (B.2)) have principally been maintained
from the previous standard [2]. However, the function for the aging coefficient βcc(t) was extended and readjusted,
concrete strength and compare Formula (B.2) in [1] and Expression (3.2) in [2]. The origin of this equation is reference [12].
stiffness with time While the coefficient s according to Expression (3.2) in [2] depends only on the type of cement used, the new
coefficient sC in Formula (B.2) takes into account the influence of the concrete strength and its development over
time, see Tables B.2 and B.1 in [1]. The values for sC have been derived from new experimental data (see BD to
Annex D). This new approach is much more precise and is also up-to-date, as the influencing variables take into
account today's concrete composition.
The relationship for the aging coefficient βcc(t), i.e. Formula (B.2) was extended by the introduction of the reference
age tref, which can deviate from the usual reference age of 28 days; see BD to Section 5.1.3. For tref = 28 days the
original Expression (3.2) in [2] is obtained.
Formula (B.3) in [1] has been updated compared to Expression (3.4) in [2]; for details see BD to Annex D.
Formula (B.4) in [1] is different to the Expression (3.5) in [2]. The reasons are detailed founded in the BD to Section
5.1.4.

B.5 Basic formulae for Concerning the background of the prediction of the creep coefficient, refer to the BD to Section 5.1.5, Clause (1) -
(3). Further, as the new creep model is very closely related to the corresponding model given in [3], detailed
determining the creep background information may be found in [4]. Moreover, additional information is given in [6, 7]. Nevertheless, few
coefficient aspects will be highlighted subsequently.
When comparing the determination of the creep coefficient in [1] with the corresponding determination in [2], it
becomes evident that by means of Formula (B.5) in [1], a distinct separation of the creep components into basic
creep and drying creep has been realized. From a physical point of few this separation is well founded by the fact
that different microstructural mechanisms prevail for the development of the individual strain components. This
effect is well- known since roughly half a century as the so-called Pickett effect, and is well described in textbooks,
see e.g. [8, 11].
From a practical point of view, i.e. from the intention to derive the best possible approach for estimating the creep
coefficient, the separation into the strain components is associated with two fundamental advantages. Firstly, it is
known that the time development of basic creep and drying creep is different, i.e. different types of mathematical
functions have to be used to describe closely the observed time development. Secondly, if the compressive
strength of concrete is used as a substitute parameter to describe the effect of the concrete composition on creep,
what is the case in all creep models given in standards, the fact has to be faced that basic creep and drying creep
are differently affected by the magnitude of the compressive strength. Test results show that the ratio of basic creep
and drying creep increases significantly with increasing strength. Hence, if there is no separation into the both
creep components, as this is the case for the previous standard [2], neither a correct consideration of the effect of
the compressive strength nor of the effect of the ambient conditions on the time development of creep is possible.
Related to the consideration of the parameter compressive strength of concrete, both for creep and shrinkage
modelling, refer to the BD to Section 5.1.5, Clause (1) - (3). The major aspects related to the time development
functions for creep, i.e. the functions given by Formulas (B.8) and (B.13) are subsequently summarized.

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 532
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Time functions for creep models

The creep of concrete is characterised by two decisive time dependencies, namely the influence of the age at
loading t0 and the influence of the duration of loading (t-t0). Both influencing variables have been known for almost
as long as creep itself. It is therefore not surprising that numerous functions, some of them very different, have
been proposed in the past to describe these influences. The main reason for this is the test results considered in
each case, i.e. for different types of concrete and different boundary conditions with respect to the concrete age
and the ambient climate different tendencies for the time development of creep may be observed. On the contrary,
it has been known for far less time that the mathematical formulation of the two associated time functions and their
coupling, for example in the form of a product as often realised, i.e. εcc ~ f(t0) ꞏ g(t-t0), is associated with some
implications, and has to be carefully considered in order to avoid thermodynamically nonsensical predictions.
Relevant aspects of the new approach in [1], some aspects are summarized in the following.

Time development of creep

When looking to the very comprehensive literature on creep, it becomes evident that it is not possible to find a
single function that is able to describe the development of concrete creep under the various boundary conditions
relevant to practice. From countless experiments, it can be summarised that a power function describes the short-
term creep best, but otherwise clearly overestimates the deformation after a longer loading period (t-t0 > 1 year).
The often chosen hyperbolic functions – numerous different mathematical types are known, see e.g. [2, 13, 14] –
can accurately describe creep over a very long period of time, regardless of whether basic creep or drying creep
occurs. However, a regression on test data shows – this is general scientific consensus – that small deviations
from test data occur in the initial phase, as well as after a very long period of loading.
A purposeful clarification of the open question regarding the "correct" time function is facilitated if a systematic
distinction is made between basic creep and drying creep. This distinction is indicated for physical reasons anyway,
as already mentioned above. For explanation, the test results of Troxell et al [15] on a concrete C12/15 are
subsequently used as an example (see Figure 1). The creep deformations were recorded over a period of approx.
23 years. The trends that can be derived from the curves were later confirmed by other authors for stronger and/or
usual structural concretes submitted to very high load durations [16, 17].

Figure 1: Long-term creep of concrete (specific creep is the ratio of the creep strain and the creep inducing
stress); basic creep (RH = 99 % and 100 %) and drying creep (RH = 50 % and 70 %) data from
Troxell and regression analysis applying different time functions

In Figure 1, the logarithmic function of the type ln [1 + const∙(t-t0)] – this is in principle identical to Formula (B.8) –
is plotted next to the test data, which also visually represents a good regression to the basic creep (measured
values for RH = 99 % and RH = 100 %). In the usual semi-logarithmic representation of creep curves, the time
development changes to a linear development after a slight leftward bend and they have no final value.
If one describes the time development of the basic creep with a logarithmic function and the time development of
the overlapping drying creep with a hyperbolic function according to Formula (B.13), the regression result is
obtained as shown in Figure 1 for the test values with RH = 50 % and RH = 70 %. Although a final value for the
time development is no longer given, a good adaptation to the measured values is achieved even after a very long
period of loading.
Since many of the formulae used today for the design of concrete components require a final creep coefficient, a
calculated final creep coefficient must be defined when using the logarithmic time function for the basic creep. For
this purpose, the service life of the structure can be used as the load duration to be included in the calculation. The

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 533
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

service life, which is usually specified in guidelines, varies between 50 and 200 years depending on the guideline
and/or the type of structure. In FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 [1] it is given as 50 years. For a structural member made of
a usual structural concrete C30/37, which has an effective member size of hn = 200 mm and is loaded at the age
of 28 days in a normal environment (RH = 65 %), the increase in deformation between 50 and 200 years of load
duration amounts to approx. 5-10 % of the creep deformation occurring after 50 years when extrapolating the
superimposed logarithmic and hyperbolic time development functions. For further details see [4].

Aging function of creep

The aging function takes into account the influence of the age at loading t0 on the creep of concrete. In the so-
called product or factorial approaches, i.e. for a presentation of creep as εcc ~ f(t0) ∙ g(t-t0), a hyperbolic function
was usually chosen for f(t0), which is multiplied by the function for the time development g(t-t0), see e.g. the
approach for drying creep in [1] (Formulae (B.12) and (B.13)). This results in the typical affine representation of the
creep, which generally agrees reasonably well with test results, when no higher demands on the prediction quality
is desired. In this kind of product formulation, the age at loading only influences the level of creep or a creep
component, respectively, but not its development over time.
A more detailed analysis of the influence of the age at loading on the creep deformation is provided by the
exemplary test results shown in Figure 2 [18]. They show that the time development of creep is delayed with
increasing age at loading. This effect is represented in the new creep model in [1] analogous to [3], by taking into
account the influence of the age at loading on the drying creep component in the exponent of the time function by
γ(t0), see Formula (B.13). In contrast, the exponent in the EN 1992-1-1:2004 creep model [2] is constant, i.e.
γ(t0) = 0,3 see Expression (B.7). Another advantage associated with the γ(t0) function introduced in [1] is shown in
the subsequent section on the coupling of time functions.

Figure 2: Time development of creep of concrete loaded at different ages; test data from [18] and
predictions from MC 2010 (curves are identical to predictions of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023) and EN
1992-1-1:2004

A likewise non-affine consideration of the age at loading is given in the representation of the basic creep according
to Formula (B.8) in [1], being first introduced in the MC 2010 [3]. There, the influence of the age at loading t0 is
integrated into the logarithmic function. This representation has the effect that the creep deformations decrease
with increasing loading age, but at the same time the creep curves also run parallel in the usual graphical
representation (strain over the logarithm of time) after longer load duration. This is in good agreement with
experimental investigations and can be justified thermodynamically [19].

Coupling of the aging function and the time development function

The typical coupling of aging function and the time development function is given by a product and form the so-
called product-type approach for the creep coefficient, i.e. φ(t,t0) = f(t0) ... ki ... g(t-t0). In this form, the factor f(t0)
describes the influence of the age at loading (aging function) and the function g(t-t0) is the time development
function of creep. The factors ki are functions of other influencing variables, whereby these factors are partially
correlated, as the various influencing parameters are interrelated. This simple form of representation, also known
as "affine creep", has been used since many years [14, 20] and was also chosen for the creep approach in MC
1990 [12], and it corresponds with the approach in EN 1992-1-1:2004 and FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. For sake of
completeness the summation-type approach, also known as "rate-type creep" should be mentioned here. Details
may be found in [4, 5].

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 534
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure 3: Prediction of creep recovery (left) and stress relaxation (right) when applying the principle of
superposition in combination with the creep models given by EN 1992-1-1:2004 and FprEN 1992-
1-1:2023

The product-type approach has the weakness that in combination with the application of the superposition principle
according to Formulae (B.41) or (B.42) under the boundary conditions of full unloading and pure relaxation, it leads
to mechanically nonsensical deformation or stress predictions [5, 21], respectively, see also Figure 3.
Irrespective of the fact that the use of the superposition principle must inevitably lead to erroneous predictions
because concrete is not a linear viscoelastic material as considered by this principle, the strain reversal after
unloading (Figure 3, left) and the change of sign for stress from compression to tension during relaxation (Figure
3, right), both occurring for the creep model in EN 1992-1-1:2004, must be eliminated as far as possible. This can
successfully be realized if the relevant time functions for the age at loading and the time development are matched
in a suitable way, as has been done for MC 2010 [3, 22] and FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, respectively.
Without going into further constitutive details, it may be stated here that a satisfying solution is obtained by the age
dependency of the exponent in Formula (B.13) and the particular combination of aging and time development in
the increment of the logarithmic function of Formula (B.8) in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. Note, that this is quite different
to the approach in EN 1992-1-1:2004. In this way, the weaknesses of the product-type approach can be overcome
to a large extent. An easier mathematical solution does not exist.

Creep of concrete in existing buildings

Since all normative models for creep take into account the influence of the age at loading, one could assume that
the relationships given can also be applied when the creep behaviour of old concretes in existing buildings has to
be estimated, e.g. when a new loading occurs after rehabilitation. However, this is not the case. Basically, all creep
models were derived for the prediction of concrete creep of previously unloaded concrete. The data on which the
models are based only include creep tests of virgin concrete and, in addition, only a very few investigations had
been carried out applying a high age at loading (t0 >> 5 years).
A long-lasting preloading, as is the case with existing buildings, has a strengthening effect on the concrete if the
acting stresses are below the limit of the service stresses (σc < 0.4 ∙ fcm(t0)). Softening of the concrete (effects of
sustained loading) only occurs at significantly higher stresses. In both cases, an influence on the creep behaviour
can be assumed from material science considerations. However, to the author’s knowledge, the extent to which
long acting preloads actually influence creep has not yet been systematically investigated.
Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that the current creep models provide useful estimates of the creep behaviour
of existing concretes in an old structure for an initial rough calculation, but this is by no means certain. Therefore,
for deformation-sensitive constructions, it must be recommended to carry out creep tests on samples taken from
the existing building. How such test results can be integrated into a prediction model like FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 is
shown in Annex B.7 of this standard [1].

Non-linear creep
In the design of concrete structures, concrete is considered to be a linear viscoelastic material, but in fact it has a
complex non-linearity that depends, among other things, on the magnitude of the applied stress for constant

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 535
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

loading, the ambient conditions, and on the loading history for variable stresses. For details refer to [4, 5, 9, 21,
38].
Formula (B.19) in [1] has been developed originally already for MC 1990 [12] in order to allow for estimating creep
when high initial stresses are applied as this is the case for early high prestressing, even though the overall creep
model is in principal a stress-linear model.
The level of stress at the transition from linear to non-linear creep was fixed to kσ = 0,4 = constant. As a matter of
fact, this level depends actually on the strength of the concrete (porosity, age at loading), which can be neglected
for sake of simplicity. The increasing non-linearity can be described appropriately with the help of the exponential
function (Formula (B.19) in [1]). It is a simple approximation for the non-linear creep behaviour of concrete, but
neglects the influence of the age at loading as well as the influence of the duration of loading. In fact, the non-linear
part of the creep deformation decreases pronouncedly with increasing load duration. Experimental evidence for
Formula (B.19) is shown and discussed e.g. in [4].
In Formula (B.19) the stress level (stress-strength ratio) is defined as kσ = σc / fcm(t0), i.e. the creep generating stress
σc is related to the mean value of the concrete strength fcm(t0) at the age t0. This type of definition is also applied in
[3, 12]. Correspondingly, the limit value in Formula (B.19) for the onset of non-linearity is given as kσ,lim = 0,40. In
contrast, in EN 1992-1-1:2004 [2], the definition kσ* = σc / fck(t0) is used and kσ,lim = 0,45 is set. With this definition
and the given limit value, a somewhat lower stress σc for the transition from linear creep to non-linear creep is
calculated for structural concretes < C60/75. Although this is of no severe practical relevance, conceptually the
approach for kσ* in conjunction with Expression (3.7) in [2] is not correct. The linearity limit and the related
exponential equation were derived directly from experimental investigations, whereby the concretes were
characterized by the experimentally determined value for fcm. In contrast, fck is a characteristic value derived under
safety considerations, starting from the known strength distribution. Therefore, it is consistent to apply Formula
(B.19) using the experimentally determined concrete compressive strength fcm. If this value is not known, it can be
estimated from the concrete strength class or fck using fcm = fck + 8 N/mm².
The non-linearity is much more complicated if the creep-inducing stress is variable. Deviations from the predicted
strain by applying the principle of superposition may occur even if the stress-level is low (kσ < 0,40). Details may
be found in [5], and partially also in [6, 7]. The observed effects can only be described by a complex non-linear
model and require a special superposition principle for the mathematical treatment of creep problems with variable
loads [21]. Further information on the non-linearity presented here can also be found in [23].

Lower and upper characteristic values of the creep coefficient

Section B.5, Clause (8) in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 provides information on lower and upper limit values of the creep
coefficient, taking into account the scatter of the creep or the coefficient of variation in the prediction of the creep
coefficient, respectively. The EN 1992-1-1:2004 does not contain comparable information.
The scatter, i.e. the coefficient of variation for the creep coefficient was found to be approx. V ≈ 30 %. When
assuming a Gaussian distribution, the fractile value for the creep coefficient may be calculated from
φfrac = φ (1 ± ηfrac∙V), where φ is considered as the mean value of the creep coefficient and ηfrac depends on the
fractile (ηfrac = 1,645 for 5 % fractile, ηfrac = 1,282 for 10 % fractile). As an example, φ0,95 is calculated from
φfrac = φ∙(1 ± ηfrac∙V) when applying φ0,95 = φ (1 + 1,645∙0,30) = 1,494 φ ≈ 1,5∙φ.

B.6 Basic formulae for It should be noted that by definition (sign convention) shrinkage is calculated as a positive strain (elongation) when
applying the Formulae (B.23) to (B.33). In fact, however, shrinkage is a contraction, while swelling is an elongation.
determining the
Important background information on the new shrinkage model in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Annex B.6 [1] are already
shrinkage strain given in the BD to Section 5.1.5, Clause (4). It is explained and founded there why the new model gives
approximately 30 to 40 % higher values for shrinkage than given by EN 1992-1-1:2004 [2]. Subsequently, some
additional background information is provided.
As mentioned above, the new shrinkage model in Annex B of [1] is closely related to the corresponding model in
MC 2010 [3]. However, slight improvements have been introduced by the introduction of the Formulae (B.29) to
(B.31) and Formula (B.32) and by replacing the effect of the class of cement (N, S, R) and the strength class of
cement (32,5; 42,5; 52,5), see [3] and [2] as well, by the newly introduced strength development classes of concrete
(see Table B.1 in [1]). Background information is given in the BD to Section 5.1.5, Clause (1) - (3).
The basic approach for determining the shrinkage strain, i.e. the separation of the total strain into the components
basic shrinkage and drying shrinkage has been kept (compare Formula (B.23) in [1] with Expression (3.8) in [2]).
The introduction of the coefficients αNDP,b and αNDP,d in Formulae (B.24) and (B.25) is new. The default values for
both coefficients are 1,0, however, a National Annex may give different values.
From a scientific point of view such a deviation of the coefficients αNDP,b and αNDP,d from 1,0 is only justified, if the
composition of the concrete deviates from the average composition used in Europe. For example, if in a particular
country concretes are primarily produced using high strength limestone aggregate and/or with a low binder content
and/or with binders for which low shrinkage values have been experimentally proven, it makes sense to apply
αNDP,b < 1,0 and αNDP,d < 1,0. It is recommended to run test in order to derive reliable values for αNDP,b and αNDP,d.

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 536
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Otherwise, the αNDP values should be kept as 1,0, even if for example a high ambient average or a low ambient
average humidity prevails in the particular country. The reason is that the effect of the ambient average humidity is
considered correctly by the formulae (B.29) to (B.32).
Formula (B.26) in [1] which gives the magnitude of the notional basic shrinkage differs from the Expression (3.12)
in [2] in relation to the mathematical form, the application of fcm,28 instead of fck, and by considering the early strength
development of concrete. This results in differences for the prediction of basic shrinkage up to approx. 0,04 ‰
within the validity range of the model, which is not that much. Nevertheless, the new approach is physically correct,
whereas the previous approach is not.
Further, Formula (B.26) is identical to the corresponding Formula in MC 2010 [3], and was already introduced in
MC 1990-99 [24]. The choice of a hyperbolic function as given in the MC 2010 and now in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
has the advantage that no change of sign occurs in the calculation of the shrinkage values for low strength values
and that a final value for the notional basic shrinkage is reached for high strength values. Both effects make physical
sense but are not given by the simple linear relationship of Expression (3.12) in EN 1992-1-1:2004. Hence, TG 7
(see Introduction) decided to switch for FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 to the corresponding equation of the MC 2020.
Related to the use of fcm in [1] instead of fck in [2], refer to the BD to Section 5.1.3, Clause (1) - (6). The use of the
compressive strength as a parameter, which affects shrinkage (and creep) is elaborately explained in the BD to
Section 5.1.5.
The Formulae (B.29) to (B.31) and Formula (B.32) describe the effect of the ambient humidity RH on the magnitude
of the shrinkage. This parameter is related to the reference value RHeq, which indicates the average relative
humidity inside a member in a state of moisture equilibrium. For an average concrete strength of fcm = 35 N/mm²,
RHeq = 99 %, see Formula (B.32). With increasing concrete strength, the value for RHeq decreases continuously
and as an example amounts to RHeq = 91 % for a concrete strength of fcm = 80 N/mm². The physical consequence
is that in the assumed case of an ambient humidity of RH > RHeq = 91 %, this concrete no longer shrinks but swells,
i.e. its volume increases significantly, because it accumulates water molecules from the environment inside its pore
structure.
The described effect was not correctly considered by Expression (B.11) in [2]. The Formulae (B.29) to (B.32) in [1]
correctly defines three ranges without a discontinuity (jump) at the transition between the ranges. The range
20 % ≤ RH ≤ RHeq covers the drying shrinkage and the range RHeq < RH < 100 % the swelling of the concrete. For
RH = 100 %, swelling also occurs, but this results from water absorption when the member surface is exposed to
water in liquid form. In this case, the capillary transport mechanism of the pore system becomes active, which leads
to increased water absorption and, as a consequence, to an increased volume increase.
The Formulae (B.29) to (B.32) describe only those swelling processes that can occur in a concrete if it has not
previously shrunk as a result of a water release. If, for example, a concrete member has reached a shrinkage of
0.5 ‰ after a long drying phase and is subsequently exposed to a different ambient climate resulting in a continuous
uptake of water molecules (e.g. RH = 99…100 %), the occurrence of the resulting swelling deformation cannot be
determined by means of Formula (B.31). In the relevant literature, no relationships are known with which the
swelling occurring under the conditions mentioned could be calculated. As a guideline for practical applications, it
can be assumed that after long periods of high moisture supply, about 50-60 % of the previously occurring
shrinkage deformation is reversible. Thus, swelling after previous shrinkage of -0.5 ‰ is calculated to +0.25 ‰ to
+0.30 ‰, possibly plus the deformation resulting from the summand "+0.25" according to equation (B.31) in
connection with Formula (B.25), if water can be absorbed in liquid form.
When comparing the functions for the time development for drying shrinkage, it is evident that the Expression (3.10)
in [2] is quite different to the Formula (B.33) in [1]. This is visualized in Figure 4, which gives the time development
of drying shrinkage as predicted from EN 1992-1-1:2004 [2], EN 1992-2:2005 [13] and MC 2010 (identical to FprEN
1992-1-1:2023 [1]).
Concerning the time function of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Formula (B.33) in [1], it has to be stated that this kind of
hyperbolic function complies with the diffusion theory and may be directly derived from this process which governs
drying shrinkage.
Firstly, this means that the member size hn affects just the time development exactly according to the square root
((t-ts)/(c∙hn2 + (t-ts))0,5, where the parameter c corresponds to the (average) diffusion coefficient. Hence, the member
size hn does not affect the magnitude of drying shrinkage but the rate of its time development, see e.g. [4].
Moreover, this time function meets very well the average time development observed in hundreds of experiments.
The time function according to EN 1992-1-1:2004 is a purely empirical function that does not meet the typical
development of drying shrinkage of structural concretes. The shrinkage model in EN 1992-2:2005 takes into
account correctly the hyperbolic size effect (t-ts)/(c∙hn2 + (t-ts)) but does not consider the square root for the time
development (see above), which is characteristic for diffusion processes.

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 537
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure 4: Comparison of the time development of drying shrinkage according to EN 1992-1-1:2004, EN

1992-2:2005 und MC 2010 [3] (FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 is identical to MC 2010) for a notional
member size of hn = 200 mm

The time development of the FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 curve lies roughly in the middle of the two curves being given
by EN 1992-2:2005 [13], apart from the initial phase, when presented in the selected semi-logarithmic scale (see
Figure 4). The silica fume (SF) added to the concrete mix (criterion only "contained" or "not contained") causes a
considerable delay in the drying shrinkage curve, regardless of the quantity, which is at least surprising.
In contrast, the drying shrinkage according to EN 1992-1-1:2004 [2] develops much faster. Half of the final value is
reached here after approx. 150 days, whereas with FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 it is only reached after approx. 700 days.
The possible reason why the time development curve of the EN 1992-1-1:2004 deviates so much from the curve
given by MC 2010 (FprEN 1992-1-1:2023) is subsequently explained.
As already mentioned above and in the BD to Section 5.1.5, the factors 0.85 and kh were introduced in the shrinkage
model in EN 1992-1-1:2004 [2] in order to lower the final values of the calculated drying shrinkage to a level given
by former guidelines (e.g. MC 1978 [25]). Obviously, it was then realised that the initial shrinkage is as well lowered
so that for small member sizes it turned out to be much smaller than predicted by MC 1978. To compensate this
weakness, it was necessary to change the time function (more rapid development of shrinkage, see Figure 4) in
order to increase the calculated values after a short drying period. Hence, the originally considered time
development function – see function in prEN 1992-1-1:2001 [26], which is identical to Formula (B.33) – had to be
replaced. In retrospect, it can be seen that by introducing two “errors” (factors 0.85 and kh) a further error
(accelerated time development) had to be introduced in order to achieve a sufficient adaptation to the shrinkage
model of MC 1978, which was considered to be correct. This procedure ignored the reasons for the change from
the MC 1978 shrinkage model to the MC 1990 shrinkage model (diffusion-type model).

Size effect upon shrinkage

As mentioned above, the member size hn does only affect the time development of shrinkage but not its magnitude,
see [1, 4]. The argument, which is still repeated today, that the member size could have a certain influence on the
final shrinkage value of structural concretes, cannot be dismissed in principle, see e.g. [39]. The decisive aspect,
however, is whether the conceivable influences occur in an appreciable order of magnitude. In this context, mostly
the influence of carbonation, which is less effective for thick members, and the influence of a long internal curing
of the core area, which occurs for thick members, were cited. However, both arguments do not stand up to scientific
scrutiny.
The contraction resulting from the carbonation shrinkage (up to max. 0;2 ‰ at full carbonation) is limited after, for
example, 20 years only to a surface zone of 10 mm to a maximum of 20 mm depth. In this zone, tensile stresses
will arise as a result of the deformation restraint by the core cross-section, the upper limit of which is limited by the
comparatively low tensile strength of the concrete. The compressive stress caused by this low tensile stress over
a comparatively small area as a result of deformation constraint on the much larger residual cross-section, which
theoretically produces creep (shortening) there, which is perceived as shrinkage, can be neglected.
Good internal curing of the core area of a large cross-section by the concrete layer of the surface zone will tend to
result in reduced porosity in the core area. This will slow down diffusion and thus shrinkage as well, but this does
not necessarily lead to lower deformations after long periods of time, as is assumed. In particular finely porous,
hydraulically bound microstructures with a low porosity may show markedly large hygric deformations. This
observation has also led to the fact that in all known shrinkage models, the use of finely ground high-strength
cements, which quickly form a very fine and dense microstructure in the course of hydration, results in increased
shrinkage values.

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 538
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Magnitude of final shrinkage

The shrinkage model of the MC 1990 was derived on the basis of an extensive, updated database and taking into
account the diffusion theory, which had proved to be applicable to concrete shrinkage a few years earlier. The CEB
Technical Committee at that time was of course aware that the shrinkage values of the MC 1990 model were
increased by 30 to 40 % compared to the preceding model in the MC 1978, which is also documented in [5]. Various
reasons could be identified for this.
A major reason for the lower shrinkage values in the MC 1978 is that their determination was still largely based on
the compilation of test data by Wagner from 1958 [27]. These "old" concretes were generally produced with a much
coarser Portland cement than was the case in later years and even more so today. Furthermore, these concretes
were also produced with lower cement/binder contents. Both parameters - lower grinding fineness and lower binder
content - cause a significant reduction in shrinkage. Other reasons are probably to be found in certain shifts in the
proportions of clinker phases that have occurred in cement production over the past decades.
In addition, there is another important aspect that is related to the evaluation of shrinkage tests. At that time, it was
common and considered scientifically valid to extrapolate the deformation behaviour or its final value with the help
of Ross' hyperbolic function, which was possible in simple graphical form (pocket calculators did not yet exist). But
especially when investigating test specimens with larger member sizes, where even after 2 to 3 years of observation
in the laboratory no approximation to a final value is apparent, extrapolation with the help of the Ross hyperbola
leads to a clear underestimation of the final values [28]. It can be easily verified mathematically that the final values
extrapolated according to Ross decrease with increasing member size for the same drying time in the test. This
led to the identification of an influence of the member size on the final value of shrinkage, which, however, does
not actually exist, but results solely as an artefact from the evaluation of shrinkage tests. It was originally Wagner
who came up with right the values given in Table 3.3 in EN 1992-1-1:2004, which were first used in the MC 1970
shrinkage model [20]. With the state of knowledge in 1980s, the shrinkage model in MC 1990 was introduced and
later adopted in an extended form in MC 1990-99 [24] in prEN 1992-1-1:2001 [26].
From the CEN records of the early 2000s it can be seen that the increase in the calculated minimum reinforcement
associated with the increase of the shrinkage values was the decisive motivation to again critically examine the
specifications of prEN 1992-1-1:2001, which then finally led to the introduction of the factors 0.85 and kh in EN
1992-1-1:2004.

Shrinkage of laboratory samples in relation to member shrinkage in practice

A recurring question is to what extent shrinkage values determined in the laboratory can be transferred to member
shrinkage in practice. It is true that, for example, the MC 1990 or MC 2010 models, as well as earlier models such
as MC 1978 and MC 1970 and all other known models in foreign guidelines, were derived directly from the results
of tests on unreinforced test specimens. However, very early investigations by Rüsch had already shown that this
is permissible [29]. There is no doubt about this in the scientific community.
Nevertheless, arguments in favour of lower shrinkage in real structures are often put forward by practitioners, e.g.
with respect to the lower applied ambient humidity in the laboratory tests and the smaller dimensions of the test
specimens compared to real building members outdoors, as well as the constantly changing climate (humidity and
temperature) in practice compared to the constant climate in laboratory tests.
First of all, it should be noted that the influences of the parameters ambient humidity and member size on the
shrinkage of concrete have been extensively investigated in laboratory tests for decades. The underlying physical
processes are considered to be fully understood. Therefore, the conversion of the effects of lower ambient
humidities to higher ambient humidities and the estimation of the influence of larger member dimensions are
possible using very well validated functions. The functions given in MC 2010 describe these dependencies
accurately. The effects of variable climate, i.e. cyclical changes in the daily or weekly cycle, have also been studied
in individual publications [30]. However, no significant effects have been proven.
Another argument repeatedly put forward for the occurrence of smaller shrinkage values in concrete members in
practice compared to those determined on laboratory specimens is the reinforcement present in real structural
members. In fact, the reinforcement has the effect that the shrinkage reduction is somewhat smaller than in
unreinforced members, since the reinforcing steel does not shrink and therefore hinders the shrinkage tendency of
the concrete.
In principle, shrinkage values of unreinforced concrete are (correctly) always given in guidelines. The effect of
reinforcement can, if necessary, be easily estimated by a calculation using the theory of composites, provided it is
not implicitly taken into account in the design approaches anyway.
Although the transferability of laboratory tests on creep and shrinkage to practical conditions is theoretically
assured, corresponding experimental evidence is necessary and of high value. For various reasons, this applies in
particular to the seasonal influences and the influence of very large member sizes as well as the interaction of both
influencing parameters.
In a comprehensive study by Kollegger [31, 32], in addition to regional influences (aggregates used, climatic
conditions) and seasonal influences (summer/winter concreting), the influence of the test specimen size on creep

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 539
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

and shrinkage was also investigated (three different square cross-sections, edge length 1000 mm, 500 mm and
250 mm). Parallel to the concreting of large test specimens on the construction site, laboratory specimens were
also produced on site from the same concrete mix. Unlike the large test specimens, they did not remain on the
construction site, but were tested in the laboratory under the typical test conditions (constant 20 °C, 65 % relative
humidity).
The preliminary results obtained show that the MC 2010 model is able to predict the shrinkage deformations
measured on the test specimens in the laboratory as well as on the construction site with mostly good and partly
very good approximation. With regard to the influence of the member size, the tests confirm the validity of Fick's
2nd law for concrete shrinkage.
All in all, the very valuable new tests of Kollegger confirm the fact that the influences of relative humidity and
member size, which are physically correctly taken into account in the diffusion-type shrinkage models, ensure that
laboratory results can on average be accurately transferred to practical conditions. On the other hand, the tests
also show that the seasonal climatic fluctuations exert a pronounced influence with increasing slenderness of the
members that was not previously known or proven in this way and is therefore not represented by shrinkage models
in standards. This applies equally to the influence of the season of the member production on the shrinkage
behaviour of concrete, which was recognised in [31, 33], and which results from a coupled ambient temperature
and moisture effect.

Lower and upper characteristic values of total shrinkage

Section B.6, Clause (8) in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 provides information on lower and upper limit values of the total
shrinkage, taking into account the scatter of the shrinkage or the coefficient of variation in the prediction of the total
shrinkage, respectively. The EN 1992-1-1:2004 does not contain comparable information. This coefficient of
variation was found to be approx. V ≈ 30 % (same order of magnitude like for creep). The calculation of the lower
and upper characteristic values is indicated in the corresponding section on creep (see above).

B.7 Tests on elastic The FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 [1] specifies in Section B.7 criteria for the necessity of experimental investigations on
concrete creep and shrinkage as a supplement to the sole application of the prediction models for creep and
deformations, creep and shrinkage. With the Formulae (B.34) to (B.39) relationships are given for an improved model that takes into account
shrinkage the test results by means of additional parameters which are obtained from a regression analysis.
Clause (3) gives the relevant test guidelines. Unfortunately, EN 12390-16 denotes the basic shrinkage as
autogenous shrinkage, as this shrinkage component was termed in former times. Today’s understanding is that
the basic shrinkage results from the superposition of the chemical shrinkage and the autogenous shrinkage. The
chemical shrinkage is the volume decrease caused by the chemical reaction of H2O with the cement clinker phases.
The autogenous shrinkage results from the internal drying as a consequence of the formation of the gel
microstructure of the binder matrix. In both cases there is no moisture exchange with the environment.
The consideration of test results for the considered structural concrete allows the coefficient of variation V for the
prediction of creep and shrinkage to be reduced from approx. V ≈ 30 % to V ≈ 10 %. This increases the factors
given in B.7, Clause (2) from 0,6 and 0,5 to 0,87 and 0,84, respectively, and decreases them from 1,4 and 1,5 to
1,13 and 1,16. Thus, as an example, if the creep coefficient is calculated as φ(50y, 7d) = 3, the upper value for
design is φ0,95(50y, 7d) = 3 ∙ 1,5 = 4,5 if no experiments have been carried out, and drops to
φ0,95(50y, 7d) = 3 ∙ 1,16 = 3,5 (23 % less), if experimental results are considered.
The regression parameters ξbc1, ξbc2, ξds1 and ξds2 are to be determined according to the method of the least squares.
For mathematical reasons, the regression parameters ξbc1 and ξbc2 correlate and cannot be determined
independently of each other. However, this does not imply any limitations.
For such creep and shrinkage tests on usual test specimens, a minimum loading period or drying period of 3 months
must be observed in order to enable a reliable regression of the fitting functions. If drying creep or drying shrinkage
is considered, the strain development curves will show an inflection point in the semi-logarithmic scale (y-axis
strain, x-axis log of time, see of Figures 1 and 4). Waiting for this inflection point in the tests is absolutely crucial
for a reliable regression or extrapolation of the shrinkage and creep process.
Since the drying shrinkage and partially also drying creep is a diffusion-controlled process, the specimen size and
the concrete grade play a decisive role in view of the onset of the inflection point. For usual structural concretes
and specimen diameters of 150 mm, this inflection point occurs roughly after 50 ± 10 days, so that a reliable
extrapolation is possible after a test period of between 90 and 120 days. For slimmer specimens, the inflection
point is reached earlier. This can be estimated using Formulae (B.13) and (B.33).
For creep tests in a moist environment in order to determine the basic creep there will be no inflection point.
However, the minimum loading period of approx. 3 months is sufficient to be able to carry out a reliable regression.
For shrinkage tests in a moist environment in order to determine the basic shrinkage there will occur an inflection
point as well in the semi-logarithmic scale (for mathematical reasons) which is achieved roughly after 30 days. After
roughly 20 days, approx. 60 % of the final strain is reached. Formula (B.27) in [1] may be used for a more precise
estimation.

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 540
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

B.8 Detailed analysis for While in Formula (B.40) the creep function J(t,t0) is described by means of the conventional parameters Ec(t0), Ec,28
and φ(t,t0), i.e. with the elastic moduli and the creep coefficient, Bažant [34, 35] gives a different definition of J(t,t0).
creep at variable loading However, both approaches for J(t,t0) are equally correct if the definitions of the respective deformation components
are consistent with each other.
Formula (B.40) applies exclusively to the effect of a constant stress σc(t0). If, on the other hand, the stress is time-
variable, Formula (B.40) shall not simply use σc(t) instead of σc(t0), as this is sometimes found in the literature, but
for constitutive reasons the superposition principle, also called Boltzmann's superposition principle, shall be used.
According to this, the strain caused by the stress curve σc(t) is obtained by decomposing the stress curve into small
stress increments Δσc(τi) applied at time τi and summing up the strains caused by this, which leads to Formula
(B.41).
It is important to mention that Formulae (B.41) and (B.42) are valid only for a linear viscoelastic material. This holds
not true for concrete, which feature a complex non-linearity. Nevertheless, both Formulae may be applied for
concrete, as it is usually done, and they give in most case reasonably good prediction results. For further details,
see [5, 9, 21].
As a general constitutive relation for concrete, Formula (B.42) allows the treatment of arbitrary creep and relaxation
problems if, given a known material law (creep function J(t,t0)), either the stress history σ(t,t0) or the strain history
ε(t,t0) is known. In the latter case, Formula (B.42) mathematically represents a Volterra's integral equation, which
can only be solved numerically for complex creep functions as used in design today.
For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that the viscoelastic behaviour of concrete can also be
described by means of a differential equation that is equivalent to Formula (B.42). However, Formula (B.42) can
only be directly converted into a differential equation if the creep function J(t,t0) fulfils certain mathematical criteria.
Further details can be found in [9, 21].
Since the application of Formula (B.42) is mathematically complex and also requires a high storage capacity for
the numerical solution of creep and relaxation problems - in this respect the differential equation mentioned above
would be more favourable - the effective modulus of elasticity ("age-adjusted effective modulus") according to the
subsequent equation is generally used for calculations in practice:

Ec, 28
Ec, 28, eff 
1  ξ  t , t0   φ  t , t0 

This equation uses the "relaxation coefficient" ξ(t,t0) according to Trost [36], ("aging coefficient" according to Bažant
[37]) and thus allows the treatment of creep at variable stresses and strains as a quasi-elastic problem in a simple
algebraic way. Although there are disadvantages associated with this application, such a calculation is possible in
many practical cases with a good approximation because the value for ξ(t,t0) with 0,5 ≤ ξ(t,t0) ≤ 1,0 varies within
narrow limits and can mostly be assumed to be constant as ξ = 0,8. An exact calculation of ξ(t,t0) is complex; details
are given in [10]. The use of equation for Ec,28,eff also has the great advantage that the mathematical type of the
approach for the creep coefficient φ(t,t0) no longer plays a role. Only the accuracy of the prediction of the creep
coefficient is decisive.

[1] FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (2023) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules, rules
References for buildings, bridges and civil engineering structures. CEN, Brussels.

[2] EN 1992-1-1:2004-12/AC:2010-11 (2010) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:

General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

[3] Fédération internationale du béton (fib) (2013) fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Wiley c/o
Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.

[4] fib Bulletin 70 (2013) Code-type models for structural behaviour of concrete: Background of the
constitutive relations and material models in the fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. State-
of-art report, Lausanne.

[5] CEB Bulletin 199 (1990) Evaluation of the time dependent behavior of concrete. CEB Bulletin
d'Information, No. 199, Comité Euro-International du Béton, Lausanne.

[6] Müller, H. S.; Acosta, F.; Kvitsel, V. (2021) Models for predicting shrinkage and creep of concrete - Part

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 541
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1: Analysis of the shrinkage model in DIN EN 1992-1-1:2011 and new approach in Eurocode 2 prEN
1992-1-1:2020 in: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 116, H. 1, pp. 2-18; Part 2a: Creep - Principles and
analysis of the creep model in DIN EN 1992-1-1:2011 in: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 116, H. 9, pp. 660-
676; Part 2b: Creep - New approach in Eurocode 2 prEN 1992-1-1:2020 in: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
116, H. 10, pp. 808-820 (in German).
[7] Müller, H. S.; Acosta F.; Kvitsel, V.; Torrenti, J. M. (2023) Prediction of creep and shrinkage – improved
approaches for fib Model Code 2020 in: Structural Concrete, in preparation.

[8] Neville, A. M.; Dilger, W. H.; Brooks, J. J. (1983) Creep of plain and structural concrete. Construction
Press, London, Great Britain.

[9] Bažant, Z. P. (1988) Mathematical modelling of creep and shrinkage of concrete. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., Chichester, Great Britain.

[10] CEB Bulletin 215 (1993) Structural effects of time dependent behaviour of concrete. Comité Euro-
International du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland.

[11] Bažant, Z. P; Jirasek, M. (2018) Creep and Hygrothermal Effects in Concrete Structures. Springer
Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

[12] CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 (1993) Design Code. Committée Euro-International du Béton (CEB),
Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London.

[13] EN 1992-2:2005/AC:2008 (2005) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Concrete bridges -

Design and detailing rules. CEN, Brussels.

[14] ACI Committee 209 (2008) Guide for modeling and calculating shrinkage and creep in hardened
concrete. ACI Report 209.2R-08, Farmington Hills.

[15] Troxell, G. E.; Raphael, J. M.; Davis, R. E. (1958) Long time creep and shrinkage tests of plain and
reinforced concrete. ASTM Proceedings, Vol. 58, pp. 1101-1120.
[16] Stöckl, S. (1981) Experiments on the influence of the load level on the creep of concrete. German
Committee for Reinforced Concrete (Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton), H. 324, Beuth Verlag
GmbH, Berlin (in German).

[17] Brooks, J. J. (2005) 30-year creep and shrinkage of concrete in: Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol.
57 Issue 9, November 2005, pp. 545-556.

[18] Hilsdorf, H. K.; Rüsch, H.; Kordina, K. (1970) Unpublished experiments at the MPA Munich (in German)

[19] Le Roy, R.; Le Maou, F.; Torrenti, J. M. (2017) Long term basic creep behavior of high performance
concrete: data and modelling in: Materials and Structures 50, H. 1, pp. 1-11.

[20] CEB Bulletin 72/73 (1970) CEB-FIP Model Code 1970: International Recommendations for the design
and construction of concrete structures. Comité Européenne du Béton, Paris, London.

[21] Müller, H. S. (1986) On the prediction of the creep of structural concrete [Dissertation]. University of
Karlsruhe (in German).

[22] Müller, H. S.; Anders, I., Breiner R., Vogel, M. (2013) Concrete: treatment of types and properties in fib
Model Code 2010 in: Structural Concrete, Vol. 14, No 4, pp. 320-334.

[23] Anders, I. (2017) Material law for the description of the creep and relaxation behaviour of young normal-
and high-strength concretes. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). Karlsruher Reihe Massivbau,
Baustofftechnologie, Materialprüfung; Heft 73 and Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, H. 624, Beuth
Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 2017 (in German).

[24] Müller, H. S.; Küttner, C. H.; Kvitsel V. (1999) Creep and shrinkage models of normal and high-
performance concrete – concept for a unified code-type approach in: Revue française de génie civil,
Vol. 3, No. 3-4, pp. 113-132.

[25] CEB Bulletin 124/125 (1978) CEB-FIP Model Code 1978: International System of Unified Standard –
Codes of Practice for Structures. Comité Européenne du Béton, Paris, Lausanne.

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 542
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.3 to B.8 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[26] prEN 1992-1-1:2001-04 (2001) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1: General rules and
rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization.

[27] Wagner, O. (1958) The creep of unreinforced concrete. German Committee for Reinforced Concrete
(Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton), H. 131, Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin (in German).

[28] Hilsdorf, H. K., Müller, H. S. (1983) Discussion of a note "Comments on the use of Ross' hyperbola and
recent comparisons of various practical creep prediction models" by Z. P. Bažant and J. C. Chern in:
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 13, pp. 441–443.

[29] Rüsch, H., Jungwirth, D., Hilsdorf, H. K. (1983) Creep and Shrinkage. Their Effect on the Behavior of
Concrete Structures. Springer Verlag, New York.

[30] Müller, H. S. and Pristl, M. (1993) Creep and shrinkage of concrete at variable ambient conditions in:
Bažant, Z. P. und Carol I., [Ed.] Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete, Proceedings of the 5th International
RILEM Symposium on Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete (ConCreep 5). & FN Spon, London, pp. 15–
26.

[31] Kollegger J. (2020) Creep and shrinkage - Development of practical models for the prediction of creep
and shrinkage of concrete. Report to the Austrian Association for Structural Engineering (öbv) (in
German).

[32] Kollegger J. et al. (2023) Creep and shrinkage - Development of practical models for the prediction of
creep and shrinkage of concrete. Publication in Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, in preparation (in German).

[33] Suza, D. (2020) Influence of the scale effect and environmental conditions on the creep and shrinkage
of concrete [Dissertation]. Vienna University of Technology.

[34] Bažant, Z. P.; Panula, L. (1978) Practical prediction of time-dependent deformations of concrete in:
Matériaux and Constructions, Vol. 11, No. 65, 1978; Vol. 11, No. 66, 1978; Vol. 12, No. 69, 1979.

[35] RILEM draft recommendation: TC-242-MDC multi-decade creep and shrinkage of concrete: material
model and structural analysis. Model B4 for creep, drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage of
normal and high-strength concretes with multi-decade applicability. RILEM Technical Committee TC-
242-MDC (Zdenek P. Bažant, chair) in: Materials and Structures (2015), Vol. 48, pp. 753-770.

[36] Trost, H. (1967) Effects of the superposition principle on creep and relaxation problems in concrete and
prestressed concrete in: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, H. 10 und 11 (in German).

[37] Bažant, Z. P. (1972) Prediction of concrete creep effects using age-adjusted effective modulus method
in: ACI Journal, Vol. 69.

[38] Torrenti, J. M. (2018) Basic creep of concrete-coupling between high stresses and elevated
temperatures in: European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 12, pp. 1419-
1428.

[39] Torrenti, J. M.; Benboudjema, F. (2013) Desiccation shrinkage of large structures: is there a size effect?
in: Proceedings of ConCreep9, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.

List of versions of this document

24.08.2021 1st draft
20.01.2023 2nd draft
09.03.2023 peer reviewed and final draft

H. S. Müller (Convenor TG 7) 20.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 543
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex B.9

Validation of provisions for relaxation of
prestressing steel

Hans Rudolf Ganz Switzerland

30.09.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 544
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.9 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to validate the provisions in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Annex B.9, for
relaxation of prestressing steel.

B.9 Reasons for change

Relaxation of prestressing Current provisions in EN 1992-1-1:2004 specify three classes of relaxation: two for ordinary and low relaxation
steel of wire and strand, and one for bars. However, in practice in Europe only one class is used and specified for
wire and strand since many years, and one for bars. For the evolution of the relaxation loss over time, EN 1992-
1-1:2004 gives expressions for each of the three classes, (3.28) to (3.30). However, when applying these
expressions and checking relaxation losses at 1000 hours, the calculated relaxation loss at a stress of 70% of
tensile strength is about 1% and thus significantly lower than the maximum value of 2,5% specified for wire and
strand in FprEN 10138:2009 and national specifications commonly referenced for prestressing steel in practice.
Several comments in the Systematic Review of EN 1992-1-1:2004 have requested to update and correct in
particular this last item, i.e. adapt provisions such that the maximum values specified in product standards apply
unless testing of actually used products confirm smaller values.

Determination of relaxation loss according to B.9

B.9(1), (2), (3)
In FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 the approach given in fib Model Code 2010, [B.9-1], for relaxation losses of
prestressing steel has been adopted with some simplifications to improve ease of use. For the evolution of
relaxation losses over time a power function with the loss at 1000 hours (either value specified in product
standard or value measured in tests) is used which corresponds to a straight line when presenting the relaxation
losses over time in a double logarithmic diagram, Formula (B.43). Coefficient kp represents the slope of the
straight line in the double logarithmic scale which, in lieu of actual test results, may be assumed as kp = 0,16
(Note: time t expressed in days as per Clause 3.9).

For the effect of initial stress between 70% and 80% of the tensile strength, relaxation values at 1000 hours may
be linearly interpolated between the specified or tested values at these stress levels. For stresses below 70% of
tensile strength, relaxation values at 1000 hours may be linearly interpolated between the value specified at
stress of 70% and zero relaxation loss assumed at a stress of 50% of the tensile strength. Table B.9-1 shows
the assumed losses at 50% as well as the specified maximum values at 70% and 80% of the tensile strength of
the prestressing steel (corresponding to Table B.4 in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023).

Table B.9-1: Relaxation losses at 1000 hours

FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 provides a two-level approach for determining the evolution of relaxation losses over
time:
‐ In the simplest case (Level 1), without specific information (test results) on the actual properties of
prestressing steel to be used e.g. at the time of design prior to construction, a designer uses the
maximum relaxation values at 1000 hours specified in the product standard and given in Table B.9-1
above together with Formula (B.43) and the assumed value of kp = 0.16 to estimate the evolution of
relaxation losses and in particular the final value or relaxation loss at the end of the design service life
(or a time specified for the project). Assuming an initial stress level of 70% of actual tensile strength,
this results in total relaxation loss of 2,65 1000 for 50 years, and 3,0 1000 for 100 years design service
life, respectively. In Level 1 approach, since no test data is available, fpk needs to be used in lieu of
the actual tensile strength fp.
B.9(4)
‐ When specific information (test results) on the relaxation properties of prestressing steel to be used is
available, either from test certificates of the actual batch of prestressing steel or based on prior tests
performed by the manufacturer on the same type of prestressing steel, Level 2 may be applied. In the
Level 2 approach, the coefficient kp results from the best fit straight line based on the relaxation loss
values measured in the tests up to 1000 hours. Formula (B.43) may then be used with the measured
value 1000 and the coefficient kp from the best fit straight line. In Level 2 approach, since test data is
available, relaxation loss based on the actual strength fp may be used.

H.R. Ganz 13.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 545
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.9 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Relaxation losses of prestressing steel are sensitive to temperature, see [B.9-1]. Hence, testing of relaxation
B.9(6)
losses at elevated temperature is recommended if the prestressing steel is expected to be exposed over
extended periods of time to temperatures of 30°C or higher. For temperatures below 20°C, the relaxation values
at 20°C may conservatively be assumed. For prestressed members subject to heat treatment, the provisions in
Clause 13 apply regarding relaxation loss during the period of heat treatment.

Summary of the test results

One argument for using Formulae (3.28) to (3.30) in EN 1992-1-1:2004 was that the actual tensile strength of
prestressing steel can significantly exceed the specified tensile strength. In [B.9-2], a difference of the order of
14% was mentioned, see also [B.9-3]. A recent evaluation of 57 test results for 15.7mm strands, from 8 different
production batches, from 4 different manufacturers showed a quite different picture with a ratio of actual /
specified tensile strength for batches ranging from 1,015 to 1,04, see Figure B.9-1. While this evaluation may
not be representative for all types of prestressing steel and all manufacturers, it shows anyway that the ratio of
actual / specified tensile strength of prestressing steel will often be rather close to unity. Therefore, very
significant overstrength will be the exception in practice. Hence, Level 1 approach above, with the assumption of
fp = fpk, will typically result in only a small overestimation of the relaxation loss. Assuming an actual tensile
strength of 1,03 fpk would reduce relaxation loss at 1000 hours to 0,97 1000.

(a) Actual / specified strength per test (b) Actual / specified strength distribution

Figure B.9-1: Actual / specified tensile strength of 7-wire prestressing strands (sample selection, see text above)

Figure B.9-2 illustrates a limited evaluation of the coefficient kp as a function of the initial stress level. As can be
seen, the coefficient varies with initial stress level. However, kp = 0,16 is a fair value for initial stress levels
between 70% and 80% of the tensile strength.

Figure B.9-2: Coefficient kp as a function of initial stress level in prestressing steel

If actual results of relaxation tests are available, Level 2 approach can be used. Figure B.9-3 shows two
examples of relaxation tests, both performed at an initial stress of 70% of the tensile strength up to 1000 hours,
one on 12.9mm diameter strand, the other on 15.7mm strand of 1860 MPa specified tensile strength. The figure
shows the actual test values together with the extrapolated relaxation loss at 50 years design service life
(highlighted with red circle). The formulae for the best fit straight lines are also shown in the figures.

(a) 12.9mm strand stressed to 70% tensile strength (b) 15.7mm strand stressed to 70% tensile strength

Figure B.9-3: Examples of best fit approximation for relaxation loss based on test results (Level 2 approach)

H.R. Ganz 13.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 546
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
B.9 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The extrapolated relaxation losses at 50 years design service life in Figure B.9-3 are 6.1% and 4.1% for the
12.9mm strand and the 15.7mm strand, respectively. These two samples had actual values of 1000 = 1.37% and
1000 = 1.09% for the 12.9mm and 15.7mm strand, respectively. This can be compared with the estimations
based on Level 1 approach of 6.6% based on the maximum specified value of 1000 = 2.5% A limited evaluation
of another 10 relaxation tests from three manufacturers with strands 12.5mm to 15.7mm, tensile strength of
1770MPa and 1860MPa, and stressed to 70% and 80% of actual tensile strength, gave extrapolated relaxation
values at 50 years design service life between 2.7% and 6.6% with an average value of 4.5%. Hence, while with
the estimated loss of 6.6% based on Level 1 approach some conservatism may be present in some cases, it is
not conservative in other and certainly not in all cases.

Conclusions
‐ The changes introduced for relaxation losses in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Annex B.9, are justified based
on the above data and are easy to use.
‐ The Level 1 approach based on maximum specified relaxation loss at 1000 hours from product
standards and Formula (B.43) with an assumed coefficient kp = 0.16 give fair values of final relaxation
loss at the end of the design service life. The slight conservatism in some cases is felt to have a
marginal effect, if any, on the design and economy of prestressed structures, in particular for bonded
tendons where relaxation accounts for about one third of the total long-term losses.
‐ For large projects Level 2 approach based on actual relaxation test data or past relaxation testing of
the same type of prestressing steel from the manufacturer may be appropriate in some cases where
the effective prestress is relevant in design.

[B.9-1] fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Fédération Internationale du Béton, Lausanne, 2013.
References
[B.9-2] A. W. Beeby, R. S. Narayanan and H. Gulvanessian, “Designers' Guide to Eurocode 2: Design of
Concrete Structures”, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 2005.
[B.9-1] CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 834.

List of versions of this document

03.03.2021. 1st draft prEN 1992-1-1:2020-11
30.09.2022 Updated to FprEN 1992-1-1:2022
13.03.2023 Peer reviewed

H.R. Ganz 13.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 547
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1 Draft:2023

Background to
ANNEX C (NORMATIVE):
REQUIREMENTS FOR MATERIALS

Frank Fingerloos DBV (German Society for Concrete and Construction Technology), DE
Alexander Lindorf DBV (German Society for Concrete and Construction Technology), DE
Lars Meyer DBV (German Society for Concrete and Construction Technology), DE
Tony Jones The Concrete Centre, UK
Werner Fuchs (for C.8) University of Stuttgart, DE
21.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 548
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This background document has been prepared to explain the necessity and content of Annex C:
Requirements to Materials.
NOTE This background document is subject to changes according to the ongoing discussion within
CEN/TC250 and its AHG Interface between Eurocodes and hENs. Therefore, the following explanations are
preliminary.

C.1 Use of this annex The design according to Eurocode 2 is based under the assumption that reliable and accurate
C.2 Scope and field of ap- information at a sufficient confidence level is available for the construction materials and construc-
plication tion products used. This information can be obtained from the following sources:
Case 1 from Declarations of Performance (DoP) based on harmonised technical specifications
(hEN/EAD) based on the European Construction Products Regulation (CPR) [1];
Case 2 from other technical provisions (e.g. non-harmonized European standards);
Case 3 from other and, if applicable, project-related specifications.
The required performance of the construction materials and construction products to be fulfilled as
a minimum when used in accordance with Eurocode 2 shall be defined in the form of requirements.
These requirements, which are based on the fitness for use of materials and products, are initially
expected in material or product standards. However, after the changeover from the Construction
Products Directive (CPD) to the CPR in 2013, such requirements may no longer be included in
harmonised specifications (hEN/EAD) based on the CPR. Therefore, they must be specified in
Eurocode 2 for these cases.
The normative Annex C serves this purpose: It is necessary to formulate the requirements for prop-
erties to be fulfilled for those materials and products that are to be used in the design according to
Eurocode 2 under the assumptions given there.
Case 1 provides a technical basis to assess the performance of construction products. The manu-
facturer has to deliver a Declaration of Performance (DoP) in which at least one (essential) char-
acteristic is declared. However, this characteristic can be also irrelevant for design with Eurocode 2.

To ensure a consistent system of parameters needed for the usability of a construction product in
connection with a Eurocode design, the design codes of CEN/TC 250 shall name product charac-
teristics needed for design – if needed in conjunction with threshold values [2]. Therefore, all per-
formance characteristics with necessary requirements (in values or pass criteria of tests) shall be
given in Eurocode 2, Annex C. This is because there is no other document to which the Eurocodes
could refer, and which would contain these necessary requirements and the rules on how to demon-
strate compliance with them. A "voluntary DoP" can be used for those properties that cannot (yet)
be explained via a mandatory DoP because they are not listed in Annex ZA of a hEN or in an EAD,
but which are required for design according to Eurocode 2 [2]. The necessary 'set of properties' is
included in the normative Annex C.

It is expected, that the hENs for reinforcing and prestressing steels will not be finally published in
the Official Journal of EU (OJEU), when this Eurocode 2 is published in 2023. So national product
standards or approvals may be used if compatible with material requirements of Annex C. There-
fore NDP-formulations are established in the code-text as follows:
(…) … steels used for structures designed in accordance with this Eurocode shall comply with
the relevant standards for … steel.
NOTE 1 The National Annex can specify relevant standards for … steel.
NOTE 2 The harmonised product standard EN … for reinforcing steel is currently under development.
Still unsolved is a short-term solution how to implement missing parameters in the scope of product
hENs and therefore in the DoPs of the producers. A general way to proceed is given in document
JIS Action 5, 2018.08.24: CPR-Procedure to develop a standardisation request. Unfortunately
based on this it must be expected that it will last about 5 years until new hENs will be drafted and
published in the OJEU [2].

Because the new Eurocode 2 should be finalised in 2023 a short-term solution with Annex C is
established. Three general case scenarios for construction product properties were detected (see
Figure BD.C.1).

Case 1 contains properties which are covered in harmonised technical specifications (hENs/EADs)
or in non-harmonised documents and do not need any modification. Furthermore, Case 1 is divided
into the sub-cases 1a), 1b) and 1c).
– 1a) Since the required properties in terms of accuracy, reliability and confidence level are fully
covered by the harmonized technical specification based on the CPR, no further action is re-
quired in Case 1a).

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 549
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

– 1b) In Case 1b) a parameter is covered by the system of the CPR, but it is not listed in an Annex
ZA (and therefore cannot be declared in a DoP). The required level of accuracy, reliability and
the level of confidence have to be established in Eurocode 2.
– 1c) For parameters not addressed in harmonised specifications, a declaration of the existing
performance in a (mandatory) DoP is not given, see case 1c). Here, the information must be
declared otherwise – e.g. in a voluntary DoP. The basis for such a voluntary DoP can also be
non-harmonized rules.
Case 2 describes cases where a required property is in principle addressed in an EN or in another
rule but requires an adaptation rule in the Eurocode regarding accuracy, reliability or confidence
level. A simple declaration of performance in a voluntary DoP would be insufficient here.

Case 3 occurs when no EN or other rule exists for a required property. In this case, requirements
for the property must be defined in the Eurocode – including regulations on accuracy, reliability and
confidence level.

Figure BD.C.1. The different cases for determining the properties necessary for the design [2]

Additional information on the requirements applicable to a product in a specific Member State can
be obtained from the national Product Contact Point for Construction established by each Member
State.

A mechanism for completing the standards and strengthening the DoP should be established in
the EU-Member States (e.g. with the support of industry) by drawing up up-to-date lists of the re-
quired essential characteristics for construction products for certain uses. Member States shall de-
termine under their own responsibility the performance requirements for the essential characteris-
tics in relation to the intended use of a construction product. In the context of the currently ongoing
consultations on the revision of the CPR, corresponding comments from the industry (FIEC, CPE,
SBS) were submitted and presented as "Option F" [3]. The Commission is also aware of this prob-
lem and has launched a so-called acquis process to drive forward the completion of the standards
[4].

Whilst the preceding topics concerns Members of the European Union, the Eurocodes assumes
non-EU states adopting the Eurocodes will have similar procedures.

C.1 (1) Precast concrete Under the umbrella of the non-harmonised EN 13369:2018: Common rules for precast concrete
products products [5] the most of precast concrete products are covered by harmonised standards (hEN).
The manufacturers shall draw up a declaration of performance DoP based on an appropriate hEN.
The difficulty with precast concrete elements is that the rules for the concrete used are not harmo-
nised in the member states and to that extent differ. The same applies currently and until the final
publication of prEN 10080/prEN 10370 for reinforcing steel and of EN 10138 for prestressing steel.
In addition, different national implementations of FprEN 1992-1-1 are to be expected for the design.
Against this background, the following requirement is formulated in C.1 (1) in FprEN 1992-1-1:

(1) …This Normative Annex also applies to precast concrete products according to EN 13369 de-
signed according to this standard.

Precast concrete products that do not take these national differences into account may not be used
in another member state without further specifications. In this respect, compliance with the rules
valid in the place of use is relevant for usability – not compliance with the rules in the place of
manufacture.

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 550
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

C.3 Concrete Relevant: Case 1c) in Figure BD.C.1.

C.3.1 Normal weight, The main design property concrete compressive strength fck is classified in concrete strength
heavy weight and Light- classes according to EN 206 [6]. The producer confirms (only) the 5%-quantile fck;0,05 of a class
weight Aggregate Con- with initial testing and during factory production control (conformity tests).
crete (LWAC)
It should be noted, that all other concrete properties according to FprEN 1992-1-1-clause 5.1
used in design (like values of Ec, fct, c, cs, c, c,th) are theoretical or empirical benchmark values
and are not covered in EN 206. If such concrete properties are required in design, the designer
shall specify these characteristics with the required values, reliability and confidence level. These
required values shall be confirmed than by the concrete producer in a Technical Documentation.

In EN 206 [6]/EN 12620 [7] the limitation of the aggregate size is designated in terms of lower
(d) and upper (D) sieve sizes expressed as d / D. In the design the values of Dmax shall be specified
with Dupper (for minimum cover, spacing of bars, tendons and couplers) and Dlower (shear and
punching resistance):
– Dlower: smallest value of upper sieve size D for the coarsest fraction of aggregates in the concrete
permitted by the specification of concrete,
– Dupper: largest value of upper sieve size D for the coarsest fraction of aggregates in the concrete
permitted by the specification of concrete
– Dmax: Declared value of upper sieve size D of the coarsest fraction of aggregates which is actu-
ally used in the concrete
The definition of D via Dlower in EN 12620 can lead to a range of aggregate gradings. EN 206 does
not specify a minimum coarse aggregate content.

The shear and punching models are calibrated against tests carried out with typical gradings. Dlower
should be equal or greater than 8 mm. The use of non-typical aggregate gradings where the per-
centage of larger aggregate sizes in relation to Dlower is small can result in different behaviour. This
can be avoided by specifying grading parameters in addition to Dlower.

It is expected that the new Exposure Resistance Classes (ERC) according to FprEN 1992-1-1-
clause 6.4 will be implemented in a new prEN 206-100. In the event EN 206 or prEN 206-100 does
not refer to ERC, a National Application Document to EN 206 (or a National Annex of EN1992-1-1
can provide the necessary advice on how to implement ERC rules in a country.

C.4 Reinforcing steel Relevant: Case 1b) in Figure BD.C.1  Voluntary DoP for strength and ductility classes required.
C.4.1 Carbon reinforcing
steel For FprEN-1992-1-1-design strength classes (B400, B450, B500, B550, B600, B700) and ductil-
ity classes (A, B, C) of reinforcing steel are required. prEN 10080 [10] does not contain these
classes. Therefore, an interface between the defined FprEN-1992-1-1-classes according to Tables
C.1/C.2 and the DoP according to Annex ZA of prEN 10080 is necessary. Table BD.C.1 contains
the interface conditions. See also CEN-TC250-SC2_N1438 [11].

Intermediate strength classes can be defined and used in the National Annex (see 5.2.2, Table 5.4).

It is expected, that reinforcing steel for ULS and SLS-design is produced under Assessment and
Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) system 1+ addressed in prEN 10080, Table ZA.3.

Each reinforcing steel shall bear on one rib or indentation row, a numerical mark identifying the
manufacturer's works. This mark shall be repeated at an interval of not more than 1,5 m. An addi-
tional voluntary marking with max. 6 characters of Re, Rm, Agt or classes (like 500B) with real
numbers directly on the reinforcing steel is expected to reach the assumed design reliability on
execution on site. A combination with the product identification number allocated by the manufac-
turer himself, added by a code/link to declaration of performance on web is possible.
Table BD.C.1. Interface conditions prEN 10080 [10] to FprEN 1992-1-1
prEN 10080: Table ZA.1 – Relevant clauses for FprEN 1992-1-1
reinforcing steel and intended use
Essential Cl. Classes Notes Required classes and/or threshold
characteristics and/or levels
threshold
levels
Elongation at 5.2 – Declared value For specifying ductility classes A, B, C with
maximum load (10% fractile value) elongation at maximum load as a parameter:
Declared value Agt (used as uk) as 10%
quantileb value for production lotc:
Ductility class A: Agt  2,5 %
Ductility class B: Agt  5,0 %
Ductility class C: Agt  7,5 %

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 551
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Weldability 5.1 – Declared values Usable in design and execution of welded

(maximum carbon reinforcement with recommended values for
equivalent value the chemical composition in prEN 10080,
Ceq,max and the maxi- Table 2d). For these values it is known that
mum content of the the essential characteristics can be tested
specified individual properly and that test results are valid.
elements Cmax, Smax,
Pmax, Nmax and Cumax )
Sections and 5.8 – Declared values Declared value for max deviation from
tolerances on (nominal value for d; nominal mass of bar or wire:
sizes range of maximum Δm  4,5% 8 mm
deviation from the Δm  6,0% 8 mm
nominal mass per
meter Δm; range of Recommended tolerance ranges
maximum deviation Bars:
Δl, Δw, Δp, Δo for length (L): ± 40 mm if L ≤ 5,0 m,
welded fabric; ± 0,8 %, if L > 5,0 m;
range of maximum height (H1, H2): +1 mm and − 3 mm;
deviation ΔL, ΔH1 width (B1, B2): ± 7,5 mm;
and ΔH2, ΔB1 and pitch (Ps): ± 2,5 mm;
ΔB2, ΔPs for lattice Welded fabric:
girder) length and width: max{± 25 mm; ± 0,5 %}
wire pitch: max{± 15 mm; ± 7,5 %}
overhangs: > 25 mm
Bendability 5.5 – Declared value Usable in design and execution for bended
(maximum mandrel bars, stirrups, links, hooks:
diameter dmax in bend Pass (both bend and re-bend tests)
and/or re-bend test) for production lotc.
No steel cracking is permitted.

Bend test specified in accordance with

EN ISO 15630-1 [12] with mandrels of
 3 for bars 16 mm,
 6 for bars 16 mm,
and the minimum bend-angle of 180°.
Re-bend test specified in accordance with
EN ISO 15630-1 [12] with mandrels of
 5 for bars 16 mm,
 8 for bars 16 mm < 25 mm,
 10 for bars 25 mm,
and the minimum bend-angles of 90° and re-
bend of 20°
Bonding strength 5.9 – Declared values Usable in design with minimum values of
(for fR a 5% fractile relative rib area fR,min for ribbed bars:
value; for br/c a
maximum value; Ribbed reinforcement
for bm and bu mean Declared 5% quantileb value for minimum
values) relative rib area fR,min for production lotc
5 to 6 mm: 0,035
6,5 to 12 mm: 0,040
 > 12 mm: 0,056
Option to supplement values and declare bm
and bu

Indented reinforcement
The indentations shall form an angle of incli-
nation with the longitudinal axis of 35° to 75°.
The indentation flank inclination a shall be
40° to 80°. Requirements of prEN 10080, 7.4,
are accepted.
Shear force 5.3 – Declared values Usable in design and execution of welded
(for lattice girders (minimum values for fabrics and lattice girders
and welded fab- Fw,min, Fs,min and Fd,min) C.4.1(3): In welded fabric the declared mini-
mum shear force value shall be
rics)
Fs ≥ 0,25  Re,nom  An (C.1)
where Re, nom is the nominal characteristic
yield strength and An is the nominal cross-
sectional area of either:
a) the larger wire at the joint in a single wire
welded fabric or
b) one of the twin wires in a twin wire welded
fabric (twin wires in one direction)
Stress ratio 5.2 – Declared value For specifying ductility classes A, B, C with
(ult. tens. strength/ (fractile value) ratio tensile strength/yield strength and ratio
tens. yield actual value of yield strength/nominal value of
yield strength (Rm/Re and Re,act/Re,nom)
strength)
as parameters:

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 552
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Declared value Rm/Re as 10% quantileb

value for production lotc:
Ductility class A: Rm/Re  1,05
Ductility class B: Rm/Re  1,08
Ductility class C: Rm/Re  1,15 and < 1,35
Ratio actual value 5.2 – Declared value Declared value Re,act/Re,nom as 10% quantileb
of yield strength/ (10% fractile value) value for production lotc:
nominal value of Ductility classes B and C: Re,act/Re,nom  1,3
yield strength
Tensile yield 5.2 – Declared value For specifying strength classes B with value
strength (5% fractile value) of yield strength Re (used as fyk) as parame-
ter:
Declared value Re as 10% quantileb value for
production lotc:
Strength class B400: Re  400 MPa
Strength class B450: Re  450 MPa
Strength class B500: Re  500 MPa
Strength class B550: Re  550 MPa
Strength class B600: Re  600 MPa
Strength class B700: Re  700 MPa
Tensile strength 5.2 – Declared value Indirectly specified with declared ratio value
(5% fractile value) Rm/Re for ductility classes

Fatiguea 5.4 – Declared values For reinforcing steel under fatigue design:
(N at 2σa and σmax) Declared values as 10% quantileb value for
production lotc:
Fatigue stress range 2a in testing for N  2 ×
106 cycles based on a maximum stress level
of max = 0,6fyk:
 160 MPa for bars/de-coiled bars  ≤ 12 mm
 140 MPa for bars/de-coiled bars 12 mm < 
≤ 16 mm
 130 MPa for bars/de-coiled bars 16 mm < 
≤ 20 mm and for straight bars  > 20 mm
 100 MPa for wire fabrics  ≤ 12 mm
 80 MPa for wire fabrics  > 12 mm
Different fatigue requirements can be set in a
National Annex (see footnote b in Table C.1).
Cyclic load 5.7 – Declared value No requirements
strength for NCLS at εc Not used in FprEN 1992-1-1
Strength at 5.6 – Declared value No requirements for normal design
elevated for RT at T NOTE: In FprEN 1992-1-1, 1.1 is stated, that
temperature the design rules are valid under temperature
conditions between –40 °C and +100 °C gen-
erally.

Assumed parameters for fire design accord-

ing to FprEN 1992-1-2, 5.3.2:
 slope of the linear elastic range Es,θ
 proportional limit fsp,θ
 maximum stress level fsy,θ
Values for hot rolled and cold worked rein-
forcing steel at elevated temperatures could
be obtained from FprEN 1992-1-2, Table 5.3.
Durability 5.10 – Declared values Recommended are the values for the chemi-
(maximum carbon cal composition in prEN 10080, Table 2d). For
equivalent value these values it is known that the essential
Ceq,max and the maxi- characteristics can be tested properly and
mum content of the that test results are valid. Thus, a conclusion
specified individual to the safe application in building construction
elements Cmax, Smax, is possible for those products.
Pmax, Nmax and Cumax)
a
Not applicable for lattice girders.
b
Characteristic value for which the maximum % of test results falling below the characteristic value is given
(min/max values for individual test results).
c
FprEN 1992-1-1 has a Note in C.4.1 (2) which refers to difference between definitions in prEN 10080 and
FprEN 1992-1-1 and considers methods in prEN 10080 a sufficient check for obtaining fyk.
NOTE: While there is a difference between long term quality level of production and value for production lot
considered in prEN1992-1-1, this difference should be taken care by footnote c for all characteristics.
d)
prEN 10080, Table 2:

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 553
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

C.4.2 Stainless reinforcing Relevant: Case 1b) in Figure BD.C.1  Voluntary DoP for strength classes required.
steel
For FprEN 1992-1-1-design strength classes (B400, B450, B500, B550, B600, B700) and ductil-
ity classes (A, B, C) of stainless reinforcing steel are required. prEN 10370 [13] does not contain
strength classes. Therefore, an interface between the defined FprEN 1992-1-1-classes according
to Tables C.3 and C.4 and the DoP according to Annex ZA of prEN 10370 is necessary. Table
BD.C.2 contains the interface conditions.

Intermediate strength classes can be defined and used in the National Annex (see 5.2.2, Table 5.4).

It is expected that stainless reinforcing steel for ULS and SLS-design is produced under Assess-
ment and Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) system 1+ addressed in prEN 10370,
Table ZA.3.
Table BD.C.2. Interface conditions prEN 10370 [13] to FprEN 1992-1-1
prEN 10370: Tables ZA.1x – Relevant clauses for FprEN 1992-1-1
reinforcing steel (stainless steel) to be used for
reinforcement of concrete
Essential Cl. Classes Notes Required classes and/or threshold
characteristics and/or levels
threshold
levels
Elongation 4.1 Threshold Declared value For specifying ductility classes A, B, C with
elongation at maximum load as a parameter:
Declared value Agt (used as uk) as 10%
quantileb value for production lotc:
Ductility class A: Agt  2,5 %
Ductility class B: Agt  5,0 %
Ductility class C: Agt  7,5 %
Weldability 4.2 Threshold Declared steel Usable in design and execution of welded
designation reinforcement with stainless steels designa-
tions is given in EN 10088-1 or EN 10088-5.
Sections and 4.3 Threshold Declared nominal Declared value for max deviation from nomi-
tolerances on diameter nal mass of bar or wire:
sizes Δm  4,5% 8 mm
Δm  6,0% 8 mm

Recommended tolerance ranges

length (L): ± 40 mm if L ≤ 5,0 m,
± 0,8 %, if L > 5,0 m;
height (H1, H2): +1 mm and −3 mm;
width (B1, B2): ± 7,5 mm;
pitch (Ps): ± 2,5 mm
Bendability 4.4 – Conformity Usable in design and execution for bended
bars, stirrups, links, hooks:
Pass (both bend and re-bend tests)
for production lotc.
No steel cracking is permitted.

Bend test specified in accordance with

EN ISO 15630-1 [12] with mandrels of
 3 for bars 16 mm,
 6 for bars 16 mm,
and the minimum bend-angle of 180°.
Re-bend test specified in accordance with
EN ISO 15630-1 [12] with mandrels of
 5 for bars 16 mm,
 8 for bars 16 mm < 25 mm,
 10 for bars 25 mm,
and the minimum bend-angles of 90° and
re-bend of 20°.

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 554
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Bonding strength 4.5 – Declared geometry Usable in design with minimum values of
relative rib area fR,min for ribbed bars:
Ribbed reinforcement
Declared 5% quantileb value for minimum
relative rib area fR,min for production lotc
 ≤ 6 mm: 0,039
6,5 to 8,5 mm: 0,045
9 to 10,5 mm: 0,052
11 to 50 mm: 0,056
Indented reinforcement
The indentations shall form an angle of incli-
nation with the longitudinal axis of 35° to 75°.
Shear force 4.6 – Declared value Usable in design and execution of welded
according to the fabrics and lattice girders
declared test method C.4.1 (3): In welded fabric the declared mini-
mum shear force value shall be
Fs ≥ 0,25  Re,nom  An (C.1)
where Re, nom is the nominal characteristic
yield strength and An is the nominal cross-
sectional area of either:
a) the larger wire at the joint in a single wire
welded fabric or
b) one of the twin wires in a twin wire welded
fabric (twin wires in one direction).
Stress ratio 4.7 Threshold Declared ratio For specifying ductility classes A, B, C with
(maximum ratio tensile strength/0,2 % proof strength
strength/ tensile Rm/Rp0,2 (where Rm should be limited to stress
at 7 % elongation) as parameters:
yield strength)
Declared value Rm/R0,2 as 10% quantileb
value for production lotc:
Ductility class A: Rm/Rp0,2  1,05
Ductility class B: Rm/Rp0,2  1,08
Ductility class C: Rm/Rp0,2  1,15 and < 1,35
Tensile yield 4.8 Threshold Declared value For specifying strength classes B with value
strength of 0,2 % proof strength Rp0,2k (used as fyk) as
parameter:
Declared value Rp0,2 as 10% quantileb value
for production lotc:
Strength class B400: Rp0,2  400 MPa
Strength class B450: Rp0,2  450 MPa
Strength class B500: Rp0,2  500 MPa
Strength class B550: Rp0,2  550 MPa
Strength class B600: Rp0,2  600 MPa
Strength class B700: Rp0,2  700 MPa
Tensile strength 4.9 Threshold Declared value Indirectly specified with declared ratio value
Rm/Rp0,2 for ductility classes
Cyclic load 4.10 – Conformity No requirements
Not used in FprEN 1992-1-1
Fatigue 4.11 – Declared value For stainless reinforcing steel under fatigue
design:
Declared values as 10% quantileb value for
production lotc:
Fatigue stress range 2a in testing for N  5 ×
106 cycles based on a stress ratio min/max =
0,2 for bars and de-coiled products:
 200 MPa for  ≤ 16 mm
 185 MPa for 16 mm <  ≤ 20 mm
 170 MPa for 20 mm <  ≤ 25 mm
 160 MPa for 25 mm <  ≤ 32 mm
 150 MPa for 32 mm <  ≤ 50 mm
Different fatigue requirements can be set in a
National Annex (see footnote b in Table C.3).
Strength at 4.12 – Declared value No requirements for normal design
elevated NOTE: In FprEN 1992-1-1, 1.1 is stated, that
temperature the design rules are valid under temperature
conditions between –40 °C and +100 °C
generally.
Assumed parameters for fire design accord-
ing to FprEN 1992-1-2, 5.1 (6):
 slope of the linear elastic range Es,θ
 proportional limit fsp,θ
 maximum stress level fsy,θ

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 555
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Durability 4.13 Threshold Declared composition Durability of the product characteristics is

considered achieved if the chemical composi-
tion of the stainless steel complies with those
of EN 10088-1 or EN 10088-5.
a
Not applicable for lattice girders.
b
Characteristic value for which the maximum % of test results falling below the characteristic value is given
(min/max values for individual test results).
c
FprEN 1992-1-1 has a Note in C.4.2 (1) which refers to difference between definitions in prEN 10370 and
FprEN 1992-1-1 and considers methods in prEN 10370 a sufficient check for obtaining f0,2k.
NOTE: While there is a difference between long term quality level of production and value for production lot
considered in prEN1992-1-1, this difference should be taken care by footnote c for all characteristics.

Table 2 of prEN 10370 [13] contains the appropriate requirements of ductility classes A, B, C
(the upper limit 600 MPa in Note has to be updated). A “voluntary” DoP for the ductility class is
expected.

Fatigue requirements has been included in FprEN 1992-1-1 based on BS 6744:2016 [14]. This
standard adopts the same S-N curves for B500 grade stainless steel reinforcing as for carbon steel
based on a modified regime of testing. The code provision extends this for other grades of stainless
reinforcing steel and provides countries with a national choice as to whether this approach is
adopted or modified.
The minimum relative rib area in prEN 10370 [13] is widely conservative compared with the re-
quirements for carbon steel. Therefore, the design rules for bond in FprEN 1992-1-1 are also valid
for stainless reinforcing steel.

C.5 Prestressing steel Relevant: Case 1b) in Figure BD.C.1  Voluntary DoP for strength classes required.
prEN 10138-3 [16] specifies the requirements and definitions for the essential characteristics of
prestressing bars, which are used for the prestressing of concrete and which are delivered as fin-
ished products in the form of:
– hot rolled bars,
– processed bars,
– plain and threaded bars.

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 556
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Part 3 is the first available new draft of prEN 10138. The new parts for wires and strands are still
under preparation.
For FprEN 1992-1-1-design strength classes Y of prestressing steel are required. prEN 10138-3
[16] contains strength classes (grades of prestressing bars) in its Table 4. The steel designation
follows EN 10027 [18]. The FprEN-1992-1-1 classes according to Tables C.5 to C.7 referring to
Table 4 of prEN 10138. Table BD.C.3 contains the interface conditions.

A “voluntary” DoP is expected for the actual tensile strength Rp,act for each individual test-specimen
with these upper limits:
– Y1030: Rp,act  1180 MPa
– Y1050: Rp,act  1210 MPa
– Y1100: Rp,act  1260 MPa
– Y1230: Rp,act  1370 MPa
Intermediate strength classes can be defined and used in the National Annex (see 5.3.2, Table 5.6).

It is expected that prestressing steel for ULS and SLS-design is produced under Assessment and
Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) system 1+ addressed in prEN 10138, Table ZA.3.
Table BD.C.3. Interface conditions prEN 10138-3 [16] to FprEN 1992-1-1
prEN 10138: Tables ZA.1 – Relevant clauses for FprEN 1992-1-1
prestressing steel to be used for
reinforcement of concrete
Essential Cl. Classes Notes Required classes and/or threshold
characteristics and/or levels
threshold
levels
Stress ratio 5.1 – Declared value Rpk/Rp0,1k  1,10
10% fractile value at
90% probability
Tensile strength 5.1 – Declared value For specifying strength classes:
5% fractile value at Declared value Rpk as 5% quantilea value for
90% probability production lotb:
Y1030: Rpk  1030 MPa
Y1050: Rpk  1050 MPa
Y1100: Rpk  1100 MPa
Y1230: Rpk  1230 MPa
Tensile yield 5.1 – Declared value For specifying strength classes:
strength 5% fractile value at Declared value Rp0,1k as 5% quantilea value
90% probability for production lotb:
Y1030: Rpk  835 MPa
Y1050: Rpk  950 MPa
Y1100: Rpk  900 MPa
Y1230: Rpk  1080 MPa
Elongation at 5.1 – Declared value Declared value Agt as 10% quantilea value
maximum force 10% fractile value at for production lotb:
90% probability Agt  3,5 %
Relaxation 5.2 – Declared value Percentage loss of initial force F0 determined
Frt in % of F0 in isothermal relaxation test in accordance
with EN ISO 15630-3 [18].
Relaxation at 1000 h as Frt:
see Table C.7 for required 1000 [%]
Sections and toler- 5.6 – Declared ranges Values of 5.6 accepted.
ances on sizes for m, l and s
Surface geometry 5.5 – Declared ranges No parameters for plain bars. The DoP is
for thread geometry only P.
parameters Full set of the thread parameters of 5.5 for
threaded bars is accepted.
Fatigue 5.3 – Declared value For prestressing steel under fatigue design:
N at a force range Fr Declared values as 10% quantilea value for
and a maximum force production lotb:
Fup Fatigue stress range 2a in testing for N  2 x
106 cycles with an upper limit of Rpk:
 200 MPa for plain p ≤ 40 mm
 150 MPa for plain p > 40 mm
 180 MPa for ribbed p ≤ 40 mm
 120 MPa for plain p > 40 mm
Different fatigue requirements can be set in a
National Annex (see footnote a in Table C.7).
Modulus of 5.1 – Declared value 205 000 MPa
elasticity 10% fractile value at
90% probability

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 557
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Durability 5.4 – Declared value Values of Table 4 accepted

minimum time in
hours (T) without
fracture in test solu-
tion; median time in
hours to fracture (tf,m)
in test solution; each
at an initial force F0
declared as percent-
age of Fm
a
Characteristic value for which the maximum % of test results falling below the characteristic value is given
(min/max values for individual test results).
b
FprEN 1992-1-1 has a Note in C.5 (1) which refers to difference between definitions in prEN 10138-3 and
FprEN 1992-1-1 and considers methods in prEN 10138-3 a sufficient check for obtaining fp0,1k.
NOTE: While there is a difference between long term quality level of production and value for production lot
considered in FprEN1992-1-1, this difference should be taken care by footnote b for all characteristics.

The relevant EAD for Post-tensioning systems for prestressing of structures (see Fig. BD.C.2) is
EAD 160004-00-0301 [19] according to FprEN 1992-1-1, 5.4 Prestressing Systems.

Fig. BD.C.2. Installed PT-system/kit – schematic (Fig. 1 in [19])

C.6 Couplers Relevant: Case 1b) in Figure BD.C.1  “Voluntary DoP” is required.
The National Annex can specify relevant standards (or national approvals) for couplers designed
in accordance with FprEN 1992-1-1.

The available EAD for ETA-based DoPs is EAD 160129-00-0301: Couplers for mechanical splices
of reinforcing steel bars [20] (pending for citation in OJEU). The sizes of couplers range from 8 mm
to 50 mm. The load bearing parts of the couplers are completely made of steel or cast steel.
Types of couplers covered by the EAD are standard couplers, position couplers, bridging couplers
or transition couplers (see Fig. BD.C.3).

a) Standard coupler

b) Positional coupler

c) Transition coupler
Fig. BD.C.3. Types of couplers [20]

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 558
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Concerning product packaging, transport, storage, maintenance, replacement and repair it is the
responsibility of the manufacturer to undertake the appropriate measures and to advise his clients
on the transport, storage, maintenance, replacement and repair of the product as he considers
necessary [20]. It is assumed that all couplers will be installed according to the manufacturer’s
instructions. Relevant manufacturer’s stipulations having influence on the performance of the prod-
uct covered by the EAD [20] shall be considered for the determination of the performance and
detailed ETA or in the technical product information.
It is expected that couplers for ULS and SLS-design are produced under Assessment and Verifi-
cation of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) system 1+ addressed in EAD [20].
Couplers are intended to be used for mechanical splices of reinforcing steel bars for concrete struc-
tures designed according to FprEN 1992-1-1 and prEN 1998-1 for:
– Transfer of axial tension and/or compression forces of the connected,
– Limitation of slip,
– Resistance to high-cycle fatigue loading according to FprEN 1992-1-1,
– Resistance to low-cycle seismic loading according to prEN 1998-1.
The EAD [20] covers the following specifications of the intended use:
– Connection between reinforcing bars avoiding lapped splicing,
– Mechanical splices of reinforcing steel bars with a nominal yield strength of 400 MPa  Re,nom 
600 MPa and of ductility classes B or C according to FprEN 1992-1-1,
– Mechanical splices of reinforcing steel bars positioned such that the concrete cover complies
with FprEN 1992-1-1.
It shall be ensured that As,nom,bar ꞏ Re,nom,bar ≤ As,nom,coupler ꞏ Re,nom,coupler.
When the EAD is defined as the relevant standard the essential characteristics 1, 2, 3 (see Table
BD.C.4) shall be declared in a DoP addressed in an ETA. The characteristics 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 shall be
declared if relevant in design.

Table BD.C.4. Essential characteristics of couplers [20]

In the DoP, the percentage total elongation at maximum load Agt,act shall also be declared according
to requirements for reinforcing steel in Table BD.C.1.
If couplers are used in fatigue design the requirements of Tables C.1 and C.2 apply. The DoP may
declare other (often lower) values Rsk, k1, k2 for the S-N curve of a coupler. This has to be con-
sidered in an adapted fatigue design and accepted in the project specification. A National Annex
can provide further requirements (e.g. regarding fatigue strength) and advice to couplers.

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 559
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

C.7 Headed bars The National Annex can specify relevant standards (or national approvals) for headed bars de-
signed in accordance with FprEN 1992-1-1.

The available EADs for ETA-based DoPs are

– EAD 160012-00-0301: Headed reinforcement steel bars [21] and
– EAD 160003-00-0301: Double headed studs for the increase of punching shear resistance of
flat slabs or footings and ground slabs [22].
Concerning product packaging, transport, storage, maintenance, replacement and repair it is the
responsibility of the manufacturer to undertake the appropriate measures and to advise his clients
[21], [22].

Headed bars:
The head of headed bars should have the same steel strength as the reinforcing steel bar. The
head-to-bar connection shall resist to the yield force Fyd of the bar diameter  (to declare in the
DoP).
The bearing surface of heads should be at >80 degrees to the bar unless other justified by testing.
The thickness of the head tH should not normally be smaller than ¼ of the maximum head width/di-
ameter h (see Fig. BD.C.4). The geometry of anchoring heads may be circular, quadratic or rec-
tangular.

h
th
t

reinforcing
steel bar with 

Fig. BD.C.4. Geometries of headed bars (from [21])

When an EAD is used as the relevant standard the essential characteristics 1, 2, 3, 4 (see Table
BD.C.5) shall be declared in a DoP addressed in an ETA. The characteristics 5 and 6 shall be
declared if relevant in design.

It is expected that headed bars for ULS and SLS-design are produced under Assessment and
Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) system 1+ addressed in EAD [21].
Table BD.C.5. Essential characteristics of headed bars [21]

Double-headed studs:
The EAD [22] covers double headed studs made of ribbed or smooth shafts and a head at both
ends as punching shear reinforcement elements (see Fig. BD.C.5). The reinforcement elements
comprise at least two double headed studs with the same diameter and shape (ripped or smooth)
and the following specifications:
– double headed studs with shaft diameter dA of 10 mm to 25 mm
– double headed studs with a head diameter dk 3dA
– double headed studs with shafts made of weldable ribbed reinforcement bars or weldable struc-
tural steel with the following characteristics:
 yield strength: fyk  500 MPa
 ratio of tensile strength over yield strength: (ft/fy)k  1,05

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 560
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 elongation: uK  2,5 %

Fig. BD.C.5. Examples of connections of double headed studs (from [22])

When an EAD is used as the relevant standard the essential characteristics 1 and 2 (see Table
BD.C.6) shall be declared in a DoP addressed in an ETA. The required characteristic resistance to
fatigue loading ΔσRsk in testing for N ≥ 2 × 106 cycles based on a maximum stress level of 0,6 fyk
(characteristic 2) is:
– Rsk ≥ 80 MPa
For the load increasing factor for punching shear resistance (characteristic 1), FprEN 1992-1-1,
C.7 contains no material requirements. In design calculations, the load increasing factor is assumed
according to prEN 1992-1-1, 8.4.4 (5).

The reaction to fire (characteristic 3) shall be declared if relevant in design.

It is expected that double headed studs for ULS and SLS-design are produced under Assessment
and Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) system 1+ addressed in the EAD [22].
Table BD.C.6. Essential characteristics of double-headed studs [22]

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 561
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

C.8 Post-installed rein- FprEN 1992-1-1, clause C.8 provides the requirements for product properties to ensure the safe
forcing steel systems use of post-installed reinforcing steel systems in concrete structures.

C.8 (1) Post-installed steel reinforcing bar connections carried out with anchoring mortars are capable of
developing bond behaviour equivalent to cast-in-place steel reinforcing bars if they are properly
performed with an anchoring mortar sufficiently qualified to fulfil the requirements for safety, ser-
viceability, and durability of concrete structures in service and the product specific installation tools
[23]. Correct installation with these tools will ensure a durable bond in the interfaces between the
reinforcing steel bar and the anchoring mortar as well as the anchoring mortar and the borehole
wall.
Therefore, applicability of the installation tools, suitability and allowable use conditions for the an-
ticipated field of application of a system for post-installation of deformed reinforcing steel bars
should be verified by means of a European Technical Product Specification.
The prequalification process given e.g. in EAD 330087 [24] consists of appropriate prequalification
tests taking into account installation and environmental conditions on site and in service as well as
the range of reinforcing steel bar diameters and concrete strength classes at independent tests
laboratories considering the type of loading and an assessment of test results by an independent
organization. The result of the evaluation corresponding to the prequalification procedure shall be
documented in a European Technical Product Specification. This document should contain all in-
formation for the installation and design of post-installed reinforcing steel bars required by FprEN
1992-1-1.
Then, the design of post-installed reinforcing steel bars can be performed according to the provi-
sions given in FprEN 1992-1-1, clause 11.4.8.

C.8(2) The bond behaviour (bond stiffness and bond strength) of post-installed reinforcing steel bars shall
be at least equal with the bond behaviour of cast-in reinforcing steel bars under the same condi-
tions. Then the required minimum mean bond strength fbm,pi,rqd of Table C.7 for bond efficiency
class CPI-1,0 is achieved (bond efficiency factor kb,pi = 1,0) when tested and assessed in accord-
ance with EAD 330087 [24]. The minimum mean bond strength of post-installed reinforcing steel
bars is evaluated from the results of suitable pre-qualification tests taking into account the param-
eters given in C.7(3). The use of anchoring mortars referring to bond efficiency class CPI-1,0 is
recommended.
However, there are anchoring mortars for post-installed rebar applications with characteristics in-
ferior to cast-in-place reinforcing steel bars possible. Their assessment results in a bond behaviour
with bond stiffness and/or bond strength lower than that of cast-in-place reinforcing steel bars. In
this case the bond efficiency classes CPI-0,7 to CPI-0,9 apply, provided the assessment in accord-
ance with EAD 330087 indicates that the corresponding minimum mean bond strength of Table
C.7 for the relevant bond efficiency class is met. The lower bond efficiency class yields an increase
of the design anchorage length by a factor of up to 1/kb,pi = 1/0,7 = 1,43 which might result in
uneconomic design.
The factor kb,pi is product dependent and shall be published in the relevant European Technical
Product Specification. For post-installed reinforcing steel bars where kb,pi < 0,7 a design according
FprEN 1992-1-1 is not possible.

C.8(3) Clause C.8(3) lists all parameters influencing the performance of post-installed reinforcing steel
bars during installation and in service. They are taken into account in the derivation of the required
minimum mean bond strength fbm,rqd of Table C.7 for the determination of the bond efficiency class
in accordance with EAD 330087.

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 562
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex C Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

References [1] Construction Products Regulation (CPR). Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9th March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the
marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC.
[2] CEN-TC250-SC2_N2328 Guidance note on the listing and categorization of material and
product parameters required for Eurocode design (State 2019-10-14).
[3] Oscar Nieto et al: CPR Future – Option F  https://prezi.com/p/rwlxncpqg3rs/cpr-future-
option-f/
[4] European Commission: CPR Acquis  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construc-
tion/product-regulation/acquis_en
[5] EN 13369:2018: Common rules for precast concrete products.
[6] EN 206:2021: Concrete: Specification, performance, production and conformity
(EN 206:2013+A2:2021).
[7] EN 12620:2008: Aggregates for concrete.
[8] EN 14889-1:2006: Fibres for concrete – Part 1: Steel fibres – Definitions, specifications and
conformity.
[9] EN 14651:2007: Test method for metallic fibre concrete – Measuring the flexural tensile
strength (limit or proportionality (LOP), residual).
[10] prEN 10080:2020 (new 2023-01): Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Weldable rein-
forcing steel – General.
[11] CEN-TC250-SC2_N1438_Moersch-Letter_Reinforcing_Steel_EN_10080-2018-09-21
[12] EN ISO 15630-1:2019: Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete – Test meth-
ods – Part 1: Reinforcing bars, rods and wire.
[13] prEN 10370:2019: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Stainless steel.
[14] BS 6744:2016: Stainless steel bars. Reinforcement of concrete – Requirements and test
methods.
[15] EN 10088-1: Stainless steels – Part 1: List of stainless steels.
[16] prEN 10138-3:2020: Steel for the prestressing of concrete – Part 3: Bars
[17] EN ISO 15630-3:2019: Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete – Test meth-
ods – Part 3: Prestressing steels.
[18] EN 10027: Designation systems for steels.
[19] EAD 160004-00-0301: Post-tensioning systems for prestressing of structures.
[20] EAD 160129-00-0301: Couplers for mechanical splices of reinforcing steel bars.
[21] EAD 160012-00-0301: Headed reinforcement steel bars
[22] EAD 160003-00-0301: Double headed studs for the increase of punching shear resistance
of flat slabs or footings and ground slabs.
[23] Fuchs, W., Hofmann, J.: Post-installed reinforcing bars – Requirements for their reliable use.
Developments in the Built Environment.
DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100040, Elsevier, 2021.
[24] EAD 330087-00-0601: Systems for post-installed rebar connections with mortar.

List of versions of this document

16.06.2021 Draft 1
31.10.2022 Draft 2
10.02.2023 Draft 3  TJ: Peer review and update of references to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
22.02.2023 Final draft

22.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 563
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG7 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex D:

Evaluation of Early-Age and Long-Term Cracking
Due to Restraint

Terje Kanstad, Anja Klausen, NTNU (Norway)

Antonia Menga

20.03.2023

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 564
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared to explain and validate the text of the new
Annex D and give reference to the most relevant papers and guidelines.

The work on Annex D has been done within CEN TC250/SC2/WG1/TG7: Time-
dependent effects and CEN TC250/SC2/PT1 (The project team for prEN 1992-1-
1).
The objective of the annex is to give normative guidance for cases where it is
agreed to use EC2 to restrict early age cracking. Together with the new “Annex H:
Guidance on design of concrete structures for water-tightness”, it is meant to
replace the content of the present “EN 1992-3. Eurocode 2 Design of concrete
structures. Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment structures.”

The background for the default values chosen in “Annex B: Time dependent
behaviour of materials: Creep, shrinkage and elastic strain of concrete and
relaxation of prestressing steel, Table B.2” is also included in this document since
these parameters are relevant for both Annex B and Annex D.

Background
D.1 General
Cracks can affect the aesthetics, durability, and tightness, whilst their control has
both economy and sustainability consequences. It is therefore important that
Eurocode 2 gives regulations that clearly describe how and when cracking shall be
accounted for in the structural design. Annex D considers the effects of
temperature changes due to the concrete’s hardening process and basic shrinkage
in combination with imposed deformations occurring at later ages.

The main objective of the methods described is to evaluate the cracking risk and
provide guidance on crack width calculations if cracking is expected to occur. The
focus is on through-cracks, which may span over the whole thickness of the
concrete member. This is typically between 2 and 30 days after casting depending
mainly on the dimension of the structural member and the binder type applied.

Possible measures to reduce the amount of through-cracking are to use concretes

with low heat production, concretes with low coefficient of thermal expansion,
cooling pipes in the hardening concrete, heating cables in the restraining concrete,
reduced fresh concrete temperature, or to reduce the degree of restraint for the
hardening concrete member. The measures may be expensive, and as the
significance of early age cracking is case-dependent, it is important that the
measures are reflecting the criticality of cracking.

The typical temperature and stress histories at early ages are illustrated in Figure
1, where Tci is the fresh concrete temperature, Tc,max the maximum concrete
temperature due to hydration heat, T0 the temperature of the restraining structure,
while ΔTmin is an additional temperature drop which might be due to daily or
seasonal temperature variations. The most unfavourable moment in time for early-
age cracking is denoted tcrit, corresponding to the moment when temperature
equilibrium with the restraining structure is achieved (within 2ºC).

Related to Figure 1a) the most decisive parameters are: The fresh concrete
temperature (Tci), ambient temperature history, insulation conditions, climatic
conditions as wind velocity and solar radiation, temperature of the restraining
structure (To), and finally the additional maximum temperature difference due to
daily and seasonal variations (ΔTmin)

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 565
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

a) b)

Figure 1. (a)Typical temperature history for a structural concrete member, and (b)
corresponding stress history.

It might be relevant to consider crack-control in the following three states: (1) At

temperature-equilibrium between the recently cast concrete structural member and the
restraining structure. (2) At commissioning of the structure. (3) During the design service
life. In the two latter cases, the temperature reduction ∆Tmin and drying shrinkage should
be added to the early age effects. In the annex the formulations are particularly directed
towards (1) and (3). If particular demands are related to tightness, durability or
appearance, the cumulative impact of early age effects, load effects and later imposed
deformations should be considered in the crack control. Otherwise, the crack control of
these states can be verified separately. To restrict cracking either crack prevention or
crack limitation may be used. The latter may be achieved either by minimum
reinforcement for crack limitation (FprEN 1992-1-1, Annex S), or by calculations (9.2.3).

D.2 Assessment of Assessment of the temperature history

temperature history
A reliable temperature calculation or estimate is an important prerequisite to achieve
accurate stress/strain or crack width calculation. Computer programs, hand calculations
and diagrams from handbooks and guidelines may be used. See for instance the UK
CIRIA 660-regulations [2], and the French extensive research report CEOS.fr [3] for
handbook solutions, and the Recommendations of RILEM TC 287-CCS: Thermo-chemo-
mechanical modelling of massive concrete structures towards cracking risk assessment
[4] for more general calculation background and finite element analysis guidance.

To provide some background an approach from the CIRIA-code [2] is referred.

Table 1 below gives relatively rough estimates for the cooling temperature
𝑇, 𝑇 ). The data is representing concretes made with ordinary Portland
cements, and multiplication factors for slow hardening cements containing slag or
flyash are also given below the table. The values are meant to be representative
for summer conditions in Western-central Europe, and reductions for winter
conditions are given in the bottom row.
To account for seasonal variation the following values may be used:
Casting under summer conditons: 𝛥𝑇 20 𝐶
Casting under winter conditons: 𝛥𝑇 10 𝐶

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 566
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Table 1. 𝑇 , 𝑇 )-values for different strength class and section thickness. A

fresh concrete temperature of 20oC and mean ambient temperature of 15oC is
assumed [2].

Correction factor for supplementary cement based materials (flyash or slag):

𝑘 1 𝛼 Default: Flyash: 𝛼 0,5 Slag: 𝛼 0,25

Material properties relevant for the temperature development

The total amount of hydration heat (Q∞ (kJ/kg binder) released during hydration,
and its time-function depend on binder fineness and composition and w/b-ratio.
The strength class influences the binder content, and therefore also the hydration
heat.
The hydration heat may be determined in accordance with the standards: EN
12390-14 «Testing hardened concrete - Part 14: Semi-adiabatic method for the
determination of heat released by concrete during its hardening process», or EN
12390-15 «Testing hardened concrete - Part 15: Adiabatic method for the
determination of heat released by concrete during its hardening process”.
Table values and diagrams are available from cement suppliers, in textbooks and
in guidelines [2,3]. The development versus equivalent time can for instance be
described by the commonly used three-parameter formula [6]:
α
Q(t )= Q exp(-(τ/t ) ) (1)
eq ∞ T
or with piecewise linear curves based directly on experimental data. The parameter
tT represents the equivalent time (maturity) and is in Formula B.18 in Annex B
denoted temperature-adjusted concrete age and defined as:

𝑡 ∑ ∆𝑡 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 13,65 (B.18)

∆

In the research literature the term “4000” is denoted the Arrhenius-constant, and
for accurate approaches it is often replaced by the activation energy (ET)
corresponding to the Arrhenius constant times the Gas constant (8,314 J/moloK))
expressed as [6]:

ET(Ti) =A+B(20-Ti) (2)

where Ti represents the temperature history, and A and B are material parameters.
The parameter B is 0 for Ti>20oC and therefore only relevant (& necessary) for low
fresh concrete temperatures (winter conditions). According to textbooks the
constants A and B depend on cement type, pozzolan content, and the w/b-ratio.
The typical variation range for A is 20000-40000 kJ/mol, while for B it is 1000-1500
kJ/mol.

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 567
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

For additional input parameters needed for the temperature calculations, see for
instance [5]. The values for the heat conductivity may vary within the range 1,2-3,0
∆J/(s moK). A recommended default value is 2.5 J/(s moK).The thermal diffusivity
corresponds to the conductivity divided by the heat capacity and the specific heat
(mm2/s). The surface convectivity may vary in the range from about 3.3J/(s m2oK)
for 18mm plywood formwork and no wind to about 15 J/(s m2oK) for a free concrete
surface with 5 m/s wind.The heat capacity is defined as: Specific heat ꞏ concrete
density. And the specific heat varies typically in the range 0,85-1,15 kJ/(kg oK).

D.3 Stress Stress calculations

calculations
General

Material properties relevant for the stress calculations

In Annex B the time-development of the compressive strength, for t≤91 days, is

described as:

f (t )=ß f (t ) ß= 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑠 1 (B.1/B.2)

cm T cm ref

while in Annex D, a more comprehensive expression is used for ß for cases where
stresses and strength at early ages are important:

ß= 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑠 1 (D.3)

The value for tref may be taken between 28 and 91 days, default values for the material
parameter sc are presented in Table B.2 (Annex B), while values for tdor are found in
Table D.1. Compared to present EC 2, the approach is reflecting three novel points:
1- Modification of the formulas adding the last square root-sign term including tref,,
makes it possible to express the strength development with reference strength at
tref later than 28 days without changing the sc-parameter.
2- Introduction of the parameter tdor (Figure 1, describing the “end of the dormant
phase”) defining when stiffness and strength start to be significant. This is a
decisive parameter to consistently include thermal dilation and basic shrinkage.
Both effects may develop fast at early ages, and may typically vary between 8
and 13 maturity hours (0,3-0,5 days Table D.1). The parameter may be strongly
affected by admixtures, and it is important that the choice of the parameter is
consistent with basic shrinkage and temperature development.
3- In Annex B, the three “Strength development classes for concrete” CS, CN and
CR are defined including amounts of the most common cement supplementary
materials. In addition, the parameters sc and tdor are made dependent on the
characteristic compressive cylinder strength (fck).
The default values for sc and tdor are given in Table 1 below, while the background is
explained in the following.

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 568
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Table 1: Parameters for strength development (includes content in Table B.2 and D.1)
CS CN CR
Strength sc tdor(d) sc tdor(d) sc tdor(d)
fck ≤ 35 MPa 0.6 0,5 0. 5 0,45 0.3 0,35
35 MPa <fck < 60 MPa 0.5 0,45 0.4 0,4 0.2 0,3
fck ≥ 60 MPa 0.4 0,4 0.3 0,35 0,1 0,3

Assessment of the sc-parameter

Two approaches were used to assess the default parameters, firstly a data base
including 105 mixes, from the references [7-11] plus unpublished data from NTNU was
established, and parameters defined by optimization procedures. Secondly formulas for
“sc” published by Vollpracht, Soutsos and Kanavaris [12], were used. In the end it was
decided to use only one significant number for the parameters, and the findings from the
two approaches were combined. For both approaches Formula B.2 was used (ie tdor=0).

The database consists of 105 test series with a majority of “modern” concretes. The
series are distributed among the strength and strength development classes as shown in
Table 2 below.

Table 2: Distribution of the 105 test series in the data base used to determine the
strength development parameter “sc”.
CS CN CR
fck ≤ 35 MPa 2 13 6
35 MPa <fck < 60 MPa 6 36 17
fck ≥ 60 MPa 6 9 10

Since the parameters refer to characteristic cylinder strength at 28 days, the following
formulas were used to transfer from the strengths reported:

𝑓, 0,80 ∙ 𝑓 , and 𝑓 𝑓 8 𝑀𝑃𝑎

In the paper by Vollpracht et al [12] 861 experimental series were included, many of
them containing slag or fly ash as supplementary SCM’s. The authors established
formulas for the sc-parameter dependent on the w/b-ratio and the amount of SCM (scm)
included:

𝑤 𝑠𝑐𝑚
𝑠 𝑐 𝑐
𝑏 𝑏

For the lower and higher strength classes the following values for the parameters c1 and
c2 were found:

Cements (with lower strengths) : 32.5 N, 32.5 R, 42.5 N: c1=0,528, c2=0,527

Cements (normal and higher strengths): 42.5 R, 52.5 N, 52.5 R: c1=0,481, c2=0,441

In the statistical evaluation the standard deviations are of the same size of order as for
the present data base previously described.

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 569
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

To utilize these formulas to verify, adjust, and increase the general validity of the sc-
values obtained from the data base the well-known Bolomey’s formula [9] was used to
establish a relation between the w/b-ratio and the mean cylinder strength:

𝑓 𝐾∙ 𝛼 with K=29 and α=0,35

/

The transfer from mean to characteristic strength was carried out as described
previously, and the parameters chosen for K and α were shown to give reasonable
agreement with a selection of the results in the data base. It was assumed that w/b=0,7
is representative for fck<35 MPa, w/b=0,35 for fck > 65 MPa, while w/b=0,45 represents
the strength interval in between. It was also assumed that the CS-group of concretes
contains 55% SCM, while the CN-group contains 35% SCM. Based on these
assumptions the sc-values presented in Table 3 below were found.

As seen in Table 3, the finally chosen default values (already reported in Table 1)
correspond approximately to the average values from the data base and the values
determined from Vollpracht et al’s results.

The statistical evaluation based on the data base, showed that for the optimized values
the overall standard deviation was 1,87 MPa. The statistical evaluation reported in [12]
show comparable experience as already mentioned. Combining the two approaches to
the final values gave a standard deviation for the data base on 2,46 MPa.

Table 3: Determination of the strength development parameter sc.

CS CN CR
Data Voll- Final Data Voll- Final Data Voll Final
base pracht value base pracht value base pracht value

fck ≤ 35 0,54 0,66 0,6 0.36 0,55 0,5 0,27 0.34 0,3
35<fck< 60 0.44 0,55 0,5 0.29 0,42 0,4 0,26 0.22 0,2
fck ≥ 60 0.41 0,47 0,4 0.29 0,37 0,3 0,25 0,17 0,1

Assessment of tdor

Accurate determination of this parameter requires compressive stress tests at very low
ages, special setting time tests or tests in special TSTM-equipment. The proposed
default values are based on test results and reflects that the parameter in general is
decreasing with increasing compressive strength, and that it is increasing with increasing
SCM-content, see for instance Kanstad et.al. [7], Klausen [8], and Bjøntegaard and
Kjellsen [13]. Some typical results are shown in Figure 2.

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 570
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Figure 2.(a) Effect of cement type on the parameter tdor and (b) typical experimental
results [13].

Validity of the formula to describe the 91-days strength

Figure 3a) shows the ratio fc(91)/fc(28) for concretes of the data base where the 91-days
strength was available. Although the scatter is large, a tendency with decreasing ratio
with increasing strength can be seen. The scatter is partly explained by a strong
influence of the cement type and pozzolanic content. It should also be noted that the
green cross markers are representing data from a recent project where the aim was to
develop environmentally friendly high strength concretes for the Norwegian “Ferry-free
E39-project” funded by the Norwegian Public Road Administration.

Figure 3b) shows the calculated ratio fc(91)/fc(28) versus the corresponding experimental
ratio using Formula B.2 and the parameters from Table B.2. It is seen that the scatter is
relatively large, but that still the tendency in the equation is reasonable.

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 571
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Figure 3.(a) Ratio fc(91)/fc(28) versus 28 days strength (fc(28)). (b) Calculated versus
experimental ratio fc(91)/fc(28).

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 572
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Coefficient of thermal expansion and basic shrinkage of concrete

The thermal dilation coefficient (αcth) varies with the concrete age, humidity
conditions and aggregate type within a wide range 7-14 E-6 as seen in Figure 4a)
[14]. The recommended default value is as in the present EC2 10E-6, which is a
reasonable choice as shown in Figure 4a).

The basic (autogenous) shrinkage, εcbs(t), may be calculated from Formula B24. It
should, however, be noted that the uncertainty is large, which yields both the final
value and the time function. See the relevant background documents for Annex B.
An important and relevant aspect for Annex D is that both previous and present
European standards for shrinkage measurements (EN 12390-16) prescribe that
the deformation measurements should start one day (24 h) after casting. There
are, however, concretes which develop a considerable basic shrinkage before 1
day. When relevant this should be considered in the calculations. Figure 4b)
shows a typical situation, and illustrates at the same time the need for coordinating
the thermal dilation and the basic shrinkage with the tdor-parameter.
Furthermore, the temperature influence on the basic shrinkage is not yet fully
understood, and is therefore not sufficiently considered in the model in Annex B.
Figure 4c shows the measured basic shrinkage as a function of the temperature
increase 14 days after casting for three concretes with fly ash addition.

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 573
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

a)

b)

c)

Figure 4. a) Experimentally determined coefficients of thermal expansion of

concrete (αcth) vs concrete age for concrete with different w/b-ratios [14]. b)
Illustration of the relevance of introducing the parameter tdor (to in the figure)) in
stress calculations at early ages [14]. c) Influence of the temperature increase due
to the hydration heat on basic shrinkage (autogenous deformation) at 336 hours
maturity (14 days) for concretes with w/b=0,4, and either 17, 33 or 45% flyash [15].

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 574
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Simplified stress calculation method

This section is mainly meant for verification of if cracking will occur or not. Obviously,
nonlinear time-dependent finite element analysis may be used for such stress
calculations, but this is not always convenient, and it is useful with simplified methods.
The present method is based on the effective E-modulus method, and application of the
“degree of restraint” as a key parameter. Such method can give the solution for a
specified position in a structural member at a specific time and may be utilized as part of
a more comprehensive solution regime, see for instance the three-step method
described in [14,16,17]. The simplified approach is based on the commonly used age
adjusted effective E-modulus method (Trost–Bazant method) and has previously been
proven to work well also at early ages [16,17]. The method is based on uncracked
concrete cross sections and applies an effective long-term E-modulus accounting for
aging and creep.

Using parameters described in Table 1 and Figure 1, the tensile stress in a predefined
position, including cumulative impacts, can be determined.

σ1(t)= (ΔεT(t-t2) + εcbs(t-t2))E1 ˑR1 + αcthˑ ΔTmin ˑE2 ˑR2 + εcds(t-t2)ˑE3 ˑR3
(2)
Where t2 is the time when the stress changes sign. For early age problems the time t
should be set equal to tcrit as defined in Figure 1, while if cumulative impacts are included
t is the relevant design service life. ΔεT(t-t2)=kTemp(Tc,max-To)αcth represents the part of the
temperature causing tensile stresses and εcbs(t-t2) is the corresponding part of the basic
shrinkage occurring in the cooling phase and εcds is the drying shrinkage strain. E1
=Ec(t2eq)/(1+k2*φ(t,t2eq)) is the effective E-modulus representing the cooling phase.
Default values based on amongst others Scandinavian practice [6,7] are k1=0,9 and
k2=0,8. The parameters E2 and E3 are corresponding effective E-modules representative
for the additional effects. Three different values for the degree of restraint are used in
formula (2) because this parameter will vary with the concrete age and the time period
considered, and because the structural system may change with time.
The present draft of Annex D [1] includes formulas for the tensile stresses at two
particular stages, expressed by the parameters in Figure 1.
At temperature equilibrium between restrained and restraining member ( 𝑡 ):

𝜎 𝑡 𝑅 , 𝑘 𝛼 𝑇, 𝑇 𝜀 𝑡 𝜀 𝑡 (D.4)

And at end of design service life (long-term):

𝜎 𝑅 , 𝑘 𝛼 𝑇, 𝑇 𝜀 𝑡 𝜀 𝑡
,

𝑅 , 𝐸 𝛼 Δ𝑇 𝑅 , 𝜀 𝑡 𝜀 𝑡 (D.5)
,

t2 is the time when the stress changes sign from compression to tension. For the early
age problem at tcrit, kTemp αcth (Tc,max-To) represents the part of the temperature causing
tensile stresses while [εcbs(tcrit)- εcbs(t2)] is the part of the basic shrinkage occurring in the
cooling phase. Default values based partly on Scandinavian practice [16,17], and verified
below are kTemp=0,9 and χφ 0,55.
For the long-term formula, the temperature term is the same, while the effective E-
modules and the shrinkage terms are adjusted to the relevant time-intervals. The
additional temperature change Δ𝑇 corresponding to the daily temperature variation is
added as a short-time effect. The value X=0,8 is in agreement with the general
application of the Trost-Bazant method. Ec,28 is the tangent modulus of elasticity of

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 575
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

concrete at an age of 28 days.Three different values for the degree of restraint (𝑅 ,

𝑅 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑅 , ) are used in the latter formulae. The explanation is that the structural
system may change significantly over time. Relevant background for the degree of
restraint are given in many text-books and guidelines, see for instance [2,3]. It may also
easily be determined by linear finite element analysis as described for instance in
[14,16].

Test results used for verification of formula (D.4)

A typical test regime used for the verification presented in the following, consist of
hydration heat development, activation energy for maturity calculation, development of
E-modulus versus time, Temperature-Stress-Testing-Machine (TSTM), and free dilation
test results (dummy specimen for the TSTM). For more thorough explanations, see
[8,15,18]. The realistic temperature histories applied are calculated for a 700 mm thick
wall, with both fresh concrete temperature and equilibrium temperature equal to 20oC.
The predefined degree of restraint is either 0,5 or 0,7. Figure 5 shows typical E-modulus
development, while Figure 6 includes three different sets of so far unpublished TSTM-
test results.

To generalize the measured stress development, a calculated stress development is

determined by curve-fitting the creep model parameters and applying linear
viscoelasticity for aging materials [8,18]. In the verification of Formula (D.4) this
calculated curve replaces the experiment. The parameter tcrit is chosen as the time when
the temperature in the hardening concrete has reached the final temperature To and the
tensile stress therefore has stabilized. The parameter tcrit is highly problem dependent,
but in this verification-task it is set to 9,25 days for all cases since the same wall is
considered, and the various concretes are similar.

Figure 5. Typical E-modulus development (unpublished results from NTNU).

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 576
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

a)

b)

c)

Figure 6. Typical TSTM test results including the realistic temperature curve applied, the
tensile strength development, and the measured and calculated temperature history.
(Unpublished results from NTNU)

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 577
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

In the practical applications of the method, available input may vary, and therefore the
following three approaches are chosen in the verification of the method:

1) -t2, tcrit,Tc,max, To , and E-modulus from the experiment. αcth =10-5 (10E-6) and
basic shrinkage from Formula B.26 and B.27.
2) As 1), but with t2=2 days as proposed default value in Annex D
3) As 1), but with experimental values for the free dilation (sum of basic
shrinkage and thermal dilation)

The results are presented in Table 5, 6 and 7. The number in the parenthesis in the last
column represents the ratio between calculated and experimental values. In some cases
it is expected that the first and the second approach may give large scatter because the
basic shrinkage and the thermal dilation coefficient deviate considerably from the default
values. In particular this is the case when a relatively large basic shrinkage occur before
1 day.

In Figure 7, 8 and 9 the calculated stress versus the corresponding experimental value is
presented. And it is seen that the agreement between the calculated and experimental
values is good for all the considered cases.

Table 5. Verification results,1st approach: t2, tcrit,Tc,max, To , and E-modulus from the
experiment. αcth =10-5 and basic shrinkage from Formula B.26 and B.27.
Test description Ec(t2e) Tmax- εcbs(tcrit)- σ(tcrit) calc σ(tcrit) exp
(MPa) To(oK) εcbs(t2) (MPa) (MPa)
(10-6)
w/b=0,38, Cem I SR, 34176 41,8 16 4,32 4,00(1,08)
0% SCM, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC
w/b=0,38, Cem II, incl 32633 36,2 17 3,61 3,75(0,96)
FA, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC
w/b=0,38, Cem I, R=0,5, 32835 39,5 18 3,95 3,50(1,13)
t2=3d tcrit=9,25d,
To=20oC
w/b=0,48, Cem I SR, 30844 35,2 13 3,28 2,80(1,17)
R=0,5, t2=3,2d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC
w/b=0,48, Cem II incl 28902 28,8 10 2,51 2,55(0,99)
FA, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 578
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Table 6. Verification results, 2nd approach: t2=2 days, tcrit,Tc,max, To , and E-modulus from
the experiment. αcth =10-5 and basic shrinkage from Formula B.26 and B.27.
Test description Ec(t2e) Tmax- εcbs(tcrit)- σ(tcrit) calc σ(tcrit) exp
(MPa) To(oK) εcbs(t2) (MPa) (MPa)
(10-6)
w/b=0,38, Cem I SR, 33253 41,8 21 4,26 4,00(1,06)
0% SCM, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC
w/b=0,38, Cem II, incl 31577 36,2 22 3,54 3,75(0,94)
FA, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC
w/b=0,38, Cem I, R=0,5, 32077 39,5 23 3,91 3,50(1,12)
t2=3d tcrit=9,25d,
To=20oC
w/b=0,48, Cem I SR, 29510 35,2 18 3,19 2,80(1,14)
R=0,5, t2=3,2d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC
w/b=0,48, Cem II incl 27519 28,8 13 2,42 2,55(0,95)
FA, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC

Table 7. Verification results,3rd approach: t2, tcrit,Tc,max, To , and E-modulus from the
experiment. Thermal dilation and basic shrinkage also from the experiment.
Test description Ec(t2e) Tmax- εcbs(tcrit)- σ(tcrit) calc σ(tcrit) exp
(MPa) To(oK) εcbs(t2) (MPa) (MPa)
(10-6)
w/b=0,38, Cem I SR, 34176 41,8 -1,6 4,05 4,00(1,01)
0% SCM, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC,
αcth=9,8ꞏ10-6
w/b=0,38, Cem II, incl 32633 36,2 7,1 3,37 3,75(0,90)
FA, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC,
αcth=9,6ꞏ10-6
w/b=0,38, Cem I, R=0,5, 32835 39,5 6,0 3,68 3,50(1,05)
t2=3d tcrit=9,25d,
To=20oC, αT=9,6ꞏ10-6
w/b=0,48, Cem I SR, 30844 35,2 -14 2,76 2,80(0,99)
R=0,5, t2=3,2d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC,
αcth=9,2ꞏ10-6
w/b=0,48, Cem II incl 28902 28,8 -11 2,21 2,55(0,87)
FA, R=0,5, t2=3d
tcrit=9,25d, To= 20oC,
αcth=9,6ꞏ10-6

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 579
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Figure 7. Calculated versus experimental results applying formula (D.4), 1st approach.
Statistics: μθ=1,07 , CoV=0,007.

Figure 8. Calculated versus experimental results applying formula (D.4), 2nd approach.
Statistics: μθ=1,04, CoV=0,007

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 580
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Figure 9. Calculated versus experimental results applying formula (D.4), 3rd approach.
Statistics: μθ=0,96, CoV=0,005

D.4 Crack width

calculations Crack width calculation
While Annex D describes the crack strain due to imposed strains, the crack spacing
to be used is found in the main SLS-chapter as for ordinary loads (9.2.3 Refined
control of cracking):

𝑤 , 𝑘𝑤 ∙ 𝑘1/𝑟 ∙ 𝑆 , ∙ 𝜀 𝜀 (9.8)

wk,cal is the characteristic surface crack width, kw the conversion factor from mean to
characteristic values, Srm,cal the calculated mean crack spacing, while εsm and εcm are
the mean strains in reinforcement and concrete, respectively, and their
difference 𝜀 𝜀 represents the crack strain. The parameter k1/r allows for out
of plane curvature, for uniaxial tension as typically encountered with thermal and
shrinkage cracking this factor may be taken as 1,0.

For elements subjected to imposed strains which are restrained at the edges
(typically walls on foundation slabs), the crack strain (εsm - εcm) in Formula (9.8) may
be replaced by:

𝑓 ,
𝜀 𝜀 𝑅𝑎𝑥 𝜀 𝑘 ∙ (9.13)
𝐸

where kt is a coefficient dependent on the nature and duration of the load, fct,eff the
mean value of the tensile strength of the concrete at the time when the cracks are
expected to occur and Ecm the modulus of elasticity. Raxεfree in Formula (9.13) can be
taken as:

For early age cracking:

𝑅 𝜀 𝑅 , 𝑘 𝛼 𝑇 𝑇 𝜀 𝑡 𝜀 𝑡 (D.6)

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 581
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

For long-term cracking:

𝑅 𝜀 𝑅 , 𝑘 𝛼 𝑇 𝑇 𝜀 𝑡 𝜀 𝑡 𝑅 , 𝛼 ∆𝑇
𝑅 , 𝜀 𝑡 𝜀 𝑡 (D.7)

The parameters are described above in connection with Formulas (D.4) and (D.5).
Elements restrained at the ends can according to 9.2.3(3) be considered in the crack
formation stage and the crack strain in Formula (9.8) may be replaced by Formulae
(9.11):

(9.11)

Relevant background for Formula (D.6) and (D.7) is the UK CIRIA 660 regulations [2]
and the French report CEOS.fr [3] which both are using similar approaches.
An interesting comparison is done for the typical wall on foundation slab system,
Figure 8 [19], ie an investigation of a section one wall-thickness above the
foundation. It is seen that the agreement between the various approaches
investigated is reasonably good. It should be noted that the work was finished in
2018, and therefore based on the literature available at that time. An interesting
publication for verification of the crack width calculation combining 9.2.3 and Annex
D is the comprehensive investigation of wall-on-slab-structures presented in [20].
Furthermore, is the topic highly addressed in the recent RILEM committee TC 287-
CCS Early age and long-term crack width analysis in RC Structures.

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 582
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

a)

b)

Figure 10. Comparison of various crack width calculation methods [19].

References References
[1] FprEN 1992-1-1 2023: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:
General rules, rules for buildings, bridges and civil engineering structures,
Annex D.
[2] CIRIA 660 (P.B. Bamforth et al) Early-age thermal crack control in concrete.
London 2007 (& draft of 2015-version).
[3] CEOS.fr Cracking and shrinkage. Behaviour and evaluation of special
structures. Recommendations for the control of cracking phenomena
(January 2015).
[4] Azenha, M. et al., Recommendations of RILEM TC 287-CCS: Thermo-chemo-
mechanical modelling of massive concrete structures towards cracking risk
assessment. Materials and Structures (RILEM), Accepted for publication per
April 2021.
[5] Laube, M., Werkstoffmodell zur berechnung von temperaturspannungen in
massigen betonbauteilen im junge alter, Technical University of
Braunschweig, Doctoral thesis, Doctoral thesis, 1990. (In German)
[6] Freiesleben Hansen, P., Hardening technology 2, Decrement method, BKF-
centralen 1978 (In danish)
[7] Kanstad, T.; Hammer, T.A.; Bjøntegaard, Ø.; Sellevold, E. J. Mechanical
Properties of Young Concrete: Part I - Experimental Results related to Test
Methods and Temperature Effects. Materials and Structures 2003 ;Volume
36. p. 218-225

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 583
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex D Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

[8] Klausen, A.; Early age crack assessment of concrete structures:

experimental investigation of decisive parameters. Trondheim: NTNU,2016
(ISBN 978-82-326-1850-7) PhD-thesis.
[9] Neville, A.M.; Properties of concrete, Pitman, London, 1975.
[10] Graf, O., et al; Die eigenschaften des betons. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1960.
[11] Ji, Guomin; Cracking risk of concrete structures in the hardening phase:
experiments, material modelling and finite element analysis. Trondheim:
NTNU, 2008 (ISBN 978-82-471-1080-5) PhD-thesis.
[12] Vollpracht, A., Soutsos, M., and Kanavaris, F., Strength development of
GGBS and fly ash concretes and applicability of fib Model Code’s maturity
function – A critical review. Construction and building materials 162 (218) pp
830-846.
[13] Bjøntegaard, Ø., Kjellsen, K., Property development and cracking tendency
in hardening concrete: Effect of cement type and fly ash content. COIN
Project report 40, 2012. https://www.sintef.no/en/projects/coin. ISBN 978-82-
536-1279-9.
[14] Bjøntegaard, Ø., Basis for and practical approaches to stress calculations
and crack risk estimation in hardening concrete structures – State of the art.
COIN project report 31. 2011. ISBN 978-82-536-1236-2 (pdf).
https://www.sintef.no/en/projects/2007/coin/coinp/
[15] Klausen, Anja Birgitta Estensen; Kanstad, Terje; Bjøntegaard, Øyvind;
Sellevold, Erik Johan. The effect of curing temperature on autogenous
deformation of fly ash concretes. Cement & Concrete Composites 2020
;Volume 109. p. -

[16] Kanstad, T. Verification of three different calculation methods for early age
concrete. In: Crack Risk Assessment of Hardening Concrete Structures. The
Nordic Concrete Federation 2006 ISBN 82-91341-97-4. p. 101-110
[17] Larson, M.; Estimation of crack risk in early age concrete, simplified methods
for practical use, Licentiate thesis, Luleå technical university, Sweden
2000:10, ISSN 1402-1757.
[18] Klausen, Anja Birgitta Estensen; Kanstad, Terje; Bjøntegaard, Øyvind.
Hardening Concrete Exposed to Realistic Curing Temperature Regimes and
Restraint Conditions: Advanced Testing and Design Methodology. Advances
in Materials Science and Engineering 2019 ;Volume 2019. p. –
[19] Klausen, Anja; Early age crack assessment: codes, guidelines and calculation
methods. DaCS Project memo. SINTEF Building and infrastructure.
Trondgheim, Norway 2018.
[20] Jedrzejewska, A., Kanavaris, F., Zych, M., Schlicke, D., Azenha,M.;
Experiences on early age cracking of wall-on-slab concrete structures. In
Structures, Volume 27, October 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2020.06.013

Kanstad, Klausen, Menga

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 584
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG6 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex F

Safety formats for non-linear analysis

Diego Gino Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

Paolo Castaldo
Giuseppe Mancini

28.11.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 585
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to provide background information related to the FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex F
- “Safety formats for non-linear analysis”. In the last decades, the non-linear analyses (NLAs) have increasingly
become the most common instrument able to simulate the mechanical response of structural systems, such as
reinforced concrete (RC) members, from serviceability to the ultimate limit state (ULS). Concerning the results of such
complex calculations, they need to be properly processed in order to satisfy the target reliability levels required by this
standard (i.e., EN 1990 [1]; FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] – Annex A). To this aim, several methodologies (i.e., safety formats)
have been introduced by scientific literature [3]-[7] and codes as [8]-[9]. All the different safety formats provide a
framework devoted to assess the design value of the structural resistance Rd including the relevant sources of
uncertainties: the aleatory and the epistemic ones [10]-[14].

FprEN 1992-1-1 - The FprEN 1992-1-1 - Annex F - “Safety formats for non-linear analysis” aims to provide a standard to perform
Annex F validation (with reference to general and project specific attempts) and definition (e.g., characterization of the loading
process, selection of the solution strategy and of the modelling hypotheses) of non-linear numerical (NL) models of RC
F.1 Use of this annex structural systems/members and to establish the methods (i.e., safety formats) useful to derive design values of
F.2 Scope and field of structural resistance Rd for ULS verification according to EN 1990 [1].
application

Pros and cons of use non-linear analysis

In general, the use of non-linear analysis has advantages and disadvantages as listed below:

Advantages:

- Analysis is performed with properties and material behaviour closer to reality, therefore the distribution of
internal forces and deformations is more realistic;

- It enables an assessment of structures and structural elements that cannot be easily calculated with the
standard analytical formulas as these are typically valid only for beams, columns or slabs with simple geometrical
shapes without openings;

- It can provide a useful insight in the real structural behaviour and the actual failure mode;

- In some cases when deeper knowledge of the structure and its properties is available, and very well validated
model is used, it can provide higher load carrying capacity then standard methods. This is especially useful for
the assessment of existing structures.

Disadvantages:

- Nonlinear analysis is more time consuming in model preparation, analysis time as well as post-processing;

- Principle of superimposition does not apply to actions and their effects, so the analysis must be performed for each
combination of the actions separately;

- Requires higher knowledge and expertise.

Uncertainties in non-linear analysis of RC systems/members

In structural engineering, the design process is subjected to different sources of uncertainty that, conveniently, can be
classified in two main families: aleatory and epistemic [10]-[14]. The aleatory uncertainties concern the inherent
randomness of the variables that governs a specific structural problem, whereas the epistemic uncertainties are
mainly related to the lack of knowledge in the definition of the structural model [10]-[17] and represented also by
auxiliary non-physical variables/choices (e.g., assumptions for empirical coefficients and/or selection of specific
material models) [12]. The safety assessment of a structural system by means of NLAs should account for explicitly
both these sources of uncertainty.
Concerning the case of RC structures, the aleatory uncertainties relate to the inherent randomness of both materials
(e.g., concrete compressive strength and reinforcement yielding strength) and geometric (e.g., members size,
concrete cover and reinforcement location) properties. This kind of uncertainties may be described by appropriate
probabilistic models [8], [18] that, with particular reference to the case of existing structures, may be updated on the
base of information from tests and inspections [2], [19].
With reference to the epistemic uncertainties, these are mainly related to missing knowledge, simplification and
assumptions performed within the definition of the resistance model itself [10]-[14].The numerical models used for
non-linear analysis, as well as the predicted response, are merely representations, estimations and approximations of
the actual structural behavior of an RC structural member/system. In fact, the prediction of the actual structural
response through NLAs is denoted by a certain level of uncertainty because any model that aims to describe the
actual structural response of a member or system neglect, inevitably, some more or less important aspects. In
general, the definition of a structural model grounds on the basic principles of mechanics as equilibrium of forces,
kinematic compatibility and constitutive laws that, all together, denotes a specific modelling hypothesis [10]-[17].
Specifically, focusing on NLAs, the mentioned above basic principles are met by means iterative solution methods
(e.g. Newton-Raphson algorithm, Arch-length algorithm) that leads, inevitably, to an approximation of the exact
solution for the structural response [20]. Furthermore, the different assumptions related to the equilibrium, kinematic

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 586
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

compatibility and constitutive laws always lead to diverse solutions for the specific structural problem. Then, the
multiplicity of choices that may be performed defining NLN model leads to a further degree of uncertainty having
epistemic nature [10]-[17]. This source of uncertainty can be efficiently represented by the model uncertainty random
variable ϑ, which can be probabilistically characterized comparing experimental and related numerical results. This
probabilistic calibration should be carried out having care to reduce as much as possible the influence of other
epistemic sources of uncertainty as the statistical (i.e., limited sample of observation) and experimental (i.e., deviation
of tests set configuration and/or of measurement devices) ones, that inevitably may affect the probabilistic calibration
of the model uncertainty random variable ϑ.
Next, the background to safety formats implemented in FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex F aimed to account for the different
sources of uncertainty in ULS verifications of RC structures/members is reported.

Verification of ultimate limit states and safety formats for NLAs

In general, refined mechanical and geometrically NLAs are able to account for redistribution of stress fields, of internal
forces and local or global instability issues during the loading process. According to EN 1990 [1], FprEN 1992-1-1 [2]
the verification of ULS is performed by means of comparison of the design value of the effect of the actions (Ed) (e.g.,
bending moment, shear and axial forces) and the related local resistance (Rd) according to the inequality Ed≤Rd
(Section 8.3 - EN 1990 [1]).
In this framework, the effect of external actions Ed are evaluated by means of linear elastic analysis performed
properly combining the actions, while, the associated resistance Rd is evaluated according to the specific resistance
models FprEN 1992-1-1 [2]. This approach to the assessment of the structural safety is defined as local, as it involves
cross-sectional/local verifications of the structural members disregarding from the global structural response.

Figure BG-F.1: Local and global approaches for safety verification of RC structures (Castaldo et al. 2019 [6]).

For instance, in case the ULS verification is performed using refined NLAs, the global capability of the reinforced
F.3 General concrete structures/members to redistribute stress fields and internal forces can not be neglected. In this context, the
use of non-linear numerical models requires the adoption of a global approach for evaluation of the structural safety,
comparing directly the actions combined at ULS according to the selected load case Fd and the associated design
value of structural resistance Rd. This approach is denoted as global resistance format (GRF) in line to [8]. The main
differences between the two approaches are explained in Figure BG-F.1.
In line with the global resistance format [8] and EN 1990 [1], the ULS verification of an RC structural members/system
can be exploited as follow:
Clause (5) Fd  R d (BG-F.1)

where the design value of the actions Fd can be evaluated in line with the EN 1990 [1] according to the proper
combination, while, the design value of structural resistance Rd can be evaluated through NLAs with the application of
safety formats (which will be introduced next in this document) according to the following general expression:

R  X rep ; a rep 
Rd  (BG-F.2)
 R*  R d

In the formula (BG-F.2), the term R{∙} denotes the structural resistance estimated by means of NLA using the
representative values Xrep for material and arep for geometric properties according to the adopted safety format, as
described next. The level of structural reliability adopted for ULS verification is involved by means of two different
partial safety factors:
- the global resistance factor γ*R, which is a partial safety factor that takes into account, at the level of global
structural response, of the influence of the aleatory uncertainties related to the material properties and
geometry. This partial safety factor can be determined in compliance with a specific target level of reliability
according to the methodology described by the selected safety format;

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 587
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

- the model uncertainty factor γRd, which is a partial safety factor that takes into account the uncertainty (of
epistemic nature) related to simplifications, assumptions and choices performed to define of the non-linear
numerical model. This partial safety factor is horizontal and independent from the adopted safety format.

The software used in non-linear verification of the ultimate limit state should be validated by comparison between
Clause (3) numerical and experimental or benchmark results. Similarly, the choices made with respect to the specific numerical
model should be tested by sensitivity analysis.
1) general validation attempts:
- basic material tests;
- structural tests with the characterization of relevant failure modes;
2) project specific attempts:
- mesh sensitivity tests;
- solution method tests.
In general, these issues may be solved partially by software provider and partially by the analyst which is directly
involved in the specific project.
The structural resistance R{∙} that corresponds to the achievement of the ultimate limit state (i.e., structural failure)
shall be identified by the analyst in concomitance of actions level where lack of convergence of numerical procedure
occurs. The analysts should interpret the results paying attention to distinguish and recognize potential numerical
failure and/or physical failure and to characterize the relevant failure mode (see F.5 FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] – Annex F).

The loading process implemented by a non-linear simulation in order to evaluate the structural resistance R{∙} against
the actions shall be defined according to engineering judgement consistently with the considered combination at
Clause (4) ultimate limit state. In particular, the outcomes of the NLA are significantly affected by the loading procedure that, with
particular care to staged construction methods, should be identified accounting for the actual loading sequence and
even including time dependent effects if relevant. In particular, the structural resistance R{∙} may be evaluated
increasing the actions from their initial values (e.g., characteristic values) by incremental steps, such that the
associated design values in the adopted combination are reached in the same step. The incremental process of the
actions should be continued beyond their design values with the same law until structural failure is reached. The
structural resistance R{∙} corresponds to the values of the actions which lead to structural failure. With the adoption of
this approach, the estimated design value of of structural resistance Rd can be directly compared to design value of the
axions Fd with reference to the specific combination at ULS.

The safety formats based on the above described approach, which are introduced by FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex F, are
Clause (6) the following:
i. Partial factor method (PFM);
ii. Global factor method (GFM);
iii. Full probabilistic method (FPM).
In particular cases, where higher degree of refinement for estimation of structural reliability for ULS verification is
required, the (iii.) Full Probabilistic Method (FPM) can be adopted in compliance to EN 1990 [1] and FprEN 1992-1-1
[2] – Annex A .
In the following, the principal features of the safety formats (i., ii., iii.) for NLAs of RC structural systems/members
reported in FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex F are described.

The Partial Factor Method (PFM) has been introduced by [8]. The design value of structural resistance Rd is obtained
F.4 Partial factor method by means of one NLA according to formula (BG-F.3):
(PFM)
R  X d ; ad  (BG-F.3)
Rd 
Clause (1)  Rd

where R{Xd; ad) represents the structural resistance estimated by means of a non-linear numerical analysis using the
design values of the material (Xd) and geometrical (ad) properties; γRd is the partial safety factor which accounts for
model uncertainty related to global NLAs.
With the PFM, the influence of the aleatory uncertainties is accounted for by Xd according to EN 1990 [1]. The partial
safety factors to be used for the evaluation of Xd should consider the statistical variability of the material property and
the geometric uncertainty but should not be inclusive of model uncertainty (which is accounted for trough the model
uncertainty factor γRd related to global resistance estimated by NLA). For instance, the method of EN 1990 [1] should
be implemented according to specifications of Table A.1 line (e) of FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex A and FprEN 1992-1-1
[2] - Annex A in general. The appropriate target reliability index βtgt can be adopted in the evaluation of the mentioned
above partial safety factors always in compliance to EN 1990 [1] and FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex A. In case the
geometric uncertainty is not accounted for within the evaluation of the partial safety factors associated to material

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 588
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

properties (as previously mentioned), the design value of geometrical properties (ad) should be used according to EN
1990 [1]. Alternatively, the NLN model should be defined using the nominal values for geometric properties (anom)
(prEN 1990:2020 [1]).

In case of adoption of simplified approach for non-linear analysis according to following assumptions:
Clause (2)
- structural resistance is determined based on numerical model established in a way that the influence of the
concrete tensile strength is neglected;
- and the model follows the assumptions and verification procedures of Section 8 and/or Annex G of FprEN
1992-1-1 [2];
the model uncertainty can be assumed to be equal to the one included in calculation of fcd and fyd according to Section
5 of FprEN 1992-1-1 [2]. In this circumstance, formula (BG-F.3) may be replaced by:

R d  R f cd , f yd ; a nom 

where fcd and fyd are derived from Section 5 of FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] and anom is the nominal value of the geometric
property according to EN 1990 [1].

The Global Factor Method (GFM) is based on the evaluation of the design value of structural resistance Rd by means
F.5 Global factor method of global partial safety factors (i.e., γ*R and γRd) applied to mean value of structural resistance Rm{X; a} which is
(GFM)
estimated throughout NLAs. In particular, the principles of this method descends from global resistance safety formats
F.5.1 General as the “Method of Estimation of Coefficient of Variation” (ECoV) and “Global Resistance Factor Method” (GRF)
Clause (1) reported by [8]-[9], which has been furtherly investigated by [6]-[7], [21].
The Global Factor Method (GFM) allow to estimate the design value Rd assuming that the structural resistance R is
lognormally distributed. The statistical parameters (i.e., mean value Rm and coefficient of variation V*R) should be
evaluated trough probabilistic analysis including materials (X) and geometrical (a) uncertainties using a probabilistic
model for basic variables compliant with EN 1990 [1] and FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex A. Although the assumption of
lognormal probabilistic distribution turns out to be a simplification, it is widely adopted to describe resistance random
variables and its efficiency is demonstrated by several applications [5]-[7]. In case the lognormal probabilistic model is
not able to represent the structural resistance R the Full Probabilistic Method (FPM) can be adopted to perform
reliability-based verification of the specific ULS.
The Global Factor Method (GFM) can be used to determine the design value of structural resistance Rd according to
the following expression in line to assumption of lognormal distribution:

R m  X ; a (BG-F.4)
Rd 
 R*  R d

The global resistance factor γ*R can be evaluated as follows:

F.3.2 Determination of  R*  e xp  R   tgt  V R*  (BG-F.5)
the global resistance
factor In formula (BG-F.5) the target reliability index βtgt can be adopted in compliance to prEN 1990:2020 [1] and FprEN
Clause (1)
1992-1-1 [2] - Annex A. Note that the same target level of reliability should be adopted to determine the model
uncertainty factor γRd according to FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F and as described next in this document. The first-
order reliability method (FORM) factor αR should be set equal to 0.8 in line to the assumption of dominant resistance
variable within the reliability analysis (for more explanation, see the section related to assessment of model
uncertainty for NLAs in this document).
As the Global Factor Method (GFM), in general, requires the execution of probabilistic analysis to define the mean
value Rm and coefficient of variation V*R, the following simplifications can be introduced to enhance the applicability of
the method to analyst and practitioners:
(a) the mean value of structural resistance Rm{X; a} can be assumed equal to the structural resistance
R{Xm; anom} estimated by NLA adopting mean values of material properties (Xm) and nominal values for
geometric ones anom. This simplification correspond to perform the truncation to the first term of the Taylor
series expansion of the structural resistance R around the mean or nominal values of basic variables [7];
(b) the coefficient of variation V*R can be expressed accounting for separately the contribution of the uncertainty
associated to materials VR,M and geometric VR,G properties as follow:

V R*  V R2, M  V R2,G (BG-F.5)

The coefficient of variation VR,M reflect the influence of the statistical variability of material properties on
variability of structural resistance. According to the ECoV method [3],[8] and in line to the assumption of
lognormal probabilistic model for structural resistance R, the coefficient of variation can be estimated with the
following simplified approach:

1  R  X m ; a nom   (BG-F.6)
V R ,M  ln  
1 .6 5  R  X k ; a nom  

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 589
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

where R{Xk; anom} is the structural resistance estimated by means of NLA using characteristic values of
material properties (Xk) in line to FprEN 1992-1-1 [2].

Castaldo et al., 2019 [6]

- SL, SM, SH: RC beams with square openings
(experimentally tested)
Concrete failure - CLX: RC beam with circular openings
(experimentally tested)

VR,M [-]
- T-Beam: RC beam with “T” cross section
designed in compliance to EN1992-1-1
SM SH
T-Beam

SL CLX

Reinforcement yielding

Figure BG-F.2: Coeffiecient of variation related to uncertainties associated to material properties VR,M (Castaldo et
al. 2019 [6]) estimated by means probabilistic analysis using NLA (non-linear finite element
analsysis).
The results from probabilistic analysis of ultimate response of RC beams performed by [6] including material
uncertainties only, highlighted that, in case of missing explicit estimation of VR,M, such value can be set equal
to the upper bound of 0.15 assuming that failure is fully governed by concrete cylinder compressive strength.
This assumption is valid until the coefficient of variation of concrete cylinder compressive strength is VC≤0.15
(as generally assumed by [8],[18]). In case of higher values for VC, reference to the FprEN 1992-1-1 [2]-
Annex A can be performed and the value of VR,M should be estimated appropriately. The coefficient of
variation VR,G account for the contribution of geometric uncertainty to statistical variability of structural
resistance. The value of VR,G can be assumed according to the FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] – Annex A or, as further
simplification on safe side, can be set equal to 0.05 [8],[22] until the governing size of structural component is
bigger than 200 mm.

F.6Full Probabilistic The Full Probabilistic Method (FPM is in compliance to EN 1990 [1] - Annex C. This method allows to quantify directly
Method (FPM)
Clauses (1), (2), (3) the level of structural reliability with reference to considered ULS. In order to fulfill the safety verification, the achieved
level of reliability should be higher than the one associated to the target value EN 1990 [1], FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] –
Annex A. Additional information related to probabilistic methods for structural reliability analysis can be found in [25].
Probabilistic models for model uncertainties (both from actions and resistance sides), actions, material and geometric
properties should be defined in line to EN 1990 [1] and FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] – Annex A. With particular reference to the
probabilistic model for uncertainty associated to the resistance model established using NLA (i.e., model uncertainty),
it should be defined according to FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] – Annex F and as described in the following. More details about
probabilistic models for concrete structures can be acknowledged in [8] and [26].

Assessment of the model uncertainty related to NLAs

F.7 Model uncertainty In this section, background to the characterization of epistemic uncertainty associated to NLAs of RC
structures/members is reported together with the methodology to define the model uncertainty factor γRd. The
interaction between aleatory and epistemic uncertainties is also discussed in order to take into account the shape of
the response surface of structural resistance which can be locally non-convex nearby the design point [6].

The epistemic uncertainty in NLAs is associated to “missing” knowledge, hypotheses and simplifications related to
Clauses (1), (3), (4), (6) constitutive laws, kinematic compatibility and equilibrium of forces and to assumptions concerning auxiliary non-
physical variables or individual choices [11]-[17]. All the mentioned above aspects characterize the selection of a
specific modelling hypothesis [12]-[14], also denoted in literature as “solution strategy” [17]. Moreover, the level of
epistemic uncertainty can be influenced by the nature of the governing failure mode (i.e., brittle, ductile) [16]-[17].
With reference to [11]-[17], the epistemic uncertainty in resistance models may be exhaustively represented by the
resistance model uncertainty random variable denoted as:

R exp , i  X , Y  (BG-F.7)
i 
R num , i  X 
The formula (BG-F.5) relates the structural resistance estimated from an experimental test Rexp,i(X,Y) to the structural
resistance estimated through numerical simulation (i.e., NLA) Rnum,i(X). X is a vector of basic variables included into
the numerical resistance model, while Y is a vector of variables that may affect the resistance mechanism but are
neglected in the model and, their unknown influence, can be indirectly incorporated including the model uncertainty
random variable ϑ within the reliability analysis.
An in-depth probabilistic calibration of the resistance model uncertainty random variable and of the related partial

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 590
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

safety factor γRd needs to be addressed in relation to the selected set of modelling hypotheses and the target reliability
differentiation according to EN 1990 [1] and FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex A . In line with the approaches of [12]-[17],
the probabilistic calibration of the resistance model uncertainty random variable can be performed in line to the
following steps:
1. Selection of the benchmark experimental tests: the selection of the benchmark set of experimental results
should be performed accounting for geometries, material properties and failure mechanisms inherent to the
investigated problem. In general, all the information about materials and geometry to define the non-linear
numerical models should be derived by the benchmark experimental test. In case of missing information
default values can be assumed according to FprEN 1992-1-1 [2];

2. Definition of the non-linear numerical models: the numerical models defined in order to reproduce by NLAs
of the benchmark experimental tests should be established adopting a specific set of modelling hypotheses
and assumptions. The modelling uncertainty so far estimated will be valid and representative only for the
considered sets of modelling hypotheses;
3. Quantification of the model uncertainty: the model uncertainty should be estimated for each benchmark
experimental test according to formula (BG-F.7);
4. Statistical analysis of model uncertainty: the outcomes of observed model uncertainty should be
appropriately processed from statistical point of view with the aim to determine the best estimate of
statistical parameters (e.g., mean value μϑ and coefficient of variation Vϑ) and the most likely probabilistic
distribution for model uncertainty random variable ϑ. According to [12],[17], in the most of the cases, the
preferred probabilistic distribution able to describe the model uncertainty random variable is the lognormal
one. The methods for statistical analysis should be able to account for the influence of the limited number of
observed samples ϑi on the estimation of mean value μϑ and coefficient of variation Vϑ. Techniques as the
methods of moments, maximum likelihood method (ML) [23] and Bayesian approaches [24] can be adopted.

Once the probabilistic calibration of the model uncertainty random variable ϑ has been performed, it can be possible to
derive the related partial safety factor as follows:

1 (BG-F.8)
 Rd 

F  1     R  tgt  
where F(∙) is the likely cumulative probabilistic distribution function able to describe resistance model uncertainty
random variable; Φ is the standard normal cumulative probabilistic distribution function; αR is the first-order-reliability-
method (FORM) sensitivity factor which is equal to 0.32 in the assumption of non-dominant variable in line to [8]; βtgt is
the target reliability index that should be adopted in compliance to EN 1990 [1] and FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex A
depending from the considered ULS.

In case the adopted probabilistic distribution is the lognormal one (as it happen in the large part of the cases [12]-[17]),
the formula (BG-F.8) can be rewritten as:

e xp  R  tgtV  (BG-F.9)
 Rd 


In general, the assumption of non-dominant variable for model uncertainty [8] turns out to be verified until the following
expression is satisfied [27]:

V R*  V (BG-F.10)
where V*R is the coefficient of variation of structural resistance inclusive of materials and geometric uncertainties (see
F.3 of FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F and related explanation in this document) while, Vϑ is the coefficient of variation
related to model uncertainty.

In cases where the reliability analysis is dominated by the model uncertainty (i.e., the formula BG-F.10 is not fulfilled),
the non-dominant variables becomes the materials and geometric ones (i.e., aleatory). In this case the formula BG-F.9
(and the related one in EN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F) should be applied adopting first-order-reliability-method (FORM)
sensitivity factor αR equal to 0.8. On the opposite, the methods described by F.2 and F.3 of EN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F
should be applied adopting αR equal to 0.32 to account for the uncertainties related to materials and geometry within
the calculation of related partial safety factors.

Clause (2)
In the FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F, fixed values of γRd are also provided in order to cover cases where the
probabilistic calibration of model uncertainty is not carried out by the analysis and/or software produces. These fixed
values are inclusive of the influence of statistical uncertainty and are consistent with the assumption of non-dominant
variable for model uncertainty (i.e., αR=0.32). In case the model uncertainty results to be the dominant variable, these
fixed values are not valid and the probabilistic calibration according to FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F and as it is
previously explained in this document have to be performed. In the literature, several investigations reports studies
related model uncertainty quantification (with particular reference to non-linear finite elements analysis) [12]-[17] that
justifies the suggested values assumed on the safe side by FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F with reference to 50 years
reference life reliability index βtgt equal to 3.8.
The investigation of Castaldo et al. 2018 [12] considered a selection of 25 structural members from several literature

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 591
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

references including deep beams, shear panels and walls. All the structural members have been realized with
statically determined scheme and tested up to failure with a monotonic incremental loading process. The experimental
tests have been reproduced by non-linear numerical simulations adopting 9 different modelling hypotheses
distinguishing between the software platform and concrete tensile response. A total number of 225 NL simulations has
been performed to estimate the resistance model uncertainty random variable. The results of the investigation are
reported in Table BG-F.2.
The work of Castaldo et al. 2020 [13] propose the investigation related to the epistemic uncertainty in non-linear
numerical analyses using the finite element method in case of cyclic loading process. In particular, 17 shear walls
tested by several Authors under different cyclic loading histories and statically determined static scheme has been
considered. These experimental tests cases have been reproduced by means 18 different modelling hypotheses
differentiating between the adopted software, concrete tensile behavior and shear stiffness of concrete after cracking.
A total number of 306 NLN simulation has been collected in order to characterize the resistance model uncertainty
random variable, with results listed in Table BG-F.2.
Cervenka et al. 2018 [16] reports the investigation of 33 RC structural elements which are inclusive of slabs and
beams which presented both shear and bending failure modes. The experimental tests on these members has been
reproduced by means NL numerical simulations adopting single modelling hypothesis and using monotonic
incremental loading process. The Table BG-F.2 reports the main results in terms of characterization of resistance
model uncertainty random variable distinguishing between bending, shear and punching failure modes.

Table BG-F.2: Characterization of model uncertainty random variable from different literature references with the
related model uncertainty partial safety factor γRd.
Model uncertainty ϑ Partial
Type of RC Coefficient safety
Reference Type of NLA Failure mode Probabilistic Mean value
members of variation factor
distribution μϑ γRd*1
Vϑ
2D finite Different failure
elements modes due to
Castaldo Deep beams,
(plane stress); both concrete
et al. 2018 walls, shear Lognormal 1.01 0.12 1.15
incremental crushing and
[12] panels
monotonic reinforcement
loading yielding
Different failure
2D finite modes due to
Castaldo
elements both concrete
et al. 2020 Shear walls Lognormal 0.88 0.13 1.35
(plane stress); crushing and
[13]
cyclic loading reinforcement
yielding

3D finite Slabs Punching 0.97 0.08 1.16

elements
Cervenka Beams Shear 0.98 0.07 1.13
(brick);
et al. 2018 Lognormal
incremental Beams Bending 1.07 0.05 1.01
[16]
monotonic
loading Slabs, Beams All 0.98 0.08 1.16

Mainly ductile
(failure
characterized
1.04 0.05 1.02
extensive
reinforcements
3D finite yielding)
elements
Engen et Beams, deep Mainly brittle
(brick);
al. 2017 beams, walls, (failure Lognormal
incremental
[17] frames characterized by
monotonic concrete crushing
loading 1.14 0.12 1.02
without or with
limited amount of
reinforcements
yielding)

All 1.10 0.11 1.04

1D finite Buckling (failure
elements characterized by
(beam, fiber- concrete crushing
Gino et al. RC slender without yielding of 0.15 – 1.15 –
beam); Lognormal 1.04
2021 [14] columns reinforcements or 0.18*2 1.19*2
incremental both concrete and
monotonic reinforcements still
loading in elastic field)

*1 the values of γRd are derived considering 50 years reference life reliability index βtgt= 3.8 and αR= 0.32 (non-dominat).
*2 the range bounds the influence of significant/limited level of experimental uncertainty within the tests sets considered for investigation
of model uncertainty [14].

The research of Engen et al. 2017 [17] reports the results of non-linear numerical simulations performed in order to

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 592
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

reproduce 38 RC members experimentally tested under monotonic loading process by several authors. The structural
members were inclusive of beams, deep beams, frames and walls. Also in this case a single modelling hypothesis has
been adopted to realize the NL numerical models of the considered members. The outcomes of the investigation
leaded to the characterization of the resistance model uncertainty random variable distinguishing between ductile and
brittle failure mechanisms. Table BG-F.2 reports the main results of this last investigation.
Finally, the work of Gino et al., 2021 [14] rely to the characterization of the epistemic uncertainty related to NLAs of
slender RC members. A total number of 40 experimental outcomes of tests on reinforced concrete columns having
slenderness ratio between 15 and 275 and different geometries in line with [22] limitations have been considered. A
discussion related to the influence of the experimental uncertainty on estimation of model uncertainty is proposed and
statistical values/model uncertainty factors are derived performing different assumptions. The main results of the
investigation are reported in Table BG-F.2.
Clauses (6), (7)
The investigation of Castaldo et. al, [6] raised the issue of the influence of the probabilistic distribution of aleatory
uncertainties (i.e., materials) on prediction of failure mechanism by means numerical modelling and related
repercussions on the application of safety formats as GFM and PFM (i.e., methods that not require an extensive
probabilistic investigation of structural resistance). In particular, the results of [6] highlights that the possible presence
of concavity in the response surface of structural resistance in proximity of the design point may lead to unsafe
conclusions when the GFM and PFM are used. This particular source of uncertainty is not covered by the model
uncertainty factor γRd alone because it can manifest only in cases where the design value of structural resistance is
evaluated without full probabilistic analysis and concern the interaction between aleatory and epistemic (i.e., model)
uncertainties.

For instance, previously to perform the specific ULS verification, the sensitivity of structural response to probabilistic
distribution of material properties should be investigated [6],[28]. In line to the results of [6] and subsequent discussion
and elaboration in CEN/TC250/ SC2/ WG1/TG6, the preliminary procedure described in FprEN 1992-1-1 [2] - Annex F
have been defined in order to check the shape of response surface of structural resistance in proximity of the design
point.
In case the following relationships between the structural resistances evaluated with different values of material
properties are verified, the numerical model can be considered to be not sensible to probabilistic distribution of
material properties:

R fcd , f yd ; a nom   R fcd , f ym ; a nom  a nd R fcd , f yd ; a nom   R fcm , f yd ; a nom  (BG-F.11)

where fcm and fym are the mean values of concrete cylinder compressive strength and reinforcement yielding strength,
respectively, while fcd and fyd are the related design values determined according to FprEN 1992-1-1 [2].
In case the conditions of (BG-F.10) turn out to be not fulfilled, it means that in the proximity of the design point may
exist possible weak failure mechanisms that give rise to local modification of concavity of the response surface. In this
case, an additional uncertainty should be included within the estimation of the model uncertainty factor γRd that, in line
with [6], can be increased of 15% as safe assumption.

References
[1] EN1990 Eurocode – Basis of structural design. CEN . Brussels
[2] FprEN1992-1-1 Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures. CEN 2013, Brussels.
[3] Cervenka V., Global safety formats in fib Model Code 2010 for design of concrete structures, Proceedings of
the 11th Probabilistic Workshop, Brno, 2013.
[4] Cervenka V., Reliability–based non-linear analysis according to fib Model Code 2010, Structures Concrete,
Journalof the fib, vol. 14, March 2013, ISSN1464-4177, p.p.19-28, 2011.
[5] Shlune H, Gylltoft K, Plos M. Safety format for non-linear analysis of concrete structures. Magazine of
Concrete Research 2012; 64(7): 563-574.
[6] P. Castaldo, D. Gino, G. Mancini (2019): Safety formats for non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete
structures: discussion, comparison and proposals, Engineering Structures, 193, 136-153,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.041.
[7] Allaix DL, Carbone VI, Mancini G. Global safety format for non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete
structures. Structural Concrete 2013; 14(1): 29-42.
[8] fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Fib 2013. Lausanne.
[9] EN 1992-2: Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures. Part 2: Concrete bridges – Design and detailing
rules. CEN 2005. Brussels.
[10] Kiureghian AD, Ditlevsen O. Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?. Structural Safety, 31:105-112, 2009.
[11] Holický M, Retief JV, Sikora M. Assessment of model uncertainties for structural resistance. Probabilistic
Engineering Mechanics 2016; 45: 188-197.
[12] P. Castaldo, D. Gino, G. Bertagnoli, G. Mancini (2018): Partial safety factor for resistance model uncertainties
in 2D non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete structures, Engineering Structures, 176, 746-762.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.041.
[13] P. Castaldo, D. Gino, G. Bertagnoli, G. Mancini (2020): Resistance model uncertainty in non-linear finite
element analyses of cyclically loaded reinforced concrete systems, Engineering Structures, 211(2020),
110496, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110496
[14] Gino D, Castaldo P, Giordano L, Mancini G. Model uncertainty in nonlinear numerical analyses of slender
reinforced concrete members. Structural Concrete. 2021;1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202000600
[15] P. Castaldo, D. Gino, G. C. Marano, G. Mancini (2022): Aleatory uncertainties with global resistance safety

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 593
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

factors for non-linear analyses of slender reinforced concrete columns, Engineering Structures, 2022; 255;
113920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113920
[16] Cervenka V, Cervenka J and Kadlek L (2018) Model uncertainties in numerical simulations of reinforced
concrete structures, Structural Concrete, 2018;19:2004–2016.
[17] Engen M, Hendriks MAN, Köhler J, Øverli JA, Åldtstedt E. A quantification of modelling uncertainty for non-
linear finite element analysis of large concrete structures. Structural Safety 2017; 64: 1-8.
[18] JCSS. JCSS Probabilistic Model Code. 2001.
[19] fib Bulletin N°80. Partial factor methods for existing concrete structures, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2016.
[20] fib Bulletin N°45. Practitioner’s guide to finite element modelling of reinforced concrete structures – State of
the art report. Lausanne; 2008.
[21] Cervenka V., Reliability –based non-linear analysis according to fib Model Code 2010, Structures Concrete,
Journalof the fib, vol. 14, March 2013, ISSN1464-4177, p.p.19-28, 2011.
[22] EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. CEN
2014. Brussels.
[23] Faber, Michael Havbro Statistics and Probability Theory, Springer, 2012.
[24] Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. 3rd ed. CRC Press;
2014.
[25] ISO 2394. General Principles on Reliability for Structures; ISO 2394:2015(E); International Organization for
Standartization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; p. 111.
[26] JCSS. JCSS Probabilistic Model Code. 2001.
[27] fib Bulletin N°80. Partial factor methods for existing concrete structures, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2016.
[28] Yu, Q., Valeri, P., Ruiz, M.F. and Muttoni, A. 2021. A consistent safety format and design approach for brittle
systems and application to textile reinforced concrete structures. Engineering Structures, 249: 113306,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113306.

2023.03.14 reviewed and editorial update

D. Gino, P. Castaldo, G. Mancini 09.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 594
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG6 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Additional background information to

Annex F
Application examples for the verification of
ultimate limit states by non-linear analysis

Jan Cervenka Cervenka Consulting s.r.o., Czech Republic

28.02.2021

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 595
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to provide additional background information to the Annex F. It
extends the information provided in the background information document [12]. It summarizes the safety
formats for non-linear analysis as they are proposed in EC2-Annex F. It demonstrates their application and
compares the calculated design values with analytical formulas and experiments. This annex describes three
possible safety formats:
F.4 Partial factor method
F.5 Global factor method
F.6 Full probabilistic method
This documents demonstrates the application of these safety formats to a selected set of benchmark problems
summarizing the most typical elements and failure modes occurring in the design of reinforced concrete
structures.
The first section describes the appropriate choice of input parameters for the application of the safety formats
F.4. to F.6.
The second section describes the benchmark problems used in this study. This section includes also an
important discussion on the choice of model uncertainty partial safety factor.
The third section summarizes and compares the obtained results and some concluding remarks.

Input parameters for safety formats for non-linear analysis

Input parameters for structural assessment are usually defined by the structural geometry, used materials and
other design assumptions, and the corresponding uncertainties shall be considered. It is possible to identify the
following categories of input parameters for the nonlinear analysis:
- Geometry: is defined by the structural shape, reinforcement detailing and uncertainties shell be
selected according to the used safety format F.4, F.5 and F.6
- Material parameters: shall be selected according to the used safety format F.4, F.5 and F.6
- Actions: determined according to EN 1990 and uncertainties are addressed by the corresponding
load factors and load combinations
- Solution and modelling parameters: includes FE mesh, accuracy criteria or other parameters related
to the used numerical method. Associated uncertainties should be evaluated by sensitivity studies.

Input parameters for Partial factor method PFM

Clause F.4
In this case the design value of the structural resistance is obtained as:

R  X d ; a
Rd  (1)
 Rd
where:

R  is the structural resistance based on the numerical simulation;

is the design value of the material property calculating adopting partial safety factors
Xd
according to Table A.1 line (f) accounting for materials and geometric uncertainties, but
excluding model uncertainties, which are considered separately by  Rd . In general case
the design value is calculated as:

Xk ; exp  R  tgt  VRM 

Xd  M  ;
M  RM

 Rd is the partial safety factor, which accounts for the model uncertainty according to F.5;

Index M S for reinforcement and C for concrete in compression;

R Is sensitivity factor for resistance according to Table A.3;

tgt Is the target value for the reliability index according to Table A.3;

Is the coefficient of variation of the resistance, which may be calculated as:

VRM

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 596
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

n
VRM  V I
I
2 ;

 RM Is the bias factor for all uncertainties, which may be calculated as a product of all bias
n
factors:  RM    I .
I

For typical situations in accordance to Annex A, the material safety factors for concrete and steel are listed in
Table 1

Table 1: Standard values for material factors for the safety format F.4
persistent and transient design situations

S C
1.2 1.54 (1.46)1

Input parameters for Global factor method (GFM)

Clause F.5
In the case of GFM method, the design strength is calculated as:

Rm  X ; a
Rd  (2)
 R*   Rd
where:

Rm  is the mean value of the structural resistance based on the numerical simulation and
shall be estimated by means of a probabilistic analysis including uncertainties related
to material and geometric properties;

 R* is the global resistance factor for the uncertainties of material properties and geometry
according to F3.2;

 Rd is the partial safety factor, which accounts for the model uncertainty according to F.5;

The global resistance factor may be evaluated as:

 R*  exp  R  tgt  VR* 

Clause F5.2
(3)

where:

1  R  X m ; anom   1  R  X m* ; anom  
(4)
VR*  ln    ln  
1.65  R  X k ; ak   1.65  R  X k* ; anom  
 
In (4) R  X m ; anom  represents an estimate of the structural strength calculated by a nonlinear analysis using
average material parameters and nominal geometric properties. R  X k ; ak  is the analogic estimate of the
characteristic strength that is obtained by a nonlinear analysis using the characteristic values of the material
and geometric parameters. This approached was originally proposed in [8] and [9]. It became part of the
nonlinear safety formats proposed in the fib model code 2010 [17] along with the partial factor method F.4. In
practical cases it would be however rather inconvenient to create a model taking into account the characteristic
values of its dimensions or reinforcement location. It is therefore proposed to keep geometric parameters to

their nominal values and rather define an auxiliary material property X m* , X k* representing the uncertainty in
both material and geometric properties. This can be done using the information in Annex A and the assumption
that structural resistance Rmodel calculated by the numerical model is approximately linearly dependent on the

concrete d c  f c ,is  and reinforcement contribution  d y  f y  .

1
1.46 according to the new version of Annex A (N0267), while 1.54 according to the previous version of Annex A (N 222). This version of the
document was initially prepared according to Annex A version N 222. All examples are calculated according to this Annex A version with the
exception of the last punching example, which was calculated according to Annex A version N0267.

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 597
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Rmodel  R  d c  f c ,aIs , d y  f y , ..... (5)

where dc is concrete section area, dy is the effective depth, f c , aIs is the actual in-situ concrete compressive
strength, and f y is the reinforcement yield strength. In general the uncertainties of the input

parameters/variable I can be described by the corresponding bias factor  I  X Im X Ik (ratio of mean to

characteristic value) and coefficient of variation VI .

Then it is possible to express the uncertainties in the steel contribution by its mean value:

f ym
d ym  f ym  d y , nom  d f yk  d y , nom f ym
*
(6)
f yk
and coefficient of variation:

VRS  Vd2  V fy2 (7)

By analogy the uncertainties in the concrete contribution can be expressed by its mean value:

f cm
d cm  f cm  d c ,nom  Ac  Is f ck  d c ,nom f cm* (8)
f ck

where  Is  f c ,aIs f cm and coefficient of variation:

VRC  VAc2  V2Is  V fc2 (9)

The material strengths in (6) and (8) can be described by auxiliary variables:

f ym
*
f ym  d f yk   d exp 1.645V fy  f yk (10)
f yk

f ck   Ac  Is exp 1.645V fc  f ck
f cm
f cm*   Ac  Is (11)
f ck
which represent the material mean strength considering the uncertainties of the material strength, effect of
insitu strength as well as geometric uncertainties.
Using the analogic assumptions the auxiliary variables for characteristic analysis in Eq. (4) can be calculated
as:

f yk*  f ym
*
exp  1.645 VRS   f yk  d exp V fy  VRS  (12)

f ck*  f cm* exp  1.645 VRC   f ck  Ac  Is exp 1.645 V fc  VRC   (13)

These assumptions are in agreement with the Eurocode EN 1992-1-1:2005 approach of partial factors for
materials as shown for instance in the case of F.4.
It should be noted however, that in nonlinear analysis it is usually necessary to define other parameters to
describe the behaviour of reinforced concrete structures. It is desirable to define unique rules how these
additional parameters such as for instance: tensile strength ft , fracture energy GF and others are related to
these basic strength parameters. Then all material parameters can be uniquely derived from the auxiliary steel

yield strength f y* and concrete compressive strength f c* . Alternatively, the mean and characteristic values of
the additional material parameters can be derived using JCSS probabilistic Model Code [16].

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 598
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 2: Standard values for auxiliary steel and concrete material parameters for the safety format F.5
Parameter persistent and transient design situations
Reinforcement

Yield strength mean

*
f ym
*
f ym  1 .0 2 3 f yk

Yield strength char. f yk* f yk*  0 .9 1 6 f yk

Concrete

Compressive strength mean f cm

* f ck*  1.062 f yk

Compressive strength char. f ck

* f ck*  0 .8 1 5 f ck

Clause F.6 F.6 Full probabilistic method

In this document an analogical approach is taken also for the probabilistic analysis. This means the geometric
uncertainty is taken into account into the corresponding auxiliary material parameters. The basic assumptions
are summarized in

Table 3: Standard values for auxiliary steel and concrete material parameters for the full probabilistic analysis
F.6
Parameter persistent and transient design situations
Reinforcement

Yield strength mean

*
f ym
*
f ym  1 .0 2 3 f yk

Coefficient of variation VRS  Vd2  V fy2 VRS  0.0452  0.052  0.067

Concrete

Compressive strength mean f cm

* f ck*  1.062 f yk

Coefficient of variation VRC  VAc2  V2Is  V fc2 VRC  0.12  0.122  0.042  0.16

Procedure for structural assessment by nonlinear analysis

The procedure for the structural assessment by nonlinear analysis typically involves the following steps:
- Definition of a loading scenario: proper loading sequence should be identified to accurately represent
the investigated load combination.
- Development of a numerical model
- Sensitivity analysis: includes mesh size sensitivity, load step size, different sequences for the
application of actions, etc.

- The evaluation of the structural strength Rd using the developed numerical model with the given

loading scenario. It should be understood that in most cases Rd is not a single number but it rather
represents an overall load factor for the investigated load/action combination.

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 599
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Benchmark example problems

The following section contain a set of examples with known experimental results that document the application
of the safety formats for nonlinear analysis from the Annex F to typical cases and failure modes that can be
encountered in the design practice. Each example first contains a description of the geometry and
reinforcement arrangement. Then graphs of the experimental and numerical response is shown. The examples
are analysed using the finite element software ATENA [7], however, the presented concept can be used with
other nonlinear software as well. When using the safety formats from Annex F with a particular analysis
software it is possible to pay special consideration to the following issues as they are listed in the Annex F.
General validation tests should be performed to verify the software behaviour:
- in basic material tests,
- and structural tests with the relevant failure modes.
These tests can be done only once. In most cases they will be provided as standard validation benchmarks by
the software developer. In addition they should be used to provide the calibration of the model reliability factor
 Rd in Eq. (1) and (2). For ATENA software such a validation has been published by Cervenka et al [10].
These factors have been used in the presented example cases to calculate the final values of the design
strength Rd , and they are listed in Table 4. Similar calibration studies have been performed for other programs
and methods such as for instance: [4],[5], [11] and [13].

Table 4: Model uncertainty factors used in this study based on [10]

Failure mode Model uncertainty factor
Punching 1.16
Shear 1.13
Bending 1.01
All failure modes 1.16

Additional important tests that should be performed in each project involving application of nonlinear analysis to
structural assessment are project specific sensitivity studies that typically consist of the following types of
analyses:
- mesh sensitivity tests
- solution method tests such as effects of load steps size, solution method parameters, loading history,
various modelling idealizations, boundary conditions, etc.
For each example a table of used material properties is provided as well as the specific values that are used for
each method. This documents compares the design strength values obtained by PFM (F.4), GFM (F.5) and full
probabilistic method (F.6). The probabilistic method can be considered as the most accurate estimation of the
design strength. These three methods are also compared with the analytical formulas from EC2. The final
comparison is available in Table 9 and Table 10.

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 600
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Bending example problem:

Experimental data by Bosco & Debenardi [2]. Beams

Figure 1 : Bosco & Debenardi [2] experiments, geometry and dimensions

Figure 2 : Bosco & Debenardi [2] experiments, load-displacement curves

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 601
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 5: Overview of material parameters for beams T-8, T-11 from : Bosco & Debenardi [2]
Reinforcement B500H Concrete
Yield strength Strain limit[-] Compressive Tensile Fracture
[MPa] strength [MPa] strength [MPa] energy [Nm]
Test data

f y , (COV)
---
587 (0.04)

ft (COV)
0.07 27.8 – 30.9 --- ---
672 (0.02)

f yk  500 (1)
f ck  25 (1)

EC2 Analytic
(2)
f yd  459 N/A f cd  16.7 --- ---

PFM

f yd  442 f cd  16.2 f ctd  1.17

(2)
0.07 GFd  29.87

GFM

Mean
*
f ym  523 (2)
0.07 f cm*  26.6 *
f ctm  1.91 *
GFm  48.76
(2)
Char. f yk*  478 0.07 f ck*  20.4 *
f ctm  1.47 *
GFk  37.44
Full probabilistic

 1.91
(2)
Mean
*
f ym  523 0.07 f cm*  26.6 *
f ctm *
GFk  37.44

VRC  0.12  0.122  0.042

VRS  0.0452  0.0252
COV ---  0.16 VRC  0.16 VRC  0.16
 0.051

Notes:

(1) Test material properties were matched to standard steel f yk  500 MPa and concrete to f ck  25 MPa .
(2) Geometric uncertainties for steel are modified for the case od d = 565, i.e.

Vd  0.05  200 / d   0.025 ,  d  1  0.05(200 d )  0.975

23 23

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 602
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Experimental beam failing in compression by Hallgren [15]

Figure 3 : Geometry of the beam B92B from Hallgren [15]

Figure 4 : Experimental and numerical results for the beam B92B from Hallgren [15]

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 603
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 6: Overview of material parameters for beam B92B from Hallgren [15]
Reinforcement B500H Concrete
Yield strength Strain limit[-] Compressive Tensile strength Fracture
[MPa] strength [MPa] [MPa] energy [Nm]
Test data

f y , (STD)
---
631 (±5)

ft , (STD)
0.03 42.1 --- ---
749 (±7)
f yk  586 f ck  36 --- ---

EC2 Analytic
f yd  510 N/A f cd  24 --- ---

PFM
f yd  488 0.025 f cd  23.4 f ctd  2.05 GFd  44

GFM
Mean *
f ym  599 0.025 f cm*  38.2 *
f ctm  3.34 *
GFm  72

Char. f yk*  537 0.025 f ck*  29.3 *

f ctm  2.56 *
GFk  55.4

Full probabilistic
Mean *
f ym  599
(1)
0.025 f cm*  38.2 *
f ctm  3.34 *
GFk  72
(1)
COV VRS  0.0452  0.052 VRC  0.12  0.12 2  0.042
--- VRC  0.16 VRC  0.16
 0.067  0.16

Notes:
Geometric uncertainties for steel are not modified d < 200 mm

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 604
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Shear problem (Anderson & Ramirez [1])

Figure 5 :Anderson & Ramirez [1] geometry and dimensions, (1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 kip = 4.448 kN,
1 psi = 0.00689 MPa)

Figure 6 :Anderson & Ramirez [1] load displacement curves, (1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 kip = 4.448 kN,
1 psi = 0.00689 MPa)

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 605
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 7: Overview of material parameters for beam W1-W2 from Anderson & Ramirez [1]
Reinforcement B500H Concrete
Yield strength Strain limit[-] Compressive Tensile strength Fracture
[MPa] strength [MPa] [MPa] energy [Nm]
Test data

f y , (COV)
587 (0.04)

ft , (COV)
0.07 29.3 --- ---
672 (0.02)

f yk  500 (1)
f ck  25 (1)

EC2 Analytic

f yd  455 (2)
N/A f cd  16.7 --- ---

PFM

f yd  439 (2)
0.07 f cd  16.2 f ctd  1.17 GFd  29.87
GFM

 523 f cm*  26.5

(2)
Mean
*
f ym 0.07
*
f ctm  1.91 *
GFm  48.76

(2)
Char. f yk*  476 0.07 f ck*  20.4 *
f ctm  1.47 *
GFk  37.44

Full probabilistic
*
 523 f cm*  26.5 *
 1.91
(2)
Mean f ym 0.07 f ctm *
GFk  37.44
(2)
VRS  0.0452  0.0352 VRC  0.12  0.122  0.042
COV --- VRC  0.16 VRC  0.16
 0.057  0.16

Notes:

(1) Test material properties were matched to standard steel f yk  500 MPa and concrete to f ck  25 MPa .
(2) Geometric uncertainties for steel are modified for the case od d = 344, i.e.

Vd  0.05  200 / d 
23
 0.035 , d  1  0.05(200 d ) 2 3  0.965

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 606
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Punching problem :
Punching example taken from the experiments by Guandalini et al. [14]. This example is selected because it is
a slab with large thickness, i.e. representing a large structure where nonlinear analysis can be used in practice.

Figure 7 : Punching experiment by Guandalini et al. [14], PG3 experiment with dimensions B = 6 m,
rg = 2.85 m, c = 0.52 m, h = 0.5 m, reinforcement Ø16@135 mm, cover 28 mm.

Figure 8 : Results of punching experiment of Guandalini et al. [14] and numerical simulation from the
uncertainty factor calibration [10].

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 607
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 8: Overview of material parameters for slab PG3 Guandalini et al. [14]
Reinforcement B500H Concrete
Yield strength Strain Compressive Tensile strength Fracture
[MPa] strength [MPa] [MPa] energy [Nm]
limit[‐]
Test data

fy , 520

0.025 42.1 2.6 65

ft , 607

f ym 0.025 f ck 
f cm
f yk 
exp 1.645V fy  exp 1.645V fc 
 520  483  32.4
1.077 1.18
 27.5

EC2 Analytic

f yd  420 N/A f cd  18.3 --- ---

PFM

f yd  403 0.025 f cd  18.8 f ctd  1.45 G Fd  37

GFM

Mean
*
f ym  494 0.025 f cm*  30.8 *
f ctm  2.47 *
GFm  61.75

Char. f yk*  442 0.025 f ck*  23.6 *

fctm  2.12 *
GFk  53.1
Full probabilistic

Mean
*
f ym  494 0.025 f cm*  30.8 *
f ctm  2.47 *
GFk  61.75

VRC  0.12  0.122  0.042

VRS  0.0452  0.052
COV ---  0.16 VRC  0.16 VRC  0.16
 0.067

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 608
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Conclusions and comparison of the design strength values calculated by the methods from
Annex F
This section contains the comparison of design strength values calculated for the investigated examples using
the three safety formats for nonlinear analysis from Annex F. They are:
F.4 Partial factor method,
F.5 Global factor method,
F.6 Full probabilistic method.
The three methods are also compared with the standard analytical formula from the corresponding section of
the Eurocode 2. The analytical formulas are taken from a previous draft 4 of Eurocode prEN 1992-1-1.
The results are compared in two tables: Table 9 and Table 10. The first table contains the comparison of the
actual strength values in terms of the maximal loads, while the second table contains the comparison of relative
values that are normalized with respect to the analytical formula from the Eurocode.
From the result tables, it is possible to draw the following conclusions:
- for cases with clear analytical solution, which is mainly the case of bending with steel failure the nonlinear
analysis provides same results as the analytical solutions,
- for other situations the nonlinear analysis provides slightly more conservative results than the analytical
formulas. This is however a desirable situation since it can be expected that nonlinear analysis will be
mainly used in situations when analytical formulas are not valid or can be applied only with strong
simplifying assumptions,
- GFM method provides always results on the safe side with the exception of the punching case. However,
after the application of the clause F.7(8) even for this case conservative results are obtained,
- it can be observed that more conservative results from the nonlinear analysis are obtained mainly in the
cases when concrete crushing is observed, i.e. bending with crushing, shear with concrete crushing and
punching example. This results is strongly related to the used software where the default software
settings assume rather conservative brittle behaviour of concrete during compressive softening, i.e.
crushing. This shows the importance of the sensitivity and validation studies that should be performed for
each software or material model to be used in structural assessments according to Annex F as they are
described in clauses: F.3(3) and F.7.
It should be noted that currently the results are slightly inconsistent as the material parameters for first 4
examples were calculated with the previous version of Annex A (N 222) while in the case of the last punching
example the Annex A version (N 0267) was used as is explained in the footnote on page 3. The changes in
Annex A are however minor and it should not significantly affect the main results and conclusions of this
document.

Table 9 : Comparison of design strength obtained by various methods

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 609
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Example Exp. EC2 - Draft 4 PFM GFM Full

Analytic [kN] [kN] [kN]
[kN]
Bending
Bending
41 40 40 41
steel failure 50
 Rd  1.01  Rd  1.01  Rd  1.01
T8-A1 [2]
Bending
concrete 21  21   1.01 23   1.01
34.2 Bending - 22  1.01 Rd Rd
crushing Rd

B92B1-42 [14]
Shear
Bending/shear
Bending - 296 214   1.01 229   1.01 244   1.01
concrete Rd Rd Rd
380 Shear - 223
crushing 191  204   1.13 218   1.13
 1.13
[  38 ] Rd Rd Rd
T11-A1 [2]
Shear 316 [   30 ]
W1-W2 460-
217 [   40 ] 228   1.13 211   1.13
Rd
240   1.13
Rd
Anderson & 549 Rd

Ramirez [1] 182 [   45 ]

Punching
Punching 1382  1392  (1)
1432 
2153 1661  1.16  1.31  1.16
Guandalini [10] Rd Rd Rd

Table 10 : Comparison of design strength obtained by various methods

Example Exp. EC2 - Draft 4 PFM GFM Full
Analytic [kN] [kN] [kN]
[kN]
Bending
Bending
steel failure 1.22 1 0.98 0.98 1.0
T8-A1 [2]
Bending
concrete crushing 1.55 1 0.95 0.95 1.05
B92B1-42 [14]
Shear
Bending/shear
concrete crushing 1.70 1 0.85 0.91 0.98
T11-A1 [2]
Shear
W1-W2 Anderson & 2.32 1 1.05 0.97 1.10
Ramirez [1]
Punching
Punching Guandalini [10] 1.30 1 0.83 0.84 0.86

Notes :
(1) Model uncertainty factor is increased by 15% according to the clause F.7(8)

[1] Anderson, N.S. & Ramirez, J.A. 1989. Detailing of stirrup rein-forcement. ACI Structural Journal 86(5):
References

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 610
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex F - Examples Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

507-515.
[2] Bosco C. & Debenardi, P. G. 1993. Influence of some basic parameters on the plastic rotation of
reinforced elements. Ductility requirements for structural Concrete - Reinforcement. Comite Eruo-
international du Breton. CEB bulletin 218. pp25-44
[3] CEB-FIP (Comité Euro International du Béton; Fédération International de la Précontraint). CEB-FIB
Model Code 1990: Design Code. London: Thomas Telford.
[4] P. Castaldo, D. Gino, G. Bertagnoli, G. Mancini (2018): Partial safety factor for resistance model
uncertainties in 2D non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete structures, Engineering Structures, 176,
746-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.041.
[5] P. Castaldo, D. Gino, G. Bertagnoli, G. Mancini (2020): Resistance model uncertainty in non-linear
finite element analyses of cyclically loaded reinforced concrete systems, Engineering Structures,
211(2020), 110496, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110496
[6] Cervenka J, Pappanikolaou V. Three dimensional combined fracture-plastic material model for
concrete. Int J Plast 2008;24(12):2192–220. https://doi.org/10, 1016/j.ijplas.2008.01.004.
[7] Cervenka, V., Cervenka, J., Jendele, L., ATENA Program Documentation, Part 1: Theory, Cervenka
Consulting s.r.o., 2020, www.cervenka.cz
[8] Cervenka, V.: Global Safety Format for Nonlinear Calculation of Reinforced Concrete. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 103, (2008), special edition, Ernst & Sohn, pp. 37–42.
[9] Cervenka, V., Reliability-based non-linear analysis according to Model Code 2010, Journal of FIB,
Structural Concrete 01/2013, pp.19-28
[10] Cervenka V, Cervenka J, Kadlec L. Model uncertainties in numerical simulations of reinforced concrete
structures. Structural Concrete 2018;19(6):2004–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700287.
[11] Engen M, Hendriks MAN, Köhler J, Øverli JA, Åldtstedt E. A quantification of modelling uncertainty for
non-linear finite element analysis of large concrete structures. Structural Safety 2017; 64: 1-8.
[12] Gino D., Castaldo, P., Mancini, G., Background document to Annex F, Safety formats for nonlinear
analysis, CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG6, 28. 11. 2022
[13] Gino, D., Castaldo, P., Giordano, L., Mancini, G., Model uncertainty in nonlinear numerical analyses of
slender reinforced concrete members. Structural Concrete. 2021;1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202000600
[14] Guandalini S, Burdet OL, Muttoni A. Punching tests of slabs with low reinforcement ratios. ACI Struct J.
2009;106:87–95.
[15] Hallgren M., Flexural and Shear Capacity of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beams without
Stirrups, TRITA-BKN, Bulletin 9, 1994, ISSN 1103-4270
[16] JCSS, (2001), JCSS Probabilistic Model Code, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, ISBN 978-3-
909386-79-6
[17] ModelCode 2010, fib Lausanne, Ernst & Sohn: Switzerland, 2011

List of versions of this document

05. 02. 2020. 1st draft
23. 02. 2020 2nd draft
28. 02. 2020 3rd draft
21. 03. 2023 editorial update to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J. Cervenka
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 611
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4 FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Background Document to Annex G:

Design of membrane-, shell- and slab
elements

Linh C. Hoang Technical University of Denmark

22.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 612
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared to clarify the background for the provisions introduced in subsections G.3 -
G.5 of Annex G in FprEN-1992-1-1:2023. The subsections provide methods for ULS design of membrane-,
shell-, and slab elements and SLS analysis of membrane elements.

Reasons for change

In the 1st generation of EC2 (EN 1992-1-1:2004) the provisions for ULS design of membrane elements is found
in Annex F: Tension reinforcement expression for in-plane stress conditions. However, Annex F is incomplete
(only formulas for the case Edx > Edy are provided) and provisions to calculate the efficiency factor  were not
provided. Furthermore, it does not appear clearly (e.g. by means of cross references) in EN 1992-1-1:2004 that
the method of Annex F and the methods for shear- and torsion in subsections 6.2.3 and 6.3 in fact are based on
the same approach grounded on limit analysis. For users in practice, this lack of information has had the
consequence that it is not obvious that e.g. problems with shear in members with large compressive axial
forces could be treated by combining subsection 6.2.3 with Annex F. Finally, EN 1992-1-1:2004 does not have
provisions for ULS design of shell- and slab elements.
In FprEN-1992-1-1:2023 the Annex F of EN 1992-1-1:2004 has been renamed Annex G and the content has
been expanded. In the process of developing this new Annex G, the main aims of Task Group TG4 have been:
1) To include methods for design of shell- and slab elements, which is fully consistent with the
theoretical background for the existing formulas for design of membranes
2) To have a general Annex G, which could serve as a reference point for the specific provisions for
member design in Section 8
With regard to aim 2), TG4 has worked with the roadmap illustrated in Figure 1 showing the framework for ULS
design of members with adequate deformation capacity. The general rules in Annex G can be related to specific
cases treated in Section 8 as shown by the roadmap. Topics written in red font are new and not treated in EN
1992-1-1:2004. The provisions for the new topics have largely been formulated to be consistent with Annex G.
Furthermore, cross references from various parts in Section 8 to Annex G will make it much more clear
(compared to EN 1992-1-1:2004), that the various provisions are based on the same lower bound approach of
plasticity theory.

Figure 1: Roadmap to link the various provisions in Section 8 with Annex G. Topics written in red font are new
and not included in EN 1992-1-1:2004.

Consistency with provisions for shear in beams requiring shear reinforcement

To demonstrate the link between Annex G and the provisions in Section 8 as illustrated in Figure 1, a simple
design example is provided in the following. Figure 2 shows a cantilevered beam subjected to a point load,
which is assumed to be transferred to the end of the beam by mean of a strong diaphragm (to make the
boundary condition simpler). Design of this beam to carry the shear force V can be performed by use of
Equations (G.3) – (G.5) in Annex G. The procedure is shown in Figure 3, where free body diagrams of the
beam web and the tension- and compression chord are shown. Here, the web can be considered as a
membrane element subjected to pure shear  = V/bz. By using Eqs. (G.3) – (G.5), it is possible to calculate the
required distributed reinforcement in the x- and in the y- direction as well as the compression stress c. The
calculations appear in Figure 3. For shallow beams, it is not common practice to supply a distributed

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 613
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

reinforcement in the x-direction. The total amount of required reinforcement in this direction, which carries a
tension force of the magnitude F = Vcot, can however be re-allocated to the positions of the chords. Hence,
half of the horizontal reinforcement (i.e. ½Vcotis allocated to the tension chord while the other half is
allocated to the compression chord as a reduction of the compression force. The re-allocation is illustrated in
Figure 4. As can be seen in Figure 4, the re-allocation of the horizontal reinforcement leads to the same design,
as if the beam was designed using subsection 8.2.3, where the shift-rule required ½Vcotto be added
(subtracted) to the tension (compression) chord.

Figure 2: Example, cantilever beam with point load

Figure 3: Free body diagrams and design scheme for cantilever beam using the method of Annex G

Figure 4: Free body diagram and design scheme for cantilever beam using the method of Subsection 8.2.3.

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 614
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Subsection G.3 – Table G.1

In contrast to Annex F in EN 1992-1-1:2004, the full set of equations to determine the optimum reinforcement in
membrane elements is now given in Table G.1. This enhances the ease-of-use and furthermore reduces the
risk of misinterpretation when used for design in combination with FEM analysis. The theoretical background for
the equations in Table G.1 have been explained in details in e.g. reference [2]. It should be noted that these
equations have been implemented in many commercial Finite Element software packages.

Clause G.3(3), Expressions (G.6) and (G.7)

When the reinforcement is designed by use of Expressions (G.3 – G.5) and depending on the choice of cot,
redistribution of stresses and rotation of strut angle will take place as the load increases to the ultimate load. To
limit cracking in SLS and to ensure deformation capacity without explicit check, limitations have to be imposed
on the extent of stress redistributions. Expressions (G.6) and (G.7) provide these limitations. These limits are
more liberal than those found in EN 1992-1-1:2004 Annex F, and are introduced to be consistent with the
limitations provided in Subsections 8.2.3 and 8.3. For example in the case of a membrane subjected to pure
shear, limiting ftdx to 2,5f*tdx and ftdy to 0,4f*tdy would be the same as adopting the limiting value cot = 2,5 (1/cot
= 0,4), which is exactly the limit imposed in Clause 8.2.3(3) for shear design and in Clause 8.3.4(4) for torsion
design.

Clause G.3(5) - G.3(7)

Expression (G.9) provides a refined way to calculate the efficiency factor , which accounts for the extent of
transverse cracking. This expression is identical to the one given in clause 8.2.3(6) for beam shear design.
Reference is made to the background document to subsection 8.2.3 for further explanations, [1].
Instead of expression (G.9), a default value of  = 0,4 (expression (G.8)) may be adopted. This value is lower
than the default value of 0,5 proposed in Clause 8.2.3(5) for beam shear, however, higher than provided by the
Expression (G.9) when cot = 2,5 is used in conjunction with the simple estimates/guidelines provided in clause
G.3(7). The main reason for this difference is that when calculating  for beams, the gradient of normal strains
in the cross section may be taken into account allowing the use of only half of the tensile strain in the
longitudinal reinforcement to estimate  (see [1]). It is noted that for beam shear, the simple approach
recommends to use  = 0,4 when verifying the compression field in the vicinity of a plastic hinges. This
guideline appears in the commentary text to clause 8.2.3(5) in the draft D6 of prEN-1992-1-1:2020.
Because of the dependency on the transverse strain, 1, Expression (G.9) is mostly suitable for implementation
in a numerical framework (non-linear finite element modelling) where calculation of deformations is an
integrated part of the analysis. However, to enhance the ease-of-use in manual calculations, clause G.3(7)
provides Expressions (G.10) and (G.11) to estimate 1. These expressions are based on the condition of strain
compatibility and on the assumption of smeared cracks, see also [1]. Furthermore, in these expressions, the
minor principal strain, i.e. the compression strain in the concrete strut, has as an approximation been taken as a
constant c = 0,001.
In order to estimate 1, the designer/user has to know the value of either x or y (the normal strains in the
direction of the reinforcement). In a design situation, these values can be obtained by following the guidelines
(a) – (d) in clause G.3(7). Basically, once the value of cot has been chosen for design, then either x or y can
be estimated depending on how the stress redistribution takes place when the load increases from zero to the
ultimate state. Three scenarios for stress redistributions exists:
1) No stress redistributions at all
2) Stress redistributions take place by rotation of strut toward the x-axis.
3) Stress redistributions take place by rotation of strut toward the y-axis.
Scenario 1) is relevant when reinforcement is not required in one of the two directions (i.e. for shear combined
with large axial compression in one of the two directions) – see e.g. the second and the third row in Table G.1.
Hence, assuming a fully utilized reinforcement design, the reinforcement stress will reach the yield stress when
the load increases to the ultimate state. This means that in this case the reinforcement strain (either x or y)
may be taken as the yield strain when inserting into Expression (G.10) or (G.11). This scenario is covered by
the guideline (a) in clause G.3(7). If more reinforcement than needed is supplied, the strain may be reduced
accordingly, which is covered by the guideline (d). Scenario 1) is also relevant when Table G.1 is used for
cases where reinforcement is required in both directions (i.e. when the membrane is loaded in pure shear or
shear-tension). In this case, the optimal stress field inclination is cot = 1, which will not change in a
proportional loading scheme. Again, if the reinforcement is fully utilized, both direction of reinforcement will
reach the yield stress at the same time when the load increases to the ultimate state. This means that x and y
may be taken as the yield strain. In this case, Expressions (G.10) and (G.11) will lead to identical result. This
case is covered by guideline (b) in clause G.3(7).
The guideline (b) also covers scenarios 2) and 3). Consider for example a case with pure shear, where the
chosen strut inclination corresponds to, say, cot= 2. This will lead to a design (see Expression (G.3) and
(G.4)), where the reinforcement content in the y-direction is only 25% of the amount supplied in the x-direction,

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 615
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

i.e. x = 4y. With this design, and in a proportional loading scheme, the weak reinforcement (i.e. y) will start to
yield long before the load reaches the ultimate state. Once the weak reinforcement yields, redistribution of
stresses takes place by rotation of the strut to a flatter angle (scenario 2) while the concrete stress, c,
increases and while the stress in the strong reinforcement (x) increases as well. At the final state,  = 26,6o
corresponding to cot= 2 and the strong reinforcement reaches the yield stress. In this case, x can therefore
be taken as the yield strain while y is larger, but unknown. The opposite will be the case, if instead the design
is based on cot= ½, which will lead to scenario 3).
In order to avoid a situation where the approach leads to too conservative (small) values of , guideline (c) has
been included. Guideline (c) in Clause G.3(7) covers the important situations, where the assumption of zero
tensile strength in the concrete (which is the basis for the Expressions (G.3) – (G.5)) simply lead to a large
estimate of the transverse strain and thereby too small a -value. This issue can be illustrated by the following
example:
Example:
Assume: fyk = 500 MPa, fck = 30 MPa and fctk = 2 MPa (no partial coefficient)

Case 1:  x;  y ; xy    0;0;9  MPa

Case 2:  x;  y ; xy    8; 8;9.5  MPa

The calculations are performed without partial coefficients. Both cases require according to table G.1 tension
reinforcement (ftdx = ftdy = 9 MPa for case 1 and ftdx = ftdy = 1.5 MPa for case 2) and cot = 1. Since the tensile
strength of concrete is neglected, then reinforcement has to yield in both cases and therefore, 1 and thus also
will in both cases assume the same value. This gives when guideline (b) together with Expressions
(G.9) –(G. 11) are used. The consequence is that in case 1, we can verify the compressive strength (c = 2xy =
18 MPa < fc = 0.61*30 = 18.3 MPa) while in case 2 we cannot (c = 2xy = 19 MPa > 18.3 MPa). The fact is,
however, that in case 2, we actually have a higher efficiency factor because the required tension reinforcement
provides a tensile strength (ftdx = ftdy = 1.5 MPa) smaller than the tensile strength of the concrete. The member is
therefore un-cracked. Therefore, in this case 1 to be inserted into Expression (G.9) should not be determined
by taking x and y as the yield strain for of the reinforcement. The most appropriate value forx and y would in
this case be fct/Ec. This would lead to an increase of to ca. 0.89 leading to c < fc.
It should here be noted, that Section 12 (Table 12.4) of FprEN-1992-1-1:2023 provides rules for minimum
reinforcement in walls designed according to Annex G. The minimum requirements may in some situations lead
to higher reinforcement demands than what is necessary according to Annex G. The reason for this is that the
method of Annex G requires the member to have an appropriate deformation capacity ensured through the
possibility to have a distributed crack pattern (smeared cracks). The suggested minimum reinforcement in Table
12.4 (0,25Ac*fctm/fyk on each surface) corresponds well with tests, see e.g. ref. [13].

Verification of expression (G.9)

To demonstrate the validity of Expression (G.9), test results for reinforced membranes subjected to pure shear
have been compared to the calculated strength. When performing the calculations, the yield condition for
membranes have been used, see Figure 5. It is noted that the yield condition and the design formulas in Table
G.1 are based on the same theoretical model. While the yield condition predicts the capacity based on known
reinforcement content, the design formulas predict the required reinforcement content based on known actions.
The so-called tension conical yield surface (protruding from 1st quadrant) in Figure 5 can in fact be obtained by
manipulations with the Expressions in Table G.1.
The calculation procedure used to compare predicted and tested strength are described below. Reference is
made to [2] for detailed explanations of the capacity expressions to be presented.

Figure 5: Yield condition for reinforced concrete membrane elements (from [2])
Due to the fact that the -factor (G.9) depends on the transverse strain and thereby the stress field inclination,
an iterative procedure must be used to calculate the shear capacity of membranes. In the following calculation

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 616
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

scheme, it is assumed that the reinforcement capacity in the x-direction is larger than the one in the y-direction,
i.e.  x f y , x   y f y , y (notation of Annex G). This assumption means that in case there is redistribution of
stresses, it will be the weak reinforcement (in the y-direction) that undergoes strains larger than the yield strain
while the strain in the strong reinforcement (in the x-direction) will be uniquely defined at the ultimate state. The
procedure includes the following steps:
----------ooOOoo----------
Step 1:
Make an initial guess of 

Step 2:
Calculate the mechanical reinforcement degrees:

 x f y,x  y f y, y
x  ; y 
 f c*  f c*
where

1

f c*  cc f c & cc  min  40 MPa
 
1/3
 fc
Here, cc is the brittleness factor as defined in clause 5.1.6(1) of prEN-1992-1-1:2021.

Step 3:
Calculate the shear capacity, u, the strut inclination, , and reinforcement strain, x, according to following
scheme:

IF: x  y 1:

x f y,x
 u   f c*  x  y ; cot   ;  sx  f y , x  x 
y Es

IF: x   y  1:

 *
 f c  y 1   y   ;  y  0.5

u  
1
  f c* ;  y  0.5
2

 1 
  y  ;  y  0.5
cot    y

1 ;  y  0.5

 f c* cos 2    sx
 sx   x 
x Es

Step 4:

Calculate and updated the value of :

1

1  1101
where:

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 617
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

1   x  ( x  0,001)cot 2 

Step 5:

Repeat steps 1 – 4 until the value in step 4 equals the value in step 1.

----------ooOOoo----------
Calculations have been carried out for benchmark test series published by Vecchio & Collins; Yamaguchi &
Naganuma; Vecchio et al.; Pang & Hsu and Zhang & Hsu [3 –7].

In order to evaluate Expression (G.9), only test specimens where the predicted strength is governed by
concrete crushing, combined with yielding of the reinforcement in the y-direction or combined with no rebar
yielding at all, are interesting. Specimens where the predicted strength is governed by yielding of reinforcement
in both directions (see solution above for the case  x   y  1 ) are not interesting, since this case is not
critical to concrete crushing.

The obtained results can be seen in Figures 6 – 10 where the ratio between tested and calculated shear
strength has been plotted versus strength parameters (y and fc) and calculated parameters (sx, cotand 1),
each one having and influence on the -value. Note that in the figures, the term “orthotropic reinforcement”
means  x f y , x   y f y, y While “isotropic reinforcement” means  x f y , x   y f y , y .For all tests, the mean

value of test/cal is 0.96 with a standard deviation of 13%.

Figure 6: test /cal. vs. mechanical reinforcement degree, y, for the weak reinforcement direction

Figure 7: test /cal. vs. calculated level of tension stress in reinforcement along the x-axis (not yielding)

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 618
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Figure 8: test /cal. vs. calculated 1st transverse strain in the concrete

Figure 9: test /cal. vs. cylinder compresion strength of test specimens

Figure 10: test /cal. vs. calculated value of cot

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 619
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Clause G.4(1)-(2)
To have an approach for design of shell elements, which is consistent with the provisions for membrane
elements, subsection G.4 adopt a classical sandwich model. This makes it possible to establish a set of
membrane stresses in the two layers of the sandwich model, which are statically equivalent with the in-plane
forces and the torsional and bending moments acting on the shell elements. Calculation of the reinforcement in
the two layers can then be performed according to subsection G.3.

Clause G.4(5)
For slabs, i.e. shells without in-plane forces, explicit design formulas are provided in Expressions (G.18-G.21)
as well as in Tables G.2 and G.3. The formulas and the rules for limitation of redistribution of moments are
analog to those applied to membrane elements. The theoretical background for these formulas may be found in
e.g. [2]. It is noted that the formulas in Tables G.2 and G.3 have been implemented in a number of commercial
finite element software packages. Finally, it is noted that there is a limitation on the torsional moment, |MEdxy | <
0,07d2fcd, which has to be fulfilled when using the Expressions (G.18 – G.21) to calculate the required
reinforcement. This is necessary because these expressions assume that the reinforcement required to carry
bending as well as torsion can be obtained from a classical sectional analysis. However, the torsional capacity
for slabs can be significantly lower than the flexural capacity if the reinforcement content is high. This is so
because there is a different in the internal lever arm for the two cases. Furthermore, in the case of torsion there
is a reduction of the concrete compression strength due to transverse cracking at the top as well as at the
bottom of the slab. The procedure to calculate the torsional capacity of slabs in a more accurate manner can be
found in e.g. Section 7.3 of Ref. [2]. Figure 11 shows calculated flexural capacity (mR) and calculated torsional
capacity (tR) of an isotropic reinforced slab element. As can be seen, for relatively low reinforcement content, mR
and tR are practically the same. This tendency continues up to a capacity of approximately mR = tR = 0,07d2fcd.
As the reinforcement content increases, much smaller torsional capacity is obtained compared to the
corresponding flexural capacity. Hence, for torsional moments larger than approximately 0,07d2fcd, it is unsafe to
use a flexural sectional analysis to calculate the reinforcement needed to carry combinations of bending and
torsion.

Figure 11: Calculated flexural capacity (mR) and torsional capacity (tR) of isotropic reinforced slab element. The
calculation of tR follows the procedure in [2], where As denotes the reinforcement area per unit length of the slab
cross section. The results are valid for  = 0.6 and d/h = 0,84, where h is the total depth.

Clause G.5
Clause G.5 provides guidelines for calculation of crack widths in membrane elements with skew cracks. The
provisions apply when the skew cracks have an inclination, , which is larger than 15o with the reinforcement
axes.

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 620
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Figure 12: Fully rotational model showing normal strains in reinforced membrane element (averaged over
distance containing several skew cracks) and normal strains in the concrete between two cracks.

The provisions of Clause G.5 are primarily based on the Cracked Membrane Model [8], where the following
main assumptions should be mentioned:
1) The skew cracks are the result of a stress state that includes a diagonal compression field in the
concrete and tension in the reinforcement bars.
2) The reinforcement content is sufficient to ensure a smeared crack system (i.e. formation of more than
just one skew crack)
3) The direction of the compression field coincides with the direction of the cracks (rotating crack model
with stress free cracks)
4) Average total strains in the cracked membrane element = sum of average strains in concrete and
average strains due to crack opening.
5) Effect of tension stiffening is estimated based on a rigid-plastic bond model (bond between rebars and
concrete)
Figure 12 illustrates a cracked membrane element, which fulfills the above-mentioned assumptions. Here, 1
and 2 are the average principal strains (total strains) of the cracked element when measured over several
cracks while c1 and c2 are the average principal concrete strains between cracks. Due to the assumption 3), 2
= c2. Based on assumptions 3) and 4) it is possible to estimate the crack width, w, from the relationship: w/s =
(1 - c1), where s is the spacing between the skew cracks. Transformation from mean crack width to calculated
crack width, wk,cal, takes place by means of the factor kw defined in Clause 9.2.3(2) of FprEN-1992-1-1:2023.
Annex G provides Equation (G.22) to estimate the mean spacing between the skew cracks. This equation is
identical to Equation (5.12) in [8] as well as the one introduced in the fib model code 2010 [9]. The above-
mentioned strain difference (1 - c1) is in Annex G denoted as (sm - cm) and given by Equation (G.23). It is
noted that the right-hand side of Equation (G.23), with input parameters given in Equations (G.24) – (G.26), has
been deliberately written in a format that as much as possible resembles the format of Equation (9.11) in FprEN-
1992-1-1:2023 for the case of uniaxial tension. However, these equations are in fact the result of a
decomposition and rearrangement of the Equation (5.22) in [8] derived from the Cracked Membrane Model, in
which the Poisson’s ratio of concrete is assumed to be zero and where (1- ) has been approximate with (1- )
~ 1 (assuming the reinforcement ratio to be much smaller than unity). For details, the reader is referred to [8]. It
should be noted that in many practical situations, the term |2| in (G.23) is small compared to the other two
terms and may therefore be neglected. Finally, it is noted that the upper limit (1-kt)s/Es in Equations (G.24-25)
has been introduced to achieve consistency with Equation (9.11) and with experimental results. However, unlike
the case of uniaxial tension (i.e. Equation (9.11)), where the effective tensile strength of concrete is taken as fctm,
Equations (G.24-25) assume fct,eff = 0,5fctm. This value has been recommended here because many membrane
shear test series (see e.g. [13]) have shown that transition from un-cracked to cracked element takes place
already when the major principal stress 1 is in the order of 0,5 – 0,6fctm. The introduction of fct,eff = 0,5fctm in
Annex G is consistent with Table 12.4, where the rules for minimum reinforcement in walls subjected to in-plane
normal and shear stresses are based on fct,eff = 0,5fctm.
The inclination,, of the skew cracks may be determined by use of Equation (G.27). This equation simply
expresses the compatibility condition of a fully cracked membrane element (concrete tensile strength neglected)
subjected in-plane stresses x, y and xy. The equation can e.g. be derived by minimizing the complementary
elastic energy of the membrane element.
Calculated crack widths according to Clause G.5 (and with kw = 1.7, see Equation (9.8)) have been compared
with the maximum observed crack widths in membrane tests extracted from refs. [6, 10 - 12]. The results are
shown in Figure 13. When assuming a lognormal distribution, the mean value of the test-to-calculation ratio is
0,86 with a standard deviation of 0,41.

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 621
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

Figure 13: Calculated crack width compared with observed maximum crack widths in selected membrane tests

References

[1] Muttoni A, Ruiz MF, Pejatovic M: Background document to subsection 8.2.3 – Members requiring
design shear reinforcement. CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG4, February 2021.
[2] Nielsen, MP, and Hoang, LC.: Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity. Third edition, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 796 pp.
[3] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP: The response of reinforced concrete to in plane shear and normal stresses.
The Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada, 1982.
[4] Yamaguchi T, Naganuma K.: Experimental study on mechanical characteristics of reinforced
concrete panels subjected to in-plane shear force . Journal of Struct. Constr. Engng., AIJ, No. 419,
1991.
[5] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP, Aspiotos J: High-Strength Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear. ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4, July - August 1994. pp. 423-433.
[6] Pang XB, Hsu TTC: Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements in Shear. ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 92, No. 6, Nov - December 1995. pp. 665-679.
[7] Zhang LX, Hsu TTC : Behaviour and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 1, Jan. 1998, pp. 24 – 34
[8] Kaufmann W: Strength and deformations of structural concrete subjected to in-plane shear and
normal forces. Doctoral thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, Institute of Structural
Engineering, 1998.
[9] Federation international du beton: fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Ernst & Sohn, 2013.
[10] Proestos, GT: Influence of high-strength reinforcing bars on the behaviour of reinforced concrete
nuclear containment structures subjected to shear. MSc-thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Toronto; 2014.
[11] Marti P, Meyboom J: Response of prestressed concrete elements to in-plane shear forces. ACI Struct
J 1992;89(5):503–14.
[12] Dyngeland T: Behaviour of reinforced concrete panels. PhD-thesis, Department of Structural
Engineering. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology; 1989.
[13] Beck A: Paradigms of shear in structural concrete: Theoretical and experimental investigation.
Doctoral thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, Institute of Structural Engineering,
2021.

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 622
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex G Background to FprEN 1992-1-1: 2023

List of versions of this document

05.05.2021 1st draft, only background for ULS design
01.06. 2021 The 2nd draft includes background for Clause G.5(1) as well as guidelines for how to calculate the strain difference (sm--cm).
Title has been slightly modified.
22.12. 2022 The 3rd draft includes an update of the background for Clauses G.4(5) and G.5 in order to reflex the changes that were
introduced in the Formal Vote version as compared to the Enquiry version of the code. Professor Walter Kaufmann (ETH
Zurich) has kindly provided the theoretical input to G.5 and Dr. Reignad Tan (MultiConsult) has put great efforts in
performing the comparison of model with test results.
22.03.2023 editorial update to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

L. C. Hoang 22.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 623
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex H

Guidance on design of concrete structures
for water-tightness

Alejandro Pérez Caldentey FHECOR, Spain

10.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 624
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex H Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
The content of Annex H is mainly taken from EN 1992-3:2006. The content of this standard relating to water-
retaining structures has been incorporated into FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, part of in into Annex H, and part of it
into Section 9.2.3. In this background document this rearrangement of content will be documented. Parts of
EN 1992-3:2006 dealing with containment structures were discarded as CEN-TC250/SC2 considered that
this content was not concrete-specific and design issues of such structures built using concrete could be dealt
with using the content of the general part. For this reason, the scope of Annex H is limited to water-tightness
of concrete structures, although it may also be used for other liquids if it can be shown that their behaviour is
similar to that of water.
Some new content is provided by suggestion of a systematic review comment to EN 1992-1-1:2004 by the
Belgian Mirror Group. The suggestion was to reinstate content for ENV 1992-4:1998 regarding the calculation
of the leakage rate through cracks. The derivation of this proposal is also documented and discussed in this
BD.

Annex H Reasons for change

The integration of EN 1992-3:2006 into FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 is intended to increase ease-of-use and
consistency of Eurocode formulations on cracking. This allows a reduction in the document’s volume. For
instance, sections 2. Basis of Design, 3. Materials, 4. Durability, 5. Analysis, 8. Detailing provisions, 9.
Detailing of members and particular rules are not needed. Likewise, section 7.2.3, 7.2.4 and Annex M are
already covered by the general cracking model in Section 9.2.3.
Other paragraphs have been deleted due to the reduction in the scope. This is the case of Section 6, which
deals with dust explosions (and is not concrete-specific). Annex K which deals with the effects of low and
high temperatures on concrete is also deleted. If its contents were to be retained, they should be incorporated
into Section 5.
Annex L, dealing with simplified values of the restraint factor, has been deleted. The reasons for this are the
following:
– The Annex provides figures which take significant space and have a limited scope of application.
Such figures are better suited to be included in application guides.
– The restraint factor can be readily obtained from linear elastic FEM without significant effort, given
today’s computation means.

Enhancement of ease of use

As stated above, the integration of the most significant aspects of EN 1992-3:2006 into FprEN 1992:2023
increases ease of use by integrating into Section 9.2.3 important concepts related with imposed restrained
deformations such as how the element is restrained (at the edges or at the ends, or a mixture of both). This
makes the formulation for cracking more general and also serves as an early warning to engineers that such
concepts are to be accounted for. This integration is in line with the integration of the part on bridges into the
main text with a short annex for bridge particularities decided within TC 250/SC2 and finally approved by TC
250. The intention is to foster object-independent rules for design of concrete structures.

H.4.1 Classification Water Tightness Classes

Table H.1, which defines tightness classes is the same as Table 7.105 of EN 1992-3:2006. It provides a
useful classification of the expected performance of the structure with respect to water-leakage and allows to
regulate the corresponding design:
 For Tightness Class 0, normal crack width limits according to Section 9.2.1 are sufficient:
 For Tightness Class 1, for which a small amount of leakage as well as surface staining or damp
patches are accepted, through cracks are allowed to form, but the crack width is limited according
to the ratio of the hydraulic head to the thickness of the wall of the retaining structure. Also, a new
formulation to estimate water flow has been proposed in order to establish a quantitative measure
of what “a small amount of leakage” entails (see next section).
 For Tightness Class 2, for which appearance is not to be impaired by leakage, no through cracks
are allowed, unless other measures such as a lining or a water barrier are incorporated into design
 Finally, for Tightness Class 3, no leakage is permitted. This requires the use of a liner or the
avoidance of cracking by prestressing.

H.4.2 Tightness New formulation for leakage rate

Requirements
The new formulation for leakage rate was proposed by the Belgian Mirror Group and is based on assuming
a laminar flow through a crack that is assumed to have a rectangular section whose width is equal to an
equivalent crack width (wk,cal,e) and whose height is equal to the length of the crack (lw,p).

Pérez Caldentey 10.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 625
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex H Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

In order to derive the proposed expression (for the basic equation see (Vennard, 1947)), consider the
equilibium condition of a mass of water centered around the crack axis, as shown in Fig. 1. h is the depth of
the wall, and p1 and p2 are the water pressures at either end of the wall.


2 p1lw, p y x 2 p2 l w , p y


y
h

Fig. 1 Forces acting on a cylinder of water flowing through the crack

The equilibrium of forces acting on the water prism is as follows, where y represents half the height of the
water volume, and p= p2-p1 is the pressure difference:

y y
2 lw, p h  2plw, p y    p  p (1)
h h
This equation shows that the shear stress is proportional to the distance from the centre of the crack.

v=0

wk,cal,e vc
x

Fig. 2 Variation of velocity of flow as a function of the distance form an edge (taken from ref. [1])
Fig. 2 shows that the velocity of flow increases as the distance from an edge increases. At the edge the
velocity is zero. This variation in velocity is due to the existence of a shear stress between fluid layers. It has
been found, by experimental evidence, that this shear stress is proportional to the gradient of velocity in the
direction perpendicular to the flow. The constant of proportionality is known as the coefficient of viscosity (or
just viscosity for short) and is represented by symbol .

dv dv
     (2)
dy dy
By combining expressions (1) and (2) and applying them to a thin rectangular pipe of width wk,cal,e the following
differential equation is obtained

y dv
  p   
h dy
y v
y p
 h 0
p dy  dv  ydy    dv 
h vc
(3)
p y 2
 vc  v  v  vc  Ky 2
h 2
wk ,cal ,e 4  y2 
y v0K  vc  v  vc 1  4 2 
2 wk2,cal ,e  wk ,cal ,e 

The mean velocity of water in the pipe, can be determined from the definition of flow rate:

Pérez Caldentey 10.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 626
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex H Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

wk ,cal ,e

2
y2 
q  wk ,cal ,elw, p vm   vdA  lw, p  vc 1  4 2  dy
 wk ,cal ,e 
A

wk ,cal ,e 
2
wk ,cal ,e
 4 y3  2 2 (4)
 lw, p vc  y  2   vc wk ,cal ,elw, p
 3 wk ,cal ,e   wk ,cal ,e 3
2

3 2
 vc  vm  vm  vc
2 3
From Eq. (3), by using the formula for the velocity at y=wk,cal,e/2, where v=0, an expression can be obtained
for the flow rate, accounting for the definition of q as the section area times the mean velocity:
2
p wk ,cal ,e 3 3 q
 vm  
h 8 2 2 l p , w wk ,cal ,e
(5)
1 l 1
q  wk3,cal ,e p p , w
12 h 
This equation, which is the classical equation for Poiseuille flow between two parallel planes, is similar to Eq.
(A107.1) of ENV 1992-4:1998. However, the coefficient proposed by this Standard is 1/50 (instead of 1/12),
with a value that can be increased from 1/50 to 0 in cracks with a calculated crack width smaller than 0.2 mm
where self-healing occurs.
The difference in the coefficient is in that the derivation does not account for the tortuosity and roughness of
the cracks. For small cracks, such roughness would represent a significant part of the channel width.
(Chivers, 2002) [1] presents a study of the influence of roughness of the crack on the flow rate. Based on
(Jones, Wooten, & Kaluza, T.J., 1988) [2], (Button, Grogan, Chivers, & Manning, 1978) [2] and (Gardiner &
Tyrrell, 1968) [4], (Chivers, 2002) fixes an upper bound for the friction coefficient (f) in Darcy’s equation for
laminar flow equal to 96/Re, where Re is Reynolds number.
Based on this value, an alternative derivation can be made directly from Darcy’s empirical equation, adapted
for the case of a thin rectangular section (see Eq. (6)).

p h vm2
hL   f (6)
 water g wk ,cal ,e g
where:
f is Darcy’s friction coefficient
g is the acceleration of gravity on earth
Reynolds’ number can be expressed as follows for the case of a narrow rectangular pipe:

 water
Re  v w (7)
 m k ,cal ,e
Substituting the upper bound value of f in Eq.(6), and accounting for the expression of Reynold’s number, the
proposal of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 can be readily derived, as shown in Eq. (8).

p 96 h vm2 96 h vm2

 
 water g Re wk ,cal ,e g  water vm wk ,cal ,e wk ,cal ,e g
1 2 p 1  (8)
 vm  wk ,cal ,e l 1
h    q  wk3,cal ,e p w, p
1
96
 96 h 
q  vm wk ,cal ,elw, p 
Expression (H.2), regarding the equivalent crack width comes directly from Eq. (A107.2) of ENV 1992-4:1998.

Pérez Caldentey 10.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 627
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex H Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

References Bibliografía
[1] Button, B., Grogan, A., Chivers, T., & Manning, P. (1978). Gas Flow Through Cracks. ASME J. Fluids
Engng, 100, 453-458.
[2] Chivers, T. (2002). The influence of surface roughness on the fluid growth trhough cracks. Fatigue Fract
Engng Mater Struct, 25, 1095-1102.
[3] Gardiner, G., & Tyrrell, R. (1968). The flow resistance of experimental models of naturally ocurring cracks.
Proc. Inst Mech Engrs., 200, No. C4.
[4] Jones, T., Wooten, S., & Kaluza, T.J. (1988). Single Phase Flow Through Cracks. 63rd Annual Technical
Conference of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (pág. Paper SPE 18175). Houston, USA: SPE.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2118/18175-MS
[5] Vennard, J. K. (1947). Elementary Fluid Dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

List of versions of this document

27.05.2021, APC. 1st draft
03.01.2023, APC 2nd draft – Adapted to final version of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
10.03.2023, APC Editorial update following Peer review.

Pérez Caldentey 10.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 628
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC 250/SC 2 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex I:

Assessment of Existing Structures

Fabrizio Palmisano PPV Consulting & Politecnico di Torino,

(all sections) Italy

John Cairns Heriot-Watt University,

(I.11.4.1(7)) Edinburgh, UK

Craig Giaccio Arcadis Consulting Ltd

(deteriorated structures) UK

Rita Greco Politecnico di Bari,

(I.11.4.1(3)-(5) and I.11.4.1(7)) Italy

Giuseppe Carlo Marano Politecnico di Torino,

(I.11.4.1(7)) Italy

Aurelio Muttoni EPFL, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de

Lausanne
(I.5.2.1(3))
Switzwerland

27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 629
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC 250/SC 2 Annex I to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause I.5.2.1(3)

Evaluation of fck from in-situ testing

Fabrizio Palmisano PPV Consulting & Politecnico di Torino,

Italy

Aurelio Muttoni EPFL, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de

Lausanne
Switzwerland

27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 630
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
When concrete strength is assessed in an existing structure, according to clause I.5.2.1(1) of FprEN 1992-1-
1:2023 the characteristic value 𝑓 , of the in-situ compressive strength of concrete cores should be evaluated
according to EN 13791:2019. However, in the main part of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, all formulations that include
concrete strength are expressed in terms of 𝑓 . This is why there is the necessity to include a formula for the
evaluation of 𝑓 on the basis of the assessed 𝑓 , .

Definitions
𝑓 Compressive strength of concrete determined from samples of concrete taken in accordance with EN
12350-1:2019 made into cylinder or cube specimens and cured in accordance with EN 12390-2:2019
and tested in accordance with EN 12390-3:2019.
𝑓 Characteristic value of 𝑓 .
𝑓, Actual in-situ concrete compressive strength in the structure.
𝑓, Compressive strength of concrete cores taken at test location within a structural member, expressed
in terms of the strength of a 2:1 core of diameter ≥ 75 mm (5% fractile) and assessed according to
Section 8 of EN 13791:2019.
𝑓 , Characteristic value of 𝑓 , .

Basis of the formulation

Following the approach included in Annex A of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, 𝑓 , can be defined as:
𝑓, 𝜂 ∙𝑓, 𝜂 ∙𝜂 ∙𝑓 (1)
where
 𝜂 is a reduction factor which accounts for the damage sustained during core extraction;
 𝜂 is a coefficient which covers the following variabilities and uncertainties:
(i) effect of curing;
(ii) effect of consolidation of fresh concrete (settlement and bleeding) leading to a significant geometric
variability within the structure;
(iii) anisotropy (e.g. difference between vertical and horizontal strength resulting from bleeding);
 𝜂 , 𝜂 , 𝑓 are assumed as random variables, log-normally distributed, stochastically independent.
In Annex A of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 the average value and the coefficient of variation for 𝜂 are 𝜇 0.95
and 𝑉 0.12, respectively, whilst the coefficient of variation 𝑉 of 𝑓 is equal to 0.10. According to several
works (see e.g. Moccia at. al. 2020) the mean value 𝜇 of 𝜂 is about 0.95 and the relevant
coefficient of variation 𝑉 is negligible with respect to the coefficients of variation of the other variables
that have influence on concrete strength.
Following the above-mentioned assumptions on the statistical distributions of all variables involved and on the
relevant parameters, 𝑓 is equal to

. ∙
,
𝑓 𝑓 , (2)
∙ .

that is similar to that given in EN 13791:2019:

,
𝑓 (3)
.

In this scenario, in Annex I the formulation of EN 13791:2019 has been assumed if the cores are extracted
from the region governing for the verification (see case c) of table I.2).
If the cores are extracted from regions not necessarily representing the conditions of whole structural member
nor the region governing for the verification, the effect on 𝜂 of the position of the cores, within the structural
member, should be taken into account.
Figure 1, taken from Moccia et al. (2020) and based on several test results present in the literature, shows the
influence of the position of cores taken from columns on 𝜂 and in particular
 top layer (upper 20% of the depth, red markers in the figure): 40 values, 𝜇 0.95, 𝑉 0.095;

 bottom layer (bottom 20% of the depth, black markers in the figure): 23 values, 𝜇 1.05, 𝑉 0.105.

Thus, if the cores have been extracted from regions not necessarily representing the conditions of the whole
structural member nor the region governing for the verification, there is a risk that the region with the highest
μ is assessed (for instance μ 1.05), whereas the governing verification region could require e.g. μ
0.95. In this case, a safe estimate of 𝑓 from 𝑓 , would be
. , ,
𝑓 ∙ (4)
. . .

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 631
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

that is case a) of table I.2.

An intermediate case can be found when cores are extracted from different regions representing all conditions
in the structural member. In this case
,
𝑓 (5)
.

can be assumed (i.e. case b) of table I.2)

Figure 1. Coefficient 𝜂 in bottom and top layers of columns related to concrete cylinder strength 𝑓 ,
(Moccia et al. 2020)

References
Moccia, F., Kubski, X., Fernandez Ruiz, M., Muttoni, A. (2020). The influence of casting position and
disturbance induced by reinforcement on the structural concrete strength, Structural Concrete, 2020, 1-28.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 632
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC 250/SC 2 Annex I to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to some clauses of

sections I.4, I.5, I.8, I.9

Fabrizio Palmisano PPV Consulting & Politecnico di Torino,

Italy

27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 633
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

I.4.2.1(2) The approach proposed in this clause is consistent with that included in Annex A of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. If
the coefficient of variation of concrete core strength is greater than the values given un table I.1, the relevant
Adjusted partial factors
partial factor for concrete c, evaluated by using the procedure given in Annex A, is greater than 1.5. This is
why, in this case, it is recommended to adjust c, according to the procedure given in Annex A. Similarly, If the
coefficient of variation of reinforcement yield strength is greater than the values given un table I.2, the relevant
partial factor for reinforcement s should be adjusted by using the procedure given in Annex A since it is greater
than 1.15.

I.5.2.2(1) Refer to:

Effect of stress level Tasevski D., Fernández Ruiz M., Muttoni A. 2019. ‘Assessing the compressive strength of concrete under
and duration of loading sustained actions: From refined models to simple design expressions.’ Structural Concrete, 20, pp. 971–985.
on concrete strength

I.5.3.(2) The formulation included in the clause is consistent with that given in D.7.2 of prEN 1990 draft April 2022, for
log-normal distribution. The clause includes also the table relevant to 10% characteristic value (not included in
Characteristic value of
prEN 1990:2022) for the evaluation of ductility properties of reinforcement.
the properties of
reinforcing steel Table I.5 has been obtained by using the so-called ‘prediction method’ that is the same as that used in Annex
D of prEN 1990:2020 (see Appendix C of Gulvanessian, Calgaro, Holický 2002, ‘Designers’ Guide to Eurocode:
Basis of Structural Design: EN 1990’, Thomas Telford Publishing, London).

I.8.3.2(3) The clause gives a conservative and simplified formulation for the evaluation of shear strength of beams and
slabs having transverse spacing of shear legs greater than that given (as maximum value) in clause 12 of
Shear strength in case
FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. The starting point of this clause is the experimental study by Lubell et al. 2009 (i.e.
of substandard
Lubell A.S., Bentz E.C., Collins M.P. 2009, ‘Shear Reinforcement Spacing in Wide Members’, ACI Structural
transverse spacing of
Journal, Vol. 106, No. 2).
shear legs
The formulation considers that, in the transverse direction, the concrete part of beam/slab that contributes to
shear strength is not greater, per each side of the leg, than half the maximum leg distance given in clause 12
of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023.

I.8.3.3 The clause gives a conservative and simplified formulation that follows the same approach as that of clause
I.8.3.2(3).
Shear at interfaces in
case of substandard
spacing between
interface reinforcement
in a composite slab

I.9.1(2) In the assessment, low values of the target reliability index 𝛽 for non-seismic ultimate limit states can be
allowed. In this scenario fulfilling ULS requirements can also imply that high stresses occur under service load
Limits on reinforcement
situations. This is why stresses in the serviceability limit state should be limited to avoid yielding of the
and concrete stress for
reinforcement and development of micro cracks and cracks in concrete.
low target reliability
index at ULS The stress limits in table I.6 are the same as those in tables 9.1 and 9.2 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. However,
explicit reference to these tables has not been made since the stress verifications in table 9.2 are limited to
some exposure classes while in I.9.1(2), for the above-mentioned reasons, they don’t depend on the exposure
classes.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 634
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC 250/SC 2 Annex I to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clauses

I.11.4.1(3)-(5)

Anchorage and lap length of plain surface

bars

Fabrizio Palmisano PPV Consulting & Politecnico di Torino,

Italy

Rita Greco Politecnico di Bari,

Italy

27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 635
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This section provides the background to clauses (3)-(5) of I.11.4.1 and details the derivation of the closed-form
equation for the design anchorage and lap length of plain surface bars of round and square cross section.

Basis of the formulation

The formulation included in Annex I is based on the semi-empirical one proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020).
This, by using as starting point the proposal by Cairns and Feldman (2018) and a reference test database,
proposed a novel step-by-step procedure for the statistical evaluation and optimization of the contribution of each
parameter affecting anchorage and lap strength. The reference database includes 101 test results on plain bars
of which 54 were conducted on bottom cast bars and 47 on top cast bars (i.e. ‘good’ and ‘poor’ bond casting
position respectively, denoted GP and PP, respectively in the following). 17 test results are relevant to square
section bars and the remainder to round section bars.
The equations proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020) are:
. . .
GP 𝑓 11.66MPa ∙ ∙ ∙ (1)

. . .
PP 𝑓 4.13MPa ∙ ∙ ∙ (2)

where 𝑓 is the mean value of the axial stress 𝑓 (called anchorage/lap strength in the following) developed in
the bar by bond (MPa); 𝑙 is the anchorage/lap length; 𝑓 is the mean cylinder concrete compressive strength
(MPa); 𝑐 is the concrete cover; 𝜙 is the equivalent bar diameter assumed as the bar diameter for round section
bars and as

𝜙 𝐴 (3)

for square section bars (𝐴 is the area of the cross section of the square section bar).
The approach proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020) is based on the statistical evaluation of test results. To this
aim model uncertainties, that account for random effects that are neglected in the models and simplifications in
the mathematical relations, have to be considered. According to JCSS (2001), the most common way to introduce
model uncertainties in the calculation model is to use an additive equation or a multiplicative equation or a
combination of both. In this case the following multiplicative relationship has been chosen as proposed by Mancini
et al. (2018):
𝑦 𝜃 ∙𝑦 , (4)
where 𝜃 is the model uncertainty of the ith test, 𝑦 is the ith test result and 𝑦 , represents the relevant value
resulting from the assumed model.
Moreover, taking into account that the proposed equations have a nonlinear form, the coefficient of determination
𝑅 is evaluated by using the following equation:
∑ ,
𝑅 (5)
∑

where 𝜇 is the mean value of the natural logarithm of test results.

In table 1, the mean value 𝜇 and the coefficient of variation 𝑉 of model uncertainties are reported together with
the coefficient of determination 𝑅 . In this table 𝑅 and 𝜇 are equal to 1 as consequence of the statistical
optimisation procedure performed by Palmisano et al (2020).
Figure 1 compares the bar stress 𝑓 , , predicted by equations (1) and (2), with that (𝑓 , ) measured in
tests. The figure shows a good fit of the proposed equations to test results that is mainly the consequence of the
fact that the values of 𝑅 and 𝜇 are equal to 1.
All the details about the derivation of formulae (1) and (2) as well as the comparison with those proposed by
Cairns and Feldman (2018) are included in Palmisano et al. (2020).

Table 1. Fit of equations (1) and (2) to test data.

Equation Casting position 𝝁𝜽 𝑽𝜽 𝑹𝟐
1 GP 1.00 0.18 1.00
2 PP 1.00 0.36 1.00

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 636
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

(a)
400
Good bond
350 casting
position
300

250

fstm,TEST [MPa]
200
Round bars
150 Square bars

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
fstm,MOD [MPa]

(b)
400
Poor bond
350 casting
position
300

250
fstm,TEST [MPa]

200 Round bars

Square bars
150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
fstm,MOD [MPa]

Figure 1. Comparison between bar stress estimated by equations (1) and (2) and that measured in tests. (a)
equation (1) for GP. (b) equation (2) for PP.

Design anchorage length of plain bars

In this paragraph, starting from the equations (1) and (2), the reliability-based design formulations of the
anchorage strength of plain bars are obtained.
The calculation methodology adopted in the following is the one proposed by Taerwe (1993) and furtherly applied
to anchorage strength of ribbed bars by Mancini et al. (2018).
The following assumptions have been made:
 the concrete compressive strength 𝑓 has lognormal distribution with mean value 𝑓 according to
Diamantidis et al. (2016), JCSS (2001), Mancini et al. (2018); its coefficient of variation 𝑉 has been
assumed equal to 0.10 according to table A.2 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023;
 a lognormal distribution, with 𝑉 = 0.18 and 𝑉 = 0.36 for GP and PP, respectively, and 𝜇 1 is assumed
for model uncertainties according to Mancini et al. (2018) and table 1.
According to Taerwe (1993) and taking into account the format of equations (1) and (2), the overall anchorage
strength random variable 𝑓 may be defined by the following equation:

𝑓 𝜃∙𝑓 ∙𝐴 (6)
where A represents the multiplicative term relevant to all deterministic parameters of equations (1) and (2)

𝐴 𝛿 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ∙ ∙ ∙ (7)

and 𝛿 , 𝛿 , 𝛿 , 𝛿 are the coefficient/exponents of equations (1) and (2), summarised in table 2.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 637
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Casting
Equation 𝜹𝟏 𝜹𝟐 𝜹𝟑 𝜹𝟒
position

1 GP 11.66 0.45 0.77 0.78

2 PP 4.13 0.35 0.94 0.89

Table 2. Coefficient/exponents of equations (1) and (2).

By applying the procedure shown in Taerwe (1993) to equation (6), the fractiles 𝑓 of the variable 𝑓 can be
evaluated:

𝑓 𝐴∙ ∙𝑓 2
∙ exp 𝛿2 ∙ ℎ ln 1 𝑉2 ℎ ln 1 𝑉 2
𝛿2 2 𝑙𝑛 1 𝑉2 (8)
1 2

where j = m, k, d with:
 m = mean value;
 k = characteristic value assumed as the 5% fractile;
 d = design value relevant to a specific reliability index β;
and coefficients hj are:
 hm = 0 for the mean value;
 hk = 1.645 for the characteristic value;
 hd = αRβ for the design value, where αR is the FORM (First-Order Reliability Method) correction factor
assumed equal to 0.8 for dominant resistance variables (JCSS 2001).
Equation (8) can be rewritten to express directly the design anchorage length 𝑙 as a function of the design axial
stress 𝜎 in the reinforcement and other relevant parameters in a format similar to that given FprEN 1992-1-
1:2023 for ribbed bars:

. ∙
𝛥 ∙ ∙ ∙ (9)

where

∙
𝛥 (10)
.

𝜁 ∙ exp 𝛿 ∙ ℎ ln 1 𝑉 ℎ ln 1 𝑉 𝛿 𝑙𝑛 1 𝑉 (11)

If hd,=3.8 is the value of hd evaluated for  = 3.8, equation (9) can be rewritten, for practical application, as a function
of the concrete partial factor C:

. ∙
𝛥 , . ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ (12)
.

where c = 1.5 for  = 3.8, and

∙ , .
𝛥 , . (13)
.

𝜁 , . ∙ exp 𝛿 ∙ ℎ ln 1 𝑉 ℎ , . ln 1 𝑉 𝛿 𝑙𝑛 1 𝑉 (14)

The exponent 5 has been obtained by evaluating lbd, by equation (9), for values of  from 3.3 to 5.2 (i.e. from low
consequences of failure to a failure probability equal to 10-7 according to EN 1990:2002) and imposing a ratio of
equation (12) to equation (9) in the range 0.96-1.04 to make negligible the difference between the rigorous
approach (i.e. equation (9)) and the practical one (i.e. equation (12)). To this aim the formulation of C, included
in annex A of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (with the parameters included in table A.3), has been assumed.
By using this approach and the coefficients/exponents of equations (1) and (2), equation (12) yields equations
(15) and (16) for GP and PP, respectively.
. . . ∙ . .
132.9 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ (15)
.

. . . ∙ . .
414.8 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ (16)
.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 638
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

As the original equations have a semi-empirical origin, it is reasonable to round the coefficient/exponents in order
to have the final design equations. Hence equations (15) and (16) can be rewritten and compacted in the final
equation (17) to be used for practical application.

. ∙
130 ∙ 𝜂 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ (17)
.

where
 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 1 for GP;
 1 = 3.1, 2 = 1.6, 3 = 0.9, 4 = 3/5 for PP.
The following limitations should be applied to equations (15)-(17):
 the ratio 1.5eq/c should not be taken smaller than 0.5 in view of absence of test data in the reference
database beyond c/eq = 3.0;
 the application of the equations should be limited to sd ≤ 300 MPa since in the reference database most
of the tests have fstm lower than 280 MPa with just a few having fstm of about 350-400 MPa;
 the equations are valid for c/eq ≥ 1.0 in view of absence of test data in the reference database below
c/eq = 1.0;

 the ratio should be taken not lower than 10, since the relevant minimum value of the reference test
database is about 12.

Comparison with provisions of CEB-FIP Model Code 90

The current Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1:2004) does not provide bond length for plain bars. The CEB-FIP Model
Code 90 was the precursor to the current Eurocode 2 and contained the following equation 41 for anchorage
length of plain bars lbd,MC90.
∙
𝑙 , (18)
∙

where
. /
𝑓 1.0 ∙ 𝜂 ∙ 𝜂 ∙ (19)

 η2 is equal to 1.0 and 0.7 for good and poor bond casting position, respectively;
 η3 = 1.0 for ϕ ≤ 32 mm.
In the following the differences between the proposed practical approach (i.e. equation (17)) and that of CEB-FIP
Model Code 90 are studied by analysing the ratio lbd/lbd,MC90 for c = 1.5.
Figures 2 and 3 show the influence of c/ for sd = 200 MPa on lbd/lbd,MC90 whilst figures 4 and 5 show the influence
of sd for fck = 25 MPa on lbd/lbd,MC90.
Figures 3 and 5 highlight that for PP the equation of CEB-FIP Model Code 90 significantly underestimates the
anchorage length. On the other side, for good bond casting position (see figures 2 and 4) this underestimation is
only relevant to low c/ (i.e. lower than 2) while for c/ > 2.0 the equation of CEB-FIP Model Code 90 is
conservative.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 639
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

2.0 c/=
c/f=1 1.0
c/=
c/fi=1.5 1.5
lbd/lbd,MC90 c/= 2.0
c/fi=2
c/= 2.5
c/fi=2.5

1.5 c/= 3.0

c/fi=3

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
fck [MPa]

Figure 2. Influence of c/ on lbd/lbd,MC90 in case of c = 1.5, sd = 200 MPa and GP.

5.5 c/=
c/f=1 1.0
lbd/lbd,MC90 c/=
c/fi=1.5 1.5
5.0
c/= 2.0
c/fi=2
4.5 c/= 2.5
c/fi=2.5
c/= 3.0
c/fi=3
4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
fck [MPa]

Figure 3. Influence of c/ on lbd/lbd,MC90 in case of c = 1.5, sd = 200 MPa and PP.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 640
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

2.5 c/=
c/f=1 1.0
lbd/lbd,MC90 c/=
c/fi=1.5 1.5
c/= 2.0
c/fi=2

2.0 c/= 2.5

c/fi=2.5

c/= 3.0
c/fi=3

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
sd [MPa]

Figure 4. Influence of sd on lbd/lbd,MC90 for fck = 25 MPa and GP.

5.0 c/=
c/f=1 1.0
lbd/lbd,MC90 c/=
c/fi=1.5 1.5
4.5
c/= 2.0
c/fi=2

4.0 c/= 2.5

c/fi=2.5
c/= 3.0
c/fi=3
3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
sd [MPa]

Figure 5. Influence of sd on lbd/lbd,MC90 for fck = 25 MPa and PP.

References
Cairns, J., Feldman, L. (2018). Strength of laps and anchorages of plain bars. Structural Concrete, 19(6), 1782-
1791.
CEB-FIP Model Code 90. 1993, Lausanne.
EN 1990:2002. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design.
EN 1992-1-1:2004. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
Diamantidis, D., Holický, M., Sýkora, M. (2016). Reliability and risk acceptance criteria for civil engineering
structures. Transactions of the VŠB – Technical University of Ostrava, Civil Engineering Series, 16 (2),
1–10.
fib (2010). fib bulletin 52. Structural Concrete Textbook on behaviour, design and performance, Second edition
Volume 2: Basis of design. 2010. Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib).
JCSS (2001). Probabilistic Model Code. Lyngby, Denmark: Joint Committee on Structural Safety.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 641
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Mancini, G., Carbone, V.I., Bertagnoli, G., Gino, D. (2018). Reliability-based evaluation of bond strength for tensed
lapped joints and anchorages in new and existing reinforced concrete structures. Structural Concrete,19,
904–917.
Palmisano, F., Greco, R., Biasi, M., Tondolo, F., Cairns, J. (2020). Anchorage and laps of plain surface bars in
R.C. structures. Engineering Structures, Vol. 213, 110603/1-12.
Taerwe, R.L. (1993). Towards a consistent treatment of model uncertainties in reliability formats for concrete
structures. CEB Bulletin d’Information No 219, Safety and Performance concepts (pp. 5-61), Lausanne:
CEB.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 642
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC 250/SC 2 Annex I to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause I.11.4.1(7)

Anchorage and laps in case of substandard

cover

Fabrizio Palmisano PPV Consulting & Politecnico di Torino,

Italy

John Cairns Heriot-Watt University,

Edinburgh, UK

Rita Greco Politecnico di Bari,

Italy

Giuseppe Carlo Marano Politecnico di Torino,

Italy

27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 643
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This section provides the background to clause I.11.4.1(7) and details the derivation of parameters included in
table I.7. Further details are included in Palmisano et al. (2020a, 2021).

Basis of the formulation

The approach proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020a), that yields the formulation included in Annex I, draws
inspiration from that of Metelli and Plizzari (2014) included in SIA (2011). In particular Zwicky (2013) takes account
of the influence of low concrete cover thickness by studying the model proposed by Schenkel (1998) and referring
it to the concrete cover limitations given in SIA (2003).
For the approach by Palmisano et al. (2020a), the more recent model included in fib (2010), that is the basis for
the evaluation of anchorage length in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, is assumed as reference.
The reference model included in fib (2014), based on the proposal by Canbay and Frosch (2005), is the strut-and-
tie model (STM) shown in figure 1.
The model of figure 1 is then modified by Palmisano et al (2020a), as shown in figure 2, in case of concrete cover
loss. In the modified STM the tensile action that causes bond failure is doubled (𝐹 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽 in Fig. 1 whilst
𝐹 𝐹 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽 in Fig. 2).
Assuming cd as the nominal concrete cover taken as the minimum between cx, cy, cs/2 according to figure 3, in
the proposed approach the following assumptions are made:
(i) the models in figures 1 and 2 are assumed as reference;
(ii) the design anchorage strength fstd (axial stress in the bar) is reached when cd is at least equal to the bar
diameter ;
(iii) if cd <  the anchorage strength decreases proportionally to the reduction of cd.
Hence, in the proposed approach, if cd <  the anchorage strength of ribbed and plain bars is evaluated replacing
cd by the bar diameter and decreasing fstd by a factor k’lbs,c that is defined in the following.

Figure 1. Reference STM for the evaluation of bond strength (fib 2014).

Figure 2. Reference STM for the evaluation of bond strength in case of concrete cover loss.

Figure 3. Definition of cs, cx, cy, corner bar (1), edge bar (2).

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 644
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The lower limit of the concrete cover for the application of formulae 11.3 and I.26 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 without
any modification is chosen equal to  for the following reasons:
 to be consistent with the limit given in clause 6.5.2.3 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023;
 to be consistent with the minimum value of concrete cover in the test database for anchorage length of
plain bars assumed as reference for formula I.26 of prEN 1992-1-1:2023;
 even if the minimum value of concrete cover c in the reference test database (fib 2014) for the anchorage
length of ribbed bars is 0.5, the number of tests performed with c = 0.5, is too low to have a statistical
validity; as stated in fib (2014), tests with c ≤ 0.5 were excluded from the statistical summary;
 differently from other approaches present in the literature, the approach here proposed gives a general
procedure valid for all cases of low concrete cover thickness.
Tables 1 and 2 give the vales of k’lbs,c according to Palmisano et al. (2020a) for edge and corner bars, respectively,
as defined in figure 3.

Table 1. k’lbs,c for edge bars.

Case no. Description k'lbs,c

𝑐
1 0.5 0.5
2𝜙

cs/2 < cy  

𝑐
2 0.5 0.5
𝜙

cs/2  cy < 

𝑐
3* 0.5 0.5
𝜙

cs/2 < cy < 

* In case No. 3, bars having cs/2 <  shall be considered as they are in bundle.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 645
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 2. k’lbs,c for corner bars.

Case no. Description k'lbs,c

𝑐
1 0.5 0.5
𝜙

cs/2  cx  cy < 

𝑐
2 0.5 0.5
𝜙

cs/2  cx < cy  

if 1/3  cmin,xy/ < 1

,

3*
if cmin,xy/ < 1/3
,
0.1 0.7

cs/2  cx < cy < 

𝑐
4 ** 0.5 0.5
𝜙

cs/2 < cx  cy < 

𝑐
5 ** 0.5 0.5
𝜙

cs/2 < cx < cy  

* In case No. 3 cmin,xy = min (cx; cy)
** In cases No. 4 and 5, bars having cs/2 <  shall be considered as they are in bundle.

Validation of the formulation

The formulation described in the previous paragraph and proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020a) is merely
theoretical and based on the assumptions that the reduction of anchorage strength is proportional to the reduction
of the concrete cover. From a general point of view, taking account of the way the formulae for anchorage strength
by fib (2014) and Palmisano et. al (2020b) (that are the bases of formulae 11.3 and I.26 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023,
respectively) consider the effect of concrete cover, a linear reduction seems to be conservative. However, this
consideration needs to be experimentally verified. To this aim, in the following, tests present in the literature, that
have studied the influence of low concrete cover on bond, are firstly selected and, then, used for the validation of
the proposed formulation (Palmisano et al. 2021).
It is worth highlighting that the validation included in this section, due to the type of tests present in the literature,
is made only with reference to case 2 of table 1 and to case 1 of table 2 even if, the relevant results can be
extended to the other cases.
In order to validate the equations proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020a), it is necessary to select a reference
database in which the influence of low concrete cover thickness on bond has been studied. The data used in the
validation have been selected among the investigations carried out by Schenkel (1998), Regan and Reid (2009),
Cairns and Goodchild (2016) and Darby et al. (2016).
The database is composed of both beam-end anchorage and lap splice tests on plain and ribbed bars.
Pullout tests have not been considered because, having the bar in tension and the surrounding concrete
compressed, they are unrepresentative of practical conditions. Tests carried out with corroded bars have been
neglected as well as tests with bars that reached stress well in excess of yield (Cairns and Feldman 2018). This
has been made since the influence of corrosion and high stress on anchorage/laps lies outside the scope of this
note.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 646
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The selected tests taken from Schenkel’s experimental program included a series of four lap splice tests. All
specimens had four pairs of 16 mm diameter ribbed bars, lapped in the same section, in bottom position, within
the constant moment zone (CMZ) of a four-point bending scheme. In these series, all beams had the same
dimensions and the bars were cast with a concrete cover equal to 20, 10, 5 or 0 mm.
A four-point bending scheme was also used in the two series of laps investigated by Regan and Reid (2009). The
first series included a pair of 25 mm corner bottom cast ribbed bars, lapped within the CMZ. In the second series,
there were two pairs of edge bottom cast bars. In the investigations, the concrete cover was varied between 33
to 0 mm; some cases with negative concrete equal to -8 mm were also tested. These last tests have been ignored
in the present note, because the influence of negative concrete cover (i.e. c/ < 0) on bond lies outside the scope
of this validation.
Cairns and Goodchild (2016) analysed four sets of tests. Each set comprised three individual specimens, one
with a concrete cover equal to 30 mm and two with concrete cover equal to 15 mm. Sets from 1 to 3 were
composed of two pairs of 25 mm diameter lapped bars. Set 4 was composed of two pairs of 16 mm diameter bars
lapped to 25 mm diameter bars. The latter test has been excluded from this study not only because relevant to
laps of different bar diameter (i.e. a situation, even if very common in practice, not consistent with the other tests
included in the reference database) but also because the concrete cover (i.e. 15 mm) was barely less than the
minimum bar diameter (i.e. 16 mm). Each set was relevant to bottom cast ribbed bars lapped, with different offsets,
in the CMZ of a four-point bending scheme.
Tests on plain bars have been taken from Darby et al. (2016) investigations. In particular, two series of beam-end
specimens, one with and the other without links, have been studied. Each series was composed of two specimens
of a 16 mm diameter bar in bottom cast position with a concrete cover of 37 or 0 mm.
To validate the equations proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020a), each test series has been considered individually.
Since some test results are in terms of fst (anchorage strength) while other are in terms of fb (bond strength), the
following equation is used to derive fb from fst:

𝑓 (1)

where lb is the anchorage length.

By assuming k as the ratio of fst or fb evaluated for c/ < 1 (called fst,c/<1 and fb,c/ <1, respectively, in the following)
to that evaluated for c/ ≥ 1 (called fst,c/>1 and fb,c/ >1, respectively, in the following), the relevant value evaluated
from tests (kTEST or kTEST,rel as defined in the following) is compared with that obtained from the proposed
formulation (kMOD = k’lbs,c)
It is worth noting that the factor k’lbs,c proposed by Palmisano et al. (2020a) is the ratio of the anchorage/lap
strength evaluated for c/ < 1 to that evaluated for c/ = 1 (fst,c/ =1 in the following). However, in the reference
database, no tests with c/ = 1 are included. Hence, fst,c/ =1 is calculated from fst,c/ >1 by using the following formula
,
𝑓 , (2)

where:
 c/ in formula (2) is relevant to that of the test where c/ > 1;
  = 0.25 for ribbed bars according to the formulation of fstm included in fib (2014);
 for plain bars  = 0.77 applies according Palmisano et al. (2020b).
If in a set of investigations there is more than one test with c/ > 1, the mean value of the anchorage/lap strength
of the tests in that set having c/ > 1 is assumed as fst,c/ >1 in formula (2).
The parameter k is evaluated, by using the test results, with reference to both fst,c/ >1 and fst,c/ =1 according to the
following formulae (3) and (4).
,
𝑘 (3)
,

,
𝑘 , (4)
,

As above mentioned, the type of tests included in the reference database are relevant to case 2 of table 1 and to
case 1 of table 2; thus, the following formulation for kMOD according to Palmisano et al. (2020a) should be used:
𝑘 0.5 0.5 (5)

The influence of c/≤ 1 on kTEST, kTEST,rel and kMOD is plotted in the figures 4-6 for ribbed bars and in figure 7 for
plain bars.
Figures 4-7 clearly show that equation (5) is conservative for both ribbed and plain bars since the points relevant
to kTEST and kTEST,rel are always above the line of kMOD.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 647
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1.5 Cairns
and
Goodchild
(2016)

kTEST or kTEST, rel or kMOD

1.0

kTEST
Serie1

0.5 kTEST,rel
Serie2

kMOD
Serie3

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c/φ
Figure 4. Influence of c/ on kTEST, kTEST,rel and kMOD for Cairns and Goodchild’s investigations (ribbed bars).

Regan
1.5 and Reid
(2009)
kTEST or kTEST, rel or kMOD

1.0

kTEST
Serie1

0.5 kTEST,rel
Serie2

kMOD
Serie3

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c/φ

Figure 5. Influence of c/ on kTEST, kTEST,rel and kMOD for Regan and Reid’s investigations (ribbed bars).

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 648
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Schenkel
1.5 (1998)

kTEST or kTEST, rel or kMOD

1.0

kTEST
Serie1

0.5 kTEST,rel
Serie2

kMOD
Serie3

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c/φ

Figure 6. Influence of c/ on kTEST, kTEST,rel and kMOD for Schenkel’s investigations (ribbed bars).

Darby et
1.5 al. (2016)
kTEST or kTEST, rel or kMOD

1.0

kMOD 1
kMOD,

0.5 kTEST
kTEST

kTEST,rel
Ktest, rel 2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c/φ
Figure 7. Influence of c/on kTEST, kTEST,rel and kMOD for the investigations relevant to plain bars included in Darby
et al. (2016).

References
Cairns, J., Goodchild, C. (2016). Effect of reduced concrete cover on strength of lapped joints. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, 169, 34-45.
Canbay, E., Frosch. R. (2005). Bond Strength of Lap-Spliced Bars. ACI Structural Journal, 102(4), 605-614.
Darby, A., Orr, J., Ibell, T. (2016). Half Joint Assessment Programme Research. Topic 1. Residual bond
characteristics of prestressing strand. Final Report. University of Bath, Department of Architecture and
Civil Engineering.
fib (2014). fib Bulletin 72. Bond and Anchorage of Embedded Reinforcement: Background to the fib Model Code
2010. Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib).
Metelli, G., Plizzari, G.A. (2014). Influence of the relative rib area on bond behaviour. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 66(6), 277-294.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 649
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Palmisano, F., Biasi, M., Greco, M., Marano, G.C. (2020a). Effect of low ribbing and concrete cover thickness on
the anchorage of bars in existing R.C. structures. Proc. of the IABSE 2020 Wroclaw Poland Symposium
– Synergy of Culture and Civil Engineering - History and Challenges, Wroclaw, Poland, 7-9 October 2020,
617-624.
Palmisano, F., Greco, R., Biasi, M., Tondolo, F., Cairns, J. (2020b). Anchorage and laps of plain surface bars in
R.C. structures”. Engineering Structures, Vol. 213, 110603/1-12.
Palmisano, F., Cairns, J., Menga, A. (2021). Anchorage/lap strength of bars in R.C. structures in case of low
concrete cover thickness. Proc. of the IABSE Congress Ghent 2021 – Structural Engineering for Future
Societal Needs, Ghent, Belgium, 22-24 September 2021, 1057-1065.
Regan, P.E. and Reid, I.L.K. (2009). Assessment of concrete structures affected by cover delamination. Part 1 –
Effect of bond loss. Graduate School in Concrete Structures – Fratelli Pesenti, Politecnico di Milano, Italy,
Studies and researches – V.29.
Schenkel, M. (1998). Zum Verbundverhalten von Bewehrung bei kleiner Betondeckung (On the bond behaviour
of reinforcement with little concrete cover), Report No. 237, Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Institute of Structural Engineering IBK.
SIA (2003). SIA 262, Concrete structures. Zurich: Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA).
SIA (2011). SIA 269/2, Existing structures – concrete structures. Zurich: Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects
(SIA).
Zwicky, D. (2013). Bond and ductility: a theoretical study on the impact of construction details – part 2: structure-
specific features. Advances in Concrete Construction, 1(2), 137-149.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 650
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC 250/SC 2 Annex I to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to some clauses of

sections I.11 and I.12

Fabrizio Palmisano PPV Consulting & Politecnico di Torino,

Italy

27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 651
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

I.11.2.(2) The minimum of bar spacing (𝑐 ) in 11.2(2) of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 is a practical rule, the aim of which is
clearly explained in 11.2.(1). This limit of 𝑐 is not referred to bonding. In fact, considered the general model
Minimum bar spacing
for bond that is the basis of the anchorage length in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 a limit equal to 𝑐 , should be also applied
to (i.e. for bonding should be not lower than the bar diameter). In this scenario I.11.2(2) has been added.

I.11.4.1(2) The minimum value for 𝑙 (i.e. 5𝜙) given in this clause is equal to the minimum value in the database
considered in fib bulletin 72 (see e.g. Fig. 3.8 of fib bulletin 72) that gives the expression for bond strength
Minimum value for lbd
assumed as basis of formula (11.3) of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023.
In particular, about 100 tests out of about 800 have a bond length lower than 15𝜙. However, as stated at page
14 of fib bulletin 72, tests with short bond length of less than 15𝜙 for laps or 10𝜙 for anchorages were excluded
from the statistical summary as unrepresentative of practice.
Clause I.11.4.2(2) includes the limit of 5𝜙 as the result of the discussion of Turin meeting (25th October 2018)
between TC 250/SC 2/SC2.T3, TC 250/SC 2/WG 1/AhG Detailing & fib TG 2.5. In that meeting, it appeared to
be a general consensus on the necessity to remove, in case of existing structures, practical limits of bond
lengths if there is evidence that the area where anchorage develops is uncracked.

I.11.4.1(11) Refer to section 6.1.7.3 of fib Model Code 2010.

Residual bond capacity

of ribbed bars not
confined by links and
of plain bars in freeze-
thaw damaged concrete

I.11.4.2(1) The effect of bends and hooks has been taken from fib bulletin 72 (2014) par. 3.3. It can be used also for plain
bars according to par. 6.1.3.5 of MC 2010 (version of fib bulletin 65, 2012).
Anchorage of bars with
bends and hooks The effect of bar diameter and confinement has been neglected. Moreover, to have the design values, from
the mean value given in fib bulletin 72, by using the same approach described in the ‘Background document
to clauses I.11.4.1(3)-(5)’ (i.e. the statistical approach proposed by Taerwe 1993, ‘Towards a consistent
treatment of model uncertainties in reliability formats for concrete structures’, CEB Bulletin d’Information No.
219, Safety and Performance concepts, pp. 5-61, Lausanne: CEB), has been used by using the following
assumptions:
 Mean value and coefficient of variation of model uncertainties for ribbed bars have been taken as 1.04
and 0.18, respectively, according to Mancini et al. 2018 (i.e. Mancini, G., Carbone, V.I., Bertagnoli, G.,
Gino, D. 2018, ‘Reliability-based evaluation of bond strength for tensed lapped joints and anchorages in
new and existing reinforced concrete structures’, Structural Concrete,19, 904–917).
 Mean value and coefficient of variation of model uncertainties for plain bars in good bond casting position
have been taken as 1.00 and 0.18, respectively, according to the ‘Background document to clauses
I.11.4.1(3)-(5)’.
 Mean value and coefficient of variation of model uncertainties for plain bars in poor bond casting position
have been taken as 1.00 and 0.36, respectively, according to the ‘Background document to clauses
I.11.4.1(3)-(5)’.
 The first coefficient of formula of fib bulletin 72 has been multiplied by 0.8 and 0.5 for ribbed and plain
bars, respectively, to take account of poor bond casting condition. For ribbed bars this factor is constituent
with that of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. For plain bars this factor is equal to the mean value of the ratio of the
anchorage strength of bars in poor bond casting position to that of bars in good bond casting position in
the reference test database referred in the ‘Background document to clauses I.11.4.1(3)-(5)’.
 The contribution of c has been evaluated by using the same procedure followed in the ‘Background
document to clauses I.11.4.1(3)-(5)’ for the design anchorage/lap length of plain bars.
It is worth noting that 1 in formula I.30 is lower than 0.5 for plain bars because of the high coefficient of variation
of model uncertainties for plain bars in poor bond casting position.

I.12.(1) Clause 12.1(6) of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 is a requirement (“shall” clause); it obliges the designer to consider a
member as plain or lightly reinforced concrete member if the longitudinal reinforcement is lower than 𝐴 , .
Members with less
longitudinal Many existing structures do not fulfil the minimum requirements on detailing of new structures. If these are
reinforcement than considered as lightly reinforced concrete structures most of the checks will not be satisfied. Thus, even if
As,min 12.1(6) of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 is suitable for a new structure, it is very restrictive for an existing one. This is
why I.12(1) gives the possibility to ignore 12.1(6) of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 for existing structures.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 652
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC 250/SC 2 Annex I to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Additional background on deteriorated

concrete structures

Fabrizio Palmisano PPV Consulting & Politecnico di Torino,

Italy

Craig Giaccio Arcadis Consulting Ltd

UK

27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 653
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This section gives additional clauses and background on deteriorated concrete structures. This section is intended
only to provide information outlining what are the obvious signs and what should be taken into account in
assessment.
This section does not intend to provide models for predicting degradation of structures for the different
mechanisms that prevail.
This section is mainly based on the input received from CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1/TG 3 (draft V15 February 2019).
A list of recent articles on corrosion is included in the last paragraph.

Reinforcement corrosion

General
(1) Structural damage in structures with corroded reinforcement, to be considered at ULS verifications, are due
to:
- reinforcement deterioration;
- concrete deterioration;
- bond deterioration.
The main consequences of corrosion are:
- loss of bar cross-section;
- loss of steel ductility;
- cracking of concrete cover with the consequential loss in concrete cross section;
- loss of bond between reinforcement and concrete.
(2) The relevant parameters for the assessment are:
- Mechanical strength of concrete.
- Crack width, crack pattern and delaminated areas.
- Concrete cover thickness.
- Mechanical properties of reinforcement.
- Residual cross-sectional area of reinforcement.
Note: In the case of presence of cracks parallel to the reinforcement, typical of the corrosion process, their pattern
is a qualitative indication of the degree of damage and of the affected surface. Its actual value is a key parameter
for the assessment. The cracks and delamination are necessary to estimate the residual concrete section.
Although the reinforcement maximum strength may remain unaffected, the corrosion may induce a reduction of
steel ductility and the embrittlement of the reinforcement core when the loss in cross section is higher than 15-
20%. This has to be taken into account in the case of seismic risks and other dynamic loads and when considering
non-linear or plastic analysis.

Considerations for verification at ULS

(1) For the verification at ULS after corrosion has initiated, the following factors need to be considered:
- nature of corrosion (generalized or localized);
- representative corrosion rate;
- reinforcement detailing;
- consequences of failure;
- structural redundancy.
(2) The assessment of resistance should account for:
- any reduction in the reinforcement area and in its ductility due to corrosion;
- any reduction in the member dimensions due to concrete spalling;
- any reduction in bond strength caused by corrosion or by the spalling of the concrete cover.
(3) A conservative value of the ultimate moment resistance may be achieved by reducing the reinforcement cross-
section and the member cross-section (due to concrete cover spalling or cracking). A possible effect of occurred
bond deterioration should be considered and taken into account when affecting the strength.
(4) In case of corrosion several factors may induce a premature shear failure, such as:
- For stirrups the effect of corrosion may be higher due to:

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 654
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 initial small diameters of stirrups and therefore relevant large cross-section loss;
 lower cover for stirrups leading to earlier initiation of corrosion compared to main bars.
- Spalling of cover and reduction of the concrete compression zone.
- Loss of bond of longitudinal reinforcement due to corrosion.
- Induced stresses in stirrups due to corrosion of the main bars.
In members with corrosion at the tensile side and without stirrups, the deterioration of bond at longitudinal bars
can reduce shear strength because of the relevant reduction of dowelling action.
When evaluating the shear resistance of members requiring design shear reinforcement, a further limitation of the
minimal inclination of the compression field should be considered due to bond deterioration.
(5) In the assessment of the ultimate axial load of a column:
- the concrete section should be reduced in case of spalling;
- if the stirrups have been broken due to the corrosion, a reduction in the longitudinal bars subjected to
compression due to risk of buckling should be taken into account.

Loss of bond
(1) The effects of corrosion in hardened concrete differ from those associated with corrosion prior to concreting.
Small amounts of corrosion, up to the level required to induce longitudinal cracking, do not cause loss of bond
resistance, and can even augment bond strength by a modest degree, particularly where the bar is in a ‘poor’
bond casting position.
At greater levels of corrosion, residual bond strength is strongly influenced by the degree of confinement provided
by transverse reinforcement in the form of links and by the surrounding structure. Transverse pressure from
support reactions augments bond. Links play a valuable role in maintaining residual strength of anchorages and
lapped joints.
(2) The residual capacity of anchorages and lapped splices should be checked at the ultimate limit state at
locations of high reinforcement stress where longitudinal cracking develops. Away from anchorages and laps, a
substantial loss of bond may be tolerated without ultimate strength being affected.
(3) The magnitude of the reduction in residual bond strength is highly dependent on the confinement to the bar
and is also affected by concrete quality and environment. It may be taken into account by increasing the design
value of the anchorage and lap length.
Note: The increase of lbd can be evaluated by using Table 6.1-4 of fib MC 2010, for plain and ribbed bars, or
section F.2.3 of Contecvect Manual (‘CONTECVET. A validated Users Manual for assessing the residual service
life of concrete structures. Manual for assessing corrosion-affected concrete structures’, EC Innovation
Programme IN30902I, preparation of document led by Geocisa and Torroja Institue, 2000), for ribbed bars.
However, in the literature there are proposals by different researchers that can be taken as reference. A new
proposal will be included in the forthcoming fib MC 2020, chapter 20.
(4) In addition to (3), the effect on bond of concrete cover spalling should be considered and it may be taken into
account by using the reduced cover thickness in the formulae that give lbd.

External sulphate attack

(1) There are several sources of external sulphates: seawater, ground water with sulphides, bacterial action in
sewers, etc. Expansion and damage occur when the sulphates penetrate from outside the concrete and the
expansion is generated in the surface concrete layers by the formation of sulphate-bearing compounds.
(2) The process can be represented by an aggressive front advancing from the concrete surface and inducing
periodically cracking and spalling. The cracks formed due to differential expansion in the concrete surface layers
allow the sulphates to penetrate deeper producing a discontinuous process, which however can be linearized.
(3) The effects on the structure are:
- loss of elastic modulus in the deteriorated zone;
- loss in bond between aggregate/concrete with decrease of strength and disaggregation of external concrete
layer leading into cracking and spalling;
- reduced bearing concrete section due to that delamination and spalling.
These effects should also be taken account of in the cross section checks for the structural consideration of
external sulphate attack. It may be needed to differentiate the external deteriorated layer from the sound interior.
(4) The rate of expansion and generation of cracking depends on the concentration of the external solution and
the length of the contact period. This rate should be monitored if needed for prediction through the measurement
of dimensional changes or of the evolution of the dynamic elastic modulus.
(5) ULS should be verified with the reduced properties and section dimensions.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 655
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Alkali-aggregate and other expansive reactions

(1) AAR (Alkali-Aggregate Reaction) and DEF (Delayed Ettringite Formation) are expansive processes that may
be treated in a similar manner. In both cases, the concrete integrity is affected in its mechanical parameters and
in the composite steel/concrete function.
Note:
- AAR is an internal chemical reaction between the alkaline components in the cement and active silica-based
mineral or other constituents of some aggregates, when a certain degree of moisture is present. The reaction
results in the formation of a gel that absorbs water, expands, and therefore induces internal pressure which
sometimes can be far in excess of what the concrete can sustain, thereby causing the formation of micro-cracks.
In the case of the attack to other aggregate constituents, as Mg-bearing, the expansion is due to the solution-
precipitation of new compounds that have more volume than the initial ones.
- DEF is also an internal cracking process produced by the formation of expansive ettringite (‘secondary’ or
‘delayed’) when the concrete is already hardened. The risk has been identified when hydration heat generation
produces temperatures in the concrete mass above 60-70°C. It is aggravated if the cements are of high alkaline
(sodium and potassium) content.
(2) The progress of the process (expansion or crack generation) can be represented by a curve where a maximum
is achieved when the expansive agents are exhausted. This trend can also be linearized resembling the two-
period mode of incubation and propagation. In AAR the incubation can last decades because it depends on the
aggregate reactivity. In DEF however the expansion appears in much shorter terms.
Note: Expansion can be measured indirectly through reduction in E-modulus on drilled cores, or specific SDT
(stiffness damage test) parameters.
(3) Prediction of expansion can be made if it is monitored on site as for sulphate attack through the monitoring of
the local volume changes or the dynamic elastic modulus.
(4) The structural effects of expansion induced by AAR are:
- generation of additional internal actions;
- decrease in the compressive strength mainly due to the generation of internal cracking;
- decrease in the axial tensile strength;
- decrease in the modulus of elasticity;
- increase (due to the confinement induced by the expansion) or decrease of steel/concrete bond due to cracking.
Note: When laps and anchorages are restrained by links, expansion within the limits 0,45‰ (restrained) and 4,5‰
(unrestrained) induced by AAR has been shown to have no significant effect on bond strength.
Where transverse reinforcement is not present then bond strength may be reduced by up to 50%.
Care is necessary in the assessment of residual resistance of anchorage zones of prestressed elements,
particularly of pre-tensioned members in which the tendons are not contained by links.
(Reference: section 6.1.7.2 of fib MC 2010).
(5) ULS should be verified with the reduced properties and sections.

Frost attack
(1) Frost attack is produced due to the fact that ice has a higher volume than liquid water. Not all the pore water
solution freezes at the same temperature because as smaller are the pore size lower temperature is needed to
produce ice. The expansion can induce surface delamination of concrete or an internal microcracking when the
whole section is frozen. Its progress depends on the degree of saturation of the concrete and on the temperature
and its cycling regime. Freezing temperatures, if they are maintained constant, do not necessarily impair the
concrete which has shown to last at these temperatures maintaining its bearing properties.
(2) The progress of the process has not been systematically recorded. It can be monitored by following the amount
of delaminated concrete or the crack pattern and width evolution.
(3) The structural consequences are:
- the external frost attack can affect the performance similarly as sulphate attack due to:
 loss in cross section;
 loss of strength due to the loss in aggregate/concrete bond;
- the internal frost attack:
 reduces (locally) the strength due to the internal cracking;
 causes loss on modulus of elasticity;
 causes loss in strength;
 causes loss in steel/concrete bond.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 656
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Leaching and acid attack

(1) Leaching and acid attack consists of a diffusive process leading to neutralisation of the alkaline pore solution
and consequent dissolution of hydrated cement phases. It is an external attack that progresses as a front from
the external concrete surface. The mechanism consists first in the neutralization of the calcium and alkaline
hydroxides of the pore solution. Further, the Calcium-Silicate-Hydrate gel decalcifies and consequently softens,
to end with the dissolution of the rest of aluminate phases and the complete disaggregation of the material and
its dissolution.
(2) The progress of the neutralized front follows the square root of time and its advance is similar to carbonation
when the front is sharp or producing a smoother profile where the deterioration is progressive. The neutralization
front can be more advanced than the softening or attack to the cement hydrated phases.
(3) The rate of progress depends on the nature and concentration as well as of the convection regime of the
external solution. For the sake of prediction, it may be monitored on site.
(4) The structural consequences are:
- loss of bearing cross section;
- loss of strength;
- loss of modulus of elasticity.
(5) ULS should be verified with the reduced properties and sections.

Selected references on corrosion

Andrade, C. (2017). Reliability analysis of corrosion onset: initiation limit state. Journal of Structural Integrity and
Maintenance, 2(4), 200-208.
Andrade, C., Anaya, P. (2020). Advances in the description of corrosion induced cracking. Proceedings of the fib
CACRCS DAYS 2020, Edited by B. Belletti & D. Coronelli, 39-48.
Belleti, B., Rodríguez, J., Andrade, C., Franceschini, L., Sánchez, J., Vecchi, F. (2020). Experimental tests on
shear capacity of naturally corroded prestressed beams. Structural Concrete, 21 (5), 1777-1793.
Belletti, B., Vecchi, F., Bandini, C., Andrade, C., Sanchez, J. (2020). Numerical evaluation of the corrosion effects
in prestressed concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Structural Concrete, 21 (5), 1794-1809.
Blomfors, M., Zandi, K., Lundgren, K., Coronelli, D. (2018). Engineering bond model for corroded reinforcement.
Engineering Structures, 156, 394-410.
Coronelli, D. (2020). Resistance of corroded RC beams: Extending fib Model Code 2010 models. Structural
Concrete, 21(5), 1747–1762.
Coronelli, D., Gambarova, P. (2004). Structural assessment of corroded reinforced concrete beams: Modeling
guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(8), 1214-1224.
Coronelli, D., François, R., Dang, H., Zhu, W. (2019). Strength of corroded R/C beams with bond
deterioration. Journal of Structural Engineering, 145(10), 04019097.
Fernández, I., Bairán, J.M., Marí, A. (2015). Corrosion effects on the mechanical properties of reinforcing steel
bars. Fatigue and σ-ε behaviour. Construction and building materials, 101, 772-783
Pedrosa, F., Andrade, C. (2017). Corrosion induced cracking: Effect of different corrosion rates on crack width
evolution. Construction and Building Materials, 133, 525-533.
Prieto, M., Tanner, P., Andrade, C. (2016). Multiple linear regression model for the assessment of bond strength
in corroded and non-corroded steel bars in structural concrete. Materials and Structures, 49, 4749-4763.
Rodriguez, J., Anaya, P. (2020). Some thoughts on the structural performance of corroded concrete structures
arising from past experimental results. Proceedings of the fib CACRCS DAYS 2020, Edited by B. Belletti
& D. Coronelli, 187-196.
Sykora, M., Holicky, M., Prieto, M., Tanner, P. (2015). Uncertainties in resistance models for sound and corrosion-
damaged RC structures according to EN 1992-1-1. Materials and Structures, 48(10), 3415-3430.
Walraven, J. (2020). Significance of reinforcement corrosion for modelling the behaviour of existing concrete
structures. Proceedings of the fib CACRCS DAYS 2020, Edited by B. Belletti & D. Coronelli, 239-249.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 657
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex I Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

List of versions of this document

05.03.2021 1st draft
20.05.2021 2nd draft: editorial improvements; paragraph “Selected references on corrosion” added to “Additional background on
deteriorated concrete structures”
13.01.2022 3rd draft: update to FprEN 1992-1-1:2022
27.03.2023 Peer review

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 658
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex J:

Validation of expressions for Strengthening
of Existing Concrete Structures with CFRP

This document was prepared by

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1.
For authors of the subsections see content list
below.
21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 659
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Authors
Konrad Zilch Technische Universität München (DE)
Craig Giaccio Arcadis Consulting (UK)
Roland Niedermeier Technische Universität München (DE)
Wolfgang Finckh Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg (DE)
Anthony Darby Bath University (UK)
Renata Kotynia Lodz University of Technology (PL)
Eva Oller Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya BarcelonaTech (ESP)
Thorsten Leusmann Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
Rolf Alex Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt) (DE)
Anett Ignatiadis Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton (DAfStb) (DE)

Stijn Matthys Ghent University (BE)

Vanessa Buchin (FR)

Content and main contributors

J.2 Scope and field of application K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, S. Matthys
J.3 General K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh
J.4.1 Partial factors for materials R. Niedermeier, R. Alex, K. Zilch, W. Finckh
J.5 Materials R. Alex, A. Ignatiadis, V. Buchin
J.8.1.5 Concrete columns confined with fully wrapped CFRP C. Giaccio, A. Darby
J.8.2 Shear R. Kotynia, E. Oller, A. Darby
J.9 Serviceability Limit States (ULS) W. Finckh, S. Matthys
J.10.1, J.10.2 Fatigue analysis for externally bonded CFRP systems T. Leusmann
J.10.3 Fatigue analysis for Near surface mounted CFRP strips W. Finckh, K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier
J.11.1.1.1 Basic anchorage resistance – simplified method W. Finckh, E. Oller, S. Matthys
J.11.1.1.2 Basic anchorage resistance – refined method R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch
J.11.1.2 EBR CFRP anchorage requirements – flexure R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch
J.11.1.3 Basic anchorage resistance – CFRP to concrete for NSM CFRP strengthening W. Finckh
J.12 Detailing of members and particular rules R. Kotynia, W. Finckh, A. Darby, C. Giaccio

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to explain the proposed provisions for strengthening of existing
concrete structures with CFRP in FprEN 1992-1-1, Annex J. The main basis for the proposed provisions were
national guidelines [1], [2], fib-bulletin 90 [3] and national approvals.

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 21.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 660
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J.2 Scope and field of application

Annex J applies to members with plain, reinforced and/or prestressed normal weight concrete.
Strengthening of members with special concretes (e.g. lightweight aggregate concrete, steel fibre reinforced
concrete, concrete with recycled aggregates) is not covered by Annex J as there is no significant experience. The
basic principles apply to special concretes, however some parameters, especially for bond have to be adjusted.
Annex J covers only strengthening with carbon fibre polymers as the main research has been done on this field.
For other fibre materials experience and background is missing to validate or adjust the models for different E-
Modulus and different behaviour under long-term loading. For glass fibre polymers there is experience for
confinement of columns, but it is used for seismic retrofitting mainly, which is not in the scope of FprEN 1992-1-1.
FprEN1992-1-1 does not cover resistance to fire, consequently this is also not covered in Annex J. In 1.1 (4) of
the main text reference to EN 1992-1-2 is made. However, current prEN 1992-1-2 does not contain specific rules
for strengthening with CFRP.
Because of this the following information should be considered.
Fire design of reinforced concrete members strengthened with CFRP will consider evaluation of the fire resistance
of the individual strengthened member, as well as reflect possible effects on the fire resistance of the whole
structure.
For low to moderate strengthening degrees, the strengthening is not needed in an accidental design situation. In
such cases, fire resistance verification of the member in the accidental design situation must be performed,
considering that the bonded CFRP is no longer active and considering the relevant acting loads during fire. The
latter correspond to the fact that the member is strengthened at the start of the fire scenario. The fire resistance
verification is done to prove that no special measures (like protective insulating linings) are needed, or to establish
the required thermal insulation to protect the concrete and internal steel.
For moderate to high strengthening degrees, the strengthening needs to remain functional during the targeted fire
endurance. The design of the fire protection system mainly focuses to limit temperatures to ensure bond
interaction between the concrete and the strengthening system in the event of fire.
NSM FRP technique provides better fire resistance than EBR FRP one. However using a higher glass temperature
epoxy is the most important impact for NSM FRP applications in the internal structural reinforced concrete
members requiring high fire resistance. If the thickness of the cement composite layer (ta) has the largest possible
depth of the most exterior edge of the strip (Zfe), the highest fire resistance is obtained (Fig. BD-J.12.1 c,d) [45].

J.3 General
Annex J contains rules for strengthening of existing concrete structures with carbon fibres. Adhesively bonded
reinforcement (ABR) is used as umbrella term for different application methods and products. Externally bonded
reinforcement (EBR) is glued to the prepared concrete surface. Near surface mounted reinforcement (NSM) is
applied in slots cut in the concrete cover. Figure BD-J.1.1 illustrates the terms, the application methods and the
corresponding products as developed for this Eurocode. Figure BD-J.1.2 shows some examples of strengthening
methods considered in annex J.

Adhesivly bonded reinforcement

ABR

Externally bonded reinforcement Near surface mounted reinforcement

EBR NSM

CF sheet/pre‐
CFRP strips impregnated CFRP strips CFRP bars
laminates

Figure BD-J.1.1: Terms, application methods and corresponding products

K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, S. Matthys 21.12.2022 Page 3/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 661
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure BD-J.1.2: Examples for strengthening: a) Ilustration EBR and NSM, b) Strengthening a beam for
bending, c) Strengthening of a column by wrapping

The design of FRP strengthened concrete members follow in principle the mechanics of reinforced concrete.
However, some peculiarities have to be taken into account and may lead to different limit states as explained in
the following chapters.
For example, the bond behaviour of strips applied in EBR and NSM shows a distinct difference (comp. Figure
BD-J.1.3).

Figure BD-J.1.3: Principle of the bond force transfer of adhesively bonded CFRP-strips [4]
In NSM the total force capacity of a CFRP strip can be transferred by bond on a single crack in an acceptable
bond length (as with ribbed reinforcing steel). The strength of the adhesive will be governing the design.
In EBR the total force of a strip cannot be transferred by bond on a single crack. To get acceptable utilization of
the strip capacity strength increase of the force over intermediate crack elements has to be considered! As the
tensile strength of the adhesive is in general much larger than the tensile surface strength of the concrete it is
assumed in the models for EBR that the concrete will fail first and the tension strength of the concrete is governing
bond design. So, the surface tension strength of the concrete will be a very important parameter in design.
Furthermore, it has to be considered that the strength parameters of the CFRP and adhesive may depend on the
temperature and environmental conditions.

K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, S. Matthys 21.12.2022 Page 4/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 662
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J.4 (1) Partial factors for materials - Description

Table J.1 contains, depending on the design situation, partial safety factors for prefabricated CFRP strips and
bars and CF sheets/pre-impregnated laminates applied in-situ as well as for the bond of ABR with regard to the
failure of near-surface concrete layers or the adhesive. Since, due to construction, only tensile forces may be
transferred to the ABR, the design of strengthened reinforced and prestressed concrete components is possible
for all relevant types of loading in addition to the partial safety factors given for the other materials in FprEN 1992-
1-1, Section 4.3.3, Table 4.3.

Background
The safety concept is based on the regulations of prEN 1990:2020 [47]. According to section 8.3.5 the design
value of resistance 𝑅 for a specific design situation should be calculated from the equation (BD-J.4.1)
corresponding to equation (8.18) in [47]:
∙
𝑅 ∙𝑅 ;𝑎 ;∑𝐹 (BD-J.4.1)

where
𝛾 is a partial factor associated with the uncertainty of the resistance model, and for geometric
deviations, if these are not modelled explicitly (Remark: numerical values may be obtained
from e.g. [48]);
𝑅 … denotes the output of the resistance model;
𝜂 is a conversion factor accounting for scale effects, effects of moisture and temperature,
effects of ageing of materials, and any other relevant parameters;
𝑋 represents the characteristic values of material or product properties;
𝛾 is a partial factor for a material property accounting for:
- unfavourable deviation of the material or product properties from their characteristic
values;
- the random part of the conversion factor 𝜂;
𝑎 denotes the design values of geometrical property;
𝐹 denotes design values of actions used in the assessment of 𝐸 ;
When applying partial factors to resistance, its design value 𝑅 should be calculated from Formula (BD-J.4.3)
where partial factors 𝛾 and 𝛾 are combined into a single partial factor 𝛾 for resistance:
𝛾 𝛾 𝛾 ∙𝛾 (BD-J.4.2)
∙ ; ;∑
𝑅 ∙ (BD-J.4.3)

Where relevant for the application-specific failure modes, the conversion factors are explicitly stated. They have
to be determined by experimental testing in accordance with an European Technical Product Specification unless
otherwise noted. The effects of geometric deviations are limited by design specifications, e.g. regarding the
number of layers of bonded reinforcement or the slot geometry, and are taken into account in the partial factor
𝛾 with a specific magnitude depending on the procedure. For bonded reinforcement, a thickness of adhesive
layer between 1 and 5 mm is assumed.
For the determination of the partial safety factors given in Table J.1, products were considered that were also
used in the structural tests, on the basis of which the design approaches in sections J.8 to J.11 were determined.
In accordance with the specifications in section J.5 for the design, the axial tensile strength is considered. For the
prefabricated products CFRP-strips and bars, data from the factory production control and the external continuous
surveillance were made available for two representative product groups A and B, which had been fabricated with
different production processes.
It must be taken into account that the product groups considered, as it is the case for pre-stressing steel strands,
are not only due to various production parameters, such as fibre type or fibre content, but are also based on a
targeted allocation to manufacturer-specific product classes on the basis of the mechanical properties determined
in the factory production control (FPC). The data from the FPC therefore only represent a certain range of
parameters, so that a suitable distribution function cannot be determined. Furthermore, it must be taken into
account that the data from the FPC may also contain values that are not applicable to the design situation of the
component due to the type of fracture, but are nevertheless accepted within the scope of the FPC if the strength
is sufficient. The data of the external surveillance, on the other hand, representing the entire parameter range of
the respective manufacturer-specific product class, only contain tests with applicable fracture types and show a
normal distribution of the strength.

R. Niedermeier, R. Alex, K. Zilch, W. Finckh 21.12.2022 Page 5/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 663
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table BD-J.4.1: Statistical data of tensile strength from FPC and the external continuous surveillance for two
representative product groups A and B of prefabricated CFRP strips (statistical data courtesy
of different German cerfication bodies)

Product
Data source Parameter A B
Number of numerical test results 𝑛 185 617
Factory production control Coefficient of variation 𝑉 0,07 0,05
Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic for a normal
𝐷 0,09 0,11
distribution function
by notified Number of numerical test results 𝑛 77 122
product Coefficient of variation 𝑉 0,06 0,09
Audit-testing in certification Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic for a normal
the context of body 𝐷 0,06 0,07
distribution function
continuous by external Number of numerical test results 𝑛 61
surveillance product Coefficient of variation 𝑉 0,07 -
certification Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic for a normal
body 𝐷 0,12
distribution function

For CF sheets applied by the wet lay up method, the partial factor for tensile strength is based on data collected
by Occhiuzzi et al. [5]. They found a lognormal distribution of tensile strength for the single and three layer
application of a typical CF sheet based on the evaluation of tests carried out at eight university laboratories and
give the following parameters.
Table BD-J.4.2: Statistical data of tensile strength of CF sheets according to Occhiuzzi et al. [5]

Number of layers
Parameter 1 3
Number of numerical test results 𝑛 270 288
Mean value of logarithmised tensile strengths 𝜇 8,20 8,19
Standard deviation of logarithmised tensile strengths 𝜎 0,15 0,14
Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic for a lognormal distribution function 𝐷 0,061 0,058
Coefficient of variation of tensile strengths 𝑉 0,15 0,14

If the maximum coefficients of variation included in tables BD-J.4.1 and BD-J.4.2 are considered representative
of the population, the following partial factors 𝛾 for the tensile strength of ABR are obtained.
For the CFRP strips, the partial factor 𝛾 is determined for a normal distribution with the reliability index 𝛽 3,8
for residential and office buildings and the sensitivity factor (FORM) 𝛼 0,8 for resistance as follows:
, ∙ , ∙ ,
𝛾 1,17 (BD-J.4.4)
∙ ∙ , ∙ , ∙ ,

For the CF sheets applied in wet lay-up procedure, the partial factor 𝛾 is determined for the lognormal distribution:
∙ ∙ , ∙ , ∙ , ∙ , , ∙ ,
𝛾 𝑒 𝑒 1,23 (BD-J.4.5)
The application of these values for the design implies a corresponding confirmation of the applied coefficients of
variation and distribution functions on the basis of experimental investigations of the tensile strength and the
constancy of performance according to a European Assessment Document.
The partial safety factor for resistance 𝛾 for persistent and transient design situations is a combination of 𝛾 and
the partial factor 𝛾 associated with the uncertainty of the resistance model and for geometric deviations:
𝛾 𝛾 ∙𝛾 (BD-J.4.6)
The index “f” is used in prEN1992-1-1 for the material (FRP), while according to EN 1990 𝛾 is a partial factor that
takes account of unfavourable deviation of an action from its representative value.
Depending on the application technique, the partial factor 𝛾 has different magnitudes for the persistent and
transient design situation, the following partial safety factors are obtained, which are determined for the other
design situations analogously to prEN 1992-1-1, Section 4.3.3, Table 4.3. Although the same models are used
for both applications, a higher 𝛾 is applicable for CF sheets amongst others because of higher degree of
geometric deviations with this application technique.
Table BD-J.4.3: Derivation of partial factors for materials

Design situation Partial factor CFRP strips and bars In-situ lay-up CF sheets
𝛾 1,17 1,23
𝛾 1,10 1,15
Persistent and transient 1,30 1,40
Accidental 1,10 1,15
𝛾
Serviceability 1,00 1,00
Fatigue 1,30 1,40

R. Niedermeier, R. Alex, K. Zilch, W. Finckh 21.12.2022 Page 6/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 664
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The safety concept for bond is based on design assisted by testing according to EN 1990, Annex D (cf. section
J.15) by assessment via the characteristic value with 𝛾 𝛾 . The conversion factors 𝜂 ∙ 𝑘 and 𝑘 for the
concrete strengths are considered according to FprEN 1992-1-1.
For the determination of the partial safety factor for bond 𝛾 , taken from fib Bulletin 90 [3], failure of near-surface
concrete layers or the adhesive failure was assumed. For the persistent and transient design situation, 𝛾
corresponds to the partial safety factor for the concrete bearing component 𝛾 for design of shear at interfaces
according to Section 8.2.6 (5) of the main part of FprEN 1992-1-1.
Table BD-J.4.4: Partial factors for bond strength
Partial factor 𝛾 for
Design situation
bond strength
Persistent and transient 1,50
Accidental 1,15
Serviceability 1,00
Fatigue 1,50

The design concept for near surface mounted CFRP reinforcement distinguishes between concrete failure and
adhesive failure (see section 11). For reasons of simplification, the same safety factor was used here. A closer
look could possibly apply a lower safety factor to the adhesive failure due to its probably lower scatter. However,
the long-term strength has to be considered.

R. Niedermeier, R. Alex, K. Zilch, W. Finckh 21.12.2022 Page 7/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 665
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The limits provided in this section have been selected to reflect to testing ranges used in the development of
J.5.1 (3)
relationships used in this annex. They also correlate with products widely available on the market.
Establishing a minimum value for the characteristic tensile strength of adhesive ensures that the basic assumption
of design of externally bonded reinforcement, namely that the concrete layer close to the surface will fail, has
been satisfied.

The material properties are product-specific and have to be given by the supplier. There are some standard test
J.5.2
procedures for the CFRP in ISO 10406 but not for all relevant properties and not for the entire strengthening
system. Further some of the design parameters may not be directly derived from the test results. In this case or
where test procedures are not standardized yet, recommended values are given in the corresponding sections of
Annex J.
In the product standard EN 1504, which provides with definitions, requirements, quality control and evaluation of
conformity, Part 2 handles surface protection systems for concrete and Part 4 give rules for structural bonding.
It has to be considered that all properties of the single components (e.g. CFRP strips, adhesive) have to be
ensured to be valid in the entire strengthening system.
For further information see “Requirements to Materials – CFRP reinforcement for strengthening” (Background
document to Annex J.15) [42].
According to the Construction Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (CPR)) on EU level test
procedures for the essential characteristics of construction products may be included in two types of technical
specifications for construction products:
- European harmonized product standards or
- European Assessment Documents (EAD).
At the time of this writing, none of the two types of technical specification was available for CFRP Strengthening
Systems. EADs are under preparation. That’s why [42] contains not only methods for determining the design
parameters for Annex J, but also the descriptions of possible test procedures, where necessary.

The factor 𝜂 is a reduction factor applied to the tensile strength of the ABR CFRP. It considers long-term effects
J.5.3 (1) and (2)
as creep under sustained load and influences of the alkaline environment and the temperature.
For further information see “Requirements to Materials – CFRP reinforcement for strengthening” (Background
document to Annex J.15) [42].
In approvals, where tests had been performed values between 0,65 and 1,0 can be found. That’s why the
recommended value 0,7 has been chosen. In approvals where no tests have been performed lower values may
be found.

The permissible environmental conditions as well as the resulting measures will be regulated in the European
J.6.3
Assessment Documents (or a subsequent execution standard) of the strengthening System. For further
information see Background document to Annex J.15 [42].
Presently, the supplied system dictates the exposure classification. This document was prepared on the basis
that the designer will specify an exposure classification as part of a design, along with the design life to enable a
suitable product to be supplied for the strengthening application.
The concrete cover must be measured (in execution) so that the reinforcement is not endangered when cutting
the slots. Also, the filling and protection must both ensure fire performance and bond of both existing reinforcement
and NSM reinforcement in slots is acceptable.

R. Alex, A. Ignatiadis, V. Buchin 21.12.2022 Page 8/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 666
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

This provision aligns with fib 90 [3], Section 3.8.

J.7
This provisions align with fib 90 [3], Section 2 and Section 6.
J.8
The provisions in this code should not be applied to concrete with 𝑓 12 MPa or 𝑓 50 MPa, due to limited
surface tensile strength in the lower concrete classes and less background for higher strength classes.

The flexural capacity of the strengthened member is assessed by means of traditional cross-sectional analysis,
J.8.1.1
based on strain compatibility assuming full composite action between the CFRP and the concrete substrate,
horizontal equilibrium of forces and moment equilibrium. The load level during strengthening is considered through
the acting strains in the cross section when the moment has come for ABR application.
Debonding checks are undertaken to validate this approach.

J.8.1.2 General
The provisions for the confining of concrete columns in Annex J consider only the confining effect due to the
adhesively bonded CFRP. The confining effect of the internal reinforcement has not been considered for reason
of simplification.
An approach for considering the internal reinforcement can be found in [1], [43], [44].
The application of FprEN 1992-1-1, Section 8.1.4 in addition to Annex J, J.8.1.2 is not on the safe side because
of different behaviour of the internal steel reinforcement and the strengthening material.

J.8.1.2 (2) Limits of Application

The characteristic concrete strength fck is less than 50 MPa;
All models have been validated against a large database of test specimens (306 circular cross section
specimens and 216 rectangular/square specimens). For both circular and rectangular/square columns,
the highest concrete strength studied is 55 MPa (very few at this strength, with the average of
approximately 36 MPa). Given that the expressions are largely empirical, the equations may not be
valid outside this range. Furthermore, the stress-strain behavior of higher strength concrete (above 50
MPa) is known to be different to that of normal strength concrete (particularly in relation to triaxial state
of stress) so the same confinement relationships do not apply outside of this range.

The diameter of a circular column, D, or effective diameter of a rectangular or square column, Deq ≥ 150 mm;
The majority of testing has been carried out on relatively small-scale columns, the vast majority with a
cross-sectional dimension of 150 mm. Some larger specimens have been tested to demonstrate
applicability of models and behaviour at more realistic scale (Darby et al. [7] for rectangular columns,
Youssef [52]). The models have therefore been verified for columns of effective diameter 150 mm and
above.

The first order eccentricity satisfies the condition e0/Deq < 0,20;
While there is some debate around an appropriate limit concerning eccentricity of loading, Song et al.
[6] show that for FRP confined square columns tested with eccentricities greater than e/D of 0,25, the
capacity increase is negligible compared to the unconfined equivalent. While there are a few other
studies on eccentrically loaded columns, there is limited data to support a less onerous condition or
modifications to the model.
The basis of the confinement model assumes confinement around the full column perimeter, full bond
to the substrate and failure governed by rupture of the FRP. However, where significantly eccentric
loads are applied a tensile stress in the FRP does not exist around the full perimeter, altering
confinement within the concrete. For more extreme eccentricities debonding of the FRP can occur due
to shear stresses at the FRP-concrete interface (particularly in rectangular columns), reducing
confinement stiffness. There is also a possibility that FRP rupture does not govern failure, but rather,
lateral deformations become gross, P-Delta effects start to influence behavior and steel can rupture in
tension (Darby et al. [7]). To avoid these issues, an e/D value of 0,20 ensures that the whole cross
section is in compression (varying linearly going from zero axial strain on one side to maximum axial
compressive strain on the opposite face) and thus some significant level of confinement exists around
the whole column perimeter.

J.8.1.2 (3) Derivation of provisions

For the design of CFRP confined concrete cross sections the following simplified bilinear stress-strain relationship
may be used:
When calculating the capacity of a column with some moment (applied or due to first order eccentricity) it is
necessary to use a full stress strain model of the concrete in compression. The common model is to assume a
parabolic curve transitioning into a linear ascending line (e.g. Lam and Teng [53], [54]), but a simplified bilinear

C. Giaccio, A. Darby 21.12.2022 Page 9/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 667
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

model (e.g. Darby et al. [7], Binici [55]) is much simpler to apply, is conservative, and gives perfectly acceptable
results, transitioning at a strain of 0,00175.
A rectangular stress block is not suitable for confined concrete, due to the significant variation in additional
strength that can be provided.

The value of 𝜀 can be taken as 0,006 unless more accurate information is available.

Not only is ultimate strength enhanced by confinement, but ultimate strain is also significantly increased. The
ultimate compressive strain for FRP confined concrete varies significantly and models to predict this strain are
highly empirical with a large scatter. It is therefore suggested that a lower bound (based on the database of
experimental results used to validate the models) of 0,006 be used for the ultimate strain for the purposes of
developing a conservative stress-strain model.

The provisions in FprEN 1992-1-1, Annex J for the increase in compressive strength of concrete due to
J.8.1.2 (4)
confinement from FRP are adapted from fib-90 (2019) [3] as outlined below.
The aim of the amendments to fib-90 [3] provisions is to implement an increment increase in compressive strength
outlined in clause 8.1.4.
Rectangular Columns:
According to fib-90 [3], Equation (6.55):
, , ,
1 3,3 ∙ ∙𝛼 ∙ ∗
∙ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∙𝛼 ∙ ∗
∙ 0,07 (BD-J.8.1)

, ,
1 𝑓𝑜𝑟 .𝛼 . ∗
. 0,07 (BD-J.8.2)

fib-90 [3] defines 𝛼 as follows:

𝛼 𝛼 .𝛼 .𝛼 (BD-J.8.3)
Expanding these terms definitions provided in fib-90 [3], and using the symbols defined in FprEN 1992-1-1, the
following is obtained:
∙ ∙
𝛼 1 ∙ 1 ∙ 1 ∙ (BD-J.8.4)
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙

Where bf, sf, and bf are defined in Figure J.2 (b), while h, b and rc are defined in Figure J.2 (a), in FprEN 1992-1-1.
For ease of use, it was noted that the 2nd – 4th components of af will not always be used in practice. These terms
only apply to helical or intermittently wrapped systems, therefore the terms was re-written as follows:
𝛼 𝑘 ∙𝑘 (BD-J.8.5)
where:
∙ ∙
𝑘 1 (BD-J.8.6)
∙ ∙

𝑘 1 1 ∙ (BD-J.8.7)
∙ ∙

Replacing fib 90 [3] symbols with FprEN1992-1-1 symbols and re-arranging, the following is obtained:

𝑓 , 𝑓 𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∙𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙ 0,07 (BD-J.8.8)

𝑓 , 𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∙𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙ 0,07 (BD-J.8.9)

The term kh is not explicitly incorporated into the formulae as it is the exception rather than the rule. However
FprEN1992-1-1 allows 𝑓 to be factored by kh if helical/intermittent wrapping is used.
The intention in the provisions in FprEN1992-1-1 was to retain the same approach as Section 8.1.4 in the main
text, the term fcd was introduced such that:
𝑓 , 𝑓 ∆𝑓 (BD-J.8.10)

Substituting formula (BD-J.8.5) into formulae (BD-J.8.3) and (BD.J.8.4), and simplifying, the following Formulae
is used in FprEN 1992-1-1.

∆𝑓 𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∙𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙ 0,07 (BD-J.8.11)

∆𝑓 0 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ∙𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑘 ∙ 0,07 (BD-J.8.12)

C. Giaccio, A. Darby 21.12.2022 Page 10/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 668
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The value of 3,3 in the fib 90, equation (BD-J.8.1), has been substituted by kcc. Comparing the model with the
database of tests, a value of kcc of 1,5 is recommended as a safe upper limit. Due to the complexity of the model
and numerous factors involved, there is considerable scatter of results from the model compared to the measured
results as shown in the figure below, resulting in a high mean value for the ratio of measured/predicted strength
increase and a high standard deviation. A value of kcc = 1,5 ensures that there is 95% confidence in the
measured/predicted strength increase > 1 (with material partial safety factors set to unity) for tests which meet
the criteria in equation (BD-J.8.11).

The term kr, defined as

0,5 ∙ ∙ 2 for 𝑟 50 mm
𝑘 (BD-J.8.13)
0,5 for 𝑟 50 mm
accounts for the reduction in strength observed for FRP wrapped around corners. This is consistent with fib 90 [3]
and is used for both confinement and shear strengthening. Corner radius above 50 mm is rare in tests, due to the
need to maintain concrete cover to internal reinforcement, but the upper limit on kr is 0,5. This is consistent with
the strength reduction factor for the FRP for confinement of circular columns, based on a lower limit observed in
tests.

Circular Columns
Similar substitutions outlined for rectangular columns were applied to arrive at provisions for circular columns in
FprEN 1992-1-1. Resulting in the following formulae:
∙ ∙ , ∙
∆𝑓 0 for 0,07 (BD-J.8.14)
∙

∙ ∙ ∙ , ∙
∆𝑓 𝑘cc ∙ ∙ 0,5 ∙ 𝑓 for 0,07 (BD-J.8.15)
∙

The term kr is omitted as it is always taken as 0,5 (i.e. radius > 50mm) and, as such, is directly included in the
formulae.
The term kh for helical/intermittent FRP confinement of circular columns is not provided in fib 90, but has been
derived on the same basis as the equation for kh given for rectangular columns and is applied in the same way.

𝑘 1 ∙ (BD-J.8.16)
∙

Due to the relative simplicity of the model, there is considerably less scatter in results when comparing the
measured strength increase from the experimental database with the predictions from the model, as shown in the
figure below.

C. Giaccio, A. Darby 21.12.2022 Page 11/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 669
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

As a result of the lower mean and standard deviation for this model, the factor kcc = 2,5 ensures that there is 95%
confidence that the measured/predicted strength increase > 1 (with material partial safety factors set to unity) for
tests which meet the criteria in formula (BD-J.8.15). This is lower than the 3,3 suggested in fib 90 [3] but gives a
safe upper bound to the value.

C. Giaccio, A. Darby 21.12.2022 Page 12/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 670
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J.8.2.1 General verification procedure

The reinforced concrete members requiring strengthening in shear (beams or columns) can be strengthened by
using CFRP materials with orthogonally applied fibres in the direction of the axis of the member. There are several
strengthening systems for shear strengthening of beams containing: closed wrapped CFRP systems and opened
CFRP systems, with discrete or continuous application of the strengthening system (see FprEN 1992-1-1, Figure
J.3).

Shear strengthening for columns contains the only fully closed systems (Fig. BD-J.8.1).

(a) (b)
Figure BD-J.8.1: Shear strengthening of columns with
(a) closed – continuous application of the strengthening system and
(b) closed – discrete application of the strengthening system. [3]
Shear strengthening is required if the average shear strength over the cross-section Ed (Eq. (8.18)) is larger than
Rd,c (Eq. (8.27)) in case the unstrengthened element does not have shear reinforcement, or when the average
shear strength Ed is larger than Rd,sy (Eq. (8.42)) or Eq. (8.44) is not fulfilled if the unstrengthened element has
shear reinforcement. That is, in cases where the internal steel reinforcement is inadequate following the detailing
rules of EN 1992-1-1 the difference may be covered using ABR CFRP in accordance with J.8.2.3. The method
described in Annex J allows superposition with the basic section shear capacity and is similar to that given in [3].
𝜏 , 𝜏 𝜏 , (BD-J.8.17)
Where:
 , 𝜌 𝑓 cot 𝜃 cot  sin  (BD-J.8.18)

𝜌 (BD-J.8.19)
∙

∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 for discrete CFRP strips or CF sheets

(BD-J.8.20)
2𝑡 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 for continous CF sheets
𝜌 is the externally applied FRP reinforcement ratio
𝛼 is the angle formed between the CFRP system;
𝑓 is design shear strength of the CFRP system intersected by the shear crack in the ultimate limit
state and calculated in accordance with formulae (J.18) to (J.23), depending on the CFRP configuration.
This design shear strength depends on the shear strengthening configuration (fully wrapped or open
CFRP systems). Hereby, it is assumed that the steel stirrups have sufficient deformation capacity, so
that the FRP can reach its design strength 𝑓 . This might be verified by comparing 𝑓 ⁄𝐸 with the
deformation capacity of the steel (with a given ductility class).
𝐴 is the area of externally bonded shear FRP reinforcement measured perpendicular to the direction
of the fibres at the spacing 𝑠 (Fig. J.4)
𝑏 and 𝑡 are the width and effective thickness of the FRP materials
An analysis of the capacity of the compression struts in accordance with Chapter 8.2 shall also be furnished for
shear strengthening with the selected angle θ of the compression strut, as follows:
 
 𝑓 
(BD-J.8.21)

Unless more rigorous analysis is undertaken,  should be taken as 45 degrees for the calculation of Rd and Rd,f.

R. Kotynia, E. Oller, A. Darby 21.12.2022 Page 13/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 671
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

If the structure has not the shear strengthening, at least a fraction equal to 3 = 0,5 of the necessary shear
reinforcement should be covered by stirrups. If this condition is not satisfied, the difference in the shear strength
shall be covered by the externally applied CFRP reinforcement.
For the effective thickness of CF sheets Eq. (J.1) has to be considered, so the reduced effectiveness of a jacket
with many layers is taken into account.
In members with flexural strengthening in accordance with J.8.1 and with Ed > Rd,c , the shear verification of
J.8.2.3 is applicable.
Additional Information on shear strengthening in relation to flexural debonding can be found in J.11.1.2.3.

J.8.2.3 (5) Closed wrapped CFRP systems

The design shear strength of closed wrapped FRP systems (see FprEN 1992-1-1, Figure J.3c) is defined as:
𝑓 𝑓 , 0,8 𝑘 ∙ 𝑓 (BD-J.8.22)
where: 0,8 represents a long-term loading factor, 𝑘 is the reduction factor, which accounts for the non-uniform
distribution of stress in the FRP intersecting the shear crack and for the reduction of FRP strength due to bending
of the fibres at the corners of the cross section. Assuming that the radius at the corners is R (mm), 𝑘 is obtained
as follows (see also FprEN 1992-1-1, formula (J.13)):

0,5 2 𝑅 50 𝑚𝑚
(BD-J.8.23)
0,5 𝑅 50 𝑚𝑚
𝑓 can be obtained from Eq. (J.2)

J.8.2.3 (6) Open CFRP systems without anchorages

The shear capacity is determined by the minimum strength of the FRP reinforcement as if it is closed, 𝑓 , and
the bond strength, 𝑓 , 𝑏 Eq. (BD-J.8.25 to BD-J.8.27). The bond strength is obtained as a function of the
geometric assumptions shown in (Fig. BD-J.8.2) and a bilinear bond law shown in (Fig. BD-J.8.3).
𝑓 min 𝑓 , ,𝑓 , (BD-J.8.24)

Figure BD-J.8.2: Strips crossed by the shear crack. (le corresponds to lbf in FprEN1992-1-1)

Figure BD-J.8.3: Generic bilinear b-s constitutive law for bond in EBR FRP systems.

(a) for ℎ /sin 𝑙 , , and 𝑙 , , 𝑠 / cot𝜃 cot sin ℎ /sin , if all strips are intersected by the
shear crack the bond length is ≥ 𝑙 , , and 𝑓 is calculated according to:

𝑓 , (BD-J.8.25)

(b) for ℎ /sin 𝑙 , , and 𝑠 / cot𝜃 cot sin 𝑙 , , , if all strips are intersected by the shear crack,
the bond length is < 𝑙 , , , and 𝑓 is calculated according to:

R. Kotynia, E. Oller, A. Darby 21.12.2022 Page 14/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 672
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

𝑓 , 1 1 (BD-J.8.26)

(c) for ℎ /𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 𝑙 , , and 𝑠 / 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 ℎ /𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼, if all strips are intersected by the shear crack,
the bond length < 𝑙 , , , and 𝑓 is calculated according to:

𝑓 , (BD-J.8.27)
, ,

where: n is the number of strips crossed by the shear crack:

𝑛 ℎ cot𝜃 cot𝛼 /𝑠 (BD-J.8.28)
m is the number of strips for which the bond length is less than integer quotient of:
𝑙 , , 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝛼 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼/𝑠 .
𝑙 , , is maximum bond length in accordance with J.11.1. In dependence of the chosen method,
simplified method in J.11.1.2 or refined method in J.11.1.3 formulae (J.37) resp. (J.39) have to be
applied.
𝑓 is characteristic maximum bond strength:

⎧ ∙ 2 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠 𝑙 , ,
𝑓 𝑠 (BD-J.8.29)
⎨ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠 𝑙 , ,
⎩
The characteristic values of the shear strength 𝜏 and the ultimate slip 𝑠 can be taken from Table BD-J.8.1.
Table BD-J.8.1 - Parameters of the bilinear 𝜏 - s constitutive law for bond.
Type τb1 s1 (mm) s0 (mm)
Mean value 0.53 fcm fctm 0.0063 0.21
CFRP strips
5% characteristic value 0.37 fcm fctm - 0.20
Mean value 0.72 fcm fctm 0.0107 0.24
CFRP sheets
5% characteristic value 0.44 fcm fctm - 0.23

J.8.2.3 (7) Full area bond

Continuous CFRP sheets may be treated as a special case of CFRP strips with 𝑠 𝑏 /𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼.
, ,
For ℎ /𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 𝑙 , , : 𝑓 , 1 (BD-J.8.30)
/

⁄
For ℎ /𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 𝑙 , , : 𝑓 , (BD-J.8.31)
, ,

Open CFRP systems with anchorage in the compression zone

Anchorage systems are not covered in FprEN 1992-1-1. For application the technical product specification of the
anchorage system has to be considered.
In case of three-sided CFRP strips/sheets anchored in the compression zone (Fig. BD-J.8.4), the effectiveness
coefficient is equal to 𝑘 , so the strength 𝑓 is:
𝑓 𝑘 𝑓 , (BD-J.8.32)

with 𝑘 ≤ 0,9.
If no anchors are used 𝑘 𝑓 , /𝑓 , .

(a) (b)
Figure BD-J.8.4: Anchorage of three-sided CFRPs:
(a) Use of spike anchors in combination with CFRP sheets;

(b) anchorage of individual strips inside the slab.

Punching is excluded due to insufficient data.

J.8.4

R. Kotynia, E. Oller, A. Darby 21.12.2022 Page 15/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 673
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

At the serviceability limit state, the strain in the strengthening system must be limited for reasons of the durability
J.9
of the bond. Here is good experience with a strain limitation for rare load combinations of f < 2 mm/m for members
with existing reinforcing steel of fyk = 500 MPa. This corresponds to the more general proposal for a stress limit in
dependence of the existing reinforcing steel strength of:

𝜎 0,8𝑓 (BD-J.9.1)

The intention behind limiting strain resp. stress for rare load combinations is to prevent significant damage to the
bond of the externally bonded reinforcement. Furthermore, yielding of the reinforcing steel under rare load
combinations is ruled out in the main part, likewise to prevent high bond stresses and irreversible deformations of
the structure.
Limiting the reinforcing steel stresses alone is not sufficient, as members without reinforcing steel reinforcement
can also be strengthened.

J.10 Analysis Concept

The proposal for fatigue analysis of externally bonded CFRP in FprEN 1992-1-1, Annex J is based on the German
guideline for the strengthening of concrete members with adhesively bonded reinforcement [1].
The fatigue analysis of externally bonded CFRP proposed in Annex J.10 is divided into two parts. The first part of
the proof is the basic fatigue analysis in J.10.1. Here, the upper load level is used to check whether damage due
to cyclic loading can occur. The second part is the refined fatigue analysis in J.10.2, where the fatigue range S is
used for the determination of a tolerable number of load cycles N on the basis of an S-N curve.

J.10.1 Basic fatigue analysis for externally bonded CFRP systems

The first proof requires that the upper load remains below the load level that leads to the maximum bond stress
𝜏f1k and the corresponding slip 𝑠f1 from the bilinear composite stress-slip relationship. This ensures that the
deformations are in the elastic range and that no damage occurs. Inserting the elastic energy leads to the formula
used in the proof (J.25). Hankers [8] determines the basic fatigue resistance to:
/
∆𝐹 , 0,348 ∙ 𝑓 , ∙𝑓 ∙𝑏 ∙𝑡 (BD-J.10.1)

J.10.2 Refined fatigue analysis for externally bonded CFRP systems

The refined analyses uses the S-N curve determined from the experimental test data described in Bizindavyi [9],
Carloni [10], Budelmann [11], Leusmann [12], Dai [13] and Ferrier [14]. For determining the number of load cycles
N30 needed for reaching a debonded length of 30 mm, a linear increase of the debonded length is assumed. The
number of load cycles needed for reaching a decoupled length of 30 mm is calculated for the tests from Bizindavyi
[9], Carloni [10], Dai [13] and Ferrier [14] by linear interpolation using the bond length and the number of load
cycles until full decoupling. For the tests from Budelmann [11] and Leusmann [12] the number of load cycles is
taken from the strain measurements. A decoupling length of 30 mm is reached when the strain measured with
the strain gauge placed 30 mm from the loaded end exceeds the free strain measured with the strain gauge
located in the unbounded region of the CFRP-plate.
For fitting the S-N curve unified related load ranges S0,i at a lower load level of 0 and the corresponding number
of load cycles N30 is needed. The unified load range S0,i is determined in a projection analysis using the Goodman
relation and Equation (BD-J.10.2), see [15].
∆𝐹𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝐹𝑓,𝑚𝑖𝑛
∆𝐹𝑓,0,𝑖 ∆𝐹𝑏𝑓,𝑚 ∆𝐹𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝐹𝑓,𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑆0,𝑖 (BD-J.10.2)
∆𝐹𝑓𝑅𝑑 ∆𝐹𝑓,𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∆𝐹𝑏𝑓,𝑚 ∆𝐹𝑓,𝑚𝑖𝑛
1
∆𝐹𝑏𝑓,𝑚

The Procedure of the Goodman-projection is depicted in Figure BD-J.10.1.

Experimental data from Bizindavyi [9], Carloni [10], Budelmann [11], Leusmann [12], Dai [13] and Ferrier [14] with
the calculated number of load cycles N30 and the corresponding load range S0, as well as the width bf, the
thickness tf, the number of layers nf and Young’s modulus Ef of the tested FRP can be found in Table BD-J.10.1
and Table BD-J.10.2.
Figure BD-J.10.2 shows the S-N curve fitted to the experimental data. The load range S0 is the difference between
maximum and minimum load - related to the monotonic quasi-static load-carrying capacity of the interface.

W. Finckh, T. Leusmann, K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier 21.12.2022 Page 16/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 674
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure BD-J.10.1: Goodman projection for determining the load range S0,i

Figure BD-J.10.2: S-N curve and experimental data from Bizindavyi [9], Carloni [10], Budelmann [11], Leusmann
[12], Dai [13] and Ferrier [14]

W. Finckh, T. Leusmann, K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier 21.12.2022 Page 17/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 675
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table BD-J.10.1 : Experimental data from Bizindavyi [9].

Ref. Name bf tf Ef lbf F fU F fO N30 S0

[mm] [mm] [N/mm²] [mm] [N] [N] [-] [-]
Biz. [9] C1-1a 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 6480 30 0,76
Biz. [9] C1-2a 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 5029 17323 0,59
Biz. [9] C1-2b 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 5029 28656 0,59
Biz. [9] C1-3a 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 4572 21025 0,54
Biz. [9] C1-3b 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 4572 29790 0,54
Biz. [9] C1-3c 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 4572 34739 0,54
Biz. [9] C1-3d 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 4572 67608 0,54
Biz. [9] C1-4a 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 3505 186222 0,41
Biz. [9] C1-4b 25,4 0,33 29200 300 0 3505 202950 0,41
Biz. [9] C2-1a 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 11135 624 0,66
Biz. [9] C2-1b 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 11135 788 0,66
Biz. [9] C2-2a 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 9185 6526 0,54
Biz. [9] C2-2b 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 9185 26832 0,54
Biz. [9] C2-3a 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 7071 34674 0,42
Biz. [9] C2-3b 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 7071 93133 0,42
Biz. [9] C3-1a 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 11460 29 0,67
Biz. [9] C3-1b 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 11460 60 0,67
Biz. [9] C3-2a 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 9453 113 0,56
Biz. [9] C3-2b 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 9453 407 0,56
Biz. [9] C3-3a 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 7453 40022 0,44
Biz. [9] C3-3b 50,8 0,33 29200 160 0 7453 40352 0,44
Biz. [9] C4-1a 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 17496 37 0,58
Biz. [9] C4-1b 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 17496 39 0,58
Biz. [9] C4-2a 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 14402 190 0,48
Biz. [9] C4-2b 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 14402 1062 0,48
Biz. [9] C4-3a 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 11232 7650 0,37
Biz. [9] C4-3b 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 11232 26687 0,37
Biz. [9] C5-1a 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 18882 38 0,63
Biz. [9] C5-1b 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 18882 97 0,63
Biz. [9] C4-2a 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 16825 195 0,56
Biz. [9] C5-2b 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 16825 1430 0,56
Biz. [9] C5-3a 50,8 0,66 29200 300 0 15728 18682 0,52
Biz. [9] G1-1a 25,4 1 29200 220 0 6426 5523 0,56
Biz. [9] G1-1b 25,4 1 29200 220 0 6426 6830 0,56
Biz. [9] G1-2a 25,4 1 29200 220 0 4890 8768 0,43
Biz. [9] G1-2b 25,4 1 29200 220 0 4890 9627 0,43
Biz. [9] G1-3a 25,4 1 29200 220 0 4543 112227 0,4
Biz. [9] G1-3b 25,4 1 29200 220 0 4543 135273 0,4
Biz. [9] G2-1a 25,4 1 29200 300 0 6477 2390 0,57
Biz. [9] G2-1b 25,4 1 29200 300 0 6477 7832 0,57
Biz. [9] G2-2a 25,4 1 29200 300 0 4953 21714 0,43
Biz. [9] G2-2b 25,4 1 29200 300 0 4953 35949 0,43
Biz. [9] G2-2c 25,4 1 29200 300 0 4953 42308 0,43
Biz. [9] G2-3a 25,4 1 29200 300 0 4420 88609 0,39
Biz. [9] G2-3b 25,4 1 29200 300 0 4420 245893 0,39

W. Finckh, T. Leusmann, K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier 21.12.2022 Page 18/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 676
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table BD-J.10.2 : Experimental data from Carloni [10], Budelmann [11], Leusmann [12], Dai [13] and Ferrier
[14].

Ref. Name bf tf Ef lbf F fU F fO N30 S0

[mm] [mm] [N/mm²] [mm] [N] [N] [-] [-]
Car. [10] DSF1 25 0,167 230000 152 1250 7590 255 0,75
Car. [10] DSF2 25 0,167 230000 152 1100 7590 2604 0,61
Car. [10] DSF3 25 0,167 230000 152 1100 7590 23091 0,53
Bud. [11] C201 50 1,4 170000 1150 3820 28382 127862 0,40
Bud. [11] C202 50 1,4 170000 1150 5117 28382 415550 0,55
Bud. [11] C203 50 1,4 170000 1150 5819 28382 1196372 0,46
Bud. [11] C204 50 1,4 170000 1150 9032 30190 156751 0,34
Bud. [11] C205 50 1,4 170000 1150 15292 34296 188462 0,38
Bud. [11] C206 50 1,4 170000 1150 21729 30190 462744 0,38
Bud. [11] C207 50 1,4 170000 1150 22884 30190 462744 0,45
Bud. [11] C208 50 1,4 170000 1150 5236 30952 581 0,60
Bud. [11] C209 50 1,4 170000 1150 10436 30952 428569 0,39
Bud. [11] C2010 50 1,4 170000 1150 10175 30952 428569 0,39
Bud. [11] C401 50 1,4 170000 1150 3249 24847 572408 0,49
Bud. [11] C402 50 1,4 170000 1150 11662 24847 2000000 0,45
Bud. [11] C501 50 1,4 170000 1150 25811 34950 61811 0,44
Bud. [11] C502 50 1,4 170000 1150 25478 34950 61811 0,43
Bud. [11] C503 50 1,4 170000 1150 5284 34950 746055 0,37
Bud. [11] C504 50 1,4 170000 1150 5986 34950 269850 0,39
Leu. [12] 12A 50 5 95800 1150 5500 36000 326600 0,43
Leu. [12] 12B 50 5 95800 1150 5700 36000 679003 0,45
Leu. [12] 13A 50 5 95800 1150 5300 36000 19130 0,59
Leu. [12] 13B 50 5 95800 1150 6200 36000 21821 0,62
Leu. [12] 14B 50 5 95800 1150 6600 36000 1084 0,72
Leu. [12] 22A1 50 5 95800 1150 15200 36000 33780 0,45
Leu. [12] 22B 50 5 95800 1150 14700 36000 405678 0,50
Leu. [12] 22A2 50 5 95800 1150 15200 36000 53531 0,45
Leu. [12] 22A3 50 5 95800 1150 15200 36000 107046 0,45
Leu. [12] 24B 50 5 95800 1150 15300 36000 3440 0,84
Dai [13] S1-1 60 0,11 230000 150 0 17958 57 0,73
Dai [13] S1-2 60 0,11 230000 150 0 15744 4615 0,64
Dai [13] S1-3 60 0,11 230000 150 0 12546 299162 0,51
Fer. [14] A1 16,2 1,38 67900 200 0 10284 3 0,86
Fer. [14] A2 16,1 1,38 67500 200 0 10220 27 0,86
Fer. [14] A3 16,2 1,38 67300 200 0 8942 59 0,75
Fer. [14] A4 16,1 1,38 67200 200 0 8887 118 0,75
Fer. [14] A5 16,2 1,38 66800 200 0 8048 720 0,67
Fer. [14] A6 16,2 1,38 66800 200 0 8048 542 0,67
Fer. [14] A7 16,2 1,38 66300 200 0 7154 6001 0,59
Fer. [14] A8 16,2 1,38 66200 200 0 6707 9653 0,56
Fer. [14] A9 16,2 1,38 65900 200 0 6148 47948 0,51
Fer. [14] A10 16,2 1,38 65700 200 0 5813 120251 0,48
Fer. [14] B1 12,8 2,57 54400 200 0 17797 2425 0,64
Fer. [14] B2 12,8 2,9 50700 200 0 18968 5210 0,6
Fer. [14] B3 12,7 2,65 51600 200 0 16222 74385 0,56
Fer. [14] B4 12,7 2,61 48900 200 0 14982 207728 0,53
Fer. [14] B5 12,7 2,68 - 200 0 13342 573517 0,46

W. Finckh, T. Leusmann, K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier 21.12.2022 Page 19/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 677
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J.10.3 Fatigue analysis for Near surface mounted CFRP strips

The proposal for the fatigue analysis for Near surface mounted CFRP strips is based on the DAfStb Guideline
“Strengthening of Concrete Members with Adhesively Bonded Reinforcement” [1].

Description
When checking fatigue for non-static loads, the Annex J can be used to verify the bond of flexural strengthening
in the form of near-surface-mounted CFRP strips. As the carbon fibres exhibit virtually no signs of fatigue, only
the bond needs to be checked for fatigue when using CFRP strips. Besides the fatigue of the strengthening
system, the concrete, reinforcing steel and prestressing steel must also be checked according to EN 1992.
In contrast to externally bonded CFRP strips, however, there is no comprehensive analysis concept available for
near-surface-mounted strips. Owing to the low number of fatigue tests involving near-surface-mounted CFRP
strips (see [16]), a quasi-fatigue strength analysis is the only option here. With so few test results available, it is
not possible to specify an S-N curve for near-surface-mounted reinforcement. And as an S-N curve is unavailable,
it is not possible to extrapolate for a number of load cycles greater than that given in the test results. Therefore,
the analysis can only assume sufficient fatigue resistance for max. 2ˑ106 load cycles. Design methods for numbers
of load cycles > 2ˑ106 are not covered in the DAfStb guideline [1].
In this analysis, adequate resistance to fatigue for near-surface-mounted CFRP strips may be assumed for up to
2 ꞏ 106 load cycles provided the end anchorage force for a frequent cyclic action to EN 1992 and taking into
account the “shift rule”, does not exceed the value 0,6 𝑓 and the strip stress range does not exceed a value
given by Eq. (J.32). The strip thickness 𝑡 in mm should be used here so that the result is an admissible stress
range in N/mm².

Background
The analysis of the fatigue resistance of the bond of near surface mounted CFRP strips is based on a small
number of tests described in [16] and [3]. Hence it is not possible to provide a S-N-curve for the bond of near
surface mounted CFRP strips. Owing to the lack of a S-N-curve it is not possible to extrapolate to a greater number
of cycles than investigated in the tests. In this analysis it can therefore only be assumed that adequate fatigue
resistance is provided up to 2 ∙ 106 load cycles ).
The few fatigue tests were carried out on individual products. It should therefore be additionally checked for each
product that the following conditions are fulfilled:
 The upper load should be less than 60% of the composite failure load at the point of adhesive cohesion
failure (transition to friction plateau):
𝐹, , 0,6 ⋅ 𝑓 ⋅ 𝑏 ⋅ 𝑡 with 𝑓 according to Formula (J.56)

 The amplitude should be less than 15% of the composite failure load at the point of adhesive cohesion
failure (transition to friction plateau):
Δσ 0,15 ⋅ 𝑓 with 𝑓 according to Formula (J.56)

W. Finckh, T. Leusmann, K. Zilch, R. Niedermeier 21.12.2022 Page 20/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 678
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The fctm,surf formulation in FprEN 1992-1-1, Eq. (J.34) is based on the lower bound of the possible formulations.
J.11.1.1.1
Other possible formulations taking into consideration the dependence of concreting position on the surface tensile
strength by the factor k are possible [18], [19], [20]. Alternatively, usual ranges are shown in figure BD-J.11.3 for
the different concreting positions so that the designer gets some feeling for possible problems. The values
included in this diagram are based on the arithmetic mean from at least four pull-off tests according to EN 1542
which had been performed on concrete specimens made from globular limestone aggregates from the Munich
area.

Figure BD-J.11.3 Usual ranges for the factor k based on [18]

J.11.1.1.2 Basic anchorage resistance – Simplified method

The Simplified method is based on the following conservative simplification of the refined method in Chapter
J.11.1.1.3.
Equation J.38 can be reformulated as follows
⋅ ⋅
𝑓 ⋅𝛽 ⋅𝑓 , (BD-J.11.1)

Where:

2 1 if 𝑙 𝑙 , ,
𝛽 , , , , (BD-J.11.2)
1 if 𝑙 𝑙 , ,

Equation J.40 can be reformulated with the default values of J.11.1.1.3 𝜏 0,37 ⋅ 1,0 ⋅ 𝑓 , ⋅𝑓 and ∙
𝑠 0,2 (ksys = 1,0) as follows

𝑓 , 0.272 ⋅ 𝑓 , ⋅𝑓 (BD-J.11.3)

The front part of the equation (BD-J.11.1) can be conservative reformulated with ktc = 0.85 , kcc=0.7 and 𝜂
/
0.93
.
𝑓 ⋅𝛽 ⋅𝑓 , (BD-J.11.4)

.
𝑓 ⋅ 𝛽 ⋅ 0.272 ⋅ 𝑓 , ⋅𝑓 (BD-J.11.5)

Equation J.39 can be reformulated with the default values of J.11.1.1.3 𝜏 0,37 ⋅ 1,0 ⋅ 𝑓 , ⋅𝑓 and ∙
𝑠 0,2 (ksys = 1,0) as follows

∙ ∙ ,
𝑙 , ∙ (BD-J.11.6)
, ⋅ , ⋅

𝐸𝑓 ∙𝑡𝑓
𝑙 , 𝑙𝑏𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 1,5 ∙ (BD-J.1175)
𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑚,𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓 ⋅𝑓𝑐𝑚

W. Finckh, E. Oller, S. Matthys 21.12.2022 Page 21/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 679
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J.11.1.1.3 Basic anchorage resistance - Refined method

This section explains the Intermediate crack debonding. The proposal is based on the DAfStb Guideline
“Strengthening of Concrete Members with Adhesively Bonded Reinforcement” [1] and the fib-bulletin 90 [3] with
some adjustments.

Figure BD-J.11.2 Determination of the bond forces at the end anchorage using the differential equation for bond
and the bilinear bond approach, based on [18], [21], [22]
The basic anchorage resistance - CFRP to concrete corresponds to the tensile stress that can be anchored by
the EBR CFRP at a single crack. The refined method for determining this tensile stress is based on a slip-bond
stress relationship that can be derived from force and slip measurements in bond tests with EBR CFRP. The slip-
bond stress relationship of EBR CFRP can be idealised using a bilinear approach as shown in Figure BD-J.11.2.
Up the maximum bond stress f1, a linear relationship between the slip and the bond stress applies. After
exceeding the maximum bond stress, progressive softening occurs until complete debonding of the EBR CFRP
occurs when the critical slip sf0 is reached. If the friction occurring in practical applications at even larger slip values
after debonding is neglected, the idealised bilinear bond approach provides a good approximate
phenomenological description of the complex processes in the composite system. The size of the area under the
bilinear slip bond stress curve is of the unit Nmm/mm2 and corresponds to an areic energy Gf, the bond fracture
energy which must be expended to completely detach a unit area. From this, it can be seen that a fracture energy
limitation must be considered when anchoring EBR CFRP at a single crack. An increase in the tensile stress
prevailing in the crack cross-section is only possible up to a certain maximum effective bond length lbf,max. Larger
bond lengths do not lead to higher tensile stresses that can be anchored at the single crack due to the fracture-
energy limitation. Therefore, additional cracks are required to build up higher tensile stresses, since the bond
fracture energy defined by the bilinear bond approach can then be activated at each intermediate crack element
located between adjacent cracks.
However, for the differential equation that describes the relationship between relative displacement (slip) sf x and
stress f x , neglecting the concrete deformations for low concrete stress c, no analytical solution suitable for
manual calculation can be found for the section-wise defined bilinear bond approach with the corresponding
boundary and transition conditions at a single crack that allows a determination of the tensile stress that can be
anchored as a function of the bond length lbf. In contrast, a simplified solution of the differential equation can be
obtained by the substitute approach of a linear, plastically softening slip-composite stress relation that results from
the bilinear approach with sf1 = 0 and has the same magnitude of composite fracture energy.

1 ∙𝜏 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑠 𝑠
𝜏 𝑠 (BD-J.11.10)
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑠 𝑠
0
For this simplified slip-bond stress relationship, the tensile stress f that can be anchored at the single crack may
be determined as a function of the bond length x = lbf:
∙ ∙
𝜎 𝑙 ∙ sin ∙𝑙 (BD-J.11.11)
∙ ∙

On basis of this equation the maximum anchorable tensile stress fbf,max is determined for:
∙ ∙
𝑙 , ∙ . (BD-J.11.12)

∙ ∙
𝑓 , (BD-J.11.13)

However, since the linear elastic branch of the bilinear bond approach was neglected for the approximate solution,
equation (BD-J.11.12) determines anchorage lengths that are too short compared to calculations that consider
both the linear elastic and the plastic softening branch. For a design approach, equation (BD-J.11.12) must
therefore be multiplied by the factor 4⁄ 𝜋 ∙ 𝑘 , , which leads to equation (BD-J.11.14) and (J.33).

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 22/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 680
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

∙ ∙
𝑙 , ∙ . (BD-J.11.14)
,

If the sinusoidal course of the tensile stress 𝜎 𝑙 that can be anchored as a function of the bond length 𝑙 is
replaced by a quadratic parabola, which approximately also describes the exact course on the basis of the bilinear
bond approach with sufficient accuracy, the following equation is obtained

𝑓 , ∙ ∙ 2 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑙 𝑙 ,
, ,
𝜎 𝑙 (BD-J.11.15)
𝑓 , 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑙 𝑙 ,

For the design at ultimate limit state, the characteristic values of the variables are applied and the equations are
amended with the partial safety factor BA for bond of adhesively bonded CFRP reinforcement. In addition, with
regard to the concrete strengths, the factor cc to account for the difference between the undisturbed compressive
strength of a cylinder and the effective compressive strength that can be developed in the structural member as
well as the factors ktc and ktt considering the effect of high sustained loads and of time of loading on are added to
the equations.

J.11.1.2.1 EBR CFRP anchorage requirements – flexure – General

The design of a strengthening measure must be carried out in such a way that the potential modes of failure are
avoided. The various failure modes and their critical loads must be known in order to carry out the design with a
margin corresponding to the level of safety for the critical load of the respective governing mode of failure. Figure
BD-J.11.4 provides an overview of the failure modes that can occur.

Figure BD-J.11.4: Examples of failure modes for a reinforced concrete beam with flexural strengthening in the
form of externally bonded reinforcement [23]
First of all, modes of failure related to the function of the CFRP strip can be added to those familiar from
conventional reinforced concrete:
 Failure of concrete in compression zone
 Yielding of internal reinforcement followed by concrete failure
 Yielding of internal reinforcement followed by failure of the adhesively bonded strip
 Shear failure
 Yielding of externally bonded steel plate
Besides these modes of failure well known from conventional reinforced concrete and relatively easy to describe,
there are other modes specific to strengthening measures with externally bonded reinforcement. The first of these
that should be mentioned is concrete cover separation failure, where the concrete cover becomes detached at
the end of a strip. This occurs due to the additional, vertical offset between shear link and strip because the tensile
stresses from the strip cannot be tied back to the compression zone of the beam. This mode of failure therefore

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 23/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 681
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

corresponds to a horizontal shear failure in the area between the externally bonded reinforcement and the internal
reinforcement. (End Cover Separation as described in J.11.1.2.4)
The bond between the adhesive and the concrete often fails when using externally bonded reinforcement. In such
a bond failure the layers of concrete near the surface break away once the tensile strength of the concrete has
been exceeded. Owing to the only moderate tensile strength of the layers of concrete near the surface, following
local debonding of externally bonded reinforcement, the result is mostly a total failure of the bond between the
externally bonded reinforcement and the concrete as the load rises further because the forces involved cannot
normally be carried by any remaining areas of intact bonding (unzipping effect) This behaviour means it is
necessary to consider the bond of externally bonded reinforcement very carefully.
In conventional reinforced concrete usually, bond checks are done by end anchorage verifications, which are
based on bond values from pull-out tests. If we introduce such verifications in similar form to structural elements
with externally bonded reinforcement, the full tensile strength of the CFRP-strip cannot be anchored, because
after a specific length, the bond forces cannot be increased anymore. (See also Figure BD-J.11.5). However, the
full-scale tests have shown that much higher forces in the externally bonded reinforcement are reached at the
place of the maximum bending moment, as it would be possible looking only at the end anchorage.
On CFRP strips with their high tensile strength, the sole consideration of the end anchorage would be highly
uneconomical. Thus, the bond forces of the CFRP-strips must be transferred at the point where the forces occur.
For this reason, two areas are distinguished for bond verifications, the end anchorage zone and the rest of the
structural element.
At the end anchorage zone, the forces of the CFRP-strip must be anchored, which occur at outermost bending
crack. The bearable bond forces at the end anchorage zone can be determined by so-called idealized end
anchorage tests, in which the externally bonded reinforcement will be pulled off in the longitudinal direction.
(End Anchorage as described in J.11.1.2.2)
In the remaining area of the structural element, the bond force can be transferred by elements, which are
separated by bending cracks, the so-called intermediate crack element.
On such an intermediate crack there is always a basic force in the strip at lower stressed crack and at the higher
stressed crack there is this basic force plus an additional force. This additional force must be transferred by bond
to the structural element. (Intermediate Crack Debonding as described in J.11.1.2.3)

Figure BD-J.11.5: Principle of the bond force transfer of externally bonded CFRP-strips [24]
In addition to the failure modes described above a premature uncoupling of the externally bonded reinforcement
at shear cracks due to high shear force may occur. (End Anchorage as described in J.11.1.2.2)

J.11.1.2.2 End anchorage

As was already explained in section J.11.1.2.1, an analysis of the end anchorage is necessary in addition to
checking the bond at the element between cracks. The end anchorage analysis can be performed in two different
ways depending on requirements:

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 24/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 682
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 The analysis at the flexural crack closest to the point of contraflexure represents the standard case. In
this case the FRP force acting at this flexural crack must be lower than the resistance of the cross-
section taking into account the “shift rule”
 Where strengthening is done in a small region of the member, the CFRP strengthening shall a distance
of 𝑙bf + ℎ beyond the area of need.

Additional methods for end anchorage

There are three additional methods for an end anchorage known in several codes:
 The first method is a more refined method to the concept of J.11.1.2.2. The resistance of the cross-
section is determined based on bond according to the concept [25], [26], which considers a
redistribution between the externally bonded and the internal reinforcement. Owing to the different bond
behaviour and depending on the strain state of the bonded reinforcement, a different distribution of the
forces between the various lines of reinforcement occurs, which is described via the slip of the strip.
 In the section option – analysis of end anchorage with shear wrapping – the shear wrapping, mostly
provided as a result of the design for shear or to avoid a concrete cover separation failure, may also be
employed to increase the bond force. The concept of increasing the bond force as a consequence of
shear wrapping has been borrowed from Husemann [27], [28]
 The third method is using mechanical end anchorage plates. [29]

J.11.1.2.3 Intermediate crack debonding

As was already explained in section J.11.1.2.1 an additional bond check is needed to ensure the bond force
transfer over the entire structural member.
The proposal is based on the DAfStb Guideline “Strengthening of Concrete Members with Adhesively Bonded
Reinforcement” [1] and the fib-bulletin 90 [3] with several simplifications.
This verification must be performed in two steps.
1. Calculation of the crack pattern
2. Verification of each intermediate crack element
The verification of each intermediate crack element is a limitation of the force increase of the CFRP-strip through
a constant value. The concept of a fixed constant force plate change has the advantage that it is both very clear
and easy to understand, and limits the computational effort. The concept is illustrated in figure BD-J.11.6. In this
figure it is evidence, that the slope of the force of the strip may not exceed a certain value.

Figure BD-J.11.6 limitation of the force increase [23]

The force, which can be transferred by bond by each intermediate crack element, can be calculated with equation
(J.39) and consists of three parts, one part which is caused by the basic of the bilinear bond approach, a second
part caused by bond friction as well as third part caused by the curvature of the structural element. The foundation
of the different part is lead back to [22], [24].

Background simplified model in Annex J.11.1.2.3

The analysis of the change in the strip force at the intercrack elements is based on a simplification of the detailed
analysis of the change in the strip force at the intercrack elements. The simplification was performed in [26]. The
main feature of the simplified analysis is the constant resistance of the intercrack elements to the change in the

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 25/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 683
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

strip force which does not depend on the base force in the strip. The change in the tensile force of the strip is
verified along the member. As the analysis does not depend on the base force in the strip, it can be performed on
superimposed load combinations, unlike the detailed analysis. Several boundary conditions were specified in [26]
with the aim of simplifying the detailed analysis. In addition to the boundary conditions listed in Equation (J.50), it
was also necessary to specify an ultimate strain of 10 mm/m for the strips which must not be exceeded at any
point on the member. It is therefore specified in FprEN1992-1-1, J.11.1.2.3 (3) that the ultimate strain and the
design tensile strength of the strips must not be exceeded.
In [1],[3],[22],[23],[34] the equation for the simplified analysis is given below:

, ⋅ . ⋅√ , ⋅ , ⋅ ⋅
𝛥𝐹 ⋅𝑏 (BD-J.11.16)

This Eq. can be transformed to the Eq. (J.39) to (J.42):

, ⋅ . ⋅ , , ⋅ . ⋅ , ⋅ ,
𝛥𝑓 (BD-J.11.17)
⋅

,
. ⋅ , ⋅ ⋅ , ⋅ . ⋅ , . ⋅ ⋅ . ⋅ , ⋅ ,
𝛥𝑓 (BD-J.11.18)
⋅

, , ,
, ⋅ , ⋅ ⋅ , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
𝛥𝑓 (BD-J.11.19)

, , ,
𝛥𝑓 (BD-J.11.20)

For durability reasons the adhesive bond resistance is reduced as in Equation (J.38)
⋅ ⋅ ∙ , , ,
𝛥𝑓 (BD-J.11.21)

with:
√𝑠
𝛥𝑓 , 0,85 ⋅ 𝑘 , ⋅ 𝑓 ⋅𝑓 , ⋅
𝑡

, 𝑠 ,
𝛥𝑓 , 𝑓 ⋅
𝑡

𝜅 𝑠 ,
𝛥𝑓 , ⋅
ℎ 𝑡

Background refined model

As described above, the model in Annex J.11.1.2.2 is a simplified approach of a more refined model. This refined
model can be found in [1], [3]. The model is based on a mechanical approach. It was also evaluated with a huge
test database. The mechanical background and the evaluation can be found in [22], [24].

Crack Pattern
The proposal is based on the DAfStb Guideline “Strengthening of Concrete Members with Adhesively Bonded
Reinforcement” [1] and the fib-bulletin 90 [3].
The crack spacing is determined on the safe side over 1,5 times the insertion length of the inner reinforcement.
Thus, an initial crack pattern is assumed there and only the already existing reinforcing steel is considered.
In Equation (J.45) 𝜙 is the diameter of a conventional (unstressed) steel reinforcement bar and 𝑛 , is the
number of bars of equal diameter in the tension zone of a cracked section. The summation refer to addition of the
term 𝜙 ⋅ 𝑛 , ⋅ 𝑓 for each individual bar in the tension zone of a crack concrete section.
More accurate and complex calculations are required for prestressed concrete.

J.11.1.2.4 End cover separation

The proposal is based on the DAfStb Guideline “Strengthening of Concrete Members with Adhesively Bonded
Reinforcement” [1] and the fib-bulletin 90 [3].
When using externally bonded or near-surface-mounted reinforcement, the layer of concrete directly beneath the
reinforcement can become detached near the supports. This is known as a concrete cover separation failure. The
additional, vertical offset between internal shear links and external strip leads to the build-up of tensile forces
between the internal and the externally bonded reinforcement. This problem is similar to the situation with dapped

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 26/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 684
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

supports, which are frequently encountered in precast concrete construction. The acting forces can be determined
approximately with a truss model, as shown in figure BD-J.11.7.

Figure BD-J.11.7 Cause of transverse tensile stresses at end of strip [23]

To do this, the shear force is distributed in line with the truss over the strut in the concrete and the tie in the form
of the internal shear link for the unstrengthened cross-section. A similar truss is now set up for the component of
the tensile force in the surface-mounted reinforcement and the two systems are superimposed to create one total
system. A concrete cover separation failure occurs when the tie in the concrete, which results from the force in
the strip, can no longer be carried by the tensile strength of the concrete.
In order to prevent this type of failure, a shear strap must be positioned at the end of the strip according to (J.51)
when the acting shear force at the end support, or end of the beam, is greater than the shear capacity. In Eq.
(J.51), Rd,c is determined according to EN 1992. The variable aL is the distance of the strip from the end support,
or end of beam, in mm.
The critical value of the shear stress comes from a conversion of the model by Jansze [30] to the model of DIN
EN 1992-1-1 [31] in conjunction with its German National Annex [32]. This conversion and a validation can be
found in [33].
Since the formulation for Rd,c in prEN 1992-1-1 differs significantly from the basis of the calibration of the formula,
the value according to DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA should be used here again:

𝑉Rd,c 0,1 ⋅ 𝑘 ⋅ 100𝜌 𝑓ck 0,12 ⋅ 𝜎cp ⋅ 𝑏 ⋅ 𝑑 (BD-J.11.26)

For the usual components of building construction, k = 1+ (200/d)0,5 can be set approximately to 1,5 on the safe
side. From this follows approximately when neglecting the normal force:
,
1
𝑉Rd,cfE 0,75 ⋅ 1 19,6 ⋅ , ⋅ 0,1 ⋅ 1,5 ⋅ 100𝜌 𝑓ck ⋅ 𝑏w ⋅ 𝑑 (BD-J.11.27)

This results in equation (BD-J.11.28) resp. FprEN1992-1-1, (J.51):

.
1
𝑉Rd,cfE 0,11 2,2 ⋅ . ⋅ 100𝜌 𝑓ck ⋅ 𝑏w ⋅ 𝑑 (BD-J.11.28)

Where a shear strap is necessary, it should be designed according to Figure BD-J.11.8 for the design value of
the acting tensile force according to Eq. (J.52).

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 27/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 685
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure BD-J.11.8 Calculation of force in shear wrapping due to tensile force in bending reinforcement
When using externally bonded reinforcement, an approach that lies on the safe side is to design the force at the
end strap for the maximum force in the flexural strengthening that can be accommodated by the end anchorage
according to Eq. (J.40). This is because a larger force cannot occur in the strip at the end strap except when the
shear strap counts towards increasing the bond force of the flexural strengthening. The force in the shear strap
is, however, superposed on the maximum force that can be accommodated at the end anchorage according to
J.11.1.1.3.

J.11.1.2.5 Shear Induced Separation

The proposal is based on the DAfStb Guideline “Strengthening of Concrete Members with Adhesively Bonded
Reinforcement” [1] and the fib-bulletin 90 [3].
Delamination caused by movement of the crack edges due to the shear force may occur in members with
externally bonded bending reinforcement if the tie and strut of the truss on which the transfer of shear forces is
based are subject to a high degree of stress. This relationship and delamination are shown in Figure BD-J.11.9.
The limits for the type of delamination shown here are based on a model with a subsequent parameter study in
[34],[35]. The stirrup stress included in Equation (J.53) can be calculated by transforming Equation (8.42).

Figure BD-J.11.9 Movement of the crack edges due to the shear force [21]

Beyond a certain level of shear stress, adhesively bonded stirrups are also required in order to ensure that the
tensile forces from the adhesively bonded reinforcement can also be transferred to the flexural compression zone
of the member by the truss shown in Figure BD-J.11.10. The limit 02 according to DIN 1045:1988 [36] has proven
to be a suitable parameter in such cases (cf. Z-36.12-73:2009 [37]). Equation (J.54) describes a similar limit [33].

Figure BD-J.11.10 Mechanism for transferring the tensile forces from the adhesively bonded reinforcement to
the flexural compression zone of the member using the truss model [21]
The design value of the applied shear force of the externally bonded shear reinforcement is determined as the
maximum of two components as it is in existing approvals. The first component in Equation (J.55) is obtained by
distributing the design value of the total applied shear force over the elastic stiffnesses and the second component
is the difference between the design value of the total applied shear force and the design value of the shear
resistance of the steel reinforcing links.

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 28/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 686
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J.11.1.3 Basic anchorage resistance – CFRP to concrete for NSM CFRP strengthening
The proposal for the basic anchorage resistance – CFRP to concrete for NSM CFRP strengthening is based on
the DAfStb Guideline “Strengthening of Concrete Members with Adhesively Bonded Reinforcement” [1] and the
fib-bulletin 90 [3].
Essentially, the concept proposed by Blaschko [16], [17] is used for verifying the bond. In this concept it is
assumed that the CFRP strip makes a full contribution and there is good composite action between strip and
concrete, with the strength of the adhesive usually governing this composite action. As the composite action very
effective, the full tensile strength of the CFRP strip can be anchored within a very short length – similar to
conventional steel reinforcing bars. It is therefore sufficient to check the end anchorage at the point at which the
strip is no longer required for the load-carrying capacity, very similar to anchoring steel reinforcing bars. This
concept to describe the way in which strips in slits work has proved worthwhile over the past 10 years in the former
national technical approvals and was therefore included in the DAfStb guideline [1].
As with conventional reinforced concrete construction with curtailed reinforcing bars, checking the bond requires
verification of the curtailment taking into account the end anchorage of the CFRP strip. This involves verifying that
the design value of the member resistance is greater than the design value of the acting internal forces in the
strengthened condition for every cross-section of the strengthened member. The partial tensile forces assigned
to the lines of reinforcement can be determined in a simplified way by assuming a planar strain distribution. Figure
BD-J.11.11 provides an overview of the curtailment verification.

Figure BD-J.11.11 test results – fatigue resistance nsm-bond

As is apparent in Figure BD-J.11.11, verifying the anchorage of a near-surface-mounted CFRP strip can therefore
be carried out at the point at which the CFRP strip is first required for loadbearing purposes (point A). The
anchorage length lbf of the strip in this analysis is the distance between point A and the end of the strip. To verify
the anchorage, the resulting design value of the bond capacity per CFRP strip depends on this anchorage length
lbf and the distance of the longitudinal axis of the strip from the free edge of the member ar, which may not be >
150 mm, according to Eq. (J.56) and (J.57).
To determine the bond capacity, Eq. (J.56),(J.57) also requires the bond strengthbAd of the near-surface-mounted
CFRP strip, which according to Eq. (J.59) is found from the result of the minimum of the concrete bond strength
and the adhesive bond strength.
Equation (J.59) distinguishes between concrete failure and adhesive failure. For reasons of simplification, the
same safety factor was used here. A closer look could possibly apply a lower safety factor to the adhesive due to
its probably lower scatter.
Usually, failure will occur in the adhesive of the near surface mounted CFRP strips. In this case, the maximum
bond strength in Equation (J.60) is determined in accordance with [16], [17] calculating the shear strength from
the axial tensile strength and the axial compressive strength of the adhesive by use of the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion. By way of departure from [16], [17], a system factor 0,6 in accordance with [38], [39] was also introduced
into Equation (J.60) in order to cover effects such as the surface structure of the CFRP strips. Furthermore, a

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 29/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 687
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

reduction factor to take account of long-term effects of the adhesive bond, bA, was introduced in Equation (J.59).
A value of 0,5 was proposed for this factor although a different value may be specified in the system approval.
Failure will occur in the concrete if the concrete strength is very low, i.e. below C20/25. In this case, a concrete
wedge will break away on either one side or both sides of the strip, with the base of the wedge in the concrete
member corresponding to the base of the slit. This can be calculated with Equation (J.61). In this Equation this
bond strength is calculated from the square root of the concrete compressive strength and a calibration factor kbck.
The system coefficient for the bond failure of the concrete can be taken from the national technical approval for
the system. Tests carried out at the Technische Universität München (Technical University of Munich) established
a characteristic value kbck = 4,5 [40], [41].
The factors bC is also introduced into Eq. (J.59) to take account of the long-term durability behaviour of the
materials involved. As these are also coefficients specific to particular products, they can again be obtained from
the national technical approvals.

Range of application
The concept in J.11.1.3 is based on bond test with CFRP-strips. For this concept the CFRP-strips width shall be
between 10 mm and 30 mm and the CFRP-strips thickness shall be between 1 mm and 3 mm.
For other CFRP elements such as round or square bars the bond behaviour is different. So for the determination
of FbfRd further considerations are necessary. This may be bond tests to determine FbfRd directly or to recalibrate
the factor 0,6 in equation (J.60) and the factor 4,5 in equation (J.61).

R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, K. Zilch 21.12.2022 Page 30/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 688
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

J.12.1 Detailing of CFRP - Flexural strengthening with eternally bonded CFRP

The limits for the centre-to-centre spacing are based on experiences. The limit of sf ≤ 3 times the slab thickness
≤ 400 mm is in line with the provisions for reinforcing steel

J.12.2 Detailing of CFRP - Flexural strengthening with NSM CFRP

The geometrical limits for NSM CFRP strips in FprEN1992-1-1, Table J.2 are known from experiences and based
on literature [1], [16].

The slot width and depth limits ensure that there is 1 to 3 mm of adhesive between the NSM bar or strip and the
concrete. This ensures that there is full bond around the perimeter of the slot. The 3 mm upper limit is consistent
with adhesive thickness limit for external FRP plate bonding and the range between 1 mm and 3 mm is in line
with testing which has been carried out on NSM flexural strengthening of beams.
The centre to centre spacing ensures that the width of concrete between slots is at least equal to the length of the
sides of each slot so that there is not a propensity for concrete cover separation across the width of the beam in
preference to debonding around the concrete slot perimeter. This also prevents overlapping of confining stress
zones around each NSM bar, maximising bond stresses ([50],[51].
The minimum edge distance equal to 4 times the depth of the slot is based on findings of Hassan and Rizkalla
[50], for round bars, and Rashid, et al. [51] for strips. This is to prevent detachment of the concrete cover along
the edges of the beam, and the NSM reinforcement being able to carry the same force as a bar/strip far from the
edges.

The NSM technique can be used for the flexural and shear strengthening of deficient reinforced concrete members
for the following reasons: better bond characteristics; activation of controlled debonding that increases the ductility
of strengthened members; mechanical response to make the structure stiffer under serviceability loads; limited
damage by peeling-off failure due to flexural cracks; excellent fatigue resistance; reduced site work (due to not
necessary plaster removal, unevenness and irregularities of the concrete surface and removal of the weak laitance
layer on the concrete surface); easier anchorage to adjacent members to prevent debonding, where the maximum
moments typically occur at the ends of the member – flexural strengthening of columns); protection from
mechanical damage, accidental impact and vandalism; this aspect makes this technology particularly suitable for
the strengthening of negative moment regions, unchanged aesthetics [3].
The most commonly used CFRP strips have a thickness of 1,4 – 3,0 mm and a width of 15 – 30 mm, while FRP
bars of different diameters from 2 – 20 mm, which are bonded into the concrete grooves. As it was mentioned in
[45] two of the most efficient parameters guaranteeing the best bond behaviour are: the width of the strip and the
strips installation as deepest as possible into the slits providing the largest pull-out load and energy dissipation
(Fig. BD-J.12.1a). The research carried out by [46] indicated very promising conclusion that cutting of the bottom
horizontal arm of the steel stirrups in order to apply CFRP strips of an width larger than the concrete cover (Fig.
BD-J.12.1b) does not influence bending and shear capacity, because the bottom arms of the stirrups are safety
anchored. This solution in Fig. BD-J.12.1b) is not covered by Annex J. Another important issue mentioned in [45]
pointed an importance to reduce the number of NSM strips that make an increase in the distance between CFRP
strips and effects the interaction between steel reinforcement and strips by reducing the stiffness under the
longitudinal steel bars (Fig. BD-J.12.1c).

Figure BD-J.12.1: NSM flexural strengthening:

a) strips placed in the concrete cover;
b) strips placed after cutting of the stirrups arm (dimensions in mm);
c) Configurations for the relative position of strips and steel bar;
d) Configurations to assure higher pro-section against fire [45].

R. Kotynia, W. Finckh, A. Darby, C. Giaccio 21.12.2022 Page 31/34

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 689
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[1] DAfStb-Guideline: Strengthening of concrete members with adhesively bonded reinforcement].

References
Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, 2012, English version, Beuth, Berlin, 2014.
[2] UK Concrete Society, Design Guidance for Strengthening Concrete Structures Using Fibre Composite
Materials, Technical Report 55, 2015.
[3] fédération internationale du béton (fib): Externally applied FRP reinforcement for concrete structures,
fib bulletin 90. Lausanne, 2019.
[4] Zilch, K.: The German Design Guideline for Strengthening Concrete Structures with FRP. In: El-Hacha,
R.: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering,
Vancouver, Canada 2014.
[5] Occhiuzzi, A.; Ceroni, F.; Franco, A.; Salzano, P.; Bonati, A.: Experimental results of a national
technical assessmentprocedure on commercial FRP for structural strengthening: wet-lay-up systems;
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:9.
[6] Song X; Gu X; Li Y; Chen T, (2013): “Mechanical Behavior of FRP-Strengthened Concrete Columns
Subjected to Concentric and Eccentric Compression Loading”, ASCE Journal of Composites in
Construction, 17(3), 336-346.
[7] Darby, A.P., Ibell, T.J., Evernden, M.C. and Coonan, R. (2011): “FRP Confined Square and
Rectangular Columns Under Concentric and Eccentric Loading”, Advanced Composites in
Construction, University of Warwick. pp. 264-275
[8] Hankers, C., (1996): Zum Verbundtragverhalten laschenverstärkter Betonbauteile unter nicht
vorwiegend ruhender Beanspruchung, (On the bond behaviour of steel-plate-reinforced concrete
members under cyclic loading) (in German), Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig.
[9] Bizindavyi, L., et al., (2003): Experimental Investigation of bonded fiber reinforced polymer-concrete
joints under cyclic, Journal of Composites in construction, pp. 127-133.
[10] Carloni, C., et al., (2012): Experimental determination of FRPconcrete cohesive interface properties
under fatigue loading, Composite Structures, Volume 94, Issue 4, Pages 1288-1296.
[11] Budelmann, H., et al., (2013): Praxisgerechte Bemessungsansätze für das wirtschaftliche Verstärken
von Betonbauteilen mit geklebter Bewehrung - Verbundtragfähigkeit unter dynamischer Belastung,
(Practical design approaches for the economic strengthening of concrete members with bonded
reinforcement – Bond behaviour under dynamic loading) DAfStb Heft 593, Beuth Verlag, Berlin.
[12] Leusmann, T. (2015): “Das Verbundtragverhalten geklebter Kohlefaserkunststoffe auf Beton unter
schwingender Beanspruchung. (Bond behaviour of cfrp glued on concrete under cyclic load) (in
German). Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig.
[13] Dai, J.G.,et al., (2005): Static and fatigue bond characteristics of interfaces between CFRP sheets and
frost damage experienced concrete. Proc., 7th Int. Symp. On Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement
for Reinforced Concrete Structures, C.K. Shield, J.P. Busel, S.L. Walkup, and D.D. Gremel, eds.,
Kansas City, MO, American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI, 15151530.
[14] Ferrier, E., et al. (2005): Fatigue of CFRPs externally bonded to concrete, Materials and Structures 38,
39-46.
[15] Carloni, C.; Leusmann, T. and Budelmann, H.: Fatigue Behaviour, Chapter 6.2, in: Design Procedures
for the Use of Composites in Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures – State of the Art Report
of the RILEM TC 234-DUC, (Eds: C. Pellegrino and J. Sena-Cruz), pp. 349-391, Springer, RILEM STAR
Book Series, 2016.
[16] Blaschko, M.: Zum Tragverhalten von Betonbauteilen mit in Schlitze eingeklebten CFK-Lamellen
[structural behaviour of concrete members with near-surface-mounted CFRP strips]. Dissertation,
Munich TU, Department of Concrete Structures, 2001.
[17] Blaschko M.: Bond Behaviour of CFRP Strips Glued into Slits, Proceedings of the sixth international
Symposium on FRP reinforcement for concrete structures (FRPRCS-6), pp.205-214, Singapore, 2003.
[18] Niedermeier, R.: Zugkraftdeckung bei klebearmierten Bauteilen [Tension reinforcement curtailment in
members with externally bonded reinforcement]. Dissertation, Munich TU, Department of Concrete
Structures, 2001.
[19] Niedermeier, R.: Abschlussbericht zum Forschungs- und Entwicklungsvorhaben Verstärkung von
Stahlbetonbauteilen durch Ankleben von Kohlenstoffaserfolien [Final report on the research and
development project - Strenghtening of reinforced concrete by externally bonded CFRP sheets]. No.
599526, dated 31.03.1999 (not published).
[20] Zilch, K., Niedermeier, R., Finckh, W.: Guideline for the Performance and interpretation of bond tests
on concrete with externally bonded CFRP strips. FRPRCS-9 Sydney, Australia, Monday 13 –
Wednesday 15 July 2009
[21] Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton: Erläuterungen und Beispiele zur DAfStb-Richtlinie “Verstärken
von Betonbauteilen mit geklebter Bewehrung” [Commentary on the DAfStb Guideline “Strengthening

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 21.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 690
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

of concrete members with adhesively bonded reinforcement” with Examples], Schriftenreihe des
DAfStb No. 595, Beuth, Berlin, 2013.
[22] Zilch, K., Niedermeier, R., Finckh, W.: Praxisgerechte Bemessungsansätze für das wirtschaftliche
Verstärken von Betonbauteilen mit geklebter Bewehrung – Verbundtragfähigkeit unter statischer
Belastung [practical design methods for economic strengthening of concrete members with externally
bonded reinforcement – bond strength under static loading]. Schriftenreihe des DAfStb No. 592, Beuth,
Berlin, 2012.
[23] Zilch, K.; Finckh, W.; Niedermeier, R.: Strengthening of Concrete Structures with Adhesive Bonded
Reinforcement, Design and Dimensioning of CFRP Laminates and Steel Plates, Ernst und Sohn
Verlag, 2014, ISBN: 978-3-433-03086-8
[24] Finckh, W.; Zilch, K.: Strengthening and Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Carbon-Fiber
Reinforced Polymers Using a Refined Bond Model, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering 27 (5), pp. 333-346, 2012.
[25] Zehetmaier, G.: Zusammenwirken einbetonierter Bewehrung mit Klebearmierung bei verstärkten
Betonbauteilen [interaction of embedded reinforcement and externally bonded reinforcement in
strengthened concrete members]. Dissertation, Munich TU, Department of Concrete Structures, 2006
[26] Zehetmaier, G.; Zilch, K.: Interaction between internal bars and externally FRP Reinforcement in RC
Members, Proceedings of the sixth international Symposium on FRP reinforcement for concrete
structures (FRPRCS-6), pp.397-406, Singapore, 2003
[27] Husemann, U.: Erhöhung der Verbundtragfähigkeit von nachträglich aufgeklebten Lamellen durch
Bügelumschließungen [increasing the bond strength of retrofitted externally bonded strips by means of
shear wrapping]. Dissertation, Braunschweig TU. Institute of Building Materials, Concrete Construction
& Fire Protection, 2009
[28] Husemann, U., Budelmann, H: Increase of the Bond Capacitiy of Externally Bonded CFRP-Plates on
RC-Structures Due to Self-Induced Contact Pressure, In: Proceedings of the 9th International
Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Polymers in Reinforced Concrete Structures (FRPRCS 9), Sydney,
Australia, 2009
[29] Z-36.12-86: Bausatz StoCretec zum Verstärken von Stahl- und Spannbetonbauteilen durch schubfest
aufgeklebte CFK-Lamellen nach der DAfStb-Verstärkungs-Richtlinie, Deutsches Institut für
Bautechnik; 2021
[30] Jansze, W.: Strengthening of reinforced concrete members in bending by externally bonded steel
plates. Design for beam shear and plate anchorage. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 1997.
[31] DIN EN 1992-1-1 (2011): Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings.
[32] DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA: National Annex – Nationally determined parameters – Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
[33] Zilch, K., Niedermeier, R., Finckh, W.: Praxisgerechte Bemessungsansätze für das wirtschaftliche
Verstärken von Betonbauteilen mit geklebter Bewehrung – Querkrafttragfähigkeit [practical design
methods for economic strengthening of concrete members with externally bonded reinforcement –
shear strength]. Schriftenreihe des DAfStb No. 594, Beuth, Berlin, 2012.
[34] Finckh, W.: Einfluss bauteilspezifischer Effekte auf die Bemessung von mit CFK-Lamellen verstärkten
Stahlbetonbauteilen [influence of member-specific effects on the design of RC members strengthened
with CFRP strips]. Dissertation, Munich TU, Department of Concrete Structures, 2012.
[35] Finckh, W.; Zilch, K.: Influence of shear crack offsets on the bond behavior of EBR at the intermediate
crack element. In: The 6th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering - CICE
2012, Rom, 2012
[36] DIN 1045: Structural use of concrete – Design and construction. Deutsches Institut für Normung. Beuth,
Berlin, 1988.
[37] Z-36.12-73: Verstärken von Stahlbetonbauteilen durch in Schlitze verklebte Kohlefaserlamellen
Carboplus nach DIN 1045-1:2008-08 [strengthening of RC members with near-surface-mounted
Carboplus carbon fibre strips to DIN 1045-1]. Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik, 2009.
[38] Borchert, K.: Verbundverhalten von Klebebewehrung unter Betriebsbedingungen [bond behaviour of
externally bonded reinforcement under operating conditions]. Schriftenreihe des DAfStb No. 575,
Beuth, Berlin, 2009.
[39] Zilch, K.; Borchert, K.: Bond behaviour of NSM FRP strips in service, structural concrete (9), pp.127-
142, 2008
[40] Finckh, W.; Niedermeier, R.: Bericht über Ausziehversuche an Probekörpern aus Normalbeton
niedriger Festigkeit mit in Schlitze verklebten CFK-Lamellen, 2012
[41] Zilch, K.; Finckh, W.: Gutachterliche Stellungnahme zur Eignung von in Schlitze verklebten S&P-
Lamellen zur Verstärkung von niedrigfesten Betonen, 2013

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 21.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 691
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex J Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[42] Alex, R.; Niedermeier, R.; Finckh, W.; Leusmann, T.: Requirements to Materials – CFRP reinforcement
for strengthening (Background document to Annex J.15), December 2022.
[43] Niedermeier, R.: Verstärkung von Stahlbetondruckgliedern durch Umschnürung. Habilitationschrift,
Technische Universität München, 2009.
[44] Niedermeier, R.: German Design Approach for Concrete Columns Strengthened with CFRP
Confinement. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering
(CICE 2014), Paper 050, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2014
[45] Barros, J.; Kotynia, R.: Possibilities and challenges of NSM for the flexural strengthening of RC
structures, Fourth International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering CICE2008, 2008,
Zurich, Switzerland.
[46] Kotynia, R.: Analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with near surface mounted FRP
reinforcement. Arch. Civil Mech. Eng., 2006, LII(2), 305–17.
[47] prEN 1990:2020: Eurocode – Basis of structural and geotechnical design
[48] fédération internationale du béton (fib): fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Ernst & Sohn,
2013.
[49] Bilotta, A., Ceroni, F., Nigro, E. And Pecce, M. (2011): Design by testing procedure of debonding load
for RC elements strengthened with EBR FRP materials, in Proceedings of 10th FRPRCS International
Symposium, ACI SP-275 Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, R. Sen, R.
Seracino, C. Shield and W. Gold (eds), Tampa, Florida.
[50] Hassan, T. and Rizkalla, S. (2004), Bond mechanism of near-surface-mounted fiber-reinforced polymer
bars for flexural strengthening of concrete structures’, ACI Struct J, 101 (6), pp. 830-839.
[51] Rashid, R.; Ohelers, D.J. and Seracino, R. (2008), IC Debonding of FRP NSM and EB Retrofitted
Concrete: Plate and Cover Interaction Tests, J. Compos. Constr., 12(2), pp. 160-167.
[52] Youssef, M. N.; Mosallam, A. S. and Feng; M. Q. (2006): "Experimental Investigation on Large-Scale
FRP-Confined Axial Members," In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil Engineering
Infrastructure Systems (CEIS 2006) American University of Beirut(AUB), Beirut-Lebanon, June 12-14.
[53] Lam, L.; Teng, J. G. (2003a): Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 17, 471-489.
[54] Lam, L.; Teng, J. G. (2003b): Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete in
rectangular columns. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 22(13), 1149-1186.
[55] Binici, B. (2008): Design of FRPs in circular bridge column retrofits for ductility enhancenment.
Engineering Structures, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp. 766-776.

List of versions of this document

14.03.2021 1st draft
17.05.2021 2nd draft
21.05.2021 3rd draft
31.05.2021 4th draft
25.11.2022 5th draft
21.12.2022 6th draft

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 21.12.2022
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 692
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to subclause J.15

Requirements to Materials – CFRP
reinforcement for strengthening

Rolf Alex Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), DE

Roland Niedermeier Technische Universität München, DE
Wolfgang Finckh Ostbayerische Technische Hochschule Regensburg, DE
Thorsten Leusmann Technische Universität Braunschweig, DE
21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 693
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

List of content (only main clauses)

1 Introduction and scope
2 Product specific design and application parameters for strengthening kits
of externally bonded CFRP strips (EBR)
3 Product specific design and application parameters for strengthening kits
of externally bonded CFRP sheets (EBR)
4 Product specific design and application parameters for strengthening kits
of near surfaced mounted CFRP strips (NSM)
5 References
Annex BD-A Test program for externally bonded CFRP strips
Annex BD-B Test program for externally bonded CFRP sheets
Annex BD-C Test program for near surface mounted CFRP strips and bars

J.15 1 Introduction and scope

In Annex J.15 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E) are listed the design parameters for the strengthening of existing
concrete structures with Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) adhesively bonded (ABR) to the concrete
according to Annex J of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E). The reinforcement can be externally bonded to the surface
(EBR) or near-surface mounted in the concrete (NSM).
The design rules of Annex J of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E) are similar to the design rules, which since long time are
applied in Germany according to national approvals. Especially the formulae (J.2) and (J.38) to (J.50) for the
externally bonded reinforcement (EBR) as well as the formulae (J.2) and (J.56) to (J.61) for the near surface
mounted reinforcement (NSM) are well known in design practice in Germany.
In these formulae are some parameters which are product-specific and only may be determined with the help of
tests. But not all of these parameters can be derived directly from test results. The most important concern of this
document is to describe the procedures that are used for the uniform determination of these parameters.
According to the Construction Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (CPR)) on EU level test
procedures for the essential characteristics of construction products may be included in two types of technical
specifications for construction products:
 European harmonised product standards or
 European Assessment Documents (EAD).
At the time of this writing, neither technical specification for the above strengthening systems was available.
Because of this current situation, the following follows for this document:
 This document must not only contain methods for determining the design parameters for Annex J of
FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E) from test results, but also the descriptions of the test procedures themselves.
This is done in the following Annexes for the different types of kits:
 Annex BD-A Test program for externally bonded CFRP strips,
 Annex BD-B Test program for externally bonded CFRP sheets,
 Annex BD-C Test program for near surface mounted CFRP strips and bars.
 If at any time one of the technical specifications mentioned above is available for one or more types of
kits, this document must be amended as follows:
 The corresponding one or more appendices of this document shall be deleted.
 All references in the text of this document to the deleted Annexes shall then be replaced by
references to the European harmonised standards or European Assessment Documents.
In article 4 (1) of the CPR is written:
"When a construction product is covered by a harmonised standard or conforms to a European Technical
Assessment which has been issued for it, the manufacturer shall draw up a declaration of performance when such
a product is placed on the market."
As long as such technical specifications are not available, the manufacturers cannot explain the performance of
their kits via such a declaration of performance. These can currently only be stated in test reports for the tests
according to the Annexes BD-A to BD-C that are not binding with regard to EU Construction Products Regulation
(CPR).
But important for the application of the kits are not only the design parameters but also the application parameters
which are also derived from the tests according to Annex BD-A to BD-C.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 694
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

2 Product specific design and application parameters for strengthening kits of

externally bonded CFRP strips (EBR)
Systems (kits) of this type in general consist of the following components:
Component A unidirectional CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers) strips
Component B adhesive (often also called structural bonding agent or structural bonding) for CFRP strips
according to EN 1504-4 [1],
Component C repair mortar with polymer binder,
Component D bonding agent for the repair mortar, repair concrete and shotcrete,
Component E cleaning agent for the CFRP strips.

Figure 2.1: Principle sketches of reinforced concrete sections with subsequent strengthening by externally
bonded CFRP strips
The product-specific design parameters for kits of EBR CFRP included in Annex J of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)
are the following:

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 695
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 2.1: Product-specific design parameters included in Annex J of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 €

Symbol in FprEN Meaning used in FprEN 1992-1-1

1992-1-1 (according to FprEN 1992-1-1, clause 3.5) (only clauses of Annex J are listed,
which refer to externally bonded
CFRP strips)
Design parameters for the CFRP strips (component A)
reduction factor applied to the
𝜂 tensile strength of the EBR CFRP 3.5.4, J.5.2 (1), J.15
sheet or strip
characteristic short-term tensile strength of 3.5.2, J.5.3 (1), formula (J.2),
𝑓
the ABR CFRP Figure J.1
3.5.1, J.5.3 (1), formula (J.3)
Mean modulus of elasticity in longitudinal
𝐸 Figure J.1, formula (J.35), (J.37) and
direction of ABR CFRP
(J.39), (J.40)
characteristic ultimate strain for ABR
𝜀 3.5.4, J.5.2 (1), Figure J.1
CFRP
𝐴 Cross sectional area of a CFRP system 3.5.1, J.5.1 (3)
Design parameters for the adhesive (component B) and the repair mortar (component C)
In all design formulae for the EBR CFRP in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Annex J no material parameter for the
adhesive and repair mortar are included but only material parameters of the ABR CFRP (component A) and
the concrete substrate. Therefore, when applying the formulae (J.35) to (J.42), it is assumed that only kits
are used that always have concrete failure in substrate and never adhesive failure.
Design parameters for the bond to the concrete
𝑘 , product-specific system factor 3.5.2, formula (J.42), (J.48), J.15
𝑘 , product-specific system factor 3.5.2, formula (J.41), J.15
𝑘 , product-specific system factor 3.5.2, formula (J.39), J.15
𝑓 average value of the compressive strength 3.5.2, J.11.1.1.2, formula (J.35),
of the concrete substrate (J.37), J.11.1.1.3, (J.42)
𝑓 , average value of the tensile surface 3.5.2, J.11.1.1.1, formula (J.34),
strength of the concrete substrate J.11.1.1.2, formula (J.35), (J.37),
J.11.1.1.3, formula (J.42)
𝛼 reduction factor for fatigue 3.5.4, J.10.2, formula (J.27)
Design parameters for confinement of columns
𝑘 product-specific system factor; 3.5.2, J.8.1.2
confinement factor for columns
strengthened with CFRP

2.1 Boundary conditions of the intended use of the kits

Kits tested in accordance to Annex BD-A are used since long time in Germany under the following environmental
conditions for a design life of 25 years:
 The strengthening kit may be used for normal concrete substrates of in the range of compressive
strength classes between 𝐶 to 𝐶 according to EN 206-1.
 Without additional protective measures for the FRP and adhesive, strengthening with adhesively
bonded reinforcement shall only be applied in exposure classes X0, XC1 (dry) or XC3 in accordance
with Table 6.1 in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E).
 In addition, EBR CFRP shall not be exposed to direct UV radiation (direct sun radiation or indirect sun
from snow or water reflection) or alternating or permanent penetration of moisture in the area of the
strengthening. If necessary, appropriate protective layers shall be applied.
 The temperature of the concrete substrate does not exceed 𝑇 and does not fall below 𝑇 during
the entire design life of the strengthened structural element.
The range of compressive strength classes and the range of temperature concrete substrate are not given in
FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E). Therefore, it is necessary to be declared by the manufacturer and is largely confirmed
by the tests in accordance with Annex BD-A. If there is no confirmation by tests, the manufacturer's declaration
shall suffice or Annex BD-A shall be supplemented by suitable tests.
A further difference to the boundary conditions of kits tested by Annex BD-A is that in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023,
Annex J, clause J.6.3 other exposure classes are also allowed. It shall be checked whether this is also possible
without additional tests compared to Annex BD-A. If not, the corresponding tests in Annex BD-A shall be added.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 696
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

2.2 Boundary conditions of the installation of the kits

The manufacturer's instructions and safety information shall be considered. In particular, it shall be ensured that
the surface temperature of the concrete component to be strengthened is always between the minimum and
maximum installation temperature of the component of the kit installed on it (see Table 2.2 "Application
parameters for the kit").

2.3 Design and application parameters and their determination

Table 2.2: Sources of design and application parameters from test procedures according to Annex BD-A for kits
of externally bonded CFRP strips

Symbol according to Meaning Sources

FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex BD-A Test Additionally
procedure verified by
Design parameters for the CFRP strips (component A)
reduction factor applied to the A.2.2.5 and 2.3.1
𝜂 tensile strength of the ABR CFRP A.2.2.61)
strip
characteristic material strength of the A.2.21)
𝑓 𝑓
CFRP strips
mean value of the modulus of elasticity of A.2.21)
𝐸 𝐸
the CFRP strips
ultimate strain of the adhesively bonded A.2.21)
𝜀 𝜀
CFRP strips
𝑡,𝑏 𝑡 ,𝑏 thickness and width of the CFRP strip A.2.2.31)
the area of the cross section of CFRP A.2.2.31)
𝐴 𝐴 𝑡 ⋅𝑏
strips
Design parameters for the bond to the concrete
𝑘 , product-specific system factor A.2.3.51) 2.3.2
𝑘 , product-specific system factor A.2.3.51) 2.3.2
1)
𝑘 , product-specific system factor A.2.3.5 2.3.2
average value of compression strength of A.2.32)
𝑓 𝐶 the highest concrete strength class of the
tests
𝑓
average value of compression strength of A.2.32)
𝑓 𝐶 the lowest concrete strength class of the
tests
average value of the tensile surface A.2.32)
𝑓 , 𝑓 , 𝐶 strength of the concrete substrate with the
highest concrete strength class of the tests
𝛼 reduction factor for fatigue A.2.3.61) 2.3.3
Design parameters for confinement of columns
product-specific system factor; 2.4
𝑘 confinement factor for columns
strengthened with CFRP
Application parameters for the kit
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for A.2.3.42)
the adhesive (component B)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the adhesive (component B)
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for A.2.3.42)
the repair mortar (component C)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the repair mortar (component C)
3)
𝑇 minimum temperature of the
strengthening kit at intended use
𝑇 maximum temperature of the A.2.3.32)
strengthening kit at intended use
𝐶 highest concrete strength class of the A.2.32)
tests
𝐶 lowest concrete strength class of the tests A.2.32)

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 697
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1)
determined by test procedure
2)
declared by the manufacturer and confirmed by test procedure
3)
declared by the manufacturer

The number of tests given in Annex BD-A, clauses A.2.1 to A.2.3 is the minimum number which is necessary.
Each applicant can expand it according to their needs.

2.3.1 The creep reduction factor ηf of CFRP strips derived from the tests according to Annex BD-A,
A.2.2.5 and A.2.2.6
The factor 𝜂 is the minimum of the factors 𝑅 from the test A.2.2.5 and 𝑅 from the test A.2.2.6
(𝜂 Min 𝑅 , 𝑅 . It is given separately for all alkaline solutions used in A.2.2.5 and A.2.2.6 (pH 9 and/or 11
and/or 13,7).

2.3.2 Parameters of the bilinear bond approach ksys,b1, ksys,b2 and ksys,b3 derived from the tests
according to Annex BD-A, A.2.3.5
According to the studies by Kuntz [2] and Holzenkämpfer [3], the bilinear approach for the bond law according to
Figure 2.2 is well suited for the evaluation of the bond tests according to A.2.3.5. Therefore, only the determining
parameters of this approach have to be determined for each individual test by the evaluation.

Figure 2.2: Energetic consideration of the bilinear bond approach

These are the maximum bond stress 𝜏 , the associated elastic limit deformation 𝑠 and the limit value of the
relative displacement 𝑠 .
The following procedure is used for this:
The differential formula for the bond of externally bonded reinforcement given in the Figure 2.3 can be completely
solved for the two branches of the bilinear bond approach. With an adjustment to the boundary conditions of the
bond test specimen according to Figure A.15, the following formulae are obtained, which describe the relationship
between the relative displacement 𝑠 at the load-side beginning of the bond length 𝑙 and the tensile force 𝐹 . For
𝑠 𝑠 , only elastic bond stresses occur within the total bond length 𝑙 . After exceeding the elastic limit
displacement (𝑠 𝑠 ), additional plastically softened bond areas occur.
𝐹 𝐸 ∙ 𝑏 ∙ 𝑡 ∙ 𝑠 ∙ 𝜔 ∙ tanh 𝜔 ∙ 𝑙 for 𝑠 𝑠
∙ ∙ ∙
𝐹 𝐸 ∙𝑏 ∙𝑡 ∙𝜔∙𝜆∙ for 𝑠 𝑠
∙ ∙

With:

𝜏
𝜔
𝑠 ∙𝐸 ∙𝑡

𝑠
𝜆
𝑠 𝑠

The length 𝑎 of the elastically deformed bond region enters into the second formula and can be determined with
the following expression. Because of the simultaneous occurrence of hyperbolic and trigonometric functions, 𝑎
cannot be determined in complete form but only iteratively.
𝜆 𝑠 𝑠
tanh 𝜔 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑠 𝑠 ∙ cot 𝜔 ∙ 𝜆 ∙ 𝑙 𝑎
𝑠 sin 𝜔 ∙ 𝜆 ∙ 𝑙 𝑎
The parameters 𝑠 , 𝜏 , and 𝑠 of the bilinear composite approach (cf. Figure 2.2) are determined using the least
squares method on the experimentally determined 𝑠 -𝜀 curves (cf. Figure 2.3) for each of the two sides of a
specimen. In view of the scope of the calculations to be performed, a limited number of supporting points is
recommended for the computational determination of the parameters.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 698
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure 2.3: Evaluation of the bond tests

Subsequently, system-specific coefficients 𝑘 , and 𝑘 , can be determined in regression analyses according

to EN 1990, Annex D.8.
∙
For this purpose, the correlations 𝜏 0 ⇔𝑓 𝑓 , 0 and 𝐺 0 ⇔𝑓 𝑓 , 0 can be
used in addition. For strengthening systems with externally bonded reinforcement, in which the adhesive
(component B) does not lead to a hardening of the concrete layers near the surface, the following the following
simple functions 𝑓 and 𝑓 of the term 𝑓 ∙ 𝑓 , can be assumed for this purpose,

𝜏 𝑓 𝑓 ∙𝑓 , 𝑘 , ∙ 0,37 ∙ 𝑓 ∙𝑓 ,

𝑘 , ∙ 0,37 ∙ 𝑓 ∙𝑓 , ∙𝑘 , ∙ 0,2
𝐺 𝑓 𝑓 ∙𝑓 ,
2
𝑠 𝑘 , ∙ 0,2
The region before the maximum bond length is described in formula (J.38) via a parabola. However, the exact
solution from the bilinear composite approach is not exactly parabolic.
After the test interpretation, a better agreement of the approximation from the parabolic approach with the test
values can be achieved with the factor 𝑘 , .
For many known reinforcement systems with CFRP strips and cold-curing, quartz sand-filled epoxy resin
adhesives, 𝑘 , , 𝑘 , and 𝑘 , are equal 1,0.

2.3.3 Reduction factor for fatigue derived from the tests according to Annex BD-A, A.2.3.6
The fatigue reduction factor 𝛼 used in formula (J.27) in the draft standard FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E), Annex J
contains information for an S-N curve, which is verified by means of fatigue tests. The tests are performed
according to the test procedure in Annex BD-A, Chapter A.2.3.6. The following load levels are checked:

Table 2.3: Load level for fatigue bond tests

Load level Lower load 𝐹bLi Upper load 𝐹bLi 1st test Upper load 𝐹bLi 2nd test
A 0,15 𝐹 0,45 𝐹 0,49 𝐹
B 0,3 𝐹 0,55 𝐹 0,58 𝐹
C 0,45 𝐹 0,64 𝐹 0,67 𝐹
D 0,6 𝐹 0,74 𝐹 0,76 𝐹
The load levels are characterised by the average value of the anchorage failure load 𝐹 determined for the same
configuration of specimen under A.2.3.5. During the test the number of load cycles is counted until a separated
length of 30 mm is reached, see Chapter A.2.3.6.
If at least 2 million load cycles are achieved at all load levels A to D in the first test and at least 90.000 load cycles
in the second test, the S-N-curve defined in FprEN1992-1-1:2023 (E), Annex J, formulae (J.29) and (J.30) can be
used.

2.4 Design parameter for confinement of columns and their determination

The factor kcc in equations (J.7) and (J.10) represents a system coefficient that depends on the strength and
stiffness of the CFRP used for confinement. The recommended values were derived from databases of tests
performed under specific boundary conditions with available systems. Coefficients for other systems should be
determined in addition to the mandatory material tests on the CFRP under comparable boundary conditions, which
have yet to be established.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 699
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

3 Product specific design and application parameters for strengthening kits of

externally bonded CFRP sheets (EBR)
The kits in general consist of the following components:
Component A unidirectional CF (Carbon Fibre) sheets
Component B1 primer for the concrete surface to improve the bond of the adhesive (not in all kits),
Component B2 adhesive (often also called structural bonding agent or structural bonding) for the concrete
surface,
Component B3 impregnation for the CF sheets (often it is the similar to the adhesive B2).
Component C repair mortar with polymer binder,
Component D bonding agent for the repair mortar, repair concrete and shotcrete.
In general there are two types of kits regarding their handling on the construction site:
Type 1 In these kits, the CF sheets are impregnated (component B3) before they are worked into a layer of
bonding agent (component B2) applied to the surface of the building. Afterwards, a further adhesive
layer (component B2) is then applied to the adhesive layer (component B2) with the partially
incorporated and impregnated CF sheet (component A), which in turn can be used to incorporate a
further layer of CF sheet (component A) or to close off the surface of the layer of bonding agent
(component B2).
Type 2 In these kits, the CF sheets are worked into a layer of bonding agent (component B2) applied to the
surface of the building in such a way that the CF-Sheets (component A) are only partially integrated into
the layer of bonding agent (component B2). Before conclusion with an additional layer of bonding agent
(component B2) the impregnation (component B3) is applied to the partially integrated CF-Sheet.
Afterwards, a further adhesive layer (component B2) is then applied to the adhesive layer (component
B2) with the partially incorporated and impregnated CF sheet (component A), which in turn can be used
to incorporate a further layer of CF sheet (component A) or to close off the surface of the layer of
bonding agent (component B2).

Figure 3.1: Principle sketches of reinforced concrete sections with subsequent strengthening by externally
bonded CFRP sheets

The product-specific design parameters for kits of EBR CFRP sheets included in Annex J of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
(E) are the following:

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 700
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 3.1: Product-specific design parameters included in of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Symbol in Meaning used in FprEN 1992-1-1

FprEN 1992-1-1 (according to FprEN 1992-1-1) (only sections of Annex J are listed,
which refer to externally bonded CFRP
sheets)
Design parameters for the CFRP sheets (component A)
𝜂 reduction factor applied to the tensile
3.5.4, J.5.2 (1), J.15
strength of the ABR CFRP strip
𝑓 characteristic material strength of the CFRP
3.5.2, J.5.3 (1), formula (J.2), Figure J.1
strips
𝐸 mean value of the modulus of elasticity of the 3.5.1, J.5.3 (1), formula (J.3)
CFRP strips Figure J.1, formula (J.35), (J.37) and
(J.39), (J.40)
𝜀 ultimate strain of the adhesively bonded CFRP
3.5.4, J.5.2 (1), Figure J.1
strips
𝐴 cross sectional area of the fibres per
3.5.1, J.5.1 (3)
meter of the ABR CFRP sheet
Design parameters for the adhesive (component B2) the and the repair mortar (component C)
In all design formulae for the EBR CFRP sheets in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E), Annex J no material parameter
for the adhesive and repair mortar are included but only material parameters of the impregnated ABR CFRP
sheets (component A+B2) and the concrete substrate. Therefore, when applying the formulae (J.35) to
(J.42), it is assumed that only kits are used that always have concrete failure in substrate and never adhesive
failure.

Design parameters for the bond to the concrete

𝑘 , product-specific system factor 3.5.2, formula (J.42), (J.48), J.15
𝑘 , product-specific system factor 3.5.2, formula (J.41), J.15
𝑓 average value of the compressive strength of 3.5.2, formula (J.39), J.15
the concrete substrate
𝑘 , product-specific system factor 3.5.2, J.11.1.1.2, formula (J.35), (J.37),
J.11.1.1.3, (J.42)
𝑓 , average value of the tensile surface strength of 3.5.2, J.11.1.1.1, formula (J.34),
the concrete substrate J.11.1.1.2, formula (J.35), (J.37),
J.11.1.1.3, formula (J.42)
𝛼 reduction factor for fatigue 3.5.4, J.10.2, formula (J.27)
Design parameters for confinement of columns
𝑘 product-specific system factor; 3.5.2, J.8.1.2
confinement factor for columns
strengthened with CFRP

3.1 Boundary conditions of the intended use of the kits

Kits tested in accordance to Annex BD-B are used since long time in Germany under the following environmental
conditions for a design life of 25 years:
 The strengthening kit may be used for normal concrete substrates of in the range of compressive
strength classes between 𝐶 to 𝐶 according to EN 206-1.
 Without additional protective measures for the FRP and adhesive, strengthening with adhesively
bonded reinforcement shall only be applied in exposure classes X0, XC1 (dry) or XC3 in accordance
with FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E), Table 6.1.
 In addition, EBR CFRP sheets shall not be exposed to direct UV radiation (direct sun radiation or indirect
sun from snow or water reflection) or alternating or permanent penetration of moisture in the area of
the strengthening. If necessary, appropriate protective layers shall be applied.
 The temperature of the concrete substrate does not exceed 𝑇 and does not fall below 𝑇 during
the entire design life of the strengthened structural element.
The range of compressive strength classes and the range of temperature concrete substrate are not given in
FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E). Therefore, it is necessary to be declared by the manufacturer and is largely confirmed
by the tests in accordance with Annex BD-B. If there is no confirmation by tests, the manufacturer's declaration
shall suffice or Annex BD-B shall be supplemented by suitable tests
A further difference to the boundary conditions of kits tested by Annex BD-A is that in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023,
Annex J, clause J.6.3 other exposure classes are also allowed. It shall be checked whether this is also possible
without additional tests compared to Annex BD-A. If not, the corresponding tests in Annex BD-A shall be added.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 701
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

3.2 Boundary conditions of the installation of the kits

The manufacturer's instructions and safety information shall be considered. In particular, it shall be ensured that
the surface temperature of the concrete component to be strengthened is always between the minimum and
maximum installation temperature of the component of the kit installed on it (see Table 3.2 "Application
parameters for the kit").

Table 3.2: Sources of design and application parameters from test procedures according to Annex BD-B for
kits of externally bonded CFRP sheets

Symbol according to Meaning Sources

FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex BD-B Test Additionally
procedure verified by
Design parameters for the CFRP sheets (component A)
𝜂 reduction factor applied to the B.2.2.6 and 2.3.1
tensile strength of the ABR CFRP B.2.2.7
sheet
𝑓 𝑓 characteristic material strength of the B.2.21)
CFRP sheet
𝐸 𝐸 mean value of the modulus of elasticity of B.2.21)
the CFRP sheet
𝜀 𝜀 ultimate strain of the adhesively bonded B.2.21)
CFRP sheet
𝐴 𝐴 cross sectional area of the fibres B.2.2.41)
per meter of the CFRP sheet
Design parameters for the bond to the concrete
𝑘 , product-specific system factor B.2.3.51) 3.3.2
1)
𝑘 , product-specific system factor B.2.3.5 3.3.2
𝑘 , product-specific system factor B.2.3.51) 3.3.2
2)
𝑓 𝑓 𝐶 average value of compression strength of B.2.3
the highest concrete strength class of the
tests
𝑓 𝐶 average value of compression strength of B.2.32)
the lowest concrete strength class of the
tests
𝑓 , 𝑓 , 𝐶 average value of the tensile surface B.2.32)
strength of the concrete substrate with the
highest concrete strength class of the
tests
𝛼 reduction factor for fatigue B.2.3.6 3.3.3
Design parameters for confinement of columns
product-specific system factor; 3.4
𝑘 confinement factor for columns
strengthened with CFRP
Application parameters for the kit
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for B.2.3.42)
the primer (component B1)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the primer (component B1)
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for B.2.3.42)
the adhesive (component B2)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the adhesive (component B2)
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for B.2.3.42)
the impregnation (component B3)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the impregnation (component B3)
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for B.2.3.42)
the repair mortar (component C)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the repair mortar (component C)

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 702
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

3)
𝑇 minimum temperature of the
strengthening kit at intended use
𝑇 maximum temperature of the B.2.3.32)
strengthening kit at intended use
𝐶 highest concrete strength class of the B.2.32)
tests
𝐶 lowest concrete strength class of the tests B.2.32)
1)
determined by test procedure
2)
declared by the manufacturer and confirmed by test procedure
3)
declared by the manufacturer
The number of tests given in Annex BD-B, clauses B.2.1 to B.2.3 is the minimum number which is necessary.
Each applicant can expand it according to their needs.

3.3.1 The creep reduction factor ηf of CFRP sheets derived from the tests according
to Annex BD-B, B.2.2.6 and B.2.2.7
The factor 𝜂 is the minimum of the factors 𝑅 from the test B.2.2.6 and 𝑅 from the test B.2.2.7
(𝜂 Min 𝑅 , 𝑅 . It is given separately for all alkaline solutions used in B.2.2.6 and B.2.2.7 (pH 9 and/or 11
and/or 13,7).

3.3.2 Parameters of the bilinear bond approach ksys,b1 and ksys,b2 and ksys,b3 derived from the tests
according to Annex BD-B, B.2.3.5
The differential formula for the bond of externally bonded reinforcement given in the Figure 2.3 can be completely
solved for the two branches of the bilinear bond approach. With an adjustment to the boundary conditions of the
bond test specimen according to Figure B.15, the following formulae are obtained, which describe the relationship
between the relative displacement sf at the load-side beginning of the bond length 𝑙 and the tensile force 𝐹 . For
s 𝑠 , only elastic bond stresses occur within the total bond length 𝑙 . After exceeding the elastic limit
displacement (𝑠 𝑠 ), additional plastically softened bond areas occur.
𝐹 𝐸 ∙ 𝑏 ∙ 𝑡 ∙ 𝑠 ∙ 𝜔 ∙ tanh 𝜔 ∙ 𝑙 for 𝑠 𝑠
∙ ∙ ∙
F 𝐸 ∙𝑏 ∙𝑡 ∙𝜔∙𝜆∙ for 𝑠 𝑠
∙ ∙

With:

𝜏
𝜔
𝑠 ∙𝐸 ∙𝑡

𝑠
𝜆
𝑠 𝑠

The length 𝑎 of the elastically deformed bond region enters into the second formula and can be determined with
the following expression. Because of the simultaneous occurrence of hyperbolic and trigonometric functions, 𝑎
cannot be determined in complete form but only iteratively.
𝜆 𝑠 𝑠
tanh 𝜔 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ s 𝑠 ∙ cot 𝜔 ∙ 𝜆 ∙ 𝑙 𝑎
𝑠 sin 𝜔 ∙ 𝜆 ∙ 𝑙 𝑎
The parameters 𝑠 , 𝜏 , and 𝑠 of the bilinear composite approach (cf. Figure 2.2) are determined using the least
squares method on the experimentally determined 𝑠 -𝜀 curves (cf. Figure 2.3) for each of the two sides of a
specimen. In view of the scope of the calculations to be performed, a limited number of supporting points is
recommended for the computational determination of the parameters.
Subsequently, system-specific coefficients 𝑘 , and 𝑘 , can be determined in regression analyses according
to EN 1990, Annex D.8.
∙
For this purpose, the correlations 𝜏 0 ⇔𝑓 𝑓 , 0 and 𝐺 0 ⇔𝑓 𝑓 , 0 can be
used in addition. For strengthening systems with externally bonded reinforcement, in which the adhesive
(component B2) does not lead to a hardening of the concrete layers near the surface, the following the following
simple functions 𝑓 and 𝑓 of the term 𝑓 ∙ 𝑓 , can be assumed for this purpose,

𝜏 𝑓 𝑓 ∙𝑓 , 𝑘 , ∙ 0,37 ∙ 𝑓 ∙𝑓 ,

𝑘 , ∙ 0,37 ∙ 𝑓 ∙𝑓 , ∙𝑘 , ∙ 0,2
𝐺 𝑓 𝑓 ∙𝑓 ,
2
𝑠 𝑘 , ∙ 0,2
For many known reinforcement systems with CFRP sheets and cold-curing epoxy resin adhesives, 𝑘 , and
𝑘 , are greater than 1,0.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 703
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The region before the maximum bond length is described in formula (J.38) via a parabola. However, the exact
solution from the bilinear composite approach is not exactly parabolic.
After the test interpretation, a better agreement of the approximation from the parabolic approach with the test
values can be achieved with the factor 𝑘 , .
If, on the other hand, a low viscosity adhesive or primer is used that penetrates the concrete matrix and leads to
a hardening of the concrete layers close to the surface, a more attenuated relationship between the target values
and the concrete strengths is to be assumed, e.g.
𝜏 𝑓 𝑓 ∙𝑓 ,

𝐺 𝑓 𝑓 ∙𝑓 ,

with exponents 𝑢 , 𝑢 , 𝑣 and 𝑣 smaller than or equal to 0,5.

In the case of a multi-layer sheets application, the influence of the adhesion thickness, which increases with the
number of layers, may also have to be taken into account.

3.3.3 Reduction factor for fatigue derived from the tests according to Annex BD-B, B.2.3.6
The fatigue reduction factor 𝛼 used FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E), Annex J, formula (J.27) contains information for
an S-N-curve, which is verified by means of fatigue tests. The tests are performed according to the test procedure
in Annex BD-B, Clause B.2.3.6. The following load levels are checked:

Table 3.3: Load level for fatigue bond tests

Load level Lower load 𝐹bLi Upper load 𝐹bLi 1st test Upper load 𝐹bLi 2nd test
A 0,15 𝐹 0,45 𝐹 0,49 𝐹
B 0,3 𝐹 0,55 𝐹 0,58 𝐹
C 0,45 𝐹 0,64 𝐹 0,67 𝐹
D 0,6 𝐹 0,74 𝐹 0,76 𝐹

The load levels are characterised by the average value of the anchorage failure load 𝐹 determined for the same
configuration of specimen under B.2.3.5. During the test the number of load cycles is counted until a separated
length of 30 mm is reached, see Clause B.2.3.6.
If at least 2 million load cycles are achieved at all load levels A to D in the first test and at least 90.000 load cycles
in the second test, the S-N-curve defined in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E), Annex J, formulae (J.29) and (J.30) can
be used.

3.4 Design parameter for confinement of columns and their determination

The factor kcc in equations (J.7) and (J.10) represents a system coefficient that depends on the strength and
stiffness of the CFRP used for confinement. The recommended values were derived from databases of tests
performed under specific boundary conditions with available systems. Coefficients for other systems should be
determined in addition to the mandatory material tests on the CFRP under comparable boundary conditions, which
have yet to be established.

4 Product specific design and application parameters for strengthening kits of near
surfaced mounted CFRP strips (NSM)

Figure 4.1: Principle sketches of reinforced concrete sections with subsequent strengthening by near surface
mounted CFRP strips

The product-specific design parameters for strengthening kits of NSM CFRP included in Annex J of FprEN 1992-
1-1:2023 (E) are the following:

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 704
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 4.1: Product-specific design parameters included in of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Symbol in Meaning used in FprEN 1992-1-1

FprEN 1992-1-1 (according to FprEN 1992-1-1, clause 3.5) (only clauses of Annex J are listed,
which refer to near surface mounted
CFRP strips)
Design parameters for the CFRP strips (component A)
𝜂 reduction factor applied to the tensile
3.5.4, J.5.2 (1), J.15
strength of the EBR CFRP sheet or strip
𝑓 characteristic short-term tensile strength of the
3.5.2, J.5.3 (1), formula (J.2), Figure J.1
ABR CFRP
𝐸 Mean modulus of elasticity in longitudinal 3.5.1, J.5.3 (1), formula (J.3)
direction of ABR CFRP Figure J.1,
𝜀 characteristic ultimate strain for ABR CFRP 3.5.4, J.5.2 (1), Figure J.1
𝐴 Cross sectional area of a CFRP system 3.5.1, J.5.1 (3)
Design parameters for the adhesive (component B)
𝛼 product-specific system factor for long-term 3.5.4, J.11.1.3, formula (J.59)
behaviour of the adhesive
𝑓 characteristic compression strength of the 3.5.2, J.5.1 (1), J.11.1.3, formula (J.60)
adhesive
𝑓 characteristic tensile strength of the adhesive 3.5.2, J.5.1 (1), J.11.1.3, formula (J.60)

Symbol in Meaning used in FprEN 1992-1-1

FprEN 1992-1-1 (according to FprEN 1992-1-1, clause 3.5) (only clauses of Annex J are listed,
which refer to near surface mounted
CFRP strips)
Design parameters for the repair mortar (component C)
In all design formulae (J.56) to (J.61) for the NSM CFRP of FprEN 1992-1-1, Annex J no material parameter
for the repair mortar (component C) are included but only material parameters of the ABR CFRP (component
A), the concrete substrate and the adhesive (component B).
Design parameters for the bond to the concrete
𝛼 product-specific system factor for long-term 3.5.4, J.11.1.3, formula (J.59)
behaviour of concrete
𝑓 average value of the compressive strength of 3.5.2, J.11.1.3, formula (J.61)
the concrete substrate

4.1 Boundary conditions of the intended use of the kits

Kits tested in accordance to Annex BD-C are used since long time in Germany under the following environmental
conditions for a design life of 25 years:
 The strengthening kit may be used for normal concrete substrates of in the range of compressive
strength between 𝐶 to 𝐶 according to EN 206-1.
 Without additional protective measures for the FRP and adhesive, strengthening with adhesively
bonded reinforcement shall only be applied in exposure classes X0, XC1 (dry) or XC3 in accordance
with FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E), Table 6.1.
 In addition, NSM CFRP shall not be exposed to direct UV radiation (direct sun radiation or indirect sun
from snow or water reflection) or alternating or permanent penetration of moisture in the area of the
strengthening. If necessary, appropriate protective layers shall be applied.
 The temperature of the concrete substrate does not exceed 𝑇 and does not fall below 𝑇 during
the entire design life of the strengthened structural element.
The range of compressive strength classes and the range of temperature concrete substrate are not given in
FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E). Therefore, it is necessary to be declared by the manufacturer and is largely confirmed
by the tests in accordance with Annex BD-C. If there is no confirmation by tests, the manufacturer's declaration
shall suffice or Annex BD-C shall be supplemented by suitable tests
A further difference to the boundary conditions of kits tested by Annex BD-A is that in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023,
Annex J, clause J.6.3 other exposure classes are also allowed. It shall be checked whether this is also possible
without additional tests compared to Annex BD-A. If not, the corresponding tests in Annex BD-A shall be added.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 705
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

4.2 Boundary conditions of the installation of the kits

The manufacturer's instructions and safety information shall be considered. In particular, it shall be ensured that the
surface temperature of the concrete component to be strengthened is always between the minimum and maximum
installation temperature of the component of the kit installed on it (see Table 4.2 "Application parameters for the
kit").

4.3 Design and application parameters and their determination

Table 4.2: Sources of design and application parameters from test procedures according to Annex BD-A
and Annex BD-C for kits of near surface mounted CFRP strips

Symbol according to Meaning Sources

FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex BD-A Test Additionally
and BD-C procedure verified
Design parameters for the CFRP strips (component A)
𝜂 reduction factor applied to the A.2.2.5 and 4.3.1
tensile stress of the NSM CFRP strip A.2.2.61)
𝑓 𝑓 characteristic material strength of the A.2.21)
CFRP strips
𝐸 𝐸 mean value of the modulus of elasticity of A.2.21)
the CFRP strips
𝜀 𝜀 ultimate strain of the adhesively bonded A.2.21)
CFRP strips
𝑡,𝑏 𝑡 ,𝑏 thickness and width of the CFRP strip A.2.2.31)
𝐴 𝐴 𝑑 ⋅𝑏 the area of the cross section of CFRP A.2.2.31)
strips
Symbol according to Meaning Sources
FprEN 1992-1-1 Annex BD-A Test Additionally
and BD-C procedure verified
Design parameters for the adhesive (component B)
𝛼 𝑅 , , product-specific system factor for long- C.2.3.5,
term behaviour of the adhesive C.2.3.61)
𝑓 𝑓Gck characteristic compression strength of the A.2.1.2,
adhesive A.2.1.31)
𝑓 𝑓Gflk characteristic tensile strength of the A.2.1.2,
adhesive A.2.1.31)
Design parameters for the bond to the concrete
𝛼 𝛼 product-specific system factor for long- 𝛼
term behaviour of concrete 𝜂 ⋅𝑘
,
⋅𝑘
2)
𝑓 𝑓 𝐶 average value of compression strength of C.2.3
the highest concrete strength class of the
tests
𝑓 𝐶 average value of compression strength of C.2.32)
the lowest concrete strength class of the
tests
Application parameters for the kit
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for C.2.3.42)
the adhesive (component B)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the adhesive (component B)
𝑇 , minimum temperature of installation for C.2.3.42)
the repair mortar (component C)
3)
𝑇 , maximum temperature of installation for
the repair mortar (component C)
3)
𝑇 minimum temperature of the
strengthening kit at intended use
𝑇 maximum temperature of the C.2.3.32)
strengthening kit at intended use
𝐶 highest concrete strength class of the C.2.32)
tests
𝐶 lowest concrete strength class of the tests C.2.32)

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 706
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1)
determined by test procedure
2)
declared by the manufacturer and confirmed by test procedure
3)
declared by the manufacturer

The number of tests given in Annex BD-A, clauses A.2.1 and A.2.2 and in Annex BD-C, clause C.2.3 is the
minimum number which is necessary. Each applicant can expand it according to their needs.

4.3.1 The creep reduction factor ηf of CFRP strips derived from the tests according to
Annex BD-A, A.2.2.5 and A.2.2.6
The factor 𝜂 is the minimum of the factors 𝑅 from the test A.2.2.5 and 𝑅 from the test A.2.2.6
(𝜂 𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝑅 , 𝑅 . It is given separately for all alkaline solutions used in 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 (pH 9 and/or 11 and/or
13,7).

References 5 References
[1] EN 1504-4:2004: Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures. Definitions,
requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 4: Structural bonding.
[2] Kuntz, S.: Verbundverhalten von laschenverstärkten Stahlbetonzuggliedern: Diplomarbeit, Institut für
Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz, TU Braunschweig; 1993.
[3] Holzenkämpfer, P.: Ingenieurmodelle des Verbundes geklebter Bewehrung für Betonbauteile;
Dissertation, TU Braunschweig; 1994.
[4] Niedermeier, R.: Zugkraftdeckung von klebearmierten Bauteilen; Dissertation, TU München; 2001.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 707
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Annex BD-A Test program for externally bonded CFRP strips

A.1 Specific terms used in this Annex

A.1.1 Significant cross sections of one type of CFRP strips

If for one type of CFRP strips (see A.1.3) more than one cross section exist the significant cross
sections are those with the smallest and the highest thickness those with the smallest and highest
width as well as those with the section of the highest ratio between circumference and cross-section
area.

A.1.2 Coil diameter of CFRP strips

CFRP strips are usually delivered on site in form of coils. Without further investigations the inner coil
diameter should not be less than the diameter used in the assessment tests.

A.1.3 Type of CFRP strips

A type of CFRP strips is characterised by the same production technology, the same fibres and size
of fibres (see A.1.7), the same fibre content and the same matrix material.

A.1.4 Standard environmental conditions

In the framework of this Annex the standard environmental conditions are a temperature of 21 2°C
and relative air humidity of (50 ± 10)%.

A.1.5 Minimum temperature of installation

The following terms are used in this document:
𝑇 , , minimum temperature of installation of the structural bonding agent (component B),
𝑇 , , minimum temperature of installation of the repair mortar (component C and D).
The default values for these temperatures are 8°C. The default values are only used if the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not contain any other information.

A.1.6 Minimum and maximum temperature at the intended use

The default values for the minimum and maximum temperature of the repair mortar (component C and
D) 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , as well as for the bonding agent (component B) 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , at the intended
use is -10°C and 40°C. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information do not contain any other information.
For the intended use of the kit as a whole the minimum temperature results from 𝑇
max 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , and the maximum temperature from 𝑇 min 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , .

A.1.7 Size of fibres

During the spinning process the size is raised on the carbon fibres. It is a protective coating for the fibres
of less than 100 nm of thickness and improves the bond of the fibres to the matrix materials of the CFRP
strips. Mostly it consists of polymers.

A.1.8 Minimum and maximum thickness of layers of bonding agent (component B) and repair
mortar (component C and D)
The default minimum and maximum thicknesses
 of the layers of bonding agent (component B) are 𝑑 , = 1 mm and 𝑑 , = 5 mm and
 of the repair mortar (component C and D) 𝑑 , = 5 mm and 𝑑 , = 30 mm.
The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not contain
any other information.

A.1.9 Minimum curing time of the bonding agent (component B) and repair mortar (component C
and D) at standard environmental conditions (A.1.4) and at minimum temperature of
installation (see A.1.5)
The default values for the minimum curing time of the bonding agent (component B) at standard
environmental conditions (A.1.4) 𝑡 are 7 d and at minimum temperature of installation (A.1.5) 𝑡
28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not
contain any other information.
The default values for the minimum curing time of the repair mortar (component C and D) at standard
environmental conditions (A.1.4) 𝑡 are 7d and at minimum temperature of installation (A.1.5) 𝑡
28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not
contain any other information.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 708
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

A.1.10 Minimum and maximum strength class of the concrete substrate

The default values for the minimum and maximum strength classes of the concrete substrate are C12/15
and C50/60. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information
do not contain any other information.

A.2 Tests program for kits of externally bonded CFRP strips

A.2.1 Tests to determine the product-specific properties of the adhesive (structural bonding agent)
and repair mortar

A.2.1.1 Glass transition temperature of the structural bonding agent (component B) and the repair
mortar (component C)
Purpose of the assessment
To identify the maximum temperature of intended use (see A.1.6) of the kit is necessary to determine the glass
transition temperature of the structural bonding agent (component B) 𝑇 and the repair mortar (component C)
𝑇 .
Assessment method
Basis for the tests is EN 12614. The glass transition temperature shall be determined on specimens of cured
structural bonding agent (component B) and repair mortar (component C) from one batch of resin and hardener.
The glass transition temperature must only be measured during the first heating cycle; the heating speed must
be 10°C/min. The preparatory cycle of temperature according to EN 12614, clause 6.2 shall be omitted if it causes
a change of the glass transition temperature.
The glass transition temperature shall be determined on at least two specimens of bonding agent (component B)
which have cured at least for 𝑡 (see A.1.9) and on at least two specimens of repair mortar (component C) which
have cured at least for 𝑡 (see A.1.9) under standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4).
Expression of results
Glass transition temperatures of the structural bonding agent (component B) 𝑇 together with the curing time 𝑡
(see A.1.9) and the repair mortar (component C) 𝑇 together with the curing time 𝑡 (see A.1.9) shall be given
in the test report.

A.2.1.2 Flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent (component B) and the
repair mortar (component C)
Purpose of the assessment
These tests are intended to determine the relevant mechanical properties of the structural bonding agent
(component B) and the repair mortar (component C) after curing under standard environmental conditions (see
A.1.4). This includes the flexural and compressive strength.
Assessment method
The flexural and compressive strength according to EN 196-1 or EN 1015-11 of at least 6 specimens 160 mm x
40 mm x 40 mm (length x height x width) of cured structural bonding agent and repair mortar from one batch of
resin and hardener shall be determined. The specimens shall cure at standard environmental conditions (see
A.1.4). At least 3 tests of the flexural strength according to EN 196-1, 9.1 or EN 1015-11, clauses 8 and 6 tests of
the compressive strength according to EN 196-1, clause 9.2 or EN 1015-11, clause 9 shall be carried out at
standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4).
At least tests after curing of the bonding agent (component B) for 𝑡 (see A.1.9) and of the repair mortar
(component C) for 𝑡 (see A.1.9) shall be carried out.
Expression of results
From the failure loads of the bending tests with the specimens of structural bonding agent 𝐹Gfl, and the specimens
of repair mortar 𝐹Mfl, , the bending tensile strengths 𝑓Gfli and 𝑓Mfli shall be determined according to EN 196-1, clause
9.1 or EN 1015-11, clause 8. From these values, the mean values 𝑓Gflm and 𝑓 as well as the 5% quantile value
according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝑓Gflk and 𝑓 shall be determined and given in the test report.
From the failure loads of the compressive tests with the specimens of structural bonding agent 𝐹Gc, and the
specimens of repair mortar, 𝐹Mc, the compressive strengths 𝑓 and 𝑓Mci shall be determined according to EN 196-
1, clause 9.2 or EN 1015-11, clause 9. From these values, the mean value 𝑓Gcm and 𝑓Mcm as well as the 5% quantile
value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝑓Gck and 𝑓Mck shall be determined and given in the test report.

A.2.1.3 Flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent (component B) and the
repair mortar (component C) cured at minimum temperature of installation in dependence of
curing time
Purpose of the assessment
These tests are intended to determine the flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent
(component B) and the repair mortar (component C) at minimum temperature of installation (see A.1.5) in
dependence of curing time.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 709
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Assessment method
For different curing conditions regarding to temperature and time the flexural and compression strength of cured
specimens of bonding agent and repair mortar shall be determined according to A.2.1.2. At least specimens of
structural bonding agent (component B) cured at minimum temperature of installation 𝑇 , °C (see A.1.5) and
specimens of repair mortar (component C) cured at minimum temperature of installation 𝑇 , °C (see A.1.5)
shall be tested.
For each material at least 3 tests shall be carried out. The bending and compression test shall be carried out
immediately after the curing time ending. For the bonding agent (component B) at least tests after curing for tGTmin
and 2 tGTmin (see A.1.9) and for the repair mortar (component C and D) at least tests after curing for tMTmin and 2
tMTmin (see A.1.9) at the minimum temperature of installation 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , (see A.1.6) shall be carried out.

Expression of results
From the failure loads of the bending tests "i" for the curing time "j" of structural bonding agent 𝐹Gfl,ij and the
specimens of repair mortar 𝐹Mfl,ij the bending tensile strengths 𝑓Gflij and 𝑓Mtflj shall be determined according to
EN 196-1, clause 9.1 or EN 1015-11, clause 8. From these values, the mean value 𝑓Gtmj and 𝑓Mtmj as well as the
5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝑓Gflkj and 𝑓Mflkj shall be given in the test report
in conjunction with the used curing temperature and time.
From the failure loads of the compression tests "i" for the curing time "j" of the structural bonding agent 𝐹 , and
the specimens of repair mortar 𝐹 , the bending compression strengths 𝑓Gcij and 𝑓Mcij shall be determined
according to EN 196-1, clause 9.1 or EN 1015-11, clause 9. From these values, the mean value 𝑓Gcmj and 𝑓Mcmj
as well as the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝑓Gckj and 𝑓Mckj shall be given in
the test report in conjunction with the used curing temperature and time.

A.2.2 Tests to determine the product-specific properties of the CFRP strips

A.2.2.1 Fibre content of the CFRP strips

Purpose of the assessment
Determination of the fibre content of the CFRP strips.
Assessment method
The fibre content shall be determined according to EN 2564 method A. Tests shall be carried out at least on 6
specimens of known cross sections (see A.2.2.3) of all types of CFRP strips.
Expression of results
For every type of CFRP strips (see A.1.3) the average value and the characteristic value of the fibre content shall
be determined and reported in the test report.

A.2.2.2 Weight per meter of the CFRP strips

Purpose of the assessment
Determination of the weight of the CFRP strips.
Assessment method
Weight of 1m long pieces of CFRP strips mLi shall be determined. Tests shall be carried out at least on 6
specimens for the significant cross sections (see A.1.1) of all types of CFRP strips (see A.1.3).
Expression of results
For every type of CFRP strips (see A.1.3) the average value mLm and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990,
Table D.1 (Vx unknown) mLk of the determined weight of 1m long pieces mLi shall be determined and reported in
the test report.

A.2.2.3 Dimensions of the CFRP strips

Purpose of the assessment
Determination of the dimensions of the CFRP strips.
Assessment method
Thickness 𝑡L and width 𝑏 of 1m long pieces of CFRP strips shall be measured. The thickness shall be measured
on at least 9 points (see figure A.1) and the width at least on 3 places per specimen (see figure A.2). Tests shall
be carried out at least on 6 specimens for the significant cross sections (see A.1.1) of all types of CFRP strips
(see A.1.3).

Figure A.1: Measure points for the thickness 𝑡L of CFRP strips

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 710
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure A.2: Measure lines for the width 𝑏 of CFRP strips

Expression of results
For every significant cross section of every type of CFRP strips (see A.1.3) the average values 𝑡 and 𝑏 as
well as the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝑡 and 𝑏 of the determined
thicknesses 𝑡 and widths 𝑏 shall be determined and reported in the test report.
For every significant cross section of every type of CFRP strips (see A.1.3) also the average value 𝐴 𝑡 ⋅
𝑏 as well as the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown)
𝐴 𝑡 ⋅ 𝑏 of the cross section shall be reported in the test report.

A.2.2.4 Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and strain at failure of CFRP strips (component A)
Purpose of the test
These tests are intended to determine the relevant mechanical properties of the CFRP strips (component A). This
includes the modulus of elasticity and the tensile strength, both related to the section of the CFRP strip as well as
the ultimate strain of CFRP strips.
Assessment method
The tensile load at failure 𝐹 (called 𝑃 in EN 2561, 7.2.7), the strains at 0,1 𝐹 as well as at 0,5 𝐹 and the strain
at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 7.2.7) of the CFRP strips shall be determined according to EN 2561,
Annex A, with specimens type B. In deviation from EN 2561, Annex A, Table A.1 the thickness of the test
specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP strips. Tests shall be carried out at least on 5 specimens
of the significant cross sections (see A.1.1) of every type of CFRP strip (see A.1.3).
Expression of results
According to EN 2561 it is only possible to measure failure loads 𝐹 , the strains 𝜀 )A at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀 )A in
EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4), the strains 𝜀 )B at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 )B in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and
the strains at failure 𝜀 (called (11)R in EN 2561, clause 8.6). To determine strengths and secant moduli of
elasticity from these test results there are two possibilities. The strengths related to the sections of the CFRP
strips (called  in EN 2561, clause 8.1) and the strengths related to the sections of all fibres of the sections of
CFRP strips (called  in EN 2561, clause 8.2) as well as the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of the
CFRP strips (called 𝐸 in EN 2561, clause 8.3) and the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of all fibres of
the sections of CFRP strips (called 𝐸 in EN 2561, clause 8.4). With CFRP strips, it is customary to refer to the
cross sections of the strips. Therefore, the tensile strength and the moduli of elasticity shall only be determined
related to the section of the CFRP strips according to EN 2561, clause 8.1 and EN 2561, clause 8.3.
From the single values 𝐸 , 𝑓 , 𝜀 according to EN 2561, 8.3, 8.1 and 7.2.7 he average values of the secant
modulus of elasticity 𝐸 , of the tensile strengths 𝑓 and of the ultimate strain 𝜀 and the 5% quantile value
according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) of tensile strengths 𝑓 shall be given in the test report for all types
of CFRP strips (see A.1.3).

A.2.2.5 Resistance of CFRP strips (component A) after storage in alkaline environment at maximum
temperature at intended use (see A.1.6)
Purpose of the assessment
These tests are intended to determine the change of the mechanical properties of the CFRP strips (component
A) according to A.2.2.4 after long-time storage in alkaline environment at maximum temperature at intended use
(see A.1.6). This includes the change of the secant modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain of
the CFRP strips.
Assessment method
At least in one of the following alkaline solutions the CFRP strips shall be stored at maximum temperature at
intended use (see A.1.6) for at least 1800 h:
 alkaline solution pH 9,0,
 alkaline solution pH 11,0,
 alkaline solution pH 13,7.
After this storage the specimens are washed and dried for 24 h at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4).
Afterwards the tensile load at failure 𝐹 (called 𝑃 in EN 2561, clause 7.2.7), the strains at 0,1 𝐹 as well as at
0,5 𝐹 and the strain at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 7.2.7) of the CFRP strips shall be determined
according to EN 2561, Annex A, with specimens type B. In deviation from EN 2561, Annex A, Table A.1 the
thickness of the test specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP strips.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 711
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Tests shall be carried out at least on 5 specimens of CFRP strips for at least one thickness per type of CFRP
strips (see A.1.3). Preferably it should be the section with the highest ratio between circumference and cross-
section area among all the sections of this type of CFRP strips (see A.1.3).
Expression of results
According to EN 2561 it is only possible to measure failure loads 𝐹 , the strains 𝜀 )A at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀 )A in
EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4), the strains 𝜀 )B at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 )B in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and
the strains at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 8.6). To determine strengths and secant moduli of
elasticity from these test results there are two possibilities according to EN 2561. In accordance to A.2.2.4 it is
only necessary to determine the strengths related to the sections of the CFRP strips 𝑓 (called  in EN 2561,
clause 8.1) as well as the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of the CFRP strips 𝐸 (called 𝐸 in EN
2561, clause 8.3).
From the single values 𝐸 , 𝑓 and 𝜀 according to EN 2561, 8.3, 8.1 and 7.2.7 the average values 𝐸 ,𝑓
and 𝜀 as well as the ratios 𝑅 , 𝑅 and 𝑅 shall be determined as follows:

𝑅 𝑅 𝑅

where:
𝐸 ,𝑓 ,𝜀 are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain after
storage in alkaline solution
𝐸 , 𝑓 , 𝜀, are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain
according to A.2.2.4
The values 𝑅 , 𝑅 and 𝑅 shall be given in the test report for all types (see A.1.3) of CFRP strips separately
for all applied alkaline solutions (pH 9 and/or 11 and/or 13.7) used for the tests.

A.2.2.6 Resistance of CFRP strips (component A) in alkaline environment, under long-term load at
maximum temperature at maximum temperature at intended use (see A.1.6)
Purpose of the test
These tests are intended to determine the change of the mechanical properties of the CFRP strips (component
A) according to A.2.2.4 after long-time loading in alkaline environment at maximum temperature at intended use
(see A.1.6). This includes the change of the secant modulus of elasticity, of the tensile strength and of the ultimate
strain of the CFRP strips. In comparison to A.2.2.4 the secant modulus of elasticity and the tensile strength only
needs to be related to the cross section of the CFRP strips and not to the cross section of all fibres of the CFRP
strips.
Assessment method
At least in one of the following alkaline solutions the CFRP strips shall be stored at maximum temperature at
intended use (see A.1.6) and stressed with 50% of the characteristic value of tensile strength according to A.2.2.4
for at least 1800 h:
 alkaline solution pH 9,0,
 alkaline solution pH 11,0,
 alkaline solution pH 13,7.
After this storage the specimens are washed and dried for 24 h at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4).
Afterwards the tensile load at failure 𝐹 (called 𝑃 in EN 2561, 7.2.7), the strains at 0,1 𝐹 as well as at 0,5 𝐹
and the strain at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, 7.2.7) of the CFRP strips shall be determined according to
EN 2561, Annex A, with specimens type B. In deviation from EN 2561, Annex A, Table A.1 the thickness of the
test specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP strips.
Tests shall be carried out at least on 5 specimens of CFRP strips for at least one thickness per type of CFRP
strips (see A.1.3). Preferably it should be the section with the highest ratio between circumference and cross-
section area among all the sections of this type of CFRP strips (see A.1.3).
Expression of results
According to EN 2561 it is only possible to measure failure loads 𝐹 , the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀
in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4), the strains 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and
the strains at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 8.6). To determine strengths and secant moduli of
elasticity from these test results there are two possibilities according to EN 2561. In accordance to 2.2.4 it is only
necessary to determine the strengths related to the cross section of the CFRP strips 𝑓 (called  in EN 2561,
clause 8.1) as well as the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of the CFRP strips 𝐸 (called 𝐸 in EN
2561, clause 8.3) and not to the cross section of all fibres of the CFRP strips.
From the single values 𝐸 , 𝑓 and 𝜀 according to EN 2561, 8.3, 8.1 and 7.2.7 the average values 𝐸 ,𝑓
and 𝜀 as well as the ratios 𝑅 , 𝑅 and 𝑅 shall be determined as follows:

𝑅 𝑅 𝑅

where:
𝐸 ,𝑓 ,𝜀 are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain
after storage in alkaline solution

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 712
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

𝐸 ,𝑓 ,𝜀 are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain
according to A.2.2.4
The values 𝑅 , 𝑅 and 𝑅 shall be reported in the test report for all types (see A.1.3) of CFRP strips
separately for all applied alkaline solutions (pH 9 and/or 11 and/or 13.7) used for the tests.

A.2.3 Tests to verify the product-specific properties TGmin,a, TMmin,a, Tmax and Cmin, Cmax as well as to
determine the product-specific parameters of the bilinear bond approach ksys,b1 and ksys,b2 and
the reduction factor for fatigue loading fat2

A.2.3.1 Bond strength of specimens cured at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4)
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B)
and CFRP strips (component A),
 specimens with layers of concrete, bonding agent (component B) and CFRP strips (component A).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing under standard conditions
(see A.1.4).
Assessment method
The test is based on EN 1542. The main differences to EN 1542 are the following:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, 4.7 are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see A.1.8),
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
thickness 𝑑 , 1 (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure A.3a).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On the repair mortar (component C and D) a layer of CFRP strips bonded by a layer of bonding agent
(component B) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , 2 (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the
manufacturer’s instructions and safety information (see Figure A.3b). Preferably the width of the CFRP
strips should be at least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of the annular grooves without joints between CFRP
strips.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) and the bonding agent (component B) according
to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4)
on each specimen 5 annular grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the multilayer specimen
until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the reference concrete is reached (see Figure A.3). The layers of CFRP
strips inside the annular grooves preferably should not contain joints between CFRP strips.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
5 CFRP strip (component A) externally bonded to the repair mortar (component C and D)
Figure A.3: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B) and externally
bonded CFRP strips (component A)

1
At least one test series with the maximum layer thickness of repair mortar is necessary.
2
At least one test series with the minimum layer thickness of bonding agent is necessary.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 713
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure A.4: Top view on the test specimen with annular grooves showing the areas of the steel dollies
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12 (see Figure A.5a), with the maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of CFRP strips (component A) bonded by a
2
layer of bonding agent (component B) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) shall be installed
according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety information (see Figure A.5b). Preferably the
width of the CFRP strips should be at least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of the annular grooves without
joints between CFRP strips.

 After curing of the bonding agent (component B) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4) on each specimen 5 annular grooves of
50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the multilayer specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the
reference concrete is reached. The layers of CFRP strips inside the annular grooves preferably should
not contain joints between CFRP strips.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.9)
5 CFRP strip (component A) externally bonded to the concrete
Figure A.5: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar
b) Specimen with bonding agent (component B) and externally bonded CFRP strips (component A)
The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each annular groove a dolly according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular surfaces
with the structural bonding agent (component B). The minimum thickness of the layer 𝑑 , (see A.1.8)
of bonding agent shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B) of the dollies shall cure according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4) before testing.
 Afterwards the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf shall be determined on each annular groove of the specimens with
and without repair mortar according to EN 1542, 7.4 at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4).
The bond strength shall be determined on at least 5 annular grooves with and without repair mortar (component
C and D) for every type of CFRP strip.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 714
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf and the failure modes for all specimens have to be determined for further comparison
with the results according to A.2.3.2 to A.2.3.4. From the values 𝑓cti,surf the average value of the bond strength
𝑓ctm,surf and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf of tensile strength shall
be determined. The values 𝑓cti,surf , 𝑓ctm,surf , 𝑓ctk,surf , the curing time of the repair mortar (component C and D) as well
as of the bonding agent (component B) and the failure modes shall be reported in the test report.

A.2.3.2 Bond strength after low-cycle fatigue action

Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B)
and CFRP strips (component A)
 specimens with layers of concrete, bonding agent (component B and CFRP strips (component A)
The bond strength is determined by pull-off test according to EN 1542 after curing under standard conditions (see
A.1.4) and low-cycle fatigue action.
Assessment method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the followings:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, 4.7 are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see A.1.8),
 the test specimens are circular cylinders which are drilled from specimens according to EN 1542,
Figure 1 (or Figure A.7 of this Annex)3
 on both circular surfaces of these cylinders are glued dollies according to EN 1542, clause 7.2.
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
thickness 𝑑 , 1 (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure A.6a).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On the repair mortar (component C and D) a layer of CFRP strips bonded by a layer of bonding agent
2
(component B) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.9) shall be installed according to the
manufacturer’s instructions and safety information (see Figure A.6b). Preferably the width of the CFRP
strips should be at least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of the cylinders without joints between CFRP strips.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) and the bonding agent (component B) according
to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see
A.1.4) on each specimen 5 cylinders of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer
specimen (see Figure A.6). The cylinders preferably should contain layers of CFRP strips with no joint
between CFRP strips.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
5 CFRP strips (component A) externally bonded to the repair mortar (components C and D)
Figure A.6: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)

3
There are not only drilled grooves with a depth of 15 mm, but core holes through the different layers and the entire thickness of the
reference concrete of 100 mm (see Figure A.6) so that 5 individual cylinders are created. The cylinders may only be tested if dollies are
glued on both circular surfaces.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 715
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B) and externally
bonded CFRP strips (component A)

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure A.7: Top view on the test specimen after drilling the concrete cylinders out of the concrete plate
according to EN 1542
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12 (see Figure A.8a), with the maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of CFRP strips bonded by a layer of
2
bonding agent (component B) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) shall be installed
according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety information (see Figure A.8b). Preferably the
width of the CFRP strips should be at least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of the cylinders without joints
between CFRP strips.
 After curing of the bonding agent (component B) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4) on each specimen 5 cylinders of 50 mm
diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen. The cylinders preferably should contain
layers of CFRP strips with no joint between CFRP strips.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
5 CFRP strips (component A) externally bonded to the concrete
Figure A.8: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar
b) Specimen with bonding agent (component B) and externally bonded CFRP strips (component A)
The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each cylinder two dollies according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular surfaces
with the structural bonding agent (component B). The minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) of the layers
of structural bonding agent (component B) shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B) of the dollies shall cure according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4) before testing.
 Afterwards on each of the cylinders the cyclic load shall be applied over the dollies to the concrete
surface. The lower stress shall be 0,1 ⋅ 𝑓ctm,surf and the upper stress 0,55 ⋅ 𝑓ctm,surf . 𝑓ctm,surf is the average
value of the bond strength determined according to A.2.3.1. After 100.000 loading cycles the bond

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 716
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

strength 𝑓cti,surf,lfat shall be determined on each cylinder according to EN ISO 4624, method A at standard
environmental conditions (see A.1.4).
The bond strength shall be determined at least on 5 cylinders with and without repair mortar (component C and
D) for every type of CFRP strip (see A.1.3).
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf,lfat and the failure modes for all specimens have to be determined. From the values
𝑓cti,surf,lfat the average value of the bond strength 𝑓ctm,surf,lfat and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table
D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf,lfat of tensile strength shall be determined.
The ratio 𝑅lfat,m shall be determined as follows:
ctm,surf,lfat
𝑅lfat,m .
ctm,surf

f ctm,surf is determined according to A.2.3.1 . The values 𝑓cti,surf,lfat , 𝑓ctm,surf,lfat, 𝑓ctk,surf,lfat , 𝑅lfat,m , the curing time of
the repair mortar (component C and D) as well as of the bonding agent (component B) and the failure modes shall
be reported in the test report.

A.2.3.3 Bond strength after long-term loading under harsh climatic conditions
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B)
and CFRP strips (component A),
 specimens with layers of concrete, bonding agent (component B) and CFRP strips (component A).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing under standard conditions
(see A.1.4) and loading under harsh climatic conditions for half a year. Two harsh climatic conditions are possible:
Climate 1 maximum temperature at intended use and relative air humidity of ≥95% for the
whole half year,
Climate 2 heat rain cycles with 1 h irrigation without heating and 1 h drying at maximum
temperature at intended use for the whole half year (approximately 2200 cycles).
Assessment Method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the followings:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, clause 4.7, are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see A.1.8),
 the test specimens are circular cylinders which are drilled from specimens according to EN 1542,
Figure 1 (or Figure A.10 of this Annex)4.
 on both circular surfaces of these cylinder dollies are glued according to EN 1542, clause 7.2.
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure A.9a).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On the repair mortar a layer of CFRP strips bonded by a layer of bonding agent (component B) with the
minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions
(see Figure A.9b). Preferably the width of the CFRP strips should be at least 80 mm, to allow the drilling
of the cylinders without joints between CFRP strips.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) and the bonding agent (component B) according
to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see
A.1.4) on each specimen 5 cylinders of 80 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer
specimen (see Figure A.10). The cylinders preferably should contain layers of CFRP strips with no joint
between CFRP strips.

4
There are not only drilled grooves with a depth of 15 mm, but core holes through the different layers and the entire thickness of the
reference concrete of 100 mm (see Figure A.6) so that 5 individual cylinders are created. The cylinders may only be tested if dollies
are glued on both circular surfaces.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 717
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
5 CFRP strips (component A) externally bonded to the repair mortar (components C and D)
Figure A.9: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B) and externally
bonded CFRP strips (component A)

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 80 mm
Figure A.10: Top view on the test specimen after drilling the concrete cylinders out of the concrete plate
according to EN 1542
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12 (see Figure A.11a), with the maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of CFRP strips bonded by a layer of
bonding agent (component B) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) shall be installed according
to the manufacturer’s instructions (see Figure A.11b). The width of the CFRP strips should be at least
80 mm, to allow the drilling of the cylinders without joints between CFRP strips.
 After curing of the bonding agent (component B) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4) on each specimen 5 cylinders of 80 mm
diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure A.10). The cylinders
preferably should contain layers of CFRP strips with no joint between CFRP strips.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of bonding agent (component C and D) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
5 CFRP (component A) strip externally bonded to the concrete
Figure A.11: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar
b) Specimen with bonding agent (component B) and externally bonded CFRP strips (component A)

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 718
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each cylinder two dollies of 80 mm diameter shall be glued on the circular surfaces with the structural
bonding agent (component B) according to EN 1542, clause 7.2. The minimum thickness dG,min (see
A.1.8) of the layers of structural bonding agent (component B) shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B) of the dollies shall cure according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4)
 Afterwards on each of the cylinders the stress of at least 0,2 𝑓ctm,surf shall be applied for half a year
perpendicular to the concrete surface under climate 1 or 2. 𝑓ctm,surf is the average value of the bond
strength determined according to A.2.3.1. After long-term loading the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf,lt shall be
determined on each of these cylinders according to EN ISO 4624, method A at standard environmental
conditions (see A.1.4).
At least 5 cylinders with and without repair mortar (component C and D) shall be tested for every long-term load
level with every type of CFRP strip (see A.1.3).
Expression of results
For all samples without failure within the half year of testing time the residual pull off strength 𝑓cti,surf,lt and failure
mode has to be determined and reported in the test report. For all samples were failure occurred before the end
of the half year the time to failure and the failure mode has to be reported in test report. Furthermore, the curing
time of the repair mortar (component C and D) as well as of the bonding agent (component B) and the used
climate (climate 1 or 2) shall be reported in the test report.

A.2.3.4 Bond strength of specimens cured at minimum temperature of installation (see A.1.5) in
dependence of curing time
Purpose of assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B
and CFRP strips (component A),
 specimens with layers of concrete, bonding agent (component B) and CFRP strips (component A).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing at 𝑇 , or 𝑇 in
dependence of curing time.
Assessment Method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the followings:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, 4.7 are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see A.1.8),
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least two specimens according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
1
thickness 𝑑 , , (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information (see Figure A.12a).
 On the repair mortar (component C and D) a layer of CFRP strips bonded by a layer of bonding agent
2
(component B) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information (see Figure A.12b). Preferably the width of the CFRP
strips should be at least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of annular grooves without joints between CFRP
strips.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) and the bonding agent (component B) according
to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at 𝑇 and 𝑇 , on each specimen 5
annular grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the multilayer specimen until a depth of 15
± 5 mm in the reference concrete is reached (see Figure A.13). The layers of CFRP strips inside the
annular grooves preferably should not contain joints between CFRP strips.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 719
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 attached form
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
5 CFRP strip (component A) externally bonded to the repair mortar
Figure A.12: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), bonding agent (component B) and externally
bonded CFRP strips (component A)

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure A.13: Top view on the test specimen with annular grooves showing the areas of the steel dollies
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least two specimens according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see A.1.10) a layer of CFRP strips (component A) bonded by a layer of bonding
agent (component B) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) shall be installed according to the
manufacturer’s instructions (see Figure A.14b). Preferably the width of the CFRP strips should be at
least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of the annular grooves without joints between CFRP strips
 After curing of the bonding agent (component B) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information at 𝑇 , on each specimen 5 annular grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through
the entire multilayer specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the reference concrete is reached. The
layers of CFRP strips inside the annular grooves preferably should not contain joints between CFRP
strips.

1 Attached form
2 Reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 ,
5 CFRP strip (component A) externally bonded to the concrete
Figure A.14: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with bonding agent (component B) and externally bonded CFRP strips (component A)

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 720
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each annular groove a dolly according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular
surfaces. This shall not be done with the structural bonding agent (component B) but with another
bonding agent, which achieves the necessary bond strength after a few minutes of curing to exclude
any failure of the bonding layers of the steel dollies during testing.
 Afterwards on each annular groove the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin shall be determined according to
EN 1542, 7.4 at standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4).
At least 5 annular grooves with and without repair mortar (component C and D) shall be tested for every type of
CFRP strip (see A.1.3).
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin have to be measured and failure modes shall be reported. From the values 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin
the average value of the bond strength 𝑓ctm,surf,Tmin and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉
unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf,Tmin of tensile strength shall be determined.
The ratio 𝑅 min ,m
shall be determined as follows:
ctm,surf,Tmin
𝑅 min ,m
.
ctm,surf

The value 𝑓ctm,surf is determined according to A.2.3.1 . The values 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin , 𝑓ctm,surf,Tmin , 𝑓ctk,surf,Tmin , 𝑅 min ,m , the curing
time of the repair mortar (component C and D) as well as of the bonding agent (component B) and the failure
modes shall be reported in test report.

A.2.3.5 Tests to determine the specific parameters of the bilinear bond approach ksys,b1, ksys,b2 and
ksys,b2 for static loading of the strengthening kit
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the shear resistance 𝐹bLk and the shear force – slip relation of the anchorage
for relevant configurations of CFRP strips externally bonded to the concrete.
Assessment method
Test specimen:
The double-sided bond specimen consists of a concrete block divided horizontally by a crack plate in two parts
(see Figure A.15). The length of the part above the crack plate should be more than 50 cm and the length of the
part below the crack plate should more than 100 cm (see right sketch in Figure A.15). The width of the concrete
block b should be at least 2 cm higher than the width of the CFRP strips 𝑏L . The thickness 𝑑 of the concrete block
should be more than 150 mm.

Figure A.15: Tension-Tension double-sided bond specimen to determine the bonding behaviour of bonded CFRP
strips
On two parallel sides of the concrete block (preferably the sides which were in vertical position during concreting
of the specimen) two CFRP strips are bonded on the surface with the adhesive (Component B) of the kit. The
thickness 𝑡L should be the maximum thickness of the CFRP strips in the kit and shall be bonded to the concrete
2
by a layer of bonding agent with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see A.1.8) of the layer of structural bonding agent.
On the upper short part of the concrete block additionally to the bonding the CFRP strips are clamped by special
equipment to the surfaces of the concrete block. On the lower long part of the concrete block the CFRP strips are
only fixed by the adhesive. After applying CFRP strips the structural bonding agent shall cure at least for 𝑡 at
standard environmental conditions (see A.1.4).

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 721
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Loading shall be carried out deformation controlled about the two stirrups of concrete reinforcement steel. The
concrete cover of the stirrups should be at least 10 mm. Above and below the crack plate a non-bonded area of
the CFRP strips of at least 𝑙 =10 cm shall be provided (see Figure A.15).
Both sides of the crack plates shall be installed a bond less area of at least 𝑙 =10 cm in the long direction of the
concrete block (see Figure A.15).
The failure loads depends on the following parameters:
 bond length 𝑙 of the CFRP strips to the concrete,
 the geometry (thickness 𝑡L and width 𝑏L (see 3.4.3)) of the CFRP strips,
 the modulus of elasticity of the CFRP strips,
 compressive strength class of the concrete,
 pull-off bond strength at the surface of the concrete.
At least specimens for the minimum bond length 𝑙 , the maximum thickness 𝑡L and width 𝑏L of the CFRP strips,
the minimum and maximum modulus of elasticity of the CFRP strips and the minimum and maximum strength
class of the concrete substrate (see A.1.10) shall be tested. For each parameter set at least 3 tests shall be carried
out.
The tests shall be carried out deformation controlled with a constant piston rate of less than 1 mm/min (± 10%).
At least the relative displacement between concrete surface and CFRP strip at the beginning of the bond area
and the strains of the CFRP strip in the un-bonded and bonded area should be measured as a function of loading.
The strains of the CFRP strip in the bonded area have to be measured with a chain of strain gauges. One strain
gauge has to be applied in the bond less area. In the bonded area at least 3 strain gauges (tensometers) have to
be applied with a distance of 30 mm starting at a distance of 30 mm from the beginning of the bonded area. The
force – strain curves in all strain gauges shall be plotted.
The compressive strength of the concrete for all tested concrete compression classes shall be determined as
follows:
At the same time as the concrete blocks are concreted 6 concrete cylinders according to EN 12390-1, clause 4.3,
𝑑 = 150 mm shall be concreted and stored under the same conditions as the concrete blocks. After at least 28
days and before applying CFRP strips to the concrete blocks the cylinder compressive strength of these 6
concrete cylinders shall be determined according to EN 12390-3. From these 6 values 𝑓 , the average value 𝑓
and the characteristic value 𝑓 shall be calculated and reported in the test.
Performing the shear test usually the bond of one of the two CFRP strips fails first. The test shall be interrupted if
one of the two CFRP strips has separated from the concrete within the first 30 mm of bond length. This is the
case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area strain values are measured which have the same level as in
the bond less area.
After fixing the separated CFRP strip by a suitable contact pressure, the experiment can be continued until
separating of the second CFRP strip occurs. This is again the case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area
of the second CFRP strip strain values are measured which have the same level as in the bond less area.
The measured strains, relative displacements and forces shall be recorded at least at a frequency of 5 Hz.
After determination of the anchorage failure loads the concrete pull-off strength 𝑓 , tested according to
EN 1542 at three places "j" of each concrete specimen "i" shall be determined. From the values 𝑓 , the values
𝑓 , and 𝑓 , for each concrete specimen "i" shall be determined.
Expression of results
For each tested configuration of specimen the following values shall be determined and reported in the test report:
 the single values of the anchorage failure loads 𝐹 together with the pull-off strength 𝑓 , and
𝑓 , , the measured shear force – slip diagrams, shear force – strain diagrams as well as the failure
modes
 the average value 𝐹 together with the average compressive strength of the concrete 𝑓 and
 the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝐹 together with the
characteristic compressive strength of the concrete 𝑓 .

A.2.3.6 Tests to verify the S-N curve of the CFRP strips externally bonded to concrete
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the input parameters of a S-N curve for the shear resistance of the
anchorage of CFRP strips externally bonded to concrete for relevant configurations. The default value for the
maximum number of load cycles is 2 Million if the applicant does not require other values.
Assessment method
The assessment method is identical to A.2.3.5. The only difference is that a cyclic load 𝛥𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi is
applied to the specimen, where 𝐹bLi is the upper load and 𝐹bLi the lower load. The transfer of pressure loads via
the CFRP strips is excluded.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 722
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

At least specimens for the minimum bond length 𝑙 , the maximum thickness 𝑡L and width 𝑏L of CFRP strips, the
minimum or maximum modulus of elasticity of the CFRP strips and the minimum, intermediate and maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see A.1.10) shall be tested. For all these configurations of specimens
the cyclic load levels according to Table A.1 shall be tested.
Table A.1: Minimum number of tests for every configuration of specimen

Strength class of the concrete substrate

Load level
Minimum Intermediate Maximum
A x x x
B x
C x x
D x x
The load levels are characterised by the average value of the anchorage failure load 𝐹 determined for the same
configuration of specimen under A.2.3.5:
Load level A: 𝐹 0,15 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,45 𝐹
Load level B: 𝐹 0,30 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,55 𝐹
Load level C: 𝐹 0,45 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,64 𝐹
Load level D: 𝐹 0,60 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,74 𝐹
After reaching 2 Million load cycles or a separated length of 30 mm a higher upper load level has to be chosen:
Load level A: 𝐹 0,15 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,49 𝐹
Load level B: 𝐹 0,30 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,58 𝐹
Load level C: 𝐹 0,45 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,67 𝐹
Load level D: 𝐹 0,60 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,76 𝐹
From this load levels may be deviated if the applicant has other requirements.

The load cycle frequency shall be not higher than 5 Hz.

The strains of the CFRP strip in the un-bonded and bonded area should be measured as a function of loading.
The strains of the CFRP strip in the bonded area have to be measured with a chain of strain gauges. One strain
gauge has to be applied in the bond less area. In the bonded area at least 3 strain gauges have to be applied
with a distance of 30 mm starting at a distance of 30 mm from the beginning of the bonded area. The force –
strain curves at least of the strain gauges in the bondless area as well as of the two first strain gauges in the
bonded area (from the beginning of the bonded area on the loaded side of the CFRP strip) shall be plotted
The compressive strength of the concrete for all tested concrete compression classes shall be determined as
follows:
At the same time as the concrete blocks are concreted 6 concrete cylinders according to EN 12390-1, clause 4.3,
𝑑 = 150 mm shall be concreted and stored under the same conditions as the concrete blocks. After at least 28
days and before applying CFRP strips to the concrete blocks the cylinder compressive strength of these 6
concrete cylinders shall be determined according to EN 12390-3. From these 6 values 𝑓 , the average value 𝑓
and the characteristic value 𝑓 shall be calculated.
After cyclic testing the concrete pull-off strength tested according to EN 1542 at three places of each concrete
specimen shall be determined. The fibre content according to A.2.2.1, the weight per meter according to A.2.2.2,
the dimensions according to A.2.2.3 and the mechanical properties according to A.2.2.4 of the used CFRP strips
shall be determined.5
Performing the fatigue tests usually the bond of one of the two CFRP strips fails first. The fatigue test shall be
interrupted if one of the two CFRP strips has separated from the concrete within the first 30 mm of bond length.
This is the case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area reaches the strain value measured in the bond less
area.
After fixing the separated CFRP strip by a suitable contact pressure, cyclic loading may be continued until
separating of the second CFRP strip occurs. This is again the case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area
of the second CFRP strip strain values are measured which have the same level as in the bond less area.
The measured strains and forces shall be recorded at least every 60 minutes for 10 s at a frequency of 100 Hz.
Shortly before the expected separating of the CFRP strip, the measurement shall be continued continuously until
the interruption or termination of the test.

5
If CFRP strips from the same batch as used for A.2.2.4 are used the re-determination of the properties of the CFRP strips is not necessary.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 723
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

After determination the fatigue test the concrete pull-off strength 𝑓 , tested according to EN 1542 at three
places "j" of each concrete specimen "i" shall be determined. From the values 𝑓 , the values 𝑓 , and
𝑓 , for each concrete specimen "i" shall be determined.
Expression of results
For each tested cyclic load 𝛥𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi the corresponding number of cycles until separating of the CFRP
strips, the pull-off strength 𝑓 , and 𝑓 , and the concrete compressive strength 𝑓 and 𝑓 of the
concrete substrate for all tests shall be given in the test report.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 724
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Annex BD-B Test program for externally bonded CFRP sheets

B.1 Specific terms used in this Annex

B.1.1 CF sheets, impregnated CF sheets on site and CFRP sheets

CF sheets (component A according to clause 3) are textile surface structures comprising dry parallel
fibre bundles arranged in one direction.
Impregnated CF sheets are CF-sheets which are saturated with the impregnation (component B3
according to clause 3).
CFRP sheets are impregnated sheets after curing of the impregnation (component B3 according to
clause 3) or bonding agent (component B2 according to clause 3).

B.1.2 Cross section of fibres per meter of width of the CF sheet

The cross section of fibres per meter width of the CF sheet, 𝐴 , depends on the used yarns and
distance of the yarns in the CF sheet.

B.1.3 Coil diameter of CF sheets

CF sheets are usually delivered on site in form of coils. Without further investigations the inner coil
diameter should not be less than the diameter used in the assessment tests.

B.1.4 Type of CF sheets and type of CFRP sheets

A type of CF sheets is characterised by the same production technology, the same fibres and size of
fibres (see B.1.8) and the same cross section of fibres per meter of width of the CF sheet.
A type of CFRP sheets is characterised by the same production technology, the same fibres and size
of fibres (see B.1.8), the same cross section of fibres per meter of width of the CF sheet and the same
impregnation (component B3).

B.1.5 Standard environmental conditions

In the framework Annex standard environmental conditions are a temperature of 21 2°C and relative
air humidity of (50 ± 10)%.

B.1.6 Minimum temperature of installation

The following terms are used in this document:
𝑇 , , minimum temperature of installation of the structural bonding agent (component B2),
𝑇 , , minimum temperature of installation of the impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3)
and
𝑇 , , minimum temperature of installation of the repair mortar (component C and D).
The default values for these temperatures are 8°C. The default values are only used if the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not contain any other information.

B.1.7 Minimum and maximum temperature at the intended use

The default values for the minimum and maximum temperature of the repair mortar (component C
and D) 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , , of the primer (component B1) 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , , of the bonding agent
(component B2) 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , as well as of the impregnation of the CF-sheets (component B3)
𝑇, and 𝑇 , at intended use is -10°C and 40°C. The default values are only used if the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not contain any other information.
For the intended use of the kit as a whole the minimum temperature results from 𝑇
max 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , ,𝑇, and the maximum temperature from 𝑇
min 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , .

B.1.8 Size of fibres

During the spinning process the size is raised on the carbon fibres. It is a protective coating for the
fibres of less than 100 nm of thickness and improves the bond of the fibres to the matrix materials of
the CFRP sheets. Mostly it consists of polymers.

B.1.9 Minimum and maximum thickness of layers of bonding agent (component B2) and repair
mortar (component C and D)
The default minimum and maximum thicknesses
 of the layers of bonding agent (component B) are 𝑑 , = 1 mm and 𝑑 , = 5 mm and

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 725
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 of the repair mortar (component C and D) 𝑑 , = 5 mm and 𝑑 , = 30 mm.

The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not
contain any other information.

B.1.10 Minimum curing time of the primer (component B1), the bonding agent (component B2), the
impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and the repair mortar (component C and D) at
standard environmental conditions (B.1.5) and at minimum temperature of installation (see
B.1.6)
The default values for the minimum curing time of the primer (component B1) at standard
environmental conditions (B.1.5) 𝑡 are 7 d and at minimum temperature of installation (B.1.6) 𝑡
28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not
contain any other information.
The default values for the minimum curing time of the bonding agent (component B2) at standard
environmental conditions (B.1.5) 𝑡 are 7 d and at minimum temperature of installation (B.1.6) 𝑡
28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not
contain any other information.
The default values for the minimum curing time of the impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3)
at standard environmental conditions (B.1.5) 𝑡 are 7 d and at minimum temperature of installation
(B.1.6) 𝑡 28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information do not contain any other information.
The default values for the minimum curing time of the repair mortar (component C and D) at standard
environmental conditions (B.1.5) 𝑡 are 7d and at minimum temperature of installation (B.1.6) 𝑡
28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not
contain any other information.

B.1.11 Minimum and maximum strength class of the concrete substrate

The default values for the minimum and maximum strength classes of the concrete substrate are
C12/15 and C50/60. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information do not contain any other information.

B.1.12 Maximum number of layers of CFRP sheets

The default maximum number of layers is five. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information do not contain any other information.

B.1.13 Minimum deflection diameter of CFRP sheets

The default deflection diameter is 240 mm. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information do not contain any other information.

B.2 Tests program for kits with externally bonded CFRP sheets

B.2.1 Tests to determine the product-specific properties of the primer (component B1),the
adhesive (structural bonding agent, component B2), the impregnation of the CF sheets
(component B3) and the repair mortar (component C)

B.2.1.1 Glass transition temperature of the primer (component B1),the structural bonding agent
(component B2), the impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and the repair mortar
(component C)
Purpose of the assessment
To identify the maximum temperature of intended use (see B.1.7) of the kit is necessary to determine the glass
transition temperature of the primer (component B1) 𝑇 , the structural bonding agent (component B2) 𝑇 , the
impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) 𝑇 and the repair mortar (component C) 𝑇 .
Assessment method
Basis for the tests is EN 12614. The glass transition temperature shall be determined on specimens of cured primer
(component B1), structural bonding agent (component B2), impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and
repair mortar (component C) from one batch of resin and hardener. The glass transition temperature must only
be measured during the first heating cycle; the heating speed must be 10°C/min. The preparatory cycle of
temperature according to EN 12614, clause 6.2 shall be omitted if it causes a change of the glass transition
temperature.
The glass transition temperature shall be determined on at least two specimens of primer (component B1) which
have cured at least for 𝑡 (see B.1.10), bonding agent (component B2) which have cured at least for 𝑡 (see
B.1.10), of impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) which have cured at least for 𝑡 (see B.1.10) and of
repair mortar (component C) which have cured at least for 𝑡 (see B.1.10) under standard environmental
conditions (see B.1.5).

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 726
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Expression of results
Glass transition temperatures of the primer (component B1) 𝑇 together with the curing time 𝑡 (see B.1.10),
the structural bonding agent (component B) 𝑇 together with the curing time 𝑡 (see B.1.10), the impregnation
of the CF sheets (component B3) 𝑇 with the curing time 𝑡 (see B.1.10) and the repair mortar (component C)
𝑇 together with the curing time 𝑡 (see B.1.10) shall be given in the test report.

B.2.1.2 Flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent (component B2), the
impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and the repair mortar (component C)
Purpose of the assessment
These tests are intended to determine the relevant mechanical properties of the primer (component B1), the
structural bonding agent (component B2), the impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and the repair
mortar (component C) after curing under standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5). This includes the flexural
and compressive strength.
Assessment method
The flexural and compressive strength according to EN 196-1 or EN 1015-11 of at least 6 specimens 160 mm x
40 mm x 40 mm (length x height x width) of cured structural bonding agent (component B2), impregnation of the
CF sheets (component B3) and repair mortar (component C) from one batch of resin and hardener shall be
determined. The specimens shall cure at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5). At least 3 tests of the
flexural strength according to EN 196-1, 9.1 or EN 1015-11, clauses 8 and 6 tests of the compressive strength
according to EN 196-1, clause 9.2 or EN 1015-11, clause 9 shall be carried out at standard environmental
conditions (see B.1.5).
At least tests after curing of the primer (component B1), the bonding agent (component B2) for 𝑡 (see B.1.10),
of the impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) 𝑡 (see B.1.10) and of the repair mortar (component C)
for 𝑡 (see B.1.10) shall be carried out.
Expression of results
From the failure loads of the bending tests with the specimens of primer (component B1) 𝐹Pfl, , the structural
bonding agent (component B2) 𝐹Gfl, , the specimens of impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) 𝐹Ifl, and
the specimens of repair mortar (component C) 𝐹Mfl, . The bending tensile strengths 𝑓Pfli , 𝑓Gfli , 𝑓Ifli and 𝑓Mfli shall be
determined according to EN 196-1, clause 9.1 or EN 1015-11, clause 8. From these values, the mean values
𝑓Pflm , 𝑓Gflm , 𝑓Iflm and 𝑓 as well as the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝑓Pflk ,
𝑓Gflk , 𝑓Iflk and 𝑓 shall be determined and given in the test report.
From the failure loads of the compressive tests with the specimens of primer (component B1) 𝐹Pc, , the specimens
of structural bonding agent (component B2) 𝐹Gc, , the specimens of impregnation of the CF sheets (component
B3) 𝐹Ifl, and the specimens of repair mortar (component C) 𝐹Mc, the compressive strengths 𝑓 , 𝑓 , 𝑓 and 𝑓Mci
shall be determined according to EN 196-1, clause 9.2 or EN 1015-11, clause 9. From these values, the mean
value 𝑓 , 𝑓Gcm , 𝑓 and 𝑓Mcm as well as the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown)
𝑓 , 𝑓Gck , 𝑓 and 𝑓Mck shall be determined and given in the test report.

B.2.1.3 Flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent (component B2), the
impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and the repair mortar (component C) cured at
minimum temperature of installation in dependence of curing time
Purpose of the assessment
These tests are intended to determine the flexural and compressive strength of the primer (component B1),
structural bonding agent (component B2), the impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and the repair
mortar (component C) at minimum temperature of installation (see B.1.6) in dependence of curing time.
Assessment method
For different curing conditions regarding to temperature and time the flexural and compression strength of cured
specimens of bonding agent (component B2), impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3) and of repair mortar
(component C) shall be determined according to A.2.1.2. At least specimens of primer (component B1) cured at
minimum temperature of installation 𝑇 , °C (see B.1.6), of structural bonding agent (component B2) cured at
minimum temperature of installation 𝑇 , °C (see B.1.6), of impregnation of the CF sheets (component B3)
cured at minimum temperature of installation 𝑇 , °C and of repair mortar (component C) cured at minimum
temperature of installation 𝑇 , °C (see B.1.6) shall be tested.

For each material at least 3 tests shall be carried out. The bending and compression test shall be carried out
immediately after the curing time ending. For the primer at least tests after curing for tPTmin and 2 tPTmin (see B.1.10),
the bonding agent (component B2) at least tests after curing for tGTmin and 2 tGTmin (see B.1.10), for the impregnation
of the CF sheets (component B3) at least tests after curing for tITmin and 2 tITmin (see B.1.10) and for the repair
mortar (component C and D) at least tests after curing for tMTmin and 2 tMTmin (see B.1.10) at the minimum
temperature of installation 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , (see B.1.7) shall be carried out.

Expression of results
From the failure loads of the bending tests "i" for the curing time "j" of primer 𝐹 , , structural bonding agent 𝐹Gfl,ij ,
of impregnation of the CF sheets 𝐹Ifl,ij and of repair mortar 𝐹Mfl,ij the bending tensile strengths𝑓Pflij , 𝑓Gflij , 𝑓Iflij and
𝑓Mtflj shall be determined according to EN 196-1, clause 9.1 or EN 1015-11, clause 8. From these values, the

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 727
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

mean value 𝑓Pflmj , 𝑓Gflmj , 𝑓Iflmj and 𝑓Mflmj as well as the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx
unknown) 𝑓Pflkj , 𝑓Gflkj , 𝑓Iflkj and 𝑓Mflkj shall be given in the test report in conjunction with the used curing temperature
and time.
From the failure loads of the compression tests "i" for the curing time "j" of the primer 𝐹 , , of the structural bonding
agent 𝐹 , , of impregnation of the CF sheets 𝐹Ic,ij and of repair mortar 𝐹 , the bending compression strengths
𝑓Pcij , 𝑓Gcij , 𝑓Icij and 𝑓Mcij shall be determined according to EN 196-1, clause 9.1 or EN 1015-11, clause 9. From these
values, the mean value 𝑓Pcmj , 𝑓Gcmj , 𝑓Icmj and 𝑓Mcmj as well as the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table
D.1 (Vx unknown) 𝑓Pckj , 𝑓Gckj , 𝑓Ickj and 𝑓Mckj shall be given in the test report in conjunction with the used curing
temperature and time.

B.2.2 Tests to determine the specific properties of the CF sheets and CFRP sheets of the
strengthening kit

B.2.2.1 Fibre content of the CFRP sheets

Purpose of the assessment
Determination of the fibre content of the CFRP sheets.
Assessment method
The fibre content shall be determined according to EN 2564 method A. Tests shall be carried out at least on 6
specimens of all types CFRP sheets (see B.1.4). In deviation from EN 2564, 5.1 the thickness of the test
specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP sheets.
Expression of results
The test results shall be reported in accordance with EN 2564, clause 11.

B.2.2.2 Weight per square meter of the CF sheets

Purpose of the assessment
Determination of the weight per square meter of the CF sheets.
Assessment method
It shall be determined the weight of specimens 𝑀 of all types "j" of CF sheets or CFRP sheets. Furthermore, the
width 𝑏fij and the length 𝑙fij of these test specimens shall be determined according to B.2.2.3. Tests shall be carried
out at least on 6 specimens of all types of CF sheets (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
From the weights 𝑀 and average width 𝑏fmij and length 𝑙fmij of the specimen "i" and the type of CF sheet (see
B.1.4) "j" the weights per square meter 𝑚 , the average values 𝑚 as well as the 5% quantile values
𝑚 according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (Vx unknown) for every type of CF sheet (see B.1.4) "j" shall be determined
and reported in the test report.

B.2.2.3 Width and length of CF or CFRP sheets

Purpose of the assessment
Determination of the width and length of the CF or CFRP sheets.
Assessment method
The width 𝑏f and the length 𝑙f of the specimens of CF or CFRP sheets shall be measured. The Width 𝑏fi shall be
measured at least at 25%, 50% and 75% of the length 𝑙f per specimen (see figure B.2). The length 𝑙fi shall be
measured at least at 25%, 50% and 75% of the width 𝑏L per specimen (see figure B.2). Tests shall be carried out
at least on 6 specimens of all types of CFRP sheets (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
The average value 𝑏 and 𝑙 of the determined widths 𝑏 and lengths 𝑙 shall be consistent with the dimensions
used in the assessment method B.2.2.4.

B.2.2.4 Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and strain at failure of CFRP sheets
Purpose of the test
These tests are intended to determine the relevant mechanical properties of the CFRP sheets (see B.1.1). This
includes the modulus of elasticity and the tensile strength, both related to the section of fibres of the CFRP sheets
as well as the ultimate strain of CFRP sheets.
Assessment method
Before the strength test the following parameters shall be determined of the test specimen "i" of the CF sheet:
 the weight per square meter 𝑚 and width 𝑏 according to B.2.2.1,
 the gross density of the fibres 𝜌 shall be known from the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information.
⋅
The section of the fibres 𝐴 than may be determined by 𝐴 .
⋅

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 728
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The CFRP sheets at first have to be produced by impregnating the CF sheets according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information. Before testing the impregnated CF sheets shall cure under standard
environmental conditions (see B.1.5) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information.
The tensile load at failure 𝐹 (called 𝑃 in EN 2561, 7.2.7), the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561,
clauses 8.3 and 8.4) as well as 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and the strain at
failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 7.2.7) of the CFRP sheets shall be determined according to EN 2561,
Annex A, with specimens type B. In deviation from EN 2561, Annex A, Table A.1 the thickness of the test
specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP sheets. Tests shall be carried out at least on 5
specimens of at least one weight per square meter per type of CF sheets (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
According to EN 2561 it is only possible to measure failure loads 𝐹 , the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in
EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4), the strains 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and the
strains at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 8.6). To determine strengths and secant moduli of elasticity
from these test results there are two possibilities. The strengths related to the sections of the CFRP sheets (called
 in EN 2561, clause 8.1) and the strengths related to the sections of all fibres of the sections of CFRP sheets
𝑓 (called  in EN 2561, clause 8.2) as well as the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of the CFRP sheets
(called 𝐸 in EN 2561, clause 8.3) and the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of all fibres of the sections
of CFRP sheets 𝐸 (called 𝐸 in EN 2561, clause 8.4). With CFRP sheets, it is customary to refer to the cross
sections of fibres of CFRP-sheets.

From the values 𝐹 the tensile strength related to the fibre section by 𝑓 .
,

From the values of strains 𝜀 and 𝜀 the secant modulus of elasticity related to the fibre section may be
calculated by
0,4𝐹
𝐸
𝐴 𝜀 𝜀 ,

The average values of the secant modulus of elasticity 𝐸 , of the tensile strengths 𝑓 and of the ultimate strain
𝜀 and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) of tensile strengths 𝑓 shall be
given in the test report for all types of CFRP sheets (see B.1.4).

B.2.2.5 Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and strain at failure of CFRP sheets in dependence of
deflection radius of loops
Purpose of the test
These tests are intended to compare the relevant mechanical properties of the deflected CFRP sheets with
straight CFRP sheets (see B.1.1) according to B.2.2.4. This includes the modulus of elasticity and the tensile
strength, both related to the section of fibres of the CFRP sheets as well as the ultimate strain of CFRP sheets.
Assessment method
Before the strength test the following parameters shall be determined of the test specimen "i" of the CF sheet:
 the weight per square meter 𝑚 and width 𝑏 according to B.2.2.1,
 the gross density of the fibres 𝜌 shall be known from the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information.
⋅
The section of the fibres 𝐴 than may be determined by 𝐴 .
⋅

Figure B.1: Test specimens of loops of CFRP sheets

At first the cores for the geometries of the loops has to be produced (see Figure B.1). The cores of the loops are
to be provided with a layer that forms a detachable bond with the bonded CFRP sheets. Then the CF sheets have
to be wrapped around the core according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information. The length of
the CF sheets shall be chosen in such a way that the desired number of wraps is possible. Before testing the
loops of installed CF sheets, it shall cure under standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) according to the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information. The overlap length of the loops (see Figure B.1) shall be chosen
in such a way that failure always occurs outside the overlap area.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 729
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The width of the specimens (perpendicular to the image plane of Figure B.1) shall be in accordance with EN 2561,
Annex A, with specimen type B. The width of the wrapping cores should be at least 2 cm larger.
At least shall be produced and tested loops of one curvature diameter that is not expected to have any influence
on the result of the tensile tests compared to the tests according to B.2.2.4 ( 𝑘 1, 𝑘 see "Expression of
results").
After removing the winding cores, the loops can be tested for tensile stress.
The tensile test is carried out in accordance to EN 2561, except that the load at the two deflection points of the
loop is entered using rollers that correspond to the deflection diameter of the loops.
The tensile load at failure 𝐹 (called 𝑃 in EN 2561, 7.2.7), the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561,
clauses 8.3 and 8.4) as well as 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and the strain at
failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 7.2.7) of the CFRP sheets shall be determined according to EN 2561,
Annex A, with specimens type B. In deviation from EN 2561, Annex A, Table A.1 the thickness of the test
specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP sheets. Tests shall be carried out at least on 5
specimens of at least one weight per square meter per type of CF sheets (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
According to EN 2561 it is only possible to measure failure loads 𝐹 , the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in
EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4), the strains 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and
the strains at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 8.6). To determine strengths and secant moduli of
elasticity from these test results there are two possibilities. The strengths related to the sections of the CFRP
sheets (called  in EN 2561, clause 8.1) and the strengths related to the sections of all fibres of the sections
of CFRP sheets 𝑓 (called  in EN 2561, clause 8.2) as well as the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of
the CFRP sheets (called 𝐸 in EN 2561, clause 8.3) and the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of all
fibres of the sections of CFRP sheets 𝐸 (called 𝐸 in EN 2561, clause 8.4). With CFRP sheets, it is customary to
refer to the cross sections of fibres of CFRP-sheets.

From the values 𝐹 the tensile strength related to the fibre section by 𝑓 .
,

From the values of strains 𝜀 and 𝜀 the secant modulus of elasticity related to the fibre section may be
calculated by
0,4𝐹
𝐸
𝐴 𝜀 𝜀 ,

The average values of the secant modulus of elasticity 𝐸 , of the tensile strengths 𝑓 and of the ultimate strain
𝜀 and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) of tensile strengths 𝑓 for all
tested diameters of deflection and all types of CFRP sheets (see B.1.4) shall be given in the test report.

Additionally, the ratio 𝑘 for every tested deflection diameter shall be determined and reported in the test
report, where 𝑓 is the average value of the tensile strength according to B.2.2.4.

B.2.2.6 Resistance of loops of CFRP sheets after storage in alkaline environment and at maximum
temperature at intended use (see B.1.7)
Purpose of the assessment
These tests are intended to determine the change of the mechanical properties of loops of CFRP sheets according
to B.2.2.5 after long-time storage in alkaline environment at maximum temperature at intended use (see B.1.7).
This includes the change of the secant modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain of the CFRP
sheets.
Assessment method
Before the strength test the following parameters shall be determined of the test specimen "i" of the CF sheet:
 the weight per square meter 𝑚 and width 𝑏 according to B.2.2.1,
 the gross density of the fibres 𝜌 shall be known from the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information.
⋅
The section of the fibres 𝐴 than may be determined by 𝐴 .
⋅

At first the cores for the geometries of the loops has to be produced (see Figure B.1). The cores of the loops are
to be provided with a layer that forms a detachable bond with the bonded CFRP sheets. Then the CF sheets have
to be wrapped around the core according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information. The length of
the CF sheets shall be chosen in such a way that the desired number of wraps is possible. Before testing the
loops of installed CF sheets, it shall cure under standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) according to the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information. The overlap length of the loops (see Figure B.1) shall be chosen
in such a way that failure always occurs outside the overlap area.
At least shall be produced and tested loops of one curvature diameter that is not expected to have any influence
on the result of the tensile tests compared to the tests according to B.2.2.4 ( 𝑘 1, 𝑘 see "Expression of results"
of B.2.2.5).

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 730
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

After removing the winding cores, the loops can be tested.

At least in one of the following alkaline solutions the CFRP sheets shall be stored at maximum temperature at
intended use (see B.1.7) for at least 1800 h:
 alkaline solution pH 9,0,
 alkaline solution pH 11,0,
 alkaline solution pH 13,7.
After this storage the specimens are washed and dried for 24 h at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5).
The tensile test is carried out in accordance to EN 2561, except that the load at the two deflection points of the
loop is entered using rollers that correspond to the deflection diameter of the loops.
Afterwards the tensile load at failure 𝐹 (called 𝑃 in EN 2561, 7.2.7), the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀
in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) as well as 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) and
the strain at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, 7.2.7) of the CFRP sheets shall be determined according to
EN 2561, Annex A, with specimens type B. In deviation from EN 2561, Annex A, Table A.1 the thickness of the
test specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP sheets.
Tests shall be carried out at least on 5 specimens of loops of CFRP sheets for at least one weight per square
meter per type of CF sheets (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
According to EN 2561 it is only possible to measure failure loads 𝐹 , the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀
in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4), the strains 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4)
and the strains at failure 𝜀 (called ε in EN 2561, clause 8.6). To determine tensile strength and secant
moduli of elasticity from these test results there are two possibilities according to EN 2561. Like in B.2.2.4 it is
only necessary to determine the tensile strengths related to the sections of fibres of CFRP sheets (called  in EN
2561, clause 8.2) as well as the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of fibres of CFRP sheets (called 𝐸 in
EN 2561, clause 8.4).

From the values 𝐹 the tensile strength related to the fibre section by 𝑓 .
,

From the values of strains 𝜀 and 𝜀 the secant modulus of elasticity related to the fibre section may be
calculated by
0,4𝐹
𝐸
𝐴 𝜀 𝜀 ,

From the single values 𝐸 , 𝑓 and 𝜀 the average values 𝐸 ,𝑓 and 𝜀 as well as the ratios 𝑅 ,𝑅
and 𝑅 shall be determined as follows:

𝑅 𝑅 𝑅

where:
𝐸 ,𝑓 ,𝜀 are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain
after storage in alkaline solution
𝐸 ,𝑓 ,𝜀 are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain
according to B.2.2.5
The values 𝑅 , 𝑅 and 𝑅 shall be given in the test report for all types (see B.1.4) of CFRP sheets and all
applied alkaline solutions (pH 9 and/or 11 and/or 13,7) used for the tests.

B.2.2.7 Resistance of loops of CFRP sheets in alkaline environment, under load long term load at
maximum temperature at intended use
Purpose of the assessment
These tests are intended to determine the change of the mechanical properties of loops of the CFRP sheets
according to B.2.2.5 after long-time loading in alkaline environment at maximum temperature at intended use (see
B.1.7). This includes the change of the secant modulus of elasticity, of the tensile strength and of the ultimate
strain of the CFRP sheets.
Assessment method
Before the strength test the following parameters shall be determined of the test specimen "i" of the CF sheet:
 the weight per square meter 𝑚 and width 𝑏 according to B.2.2.1,
 the gross density of the fibres 𝜌 shall be known from the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information.
⋅
The section of the fibres 𝐴 than may be determined by 𝐴 .
⋅

At first the cores for the geometries of the loops has to be produced (see Figure B.1). The cores of the loops are
to be provided with a layer that forms a detachable bond with the bonded CFRP sheets. Then the CF sheets have
to be wrapped around the core according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information. The length of

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 731
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

the CF sheets shall be chosen in such a way that the desired number of wraps is possible. Before testing the
loops of installed CF sheets, it shall cure under standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) according to the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information. The overlap length of the loops (see Figure B.1) shall be chosen
in such a way that failure always occurs outside the overlap area.
At least shall be produced and tested loops of one curvature diameter that is not expected to have any influence
on the result of the tensile tests compared to the tests according to B.2.2.4 ( 𝑘 1, 𝑘 see "Expression of results"
of B.2.2.5).
After removing the winding cores, the loops can be tested.
At least in one of the following alkaline solutions the CFRP sheets shall be stored at maximum temperature at
intended use (see B.1.7) and stressed with 50% of the characteristic value of tensile strength according to B.2.2.4
for at least 1800 h:
 alkaline solution pH 9,0,
 alkaline solution pH 11,0,
 alkaline solution pH 13,7.
After this storage the specimens are washed and dried for 24 h at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5).
Afterwards the tensile load at failure 𝐹 (called 𝑃 in EN 2561, 7.2.7), the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀
in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4) as well as 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4)
and the strain at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, 7.2.7) of the CFRP sheets shall be determined according
to EN 2561, Annex A, with specimens type B. In deviation from EN 2561, Annex A, Table A.1 the thickness of the
test specimens may correspond to the thickness of the CFRP sheets.
Tests shall be carried out at least on 5 specimens of loops of CFRP sheets for at least one weight per square
meter per type of CF sheets (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
According to EN 2561 it is only possible to measure failure loads 𝐹 , the strains 𝜀 at 0,1 𝐹 (called 𝜀
in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4), the strains 𝜀 at 0,5 𝐹 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clauses 8.3 and 8.4)
and the strains at failure 𝜀 (called 𝜀 in EN 2561, clause 8.6). To determine strengths and secant moduli
of elasticity from these test results there are two possibilities according to EN 2561. Like in B.2.2.4 in B.2.2.7 it is
only necessary to determine the tensile strengths related to the sections of fibres of CFRP sheets (called  in EN
2561, clause 8.2) as well as the moduli of elasticity related to the sections of fibres of CFRP sheets (called 𝐸 in
EN 2561, clause 8.4).
The section of fibres of the CFRP sheets may be determine as follows:

From the values 𝐹 the tensile strength related to the fibre section by 𝑓 .
,

From the values strains 𝜀 )A and strains 𝜀 )B the secant modulus of elasticity related to the fibre section may
be calculated by
0,4𝐹
𝐸
𝐴 𝜀 𝜀 ,
From the single values 𝐸 , 𝑓 and 𝜀 the average values 𝐸 ,𝑓 and 𝜀 as well as the ratios 𝑅 ,
𝑅 and 𝑅 shall be determined as follows:

𝑅 𝑅 𝑅

where:
𝐸 ,𝑓 ,𝜀 are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain
after storage in alkaline solution
𝐸 ,𝑓 ,𝜀 are the average Modulus of elasticity, tensile strength and ultimate strain
according to B.2.2.4
The values 𝑅 , 𝑅 and 𝑅 shall be given in the test report for all types (see B.1.4) of CFRP sheets and all
applied alkaline solutions (pH 9 and/or 11 and/or 13,7) used for the tests.

B.2.3 Tests to verify the product-specific properties TPmin,a, TGmin,a, TImin,a, TMmin,a, Tmax and Cmin, Cmax
as well as to determine the product-specific parameters of the bilinear bond approach
ksys,b1 and ksys,b2 and the reduction factor for fatigue loading fat2

B.2.3.1 Bond strength of specimens cured at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5)
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding
agent (component B2), impregnation (component B3) and CF sheets (component A),
 specimens with layers of concrete, primer (component B1), bonding agent (component B2),
impregnation (component B3) and CF sheets (component A).

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 732
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing under standard conditions
(see B.1.5).
Assessment method
The test is based on EN 1542. The main differences to EN 1542 are the following:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, 4.7 are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (component B2) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see B.1.9),
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
thickness 𝑑 , 6 (see B.1.9) shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.3a).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On the repair mortar (component C and D) a layer of primer (component B1), bonding agent (component
B2) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , 7 (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of impregnated CF-sheets
shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety information (see Figure B.3b).
Preferably the width of the CF sheets should be at least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of the annular
grooves without joints between CF sheets.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D), the bonding agent (component B2) and the
impregnation (component B3) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at
standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) on each specimen 5 annular grooves of 50 mm diameter
shall be drilled through the multilayer specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the reference concrete is
reached (see Figure B.4). The layers of CFRP sheets inside the annular grooves preferably should not
contain joints between CFRP sheets.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component B2) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , with incorporated CF-sheet
Figure B.3: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding agent
(component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet

6
At least one test series with the maximum layer thickness of repair mortar is necessary.
7
At least one test series with the minimum layer thickness of bonding agent is necessary.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 733
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure B.4: Top view on the test specimen with annular grooves showing the areas of the steel dollies
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12 (see Figure B.5a), with the maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of primer (component B1) and bonding agent
7
(component B2) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of
impregnated CF sheets shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.5b). Preferably the width of the CFRP sheets should be at least 50 mm, to
allow the drilling of the annular grooves without joints between CFRP sheets.
 After curing of the primer (component B1), the bonding agent (component B2) and the impregnation
(component B3) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at standard
environmental conditions (see B.1.5) on each specimen 5 annular grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be
drilled through the multilayer specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the reference concrete is reached.
The layers of CFRP sheets inside the annular grooves preferably should not contain joints between
CFRP sheets.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component B2) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , with incorporated CF-sheet
Figure B.5: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar
b) Specimen with primer (component B1), bonding agent (component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet

The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each annular groove a dolly according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular surfaces
with the structural bonding agent (component B2). The minimum thickness of the layer 𝑑 , (see B.1.9)
of bonding agent shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B2) of the dollies shall cure according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) before testing.
 Afterwards the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf shall be determined on each annular groove of the specimens with
and without repair mortar according to EN 1542, 7.4 at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5).

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 734
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The bond strength shall be determined on at least 5 annular grooves with and without repair mortar (component
C and D) for every type of CFRP sheet (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf and the failure modes for all specimens have to be determined for further comparison
with the results according to B.2.3.2 to B.2.3.4. From the values 𝑓cti,surf the average value of the bond strength
𝑓ctm,surf and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf of tensile strength shall
be determined. The values 𝑓cti,surf , 𝑓ctm,surf , 𝑓ctk,surf , the curing time of the repair mortar (component C and D), of the
primer (component b1), of the bonding agent (component B2) and of the impregnation (component B3) as well as
the failure modes shall be reported in the test report.

B.2.3.2 Bond strength after low-cycle fatigue action

Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding
agent (component B2), impregnation (component B3) and CF sheets (component A),
 specimens with layers of concrete, primer (component B1) bonding agent (component B2),
impregnation (component B3) and CF sheets (component A).
 The bond strength is determined by pull-off test according to EN 1542 after curing under standard
conditions (see B.1.5) and low-cycle fatigue action.
Assessment method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the followings:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, 4.7 are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B2) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see B.1.9),
 the test specimens are circular cylinders which are drilled from specimens according to EN 1542,
Figure 1 (or Figure B.7 of this Annex)8
 on both circular surfaces of these cylinders are glued dollies according to EN 1542, clause 7.2.
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
6
thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.6a).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On the repair mortar (component C and D) a layer of primer (component B1) and a layer of bonding
7
agent (component B2) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of
impregnated CF-sheets shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.6b). Preferably the width of the CF sheets should be at least 50 mm, to allow
the drilling of the cylinders without joints between CF sheets.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D), the primer (component B1), the bonding agent
(component B2) and the impregnation (component B3) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) on each specimen 5 cylinders of 50
mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure B.7). The cylinders
preferably should contain layers of CFRP sheets with no joint between CFRP sheets.

8
There are not only drilled grooves with a depth of 15 mm, but core holes through the different layers and the entire thickness of the
reference concrete of 100 mm (see Figure B.6) so that 5 individual cylinders are created. The cylinders may only be tested if dollies are
glued on both circular surfaces.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 735
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component B2) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , with incorporated CF-sheet
Figure B.6: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding agent
(component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure B.7: Top view on the test specimen after drilling the concrete cylinders out of the concrete plate
according to EN 1542
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12 (see Figure B.8a), with the maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of primer (component B1) and bonding
7
agent (component B2) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of
impregnated CF sheets shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.8b). Preferably the width of the CFRP sheets should be at least 50 mm, to
allow the drilling of the cylinders without joints between CFRP sheets.
 After curing of the bonding agent (component B2) and the impregnation (component B3) according to
the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5)
on each specimen 5 cylinders of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen.
The cylinders preferably should contain layers of CFRP sheets with no joint between CFRP sheets.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with
incorporated CF-sheet
Figure B.8: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar
b) Specimen with primer (component B1), bonding agent (component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 736
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each cylinder two dollies according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular surfaces
with the structural bonding agent (component B2). The minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) of the
layers of structural bonding agent (component B2) shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B2) of the dollies shall cure according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) before testing.
 Afterwards on each of the cylinders the cyclic load shall be applied over the dollies to the concrete
surface. The lower stress shall be 0,1 ⋅ 𝑓ctm,surf and the upper stress 0,55 ⋅ 𝑓ctm,surf . 𝑓ctm,surf is the average
value of the bond strength determined according to B.2.3.1. After 100.000 loading cycles the bond
strength 𝑓cti,surf,lfat shall be determined on each cylinder according to EN ISO 4624, method A at standard
environmental conditions (see B.1.5).
The bond strength shall be determined at least on 5 cylinders with and without repair mortar (component C and
D) for every type of CFRP sheet (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf,lfat and the failure modes for all specimens have to be determined. From the values
𝑓cti,surf,lfat the average value of the bond strength 𝑓ctm,surf,lfat and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table
D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf,lfat of tensile strength shall be determined.
The ratio 𝑅lfat,m shall be determined as follows:
ctm,surf,lfat
𝑅lfat,m .
ctm,surf

f ctm,surf is determined according to B.2.3.1. The values 𝑓cti,surf,lfat , 𝑓ctm,surf,lfat, 𝑓ctk,surf,lfat , 𝑅lfat,m , the curing time of the
repair mortar (component C and D), of the primer (component B1), of the bonding agent (component B2) and of
the impregnation (component B3) as well as the failure modes shall be reported in the test report.

B.2.3.3 Bond strength after long-term loading under harsh climatic conditions
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding
agent (component B2), impregnation (component B3) and CF sheets (component A),
 specimens with layers of concrete, bonding agent (component B2), impregnation (component B3) and
CF sheets (component A).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing under standard conditions
(see B.1.5) and loading under harsh climatic conditions for half a year. Two harsh climatic conditions are possible:
Climate 1 maximum temperature at intended use and relative air humidity of ≥ 95% for the
whole half year,
Climate 2 heat rain cycles with 1 h irrigation without heating and 1 h drying at maximum
temperature at intended use for the whole half year (approximately 2200 cycles).
Assessment method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the followings:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, clause 4.7, are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B2) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see B.1.9),
 the test specimens are circular cylinders which are drilled from specimens according to EN 1542,
Figure 1 (or Figure B.10 of this Annex)9.
 on both circular surfaces of these cylinder dollies are glued according to EN 1542, clause 7.2.
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
6
thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.9a).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.

9
There are not only drilled grooves with a depth of 15 mm, but core holes through the different layers and the entire thickness of the
reference concrete of 100 mm (see Figure B.10) so that 5 individual cylinders are created. The cylinders may only be tested if dollies
are glued on both circular surfaces.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 737
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 On the repair mortar (component C and D) a layer of primer (component B1) and of bonding agent
7
(component B2) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of
impregnated CF-sheets shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.9b). Preferably the width of the CFRP sheets should be at least 80 mm, to
allow the drilling of the cylinders without joints between CFRP sheets.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D), the primer (component B1), the bonding agent
(component B2) and the impregnation (component B3) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5) on each specimen 5 cylinders of
80 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure B.10). The cylinders
preferably should contain layers of CFRP sheets with no joint between CFRP sheets.

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component B2) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , and incorporated CF-sheet
Figure B.9: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding agent
(component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 80 mm
Figure B.10: Top view on the test specimen after drilling the concrete cylinders out of the concrete plate according
to EN 1542
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12 (see Figure 10a), with the maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of bonding agent (component B2) with the
7
minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of impregnated CF sheets shall be
installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety information (see Figure B.11b). The
width of the CFRP sheets should be at least 80 mm, to allow the drilling of the cylinders without joints
between CFRP sheets.
 After curing of the primer (component B1), the bonding agent (component B2) and the impregnation
(component B3) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at standard
environmental conditions (see B.1.5) on each specimen 5 cylinders of 80 mm diameter shall be drilled
through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure B.10). The cylinders preferably should contain layers
of CFRP sheets with no joint between CFRP sheets.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 738
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component C and D) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with
incorporated CF-sheet
Figure B.11: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar
b) Specimen with primer (component B1), bonding agent (component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet
The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each cylinder two dollies of 80 mm diameter shall be glued on the circular surfaces with the structural
bonding agent (component B2) according to EN 1542, clause 7.2. The minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see
B.1.9) of the layers of structural bonding agent (component B2) shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B2) of the dollies shall cure according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5).
 Afterwards on each of the cylinders the stress of at least 0,2 𝑓ctm,surf shall be applied for half a year
perpendicular to the concrete surface under climate 1 or 2. 𝑓ctm,surf is the average value of the bond
strength determined according to B.2.3.1. After long-term loading the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf,lt shall be
determined on each of these cylinders according to EN ISO 4624, method A at standard environmental
conditions (see B.1.5).
At least 5 cylinders with and without repair mortar (component C and D) shall be tested for every long-term load
level with every type of CFRP sheet (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
For all samples without failure within the half year of testing time the residual pull off strength 𝑓cti,surf,lt and failure
mode has to be determined and reported in the test report. For all samples were failure occurred before the end
of the half year the time to failure and the failure mode has to be reported in the test report. Furthermore, the
curing time of the repair mortar (component C and D), of the primer (component B1), of the bonding agent
(component B2) and of the impregnation (component B3) as well as the used climate (climate 1 or 2) shall be
reported in the test report.

B.2.3.4 Bond strength of specimens cured at minimum temperature of installation (see B.1.6) in
dependence of curing time
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding
agent (component B2), impregnation (component B3) and CF sheets (component A),
 specimens with layers of concrete, primer (component B1), bonding agent (component B2),
impregnation (component B3) and CF sheets (component A).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing at 𝑇 , or 𝑇 , in
dependence of curing time.
Assessment method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the followings:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, clause 4.7, are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B2) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see B.1.9),
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least two specimens according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
6
thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) shall be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.12a).

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 739
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On the repair mortar (component C and D) a layer of primer (component B1) and bonding agent
7
(component B2) with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of
impregnated CF-sheets shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and safety
information (see Figure B.12b). Preferably the width of the CFRP sheets should be at least 50 mm, to
allow the drilling of annular grooves without joints between CFRP sheets.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D), the primer (component B1), the bonding agent
(component B2) and the impregnation (component B3) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at 𝑇 , ,𝑇 , ,𝑇 , and 𝑇 , the required number of annular grooves of 50 mm
diameter shall be drilled through the multilayer specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the reference
concrete is reached (see Figure B.13). The layers of CFRP sheets inside the annular grooves preferably
should not contain joints between CFRP sheets.

1 attached form
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , and incorporated CF-sheet
Figure B.12: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
a) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with repair mortar (component C and D), primer (component B1), bonding agent
(component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure B.13: Top view on the test specimen with annular grooves showing the areas of the steel dollies
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 On at least two specimens according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see B.1.11) a layer of primer (component B1) and bonding agent (component B2)
7
with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with an incorporated layer of impregnated CF sheets
shall be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions (see Figure B.14b). Preferably the width
of the CFRP sheets should be at least 50 mm, to allow the drilling of the annular grooves without joints
between CFRP sheets
 After curing of the primer (component B1), the bonding agent (component B2) and the impregnation
(component B3) according to the manufacturer's instructions and safety information at 𝑇 , , 𝑇 ,
and 𝑇 , the required number of annular grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 740
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

multilayer specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the reference concrete is reached. The layers of
CFRP sheets inside the annular grooves preferably should not contain joints between CFRP sheets.

1 Attached form
2 Reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
4 layer of primer (component B1) to improve the bonding of the bonding agent
5 layer of bonding agent (component B) with minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) with incorporated
CF-sheet
Figure B.14: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
a) Specimen without repair mortar (component C and D)
b) Specimen with primer (component B1), bonding agent (component B2) and incorporated CF-sheet
The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each annular groove a dolly according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular
surfaces. This shall not be done with the structural bonding agent (component B2) but with another
bonding agent, which achieves the necessary bond strength after a few minutes of curing to exclude
any failure of the bonding layers of the steel dollies during testing.
 Afterwards on each annular groove the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin shall be determined according to
EN 1542, 7.4 at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5).
At least 5 annular grooves with and without repair mortar (component C and D) shall be tested for every type of
CFRP sheets (see B.1.4).
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin have to be measured and failure modes shall be reported. From the values 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin
the average value of the bond strength 𝑓ctm,surf,Tmin and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉
unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf,Tmin of tensile strength shall be determined.
The ratio 𝑅 min ,m
shall be determined as follows:
ctm,surf,Tmin
𝑅 min ,m
.
ctm,surf

The value 𝑓ctm,surf is determined according to B.2.3.1. The values 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin , 𝑓ctm,surf,Tmin , 𝑓ctk,surf,Tmin , 𝑅 min ,m , the curing
time of the repair mortar (component C and D), of the primer (component B1), of the bonding agent (component
B2) and of the impregnation (component B3) as well as the failure modes shall be reported in the test report.

B.2.3.5 Tests to determine the product specific parameters of the bilinear bond approach ksys,b1 and
ksys,b2for static loading
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the shear resistance 𝐹bLk and the shear force – slip relation of the anchorage
for relevant configurations of CFRP sheets externally bonded to the concrete.
Assessment method
Test specimen:
The double-sided bond specimen consists of a concrete block divided horizontally by a crack plate in two parts
(see figure B.15). The length of the part above the crack plate should be more than 50 cm and the length of the
part below the crack plate should more than 100 cm (see right sketch in figure B.15). The width of the concrete
block 𝑏 should be at least 2 cm higher than the width of the CFRP sheets 𝑏L The thickness 𝑑 of the concrete block
should be more than 150 mm.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 741
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure B.15: Tension-Tension double sided bond specimen to determine the bonding behaviour of bonded
CFRP sheets
On two parallel sides of the concrete block (preferably the sides which were in vertical position during concreting
of the specimen) two CFRP sheets are bonded on the surface according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5). It should be used the CF with the maximum
section of fibres per m length of the CF sheets. These CF sheets shall be incorporated into a layer of bonding
7
agent with the minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see B.1.9) of the layer of structural bonding agent. On the upper short
part of the concrete block additionally to the bonding the CFRP sheets are clamped by special equipment to the
surfaces of the concrete block. On the lower long part of the concrete block the CFRP sheets are only fixed by
the adhesive. After applying CFRP sheets the structural bonding agent shall cure at least for 𝑡 and the
impregnation of the CF sheets at least for 𝑡 at standard environmental conditions (see B.1.5).
Loading shall be carried out deformation controlled about the two stirrups of concrete reinforcement steel. The
concrete cover of the stirrups should be at least 10 mm. Above and below the crack plates a non-bonded area of
the CFRP sheets of at least 𝑙 =10 cm shall be provided (see Figure B.15).
Both sides of the crack plates shall be installed a bond less area of at least 𝑙 =10 cm in the long direction of the
concrete block (see Figure B.15).
The failure loads depend on the following parameters:
 bond length 𝑙 of the CFRP sheets to the concrete,
 the geometry (width 𝑏L ) of the CFRP sheets,
 the modulus of elasticity of the CFRP sheets
 compressive strength class of the concrete,
 pull-off bond strength at the surface of the concrete.
At least specimens for the minimum bond length 𝑙 , the maximum section of fibers of the CFRP sheets, the
minimum and maximum modulus of elasticity of the CFRP sheets and the minimum and maximum strength class
of the concrete substrate (see B.1.11) shall be tested. For each parameter set at least 3 tests shall be carried out.
The tests shall be carried out deformation controlled with a constant piston rate of less than 1 mm/min (± 10%).
At least the relative displacement between concrete surface and CFRP sheet at the beginning of the bond area
and the strains of the CFRP sheet in the un-bonded and bonded area should be measured as a function of loading.
The strains of the CFRP sheet in the bonded area have to be measured with a chain of strain gauges. One strain
gauge has to be applied in the bond less area. In the bonded area at least 3 strain gauges (tensometers) have to
be applied with a distance of 30 mm starting at a distance of 30 mm from the beginning of the bonded area. The
force – strain curves in all strain gauges shall be plotted.
The compressive strength of the concrete for all tested concrete compression classes shall be determined as
follows:
At the same time as the concrete blocks are concreted 6 concrete cylinders according to EN 12390-1, clause 4.3,
𝑑 = 150 mm shall be concreted and stored under the same conditions as the concrete blocks. After at least 28
days of hardening of the concrete blocks the CRP sheets may be glued on as shown in Figure B.15. After curing
of the bonding agent for at least 𝑡 and the impregnation of the CF sheets at least for 𝑡 (see B.1.10) at
standard environmental conditions the shear test may be carried out. Shortly before or after the shear test the
cylinder compressive strength of the 6 concrete cylinders shall be determined according to EN 12390-3. From
these 6 values 𝑓 , the average value 𝑓 and the characteristic value 𝑓 shall be calculated and reported in the
test report.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 742
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Additionally, shortly after the shear test the concrete pull-off strength 𝑓 , shall be determined according to
EN 1542 at least at three places "j" of each side of the concrete specimen "i" where the CFRP sheets were glued.
From the values 𝑓 , the values 𝑓 , and 𝑓 , for each side of the concrete specimen "i" shall be
determined, where the sheets were glued.
Performing the shear tests usually the bond of one of the two CFRP sheets fails first. The test shall be interrupted
if one of the two CFRP sheets has separated from the concrete within the first 30 mm of bond length. This is the
case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area strain values are measured which have the same level as in
the bond less area.
After fixing the separated CFRP sheet by a suitable contact pressure, the experiment can be continued until
separating of the second CFRP sheet occurs. This is again the case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area
of the second CFRP sheet strain values are measured which have the same level as in the bond less area.
The measured strains, relative displacements and forces shall be recorded at least at a frequency of 5 Hz.
Expression of results
For each tested configuration of specimen the following values shall be determined and reported in the test report:
 the single values of the anchorage failure loads 𝐹 together with the corresponding pull-off strength
𝑓 , and 𝑓 , , the measured shear force – slip diagrams, shear force – strain diagrams as well
as the failure modes
 the average value 𝐹 together with the average compressive strength of the concrete 𝑓 and
 the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝐹 together with the
characteristic compressive strength of the concrete 𝑓

B.2.3.6 Tests to verify the S-N curve of the CFRP sheets externally bonded to concrete
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the input parameters of a S-N curve for the shear resistance of the
anchorage of CFRP sheets externally bonded to concrete for relevant configurations. The default value for the
maximum number of load cycles is 2 Million if the applicant does not require other values.
Assessment method
The assessment method is identical to B.2.3.5. The only difference is that a cyclic load 𝛥𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi is
applied to the specimen, where 𝐹bLi is the upper load and 𝐹bLi the lower load. The transfer of pressure loads via
the CFRP sheets is excluded.
At least specimens for the minimum bond length 𝑙 , the maximum section of fibers of CFRP sheets, the minimum
or maximum modulus of elasticity of the CFRP sheets and the minimum, intermediate and maximum strength
class of the concrete substrate (see B.1.11) shall be tested. For all these configurations of specimens the cyclic
load levels according to Table B.1 shall be tested.
Table B.1: Minimum number of tests for every configuration of specimen

Load level Strength class of the concrete substrate

Minimum Intermediate Maximum
A x x x
B x
C x x
D x x

The load levels are characterised by the average value of the anchorage failure load 𝐹 determined for the same
configuration of specimen under B.2.3.5:
Load level A: 𝐹 0,15 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,45 𝐹
Load level B: 𝐹 0,30 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,55 𝐹
Load level C: 𝐹 0,45 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,64 𝐹
Load level D: 𝐹 0,60 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,74 𝐹
After reaching 2 Million load cycles or a separated length of 30 mm a higher upper load level has to be chosen:
Load level A: 𝐹 0,15 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,49 𝐹
Load level B: 𝐹 0,30 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,58 𝐹
Load level C: 𝐹 0,45 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,67 𝐹
Load level D: 𝐹 0,60 𝐹 to 𝐹 0,76 𝐹
From this load levels may be deviated if the applicant has other requirements.
The load cycle frequency shall be not higher than 5 Hz.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 743
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The strains of the CFRP sheet in the un-bonded and bonded area should be measured as a function of loading.
The strains of the CFRP sheet in the bonded area have to be measured with a chain of strain gauges. One strain
gauge has to be applied in the bond less area. In the bonded area at least 3 strain gauges have to be applied
with a distance of 30 mm starting at a distance of 30 mm from the beginning of the bonded area. The force –
strain curves at least of the strain gauges in the bondless area as well as of the two first strain gauges in the
bonded area (from the beginning of the bonded area on the loaded side of the CFRP sheets) shall be plotted
The compressive strength of the concrete for all tested concrete compression classes shall be determined as
follows:
At the same time as the concrete blocks are concreted 6 concrete cylinders according to EN 12390-1, clause 4.3,
𝑑 = 150 mm shall be concreted and stored under the same conditions as the concrete blocks.
After at least 28 days of hardening of the concrete blocks the CFRP sheets may be glued on as shown in
figure B.15. After curing of the bonding agent for at least 𝑡 (see B.1.10) and the impregnation of the CF sheets
at least for 𝑡 at standard environmental conditions the fatigue test may be carried out.
Shortly after cyclic testing the cylinder compressive strength of these 6 concrete cylinders shall be determined
according to EN 12390-3. From these 6 values 𝑓 , the average value 𝑓 and the characteristic value 𝑓 shall be
calculated.
Additionally, after cyclic testing the concrete pull-off strength 𝑓 , shall be determined according to EN 1542 at
least at three places "j" of each side of the concrete specimen "i" where the CFRP sheets were glued. From the
values 𝑓 , the values 𝑓 , and 𝑓 , for each side of the concrete specimen "i" shall be determined,
where the sheets were glued.
The weight per square meter of the CF sheets according to B.2.2.2 shall be determined and the mechanical
properties according to B.2.2.4 of the used CFRP sheets shall be determined. 10
Performing the fatigue tests usually the bond of one of the two CFRP sheets fails first. The fatigue test shall be
interrupted if one of the two CFRP sheets has separated from the concrete within the first 30 mm of bond length.
This is the case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area reaches the strain value measured in the bond less
area.
After fixing the separated CFRP sheet by a suitable contact pressure, cyclic loading may be continued until
separating of the second CFRP sheet occurs. This is again the case if at the first strain gauge in the bonded area
of the second CFRP sheet strain values are measured which have the same level as in the bond less area.
The measured strains and forces shall be recorded at least every 60 minutes for 10 s at a frequency of 100 Hz.
Shortly before the expected separating of the CFRP sheet, the measurement shall be continued continuously until
the interruption or termination of the test.
After determination the fatigue test the concrete pull-off strength 𝑓 , tested according to EN 1542 at three
places "j" of each concrete specimen "i" shall be determined. From the values 𝑓 , the values 𝑓 , and
𝑓 , for each concrete specimen "i" shall be determined.
Expression of results
For each tested cyclic load 𝛥𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi 𝐹bLi the corresponding number of cycles until separating of the CFRP
sheets, the corresponding pull-off strength 𝑓 , and 𝑓 , and the concrete compressive strength 𝑓 and
𝑓 of the concrete substrate for all tests shall be given in the test report.

10
If CF sheets from the same batch as used for B.2.2.4 are used the re-determination of the properties of the CFRP sheets is not
necessary.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 744
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Annex BD-C Test program for near surface mounted CFRP strips and bars

C.1 Specific terms used in this Annex

C.1.1 Significant cross sections of one type of CFRP strips

If for one type of CFRP strips (see C.1.3) more than one cross section exist the significant cross
sections are those with the smallest and the highest thickness those with the smallest and highest
width as well as those with the section of the highest ratio between circumference and cross-section
area.

C.1.2 Coil diameter of CFRP strips

CFRP strips are usually delivered on site in form of coils. Without further investigations the inner coil
diameter should not be less than the diameter used in the assessment tests.

C.1.3 Type of CFRP strips

A type of CFRP strips is characterised by the same production technology, the same fibres and size
of fibres (see C.1.7), the same fibre content and the same matrix material.

C.1.4 Standard environmental conditions

In the framework of this Annex the standard environmental conditions are a temperature of 21 2°C
and relative air humidity of (50 ± 10)%.

C.1.5 Minimum temperature of installation

The following terms are used in this document:
𝑇 , , minimum temperature of installation of the structural bonding agent (component B),
𝑇 , , minimum temperature of installation of the repair mortar (component C and D).
The default values for these temperatures are 8°C. The default values are only used if the
manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not contain any other information.

C.1.6 Minimum and maximum temperature at intended use

The default values for the minimum and maximum temperature of the repair mortar (component C
and D) 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , as well as of the bonding agent (component B) 𝑇 , and 𝑇 , at intended
use is -10°C and 40°C. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information do not contain any other information.
For the intended use of the kit as a whole the minimum temperature results from 𝑇
max 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , and the maximum temperature from 𝑇 min 𝑇 , , 𝑇 , .

C.1.7 Size of fibres

During the spinning process the size is raised on the carbon fibres. It is a protective coating for the
fibres of less than 100 nm of thickness and improves the bond of the fibres to the matrix materials of
the CFRP strips. Mostly it consists of polymers.

C.1.8 Minimum and maximum thickness of layers of bonding agent (component B) and repair
mortar (component C and D)
The default minimum and maximum thicknesses
 of the layers of bonding agent (component B) are 𝑑 , = 1 mm and 𝑑 , = 5 mm and
 of the repair mortar (component C and D) 𝑑 , = 5 mm and 𝑑 , = 30 mm.
The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information do not
contain any other information.

C.1.9 Minimum curing time of the bonding agent (component B) and repair mortar (component C
and D) at standard environmental conditions (C.1.4) and at minimum temperature of
installation (see C.1.5)
The default values for the minimum curing time of the bonding agent (component B) at standard
environmental conditions (C.1.4) 𝑡 are 7 d and at minimum temperature of installation (C.1.5)
𝑡 28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information
do not contain any other information.
The default values for the minimum curing time of the repair mortar (component C and D) at standard
environmental conditions (C.1.4) 𝑡 are 7d and at minimum temperature of installation (C.1.5)

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 745
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

𝑡 28 d. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety information
do not contain any other information.

C.1.10 Minimum and maximum strength class of the concrete substrate

The default values for the minimum and maximum strength classes of the concrete substrate are
C12/15 and C50/60. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's instructions and safety
information do not contain any other information.

C.2 Test program for kits of near surface mounted CFRP strips

C.2.1 Tests to determine the product specific for the adhesive (structural bonding agent) and
repair mortar (identical to A.2.1)

C.2.2 Tests to determine the product-specific properties of the CFRP strips (identical to A.2.2)

C.2.3 Tests to verify the product-specific properties TPmin,a, TGmin,a, TImin,a, TMmin,a, Tmax, and Cmin, Cmax
as well as to determine the product-specific parameter ba

C.2.3.1 Bond strength of specimens cured at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4)
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D) and the structural bonding agent
(component B)
 specimens with layers of concrete and bonding agent (component B).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off test according to EN 1542 after curing under standard environmental
conditions (see C.1.4).
If the kit shall be used also for externally bonded CFRP strips it is possible to carry out this test according to Annex
BD-A, clause A.2.3.1.
Assessment Method
The test is based on EN 1542. The main differences to EN 1542 are the following:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, clause 4.7, are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see C.1.8),
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see C.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
thickness 𝑑 , 11 (see C.1.8) shall be installed (see Figure C.1).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4) on each specimen 5 annular
grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the multilayer specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm
in the reference concrete is reached (see Figure C.2).

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,

Figure C.1: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)

11
At least one test series with the maximum layer thickness of repair mortar is necessary.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 746
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure C.2: Top view on the test specimen with annular grooves showing the areas of the steel dollies
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 At least one specimen according to EN 1542, chapter 4.12, (see Figure C.3) with the maximum strength
class of the concrete substrate (see C.1.10) shall be prepared. The preparation of the surface according
to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical position. On each specimen 5 annular
grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the specimen until a depth of 15 ± 5 mm in the
reference concrete is reached.

1 Attached formwork
2 Reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
Figure C.3: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each annular groove a dolly according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular surfaces
with the structural bonding agent (component B). The minimum thickness of the layer 𝑑G,min 12 (see C.1.8)
of bonding agent shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B) of the dollies shall cure according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4) before testing.
 Afterwards the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf shall be determined on each annular groove of the specimens with
and without repair mortar according to EN 1542, clause 7.4, at standard environmental conditions (see
C.1.4).
The bond strength shall be determined on at least 5 annular grooves with and without repair mortar (component
C and D).
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surfand failure modes have to be determined for further comparison with the results
according to C.2.3.2 to C.2.3.4. From the values 𝑓cti,surf the average value of the bond strength 𝑓ctm,surf and the 5%
quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf of tensile strength shall be determined. The
values 𝑓cti,surf, 𝑓ctm,surf , 𝑓ctk,surf , the curing time of the repair mortar (component C and D) as well as of the bonding
agent (component B) and the failure modes shall be reported in the test report.

C.2.3.2 Bond strength after low-cycle fatigue action

Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, of repair mortar (component C and D) and structural bonding agent
(component B)

12
At least one test series with the minimum layer thickness of bonding agent is necessary.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 747
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 specimens with layers of concrete and bonding agent (component B).

The bond strength is determined by pull-off test according to EN 1542 after curing under standard conditions (see
C.1.5) and low-cycle fatigue action.
If the kit shall be used also for externally bonded CFRP strips it is possible to carry out this test according to Annex
BD-A, clause A.2.3.2.
Assessment Method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the following:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, clause 4.7, are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see C.1.8),
 the test specimens are circular cylinders which are drilled from specimens according to EN 1542,
Figure 1 (or Figure C.5 of this Annex)13,
 on both circular surfaces of these cylinders dollies are glued according to EN 1542, clause 7.2.
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see C.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
thickness 𝑑 , 11 (see C.1.8) shall be installed (see Figure 5).
 The preparation of the surface according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical
position.
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4) at each specimen 5 cylinders of
50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure C.5).

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,

Figure C.4: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure C.5: Top view on the test specimen after drilling the concrete cylinders out of the concrete plate according
to EN 1542

13
There are not only drilled grooves with a depth of 15 mm, but core holes through the different layers and the entire thickness of the
reference concrete of 100 mm (see Figure 5) so that 5 individual cylinders are created. The cylinders may only be tested if dollies are
glued on both circular surfaces.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 748
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 At least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, (see Figure C.6) with the maximum strength
class of the concrete substrate (see C.1.10) shall be prepared. The preparation of the surface according
to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical position. On each specimen 5 cylinders of
50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure C.5).

1 attached formwork
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
Figure C.6: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each cylinder two dollies according to EN 1542, clause 7.2, shall be glued on the circular surfaces
12
with the structural bonding agent (component B). The minimum thickness 𝑑 , (see C.1.8) of the
layer of bonding agent (component B) shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B) of the dollies shall cure for according to the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information (see C.1.9) at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4) before
testing.
 Afterwards on each of the cylinders the cyclic load shall be applied on the dollies to the concrete surface.
The lower stress shall be 0,1 ⋅ 𝑓ctm,surf and the upper stress 0,55 ⋅ 𝑓ctm,surf . 𝑓ctm,surf is the average value of
the bond strength determined according to C.2.3.1. After 100.000 loading cycles the bond strength
𝑓cti,surf,lfat shall be determined on each cylinder according to EN ISO 4624, method A, at standard
environmental conditions (see C.1.4).
The bond strength shall be determined at least on 5 cylinders with and without repair mortar (component C and
D).
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf and the failure modes for all specimens have to be determined. From the values 𝑓cti,surf,lfat
the average value of the bond strength 𝑓ctm,surf,lfat and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉
unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf,lfat of tensile strength shall be determined.
The ratio 𝑅lfat,m shall be determined as follows:
ctm,surf,lfat
𝑅lfat,m .
ctm,surf

𝑓ctm,surf is determined according to C.2.3.1. The values 𝑓cti,surf,lfat , 𝑓ctm,surf,lfat, 𝑓ctk,surf,lfat, 𝑅lfat,m , the curing time of the
repair mortar (component C and D) as well as of the bonding agent (component B) and the failure modes shall
be reported in the test report.

C.2.3.3 Bond strength after long-term loading under harsh climatic conditions
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D) and the structural bonding agent
(component B),
 specimens with layers of concrete and bonding agent (component B).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing under standard conditions
(see C.1.4) and loading under harsh climatic conditions for half a year. Two harsh climatic conditions are possible:
Climate 1 maximum temperature at intended use and relative air humidity of ≥95% for the
whole half year,
Climate 2 heat rain cycles with 1 h irrigation without heating and 1 h drying at maximum
temperature at intended use for the whole half year (approximately 2200 cycles).
If the kit shall be used also for externally bonded CFRP strips it is possible to carry out this test according to Annex
BD-A, clause A.2.3.3.
Assessment Method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the following:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, clause 4.7, are used, not dullies of aluminium,

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 749
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dullies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see C.1.8),
 the test specimens are circular cylinders which are drilled from specimens according to EN 1542,
Figure 1, (or Figure 9 of this Annex)14.
 on both circular surfaces of these cylinders dollies are glued according to EN 1542, clause 7.2.
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see C.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
11
thickness 𝑑 , shall be installed (see Figure C.7).

 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4) on each specimen 5 cylinders of
80 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure C.8).

1 attached form
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,

Figure C.7: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 80 mm
Figure C.8: Top view on the test specimen after drilling the concrete cylinders out of the concrete plate according
to EN 1542
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 At least one specimen according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, (see Figure C.9) with the maximum strength
class of the concrete substrate (see C.1.10) shall be prepared. The preparation of the surface according
to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical position. On each specimen 5 cylinders of
80 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure C.8).

1 attached form
2 reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
Figure C.9: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar

14
There are not only drilled grooves with a depth of 15 mm, but core holes through the different layers and the entire thickness of the
reference concrete of 100 mm (see Figure C.8) so that 5 individual cylinders are created. The cylinders may only be tested if dollies are
glued on both circular surfaces.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 750
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each cylinder two dollies of 80 mm diameter shall be glued on the circular surfaces of the cylinder
with the structural bonding agent (component B) according to EN 1542, clause 7.2. The minimum
thickness 𝑑 , (see C.1.8) of the layer of bonding agent shall be used.
 The structural bonding agent (component B) shall cure according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4).
 Afterwards on each of the cylinders the stress of at least 0,2 𝑓ctm,surf shall be applied for half a year
perpendicular to the concrete surface under climate 1 or 2. 𝑓ctm,surf is the average value of the bond
strength determined according to 2.2.1. After long-term loading the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf,lt shall be
determined on each of these cylinders according to EN ISO 4624, method A, at standard environmental
conditions (see C.1.4).
At least 5 cylinders with and without repair mortar (component C and D) shall be tested for every long-term load
level.
Expression of results
For all samples without failure within the half year of testing time the residual pull off strength 𝑓cti,surf,lt has to be
determined and reported in the test report. For all samples where failure occurred before the end of the half year
the time to failure and the failure mode has to be reported in test report. Furthermore, the curing time of the repair
mortar (component C and D) as well as of the bonding agent (component B) and the used climate (climate 1 or
2) shall be reported in the test report.

C.2.3.4 Bond strength of specimens cured at minimum temperature of installation (see C.1.5) in
dependence of curing time
Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the bond strength of the following specimens:
 specimens with layers of concrete, repair mortar (component C and D) and bonding agent
(component B),
 specimens with layers of concrete and bonding agent (component B).
The bond strength is determined by pull-off tests according to EN 1542 after curing at 𝑇Mmin,a or 𝑇Gmin,a in
dependence of curing time.
If the kit shall be used also for externally bonded CFRP strips it is possible to carry out this test according to Annex
BD-A, clause A.2.3.4.
Assessment Method
The test is based on EN 1542. The differences to EN 1542 are the following:
 only steel dollies according to EN 1542, clause 4.7, are used, not dollies of aluminium,
 the bonding agent (Component B) is used also for the bonding of the steel dollies,
 the thickness of the layers of bonding agent (also for the dollies) is 𝑑 , (see C.1.8),
The preparation of the specimens with repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 On at least two specimens according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, with the maximum strength class of the
concrete substrate (see C.1.10) a layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with the maximum
thickness 𝑑 , (see C.1.8) shall be installed (see Figure C.10).
 After curing of the repair mortar (component C and D) according to the manufacturer's instructions and
safety information at minimum temperature of installation 𝑇Mmin,a (see C.1.6), on each specimen 5
annular grooves of 50 mm diameter shall be drilled through the multilayer specimen until a depth of 15
± 5 mm in the reference concrete is reached (see Figure C.11).

1 Attached form
2 Reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
3 layer of repair mortar (component C and D) with maximum thickness 𝑑 ,

Figure C.10: Cross section through the test specimen with repair mortar (component C and D)

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 751
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1 groove made by core drilling around the test surface

2 steel dolly with diameter of 50 mm
Figure C.11: Top view on the test specimen with annular grooves showing the areas of the steel dollies
The preparation of the specimens without repair mortar shall be done as follows:
 At least two specimens according to EN 1542, clause 4.12, (see Figure C.12) with the maximum
strength class of the concrete substrate (see C.1.10) shall be prepared. The preparation of the surface
according to EN 1542, clause 5.1, shall be done for the use in vertical position. On each specimen 5
cylinders of 80 mm diameter shall be drilled through the entire multilayer specimen (see Figure C.12).

1 Attached form
2 Reference body of concrete according to EN 1542
Figure C.12: Cross section through the test specimen without repair mortar
The further treatment is the same for the test specimens with and without repair mortar:
 On each annular groove a dolly according to EN 1542, chapter 7.2, shall be glued in the middle of the
circular surfaces. This shall not be done with the structural bonding agent (component B) but with
another bonding agent, which achieves the necessary bond strength after a few minutes of curing to
exclude any failure of the bonding layers of the steel dollies during testing.
 Afterwards on each annular groove the bond strength 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin shall be determined according to
EN ISO 4624, method B, at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4).
At least 5 annular grooves with and without repair mortar (component C and D) shall be tested.
Expression of results
The bond strengths 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin have to be measured and failure modes shall be reported. From the values
f cti, surf, T min the average value of the bond strength 𝑓ctm,surf,Tmin and the 5% quantile value according to EN 1990,
Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝑓ctk,surf,Tmin of tensile strength shall be determined.
The ratio 𝑅 min ,m
shall be determined as follows:
ctm,surf,Tmin
𝑅 min ,m
.
ctm,surf

The value 𝑓ctm,surf is determined according to C.2.3.1. The values 𝑓cti,surf,Tmin , 𝑓ctm,surf,Tmin , 𝑓ctk,surf,Tmin , 𝑅 min ,m , the curing
time of the repair mortar (component C and D) as well as of the bonding agent (component B) and the failure
modes shall be reported in the test report.

C.2.3.5 Ultimate anchorage load of near surface mounted CFRP strips

Purpose of the assessment
The tests are performed to determine the ultimate anchorage load 𝐹bLk for relevant configurations of CFRP strips
bonded in slots.
Assessment method
Test specimen:

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 752
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The specimen consists of an unreinforced concrete block (see Figure C.13) were after at least 28 days and before
applying CFRP strips a slot is milled on one side. In this slot a CFRP strip is bonded with the structural bonding
agent (component B) of the kit (see Figure C.13). The cross section of this concrete block shall be 30 cm x 30
cm. The length of the slot shall be equal to 𝑙 𝑙bl .The width of the slot shall fulfil the following conditions: 𝑡
1mm 𝑏 𝑡 3mm, where 𝑡 is the thickness of the CFRP strip and 𝑏s the width of the slot.
The upper end of the CFRP strip is fixed to the upper part of the hollow piston cylinder by wedges. Loading shall
be carried out deformation controlled. At the upper part of the slot a bondless area shall be foreseen of at least
𝑙 =10 cm in the longitudinal direction of the concrete block (see Figure C.13).

Figure C.13: Tension-Pressure shear specimen to determine the ultimate anchorage load in dependence of the
bond length 𝑙bl , the edge distance 𝑎 of the slot, the compressive strength class of the concrete and
the flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent
In Figure C.13 no additional reinforcement for the anchorage zone is provided. If the manufacturer wants to apply
additional reinforcement of the anchorage zone of the near surface mounted CFRP strips, the modification of the
specimen according to Figure C.13 shall be taken into account to consider the effect of this anchorage
reinforcement. Failure loads depend on the following parameters:
 bond length 𝑙bl of the CFRP strips in the slot,
 the geometry of the CFRP strips (thickness 𝑡L and width 𝑏 ) and the mechanical properties according
to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.3.4
 edge distance 𝑎 of the slot,
 flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent,
 compressive strength class of the concrete
The default values for the bond lengths 𝑙bl and the edge distances 𝑎 are 150 mm. The default value for the
concrete strength class of the specimens is C20/25. The default values are only used if the manufacturer's
instructions and safety information do not contain any other information.
After applying CFRP strips the structural bonding agent shall cure according to the manufacturer's instructions
and safety information at standard environmental conditions (see C.1.4).
The tests shall be carried out deformation controlled with a constant piston rate of less than1 mm/min (± 10%). At
least the relative displacement between concrete surface and CFRP strip at the beginning of the bond area and
the tensile forces of CFRP strip in the un-bonded area should be measured as a function of loading. Additionally,
the strains of CFRP in the bonded area in different distances from the beginning of the bond area may be
measured. Because three sides of the CFRP strips are bonded with the concrete it is not recommendable to use
strain gauges because this will have influence to the bonding force. Strains should only be determined by an
optical deformation measuring system on the free side of the CFRP strip.
For each parameter set at least 3 tests shall be carried out.
The compressive strength class of the concrete shall be determined as follows:
At the same time as the concrete blocks are concreted 6 concrete cylinders according to EN 12390-1, clause 4.3,
𝑑 = 150 mm shall be concreted and stored under the same conditions as the concrete blocks. After at least 28

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 753
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

days of hardening of the concrete blocks the slots may be cut into the concrete blocks and the CRP strips may
be bonded in as shown in Figure C.13. After curing of the bonding agent for at least 𝑡 (see C.1.9) at standard
environmental conditions the anchorage test may be carried out.
Shortly before or after the anchorage test the cylinder compressive strength of these 6 concrete cylinders shall
be determined according to EN 12390-3. From these 6 values 𝑓ci , the average values 𝑓cm and 𝑓ck shall be
calculated.
The flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent shall be determined as follows:
At the same time as the CFRP strips are bonded in the slits of concrete blocks 6 specimens of structural bonding
agent according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.1.2 shall be produced. After curing under the same conditions as the
bonding of the CFRP strips in the specimens of the anchorage test the values 𝑓Gflk and 𝑓Gck for the structural
bonding agent shall be determined according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.1.2 shortly before or after the anchorage
tests.
The fibre content according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.1, the weight per meter according to Annex BD-A, clause
A.2.2.2, the dimensions according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.3 and the mechanical properties according to
Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.4 of the used CFRP strips shall be determined.
Expression of results
For each tested parameter set of bonding length 𝑙bl and edge distance 𝑎 the following properties shall be reported
in the test report:
 the fibre content according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.1, the weight per meter according to Annex
BD-A, clause A.2.2.2, the dimensions (thickness 𝑡 and width 𝑏 ) and the mechanical properties
according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.4 of the used CFRP strips,
 the concrete strength and the flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent,
 the single values of the anchorage failure loads 𝐹bLi , the average value 𝐹bLm and the 5% quantile value
according to EN 1990, Table D.1 (𝑉 unknown) 𝐹bLk shall be reported in the test report.
If additional reinforcement of the anchorage zone of the near surface mounted CFRP strips has been applied, the
modified specimen according to Figure C.13 shall also be reported in the test report.

C.2.3.6 Long-term ultimate anchorage load (creep rupture) to concrete of near surface mounted
CFRP strips at maximum temperature at intended use and relative air humidity of ≥75% (kit)
Purpose of the test
The objective of the test is to determine the long-time behaviour of the bonding agent in conjunction with near
surface mounted CFRP strips. Therefore, it is only necessary to test such parameter sets of C.2.3.5 that led to
failure of the bonding agent. If no failure of the bonding agent occurred in C.2.3.5 at least the parameter sets of
C.2.3.5 with the shortest anchorage length shall be tested.
Assessment Method
Use of the test arrangement according to Figure C.15
Alternative to the test arrangement of clause C.2.3.5 the following test arrangement may be used:
The specimen is a reinforced concrete beam 70 cm x 15 cm x 15 cm (see Figure C.14, 1.). After at least 28 days
of curing in the lower concrete cover a slot is milled. The length of the slot from the middle of the beam shall be
in both directions at least 𝑙 𝑙bl 5cm.
The width of the slot shall fulfil the following conditions:
𝑡 1𝑚𝑚 𝑏 𝑡L 3𝑚𝑚,
where 𝑡 is the thickness of the CFRP strip and 𝑏 the width of the slot. To avoid excessive bending stress of the
CFRP strip about the strong axis in the area of the free length 𝑙 the slot has to be deeper (see Figure C.15) the
test specimen is then sawn to the centre (see Figure C.14, 2.). Afterwards a steel joint is arranged in the pressure
zone of the separating section (see Figure C.14, 3. or Figure C.15) and the CFRP strip has to be glued into the
slot of both parts of the specimen (see Figure C.15).

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 754
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure C.14: Alternative test set-up to determine the long-term anchorage load15

Figure C.15: Alternative test set-up to determine the long-term anchorage load
In Figure C.15 no additional reinforcement for the anchorage zone is provided. If the manufacturer wants to apply
additional reinforcement of the anchorage zone of the near surface mounted CFRP strips, the modification of the
specimen according to Figure C.15 to consider the effect of this anchorage reinforcement shall be taken into
account. The loading 𝑃 , the lever arm of the internal forces 𝑎, the distance between the loads 𝑏 and the anchoring
or structural bonding agent length 𝑙 are to be set so that failure of the structural bonding agent is always to be
expected.
In order to determine the influence of the test arrangement, Figure C.15, three test specimens are to be produced
at the same time according to the test arrangement as shown in Figure C.13 and according to the test arrangement
according to Figure C.15. The concrete of all specimens shall harden 28 days under standard environmental
conditions (see C.1.4). After applying CFRP strips the structural bonding agent shall harden 7d at standard
environmental conditions (see C.1.4). Afterwards both types of specimen shall be loaded in a short-term test until
failure. For the test specimens according to Figure C.13, all measurements according to clause C.2.3.5 must be
carried out. In the case of the test specimens shown in Figure C.15, the vertical displacement of the centre of the

15
For the reinforcement and dimensions of the reinforced concrete beam, which is shown in figure C.14, there are experiences with kits
where anchoring failure or failure of the CFRP strips occurs with tensile forces of up to 𝐹 , , = 39 kN (what means with the dimensions of the
specimen according to Figure C.15 𝑃i = 37 kN) and/or average bonding strength (anchorage failure load divided by two times bonding length and
width of CFRP strip) up to 17 N/mm2. For configurations where higher failure forces or average bonding strengths are to be expected, the
reinforcement in the reinforced concrete beam should be chosen so that no concrete failure occurs in the reinforced concrete parts prior to reaching
the failure load of the near surface mounted reinforcement.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 755
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

beam and the gap opening at the lower end of the gap are to be measured in addition to the failure loads 𝑃 . The
anchorage failure force for the test arrangement according to Figure C.15 𝐹 , , shall be determined as follows:

𝐹 , ,

From the single values for the failure loads according to the test arrangement of Figure C.15 𝐹bL,16,i and according
to test arrangement of Figure C.13 𝐹bL,14,i the average values 𝐹bL,16,m and 𝐹bL,14,m shall be determined.
bL,14,m
Furthermore, the ratio 𝑅 bl , , shall be determined, which represents the relationship to the reference
bL,16,m

method according to figure C.13 . The values -𝑅 bl , , shall be reported in the test report.
Irrespective of whether the unreinforced specimen according to Figure C.13 or the reinforced specimen according
to Figure C.15 is used the following shall be considered:
Loading on the test specimen shall only be carried out seven days after gluing the CFRP strip into the slot, the
bondless length of 𝑙 = 100 mm has to be considered.
At least tests should be carried out for one representative parameter set of bonding length 𝑙bl , dimensions of CFRP
strip (thickness 𝑡L and width 𝑏L ), mechanical properties of the CFRP strips according to A.2.2.4, edge distance 𝑎 ,
concrete strength and flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent under constant load at
maximum temperature at intended use (see C.1.6) and ≥75 % relative humidity for which failure occurred in the
bond agent (component B) in the tests of C.2.3.5.
For each parameter set at least 3 different continuous load levels 𝐹bl,lt,j shall be found as follows:
The aim of the investigations according to this section is to enable a reliable estimate of the mean value of the
permanent bond strength for 25 years with a minimum number of tests, the economic efficiency of which can be
improved by additional tests. The following criterion must be met for the minimum number of tests:
1. Times to failure between 60 and 500 hours. 2 tests
2. Times to failure between 500 and 2000 h 2 tests and
3. Times to failure > 2000 h 2 tests, one of which has a time to failure of at least 4000 h.
If the number of tests mentioned above is available, a reliable estimate of the value of the characteristic mean
value of permanent bond strength for 25 years can be made in accordance with C.3. In many cases this is not an
economical solution (poor material utilization due to low permanent load level). The number of tests can be
increased at any time to improve the economy of the solution.
If the applicant does not specify the load level, he should be informed that only a step-by-step approach to fulfill
the above-mentioned criterion for the minimum number of tests per time to failure is possible, which can be
expected to require more than 6 tests.
With the step-by-step approach, the following procedure can be used in coordination with the applicant:
Before starting the first assessment of the load levels, the highest load level according to C.2.3.5 (short-term bond
force 𝐹 ) shall be known.
First of all, three load levels that appear reasonable should be agreed between the test center and the applicant
for the first test run:
1. Load level for expected times to failure of 60 to 500 h. (e.g. 𝐹bl, 60 500,m 0,6 ∗ 𝐹m )
2. Load level for expected times to failure of 500 to 2000 h (e.g. 𝐹bl, 600 2000,m 0,5 ∗ 𝐹m ).
3. Load level for expected times to failure of> 2000 h (e.g. 𝐹bl, 2000,m 0,4 ∗ 𝐹m ).
It is not absolutely necessary, but in order to save time, the tests should be started simultaneously for all load
levels on two specimens each.
If the above-mentioned criterion for the minimum number of tests is not yet fulfilled, an improved estimate of the
load levels according to C.3 using the results of all tests carried out so far (at least however 3) is possible. With
these improved load levels, the missing long-term tests may be carried out in order to be able to meet the above-
mentioned criterion for the minimum number of tests.
This improved estimate of the load level shall be repeated with the results of all tests carried out so far until the
above-mentioned criterion for the necessary minimum number of tests per time to failure range is met.
The compressive strength class of the concrete shall be determined as follows:
At the same time as the concrete blocks are concreted 6 concrete cylinders according to EN 12390-1, clause 4.3,
𝑑 = 150 mm shall be concreted and stored under the same conditions as the concrete blocks. After at least 28
days of hardening of the concrete blocks the slots may be cut into the concrete blocks and the CRP strips may
be bonded in as shown in Figure C.13 or C.15. After curing of the bonding agent for at least 𝑡 (see C.1.9) at
standard environmental conditions the long-term loading test may be carried out. Shortly after the long-time
loading test the cylinder compressive strength of the 6 concrete cylinders shall be determined according to EN
12390-3. From these 6 values 𝑓ci , the average value 𝑓cm and 𝑓ck shall be calculated. The concrete strength class
shall be higher or equal to C50/60.

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 756
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent shall be determined as follows:
At the same time as the CFRP strips are bonded in the slots of concrete blocks 6 specimens of structural bonding
agent according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.1.2 shall be produced. After curing under the same conditions as the
bonding of the CFRP strips in the specimens of the shear test the values 𝑓Gflk and 𝑓Gck for the structural bonding
agent shall be determined according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.1.2 shortly after the long-term loading test.
The fibre content according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.1, the weight per meter according to Annex BD-A, clause
A.2.2.2, the dimensions according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.3 and the mechanical properties according to
Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.4 of the used CFRP strips16 shall be determined.
Expression of results
For the tested parameter sets (bonding length lbl and edge distance) the following properties shall be reported in
the test report:
 the fibre content according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.1, the weight per meter according to Annex
BD-A, clause A.2.2.2, the dimensions (thickness 𝑡L and width 𝑏L ) according to Annex BD-A, clause
A.2.2.3 and the mechanical properties according to Annex BD-A, clause A.2.2.4 of the used CFRP
strips,
 the concrete strength and the flexural and compressive strength of the structural bonding agent,
 the applied temperature and relative air humidity together with the observed times until failure 𝑡 and
associated long-term load levels 𝐹 , , ,

 in case of using the test arrangement according to Figure C.15 additionally the tested load levels 𝑃 ,
,
and the associated levels of anchorage loads 𝐹 , , , from which the values of the reference
method according to Figure C.13 𝐹bl,lt,j are determined by 𝐹bl,lt,j 𝐹bl,lt16,j ∗ 𝑅Fbl,14-16,m

 the average values 𝐹 , , , (see C.3.2), the value 𝑅 , , and the ratio 𝑅 , ,
, , ,
.

If additional reinforcement of the anchorage zone of the near surface mounted CFRP strips has been applied, the
modified specimen according to Figure C.13 or C.15 shall also be reported in the test report.

C.3 Linear regression on a logarithmic scale for time to failure

C.3.1 Determination of the regression line

The general formula of a straight line is:
𝑦 𝑎 𝑏∗𝑥 (1)
Therein mean:
𝑦 dependent variable (load levels 𝐹 , 𝑘𝑁 )
𝑥 independent variable (t logarithm of me to failure log 𝑡 , 𝑡 ℎ )
The following statistical values are to be calculated from the results of all long-term tests carried out:
∑
𝑥̅ (2)
∑
𝑦 3
∑
𝑄 ∑𝑥 4
∑
𝑄 ∑𝑦 5
∑ ∗∑
𝑄 ∑𝑥 ∗ 𝑦 6

𝑠 𝑄 7
∗

𝑠 𝑠 8

𝑟 9
∗

𝑟 𝑟 10

𝑏 11

𝑎 𝑦 𝑏 ∗ 𝑥̅ 12
Here means:

16
If CFRP strips from the same batch as used for A.2.2.4 are used the re-determination of the properties of the CFRP strips is not
necessary

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 757
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
J.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

𝑛 number of long-term tests

𝑥 x-values
𝑦 y-values
𝑥̅ mean of the x-values
𝑦 mean of the y-values
𝑄 sum of the squared deviation of the x-values
𝑄 sum of the squared deviation of the y-values
𝑄 sum of the squared deviation of the x- and y-values
𝑏 slope of the straight line
𝑎 Absolute term of the straight line
𝑠 residual standard deviation
𝑟 coefficient of determination

𝑟 correlation coefficient

C.3.2 Determination of the mean value of the long-term bond strength for 25 years
The regression line is determined from the values of the specified load levels and the logarithmic values of the
associated times to failure. Results of times to failure of less than 10 hours may not be included in the assessment.
The failure points are to be shown graphically on a simple logarithmic scale (abscissa: logarithmic division,
ordinate linear division), whereby the logarithm of the time to failure forms the abscissa and the load level forms
the ordinate. The entry of the measured value pairs serves as an aid for the optical verification of the position of
the measured values in relation to the position of the regression line.
Formula of the regression line:
𝐹 , 𝑎 𝑏 ∗ log 𝑡 13
The test results can be regarded as meaningful and suitable for the long-term bond strength if the following
conditions are met:
 the coefficient 𝑏 must be negative.
 the value of the coefficient of determination 𝑟 must be greater than 0,65,
 the value of the residual variance 𝑠 must be less than 0,065.
If one or more of these conditions are not met, a regression analysis cannot be used for extrapolation. This can
be remedied by further tests in the relevant time to failure range.
If three test results are already available for a larger range of time to failure, the regression line determined using
the method described above can also be used to estimate the load levels of the remaining long-term tests.
If the above conditions and the criterion for the minimum number of long-term tests according to C.2.3.6 are met,
the extrapolation of the mean value of the bond strength for 25 years may be carried out. For this purpose, the
regression line according to C.3.1 must be determined for all tests carried out. The logarithm of the mean value
of the long-term bond strength is then obtained by inserting t = 25a≈219.000 h into formula (13):
𝐹 , , 𝑎 𝑏 ∗ log 219000h 14

List of versions of this document

21.02.2020 1st draft
12.03.2021. 2nd draft
29.04.2021. 3rd draft
22.11.2022 4th draft
21.12.2022 5th draft
27.03.2023 editorial update to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

R. Alex, R. Niedermeier, W. Finckh, T. Leusmann 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 758
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex K

Information on evolution and content of
Annex K Bridges

Hans Rudolf Ganz Switzerland

30.09.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 759
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex K Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to provide information on the integration of current EN 1992-2:2005
into FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Annex K, and the evolution of the content of Annex K from the draft prepared by
Project Team PT1, prEN 1992-1-1:2018 (D3), to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023.

Annex K Evolution of content of Annex K

Based on several comments received during the Systematic Review of Eurocode 2, Parts -1-1, -1-2, -2 and -3,
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 had decided early to integrate all design provisions for bridges from current EN 1992-
2:2005 into the main text of the 2nd generation of EN 1992-1-1 and to use design models which are not member-
or structure-specific wherever possible. Also, size effect was to be considered systematically in design
provisions. Hence, TG 9 of CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 was asked to review current EN 1992-2:2005 and to
identify all information which was considered bridge specific and thus should remain in Annex K. In addition,
Task Group 9 also identified a number of topics which are not covered in current EN 1992-2:2005 and should be
added in Annex K. These topics include in particular specific rules for durability, some detailing rules, additional
provisions for external and unbonded tendons. In addition, TG 9 made proposals for amendments of Annex K
for specific types of bridges, in particular for cable-stayed and extradosed bridges, and some specific actions
during construction.
The suggested content prepared by TG 9 was integrated by Project Team PT1 into the draft of Annex K, prEN
1992-1-1:2018 (D3). During further review of the draft Annex K, several proposals for improvements of the
content of Annex K were made. In particular, further text which was considered not bridge-specific was moved
and merged with similar provisions in the main part of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, and some very specific detailing
rules considered as national rules were removed (left to be possibly introduced as NCCI in the interested
country).
In further discussions with TG 8 some fatigue provisions exclusively applicable to bridges were moved from
Clause 10 and Annex E to Annex K. This applies in particular to the -values for road and railway bridges for the
fatigue verification using damage equivalent stress range, fatigue verification for concrete using damage
equivalent stress range, and a Note related to structures and members for which fatigue verification can
generally be omitted.
As part of a harmonization task undertaken by the Coordination Group of CEN/TC 250, the chair persons of
SC10, SC1, SC2 and SC3 agreed with Horizontal Group Bridges to move material independent bridge
provisions to the future EN 1990, Annex A2, and provisions specific to stay cables to the future EN 1993-1-11.
Also, specific rules for actions on bridges during construction, identified by TG 9, were agreed to be moved to
the future EN 1991-1-6. Hence, only concrete-specific rules should remain in Annex K. Extradosed bridges were
considered to be mostly constructed in concrete and hence, these provisions were kept in Annex K.
Finally, CEN/TC 250 decided to harmonise the style of bridge provisions (independent whether included in a
Part -2 or in an Annex to Part -1-1). A number of standard formulations / clauses were proposed. It was also
decided that the bridge provisions should be structured according the main clauses of Parts -1-1, i.e. each of the
main clause titles should be listed in the bridge provisions, and in each clause a text should be added whether
the provisions of Part -1-1 apply or not, and whether there are amendments to the provisions in Part -1-1. These
instructions were implemented in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. N.B.: Similarly, in the main text provisions exclusively
applicable to buildings should be clearly identified as applicable to buildings only.
During CEN Enquiry to prEN 1992-1-1:2021, several clauses were identified with verb-forms “should” and “may”
for which there were requests to have more restrictive rules for bridges in a country. Since such more restrictive
provisions would or could have represented an alteration of the standard, clauses and NDPs were introduced in
Annex K permitting NSBs to specify for these particular clauses “as set-out in this Annex” only, identified with a
NOTE and corresponding NDP’s listed in Clause 0.5, more restrictive rules for applications in bridges only,
within the range of parameters for which the design models of the standard are valid. NOTE 2 of K.1(1) informs
NSB’s of the before-mentioned option. In addition, NOTE 1 of K.1(1) clarifies that NDPs in Clauses 1 to 14 and
Annexes A to S can be given different values in the National Annex for bridge applications. Finally, NOTE 2 of
K.1(1) also informs about the fact that the relevant authority can specify more restrictive rules anyway.

Content of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, Annex K

As a result of the above presented process only few bridge-specific provisions remained in Annex K:
‐ Some specific durability provisions given in K.6, mainly related to exposure to de-icing salts.
‐ Two clauses were added for serviceability limit states in K.9. One is related to crack width limits in
transient design situations (e.g. construction stages), and one is related to damping effects of
pavements and railings or other non-structural components.
‐ -values for road and railway bridges for the fatigue verification of reinforcement using damage
equivalent stress range are provided in K.10.2. Provisions for fatigue verification of concrete in road
and railway bridges using damage equivalent stress range are provided in K.10.3. The general
verification method using damage equivalent stress range is given in Annex E.
‐ Provisions for detailing of members and particular rules are given in K.12. These provisions include

H.R. Ganz 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 760
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex K Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

minimum reinforcement rules to avoid brittle failure which were taken from current EN 1992-2:2005
and simplified. Some additional clauses were added specific to concrete bridges with external and
unbonded internal tendons as well as for cable-stayed, extradosed and suspension bridges.
‐ The rules for verification of joints in precast segmental construction (in particular effect of joint
opening) as given in current EN 1992-2:2005 were kept in K.13.
‐ A series of Notes (NDPs) were introduced to permit NSBs to modify particular clauses and specify
more restrictive rules for the particular clauses.
Although several of the above listed provisions were in fact considered not purely bridge-specific, they were
kept in Annex K since it was felt that these often apply to bridges.

Conclusions
‐ General rules and design models were moved to the main clauses of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023. Only
purely or mainly bridge-specific rules were kept in Annex K.
‐ Provisions for specific types of bridges, in particular cable-stayed bridges, which are not concrete-
specific were moved to future EN 1990, Annex A2, future EN 1991-1-6 and future EN 1993-1-11.
‐ Only few provisions, mainly related to detailing, were kept in Annex K. However, detailing rules which
were considered to be country-specific were omitted. If considered necessary, countries may
introduce such provisions as NCCI in their National Annex.
Figure K.1 illustrates the fact, that the large majority of provisions in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 apply to all types of
structures.

(a) Number of clauses of Parts -1-1 which are valid (b) Total number of bridge-specific clauses (status
for bridges (included), omitted since not valid for drafts 2020-05)
bridges or supplemented to Part -1-1
Note: 19 of the 40 supplemented clauses are for -
values for fatigue verification

Figure K.1: Number of bridge-specific clauses in Eurocodes (status 2020-05)

References

List of versions of this document

05.03.2021. 1st draft prEN 1992-1-1:2020-11
30.09.2022 Updated to FprEN 1992-1-1:2022
24.03.2023 Peer reviewed and editorially updated to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
27.03.2023 Final version

H.R. Ganz 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 761
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC250/SC2 Project Team T3 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG2

Background document to Annex L:

Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Structures

Terje Kanstad NTNU (Norway)

Marco di Prisco Politecnico di Milano
(Italy)
Elena Vidal Sarmiento Bekaert (Spain)
Giovanni Plizzari University of Brescia
(Italy)
Fausto Minelli
University of Brescia
Giuseppe Tiberti
University of Brescia

07.03.2023

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 762
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

L.1 General Annex L – Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete is mainly based on fib Model Code 2010 [LB.1],
and DafStb “Steel fibre reinforced concrete” to the Eurocode system (DAfstb November
2012), [LB.2], in addition to national guidelines and broad practical experience from many
European countries over the last decades and research results.

Scope of Annex L
The annex provides design rules for structures which comprise steel fibre reinforced
concrete (SFRC) with or without reinforcement, pre-stressing or post-tensioning.

The provisions are concerned with normal weight and heavy weight, precast or cast
in place concrete in accordance with 5.1.1. It also includes self-compacting concrete
which special properties (fibre orientation) are taken into account by provisions in
the relevant chapters. Lightweight concrete is not covered due to a lack of
experience, while sprayed concrete is not covered due to the different nature of the
product and its applications.

Slabs on ground which are not required for the structural stability (e.g. industrial
floors) are not intended to be designed to these provisions, and can be designed
based on alternative provisions due to the specific requirements and conditions of
such applications.

The numbering of formulas in this document follows two systems. Equations directly
copied from the main part of this Eurocode are referred with their original number
(L.N), while other formulas are numbered chronologically as (LB.N).

An overview of the Annex and it’s background are also given by di Prisco et al
[LB.39] and de la Fuente et al [LB.40].

Concerning L.4 Verification by the partial factor method-partial factors for materials,
L.4 Basis of design the choice of γSF=1,5 (NDP) for SFRC in tension in ULS, is mainly based on the
background documents [LB.1, LB.2]. fib Model Code [LB.1] recommends 1,5, while
on the other hand the German guidelines [LB.2] uses 1,25, but in addition adds a
reduction factor equal to 0,85 due to long-term effects, so for comparison, the net
result is 1,25/0,85=1,47. Consequently both documents support the choice of
γSF=1,5.

The material factor accounts for uncertainties in material strength and geometrical
parameters in addition to the model uncertainty. The choice γSF=1,5 as for concrete
in compression is reasonable even though the statistical scatter is known to be
larger for steel fibre concrete in post-cracking tension (mainly due to the small
fracture area of standard beams) than for concrete in compression. This is

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 763
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

acceptable because the characteristic strength in Annex L in general is limited to

60% of the mean strength due to rules that will be included in the future revision of
EN 206, and because the choice of the design parameters at 0,5 and 2,5 mm crack
widths adds additional safety to the structural members as illustrated in Figure
LB.1. See also section L.15 Requirements for materials: SFRC in FprEN 1992-1-1.
Relevant background literature is for instance [LB.4, LB.8]. The topic is further
elaborated for the various failure types and structural members in later sections.

For SFRC in compression, the values given in FprEN 1992-1-1 Table 4.3(NDP)
apply. The background is that it is assumed that neither the compressive strength
nor its statistical scatter are significantly influenced by steel fibres.

a)

b)

Figure LB.1. Illustration of additional safety added to SFRC structural members through the
choice of design strength parameters and the limitation of the characteristic strength.
Results from EN 14651 testing for two different fibre types (6 beams), and rigid plastic or
linear stress distribution. Source: Unpublished test results from NTNU, Department of
Structural Engineering.

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 764
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

L.5 Materials The system with residual strength and ductility classes is based on fib Model Code 2010
[LB.1], and residual strength test data from experiments applying EN 14651 [LB.3]. The
reason for including the classes is mainly practical convenience, and since the users of
European concrete standards are used to strength classes.

L.5.2 Strength Residual Flexural Tensile Strength

The use of residual strength from three-point beam-testing in accordance with EN 14651
[LB.3] is a simple method to indirectly determine the residual tensile strength of the fibre
concrete as shown in Figure LB.2. Although many other test methods are described in
the research literature and in various national or international guidelines, this is the only
one being a European Standard. This is the main reason for applying this standard.

There are a large number of publications where test results from this method are
compared to alternative methods, see for instance [LB.4, LB.5, LB.6, LB.7].

Section L.15 in Annex L requires that the test report shall contain the load-CMOD curve
or the load-deflection curve and the limit of proportionality (LOP) according to EN 14651.
However, only the following parameters from the EN 14651-test are used for
classification according to Annex L:
fct,L fctk,L = Mean and characteristic flexural tensile strength at 1st crack or alternatively the
highest value until a crack width=0,05 mm for bending hardening behaviour.
fR,1m fR,1k=Mean and characteristic residual flexural tensile strength at 0,5 mm crack width
fR,3m fR,3k =Mean and characteristic residual flexural tensile strength at 2,5 mm crack width

The characteristic residual tensile strength depends on the fibre-matrix bond strength,
which is usually a function of the compressive strength of the parent concrete, as well as
the fibre type and content, and the fibre distribution and orientation. It may be unrealistic
to specify a high value of fR,1k when using a relatively low value of fck. To avoid brittle
behaviour, the content and type of steel fibres should be conveniently adjusted to the
SFRC compressive strength. One contribution to achieve this, is the requirement:
𝑓 , ⁄𝑓 , . 0,5 (L.1)
This limitation implicates that the lowest residual strength classes are: 1,0 for C12/15-
C30/37, 1,5 for C35/45-C55/67 and 2,0 for C60/75-C90/105.

Adjustment of characteristic residual strengths as basis for design

One disadvantage by the three-point bending test in EN 14651 is a relatively large
statistical scatter resulting in low characteristic strength values. Although this is partly due
to the nature of the fibre concrete material itself, another major reason is the small
specimen size (b/h/L=150/150/550 mm). It is well documented that such large statistical
scatter does not occur for larger test specimens, and especially when the size of the
involved failure zones are large [LB.1, LB.2, LB.8]. To contribute to economical, safe and
robust solutions an approach applying two aligned parameters 𝜅 , and 𝜅 is
included:

In the planned revision of EN 206 an upper bound, 𝜅 , , of the characteristic values,

which are derived from the statistical evaluation of beam specimens, is introduced:

𝜅 , 0,60 (LB.1)
𝑓 , ∗ min 𝑓 , ; 𝜅 , ∙𝑓 , (LB.2)
𝑓 , ∗ min 𝑓 , ;𝜅 , ∙𝑓 , (LB.3)

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 765
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

This reduction takes into account the difference between the residual flexural
performance obtainable from a prismatic sample characterized by a reduced
volume involved in the cracking process (13.5 l), cast in a lab, and a significant
volume cast on site following the same casting procedure used to fill the formworks
of the real structure. The choice of the coefficient 𝜅 , has been calibrated
observing the standard deviation reachable in the latter conditions [LB.4, LB.26,
LB.27, LB.28, LB.29].

In case of redundant structures, the possibility to activate several parallel resistant

mechanisms reduce the standard deviation of the structure response: for this
reason, in these situations, a specific coefficient 𝜅 is introduced with the aim to
reduce the standard deviation, measured on the bending tests carried out according
to EN 14651 for the characterization, to evaluate the global response of a full-scale
redundant structure like an elevated plate [LB.32] or, even more, a ground slab
[LB.33]. The computation of this coefficient should depend on the redundancy of the
structure and on the volume of the structure involved in the failure process
LB.30,LB.31]. Nevertheless, in Annex L it is introduced as only a function of the
structural volume involved in the failure mode (Formula L.6) and it is limited to a
maximum value of 1,5. The introduction of this coefficient, instead of the coefficient
kRd as suggested in the Model Code 2010 [LB.1], by operating directly on the SFRC
tensile property, allows to confine its effect to SFRC contribution and simplifies the
computation of this effect in cross sections where fibres are coupled to conventional
reinforcement.

The maximum characteristic value κk,max is aligned with the maximum value for κG,
to ensure that the unfactored design strengths never will exceed 90% of the mean
strengths:

𝜅 , 0,6 (corresponds to 6 test specimens, and COV ≤ 20%) (LB.4)

𝜅 , 0,90⁄𝜅 , 0,90⁄0,60 1,5

For background information on 𝜅 , , see documents [LB.1, LB.2, LB.8]. It is

important to state that, in Annex L, the use of this approach is general and included
in the verification towards experimental results. In [LB.2] the approach is used for
moment and shear force dimensioning and crack width calculations. In [LB.1], a
more comprehensive proposal is presented, and in [LB.8] the approach from [LB.1]
and the approach in this Annex are compared.

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 766
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure LB.2. Determination of residual flexural tensile strength from EN 14651 [LB.3]

Performance classes
The performance classes in Annex L are based on the characteristic residual
flexural strengths fR,1k* and fR,3k* including the corrections specified in Formula
(LB.2) and (LB.3) above. In the annex they are still denoted as fR,1k and fR,3k and
should be taken from Table L.2 shown below. The classification is denominated
according to fR,1k and the ratio fR,3k/fR,1k denominated by a letter. The letter defines
the ductility class which is illustrated in Figure LB.3.

It is also important that the values of characteristic residual flexural strength used in
this standard correspond to those determined according to EN 14651 at the age tref
defined in 5.1.3(2). The value of tref may be chosen in the interval between 28 and
91 days and, when required, the strength of SFRC should be specified for times t

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 767
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

that can be before or after tref for a number of construction stages (e.g. demoulding,
removal of propping, transfer of prestress).

To favour the class recognition of a specified material, in Table L.2, the designer
can immediately identify the related class, comparing the characteristic values fR1k
and fR3k computed on the basis of the results experimentally obtained by a series of
at least 6 bending tests carried out according to EN 14651. The characteristic
values are computed selecting the log-normal approach as defined in EC0,
respecting the limitations LB.2 and LB.3 with the Strength Classes (SC) indicated in
the table.

Figure LB.3. Illustration of the performance and ductility classes and a fictitious test
result for a ductility class “b”- concrete.

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 768
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Compressive strength
The use of steel fibre reinforced concrete increases the compressive ductility and
should thus allow for an increase of both the brittleness factor ηfc and the ultimate
compressive strains εc1 to εcu1 given in FprEN 1992-1-1 Figure 5.1.

The average increase of energy consumption during a stress-strain test on a

standard cylinder may be over 400% greater than that of the corresponding base
concrete. The changes in the parameters of the stress-strain relation in (LB.12)
and (LB.13) below reflect the actual ductility of SFRC depending on the value of
fR,1k, as shown in the database and subsequent analysis in the references [LB.9,
LB.10, LB.11]. The relation between σc and εc in compression in FprEN 1992-1-1
Formula (5.6) may be used to model the response of SFRC to short-term uniaxial
compression provided the following modifications in the parameters are made:

εc1(‰)= 0,7 fcm1/ 3 (1+0,03 fR,1k ) (L.12)

and for εc1 ≤ ε ≤ εcu1

𝑘 1 (L.13) εcu1=k εc1 (L.14)

, ,

where fcm and fR1,k must be inserted in MPa.

Other relevant material properties

Steel fibres do not significantly affect the modulus of elasticity, the Poisson’s ratio,
the creep and shrinkage properties, nor the thermal expansion coefficient of the
matrix due to the relatively low volume ratio.

For some specific applications (e.g. large pre-stressed towers for wind turbines and long-
span bridges), such properties may be decisive for the design, and should thus be
checked on the composite and not on the concrete to which the fibres are added.

Design residual tensile strength

L.5.5.1 Design residual
The overall background for the transfer from residual flexural tensile strength to uniaxial
tensile strengths
residual tensile strength is from [LB.1, LB.2], and several older guideline-documents.
Two simple models are introduced: the rigid plastic model and the linear stress-strain model.

The rigid-plastic model is the simplest approach: it is aimed at reproducing the resistant
bending moment of a cross section, with or without conventional reinforcement. It assumes
a stress-block in uniaxial tension, defining a value of uniaxial tension resistance, fFtuk,
developed at ultimate limit state, that means at a crack opening of 2.5 mm.
The parameter 𝑓 , is the effective characteristic residual tensile strength to be used in
ULS in a rigid plastic approach for moment design, and for shear, punching and torsion
design, and is defined as:

𝑓 , 0,33 ∙ 𝜅O  𝜅G 𝑓 , (L.3)

The factor 0,33 is computed assuming the compression force concentrated in the top fibre
and imposing the rotational equilibrium in order to obtain the experimental bending moment
at CMOD = 2.5 mm and considering unitary 0 and G. The same result can be obtained by
assuming a stress-bock in compression applied to 0.08h, where h is the net depth of the

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 769
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

notched cross section and a stress-block in tension characterized by the ultimate strength
as defined in Formula (L.5).
When this ultimate strength is coupled to the pre-peak elastic behaviour in tension and to
parabola-rectangular model in compression, x remains always lower than 10% of the net
depth of the section, as illustrated in Figure LB.4c, and the model gives always a safe
result. This safe result is not achieved in case the ultimate tensile strength was evaluated
with the coefficient 0.37 instead of 0.33 (Fig. LB.4b).

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure. LB.4 – (a) kinematic model and stress distribution assumed at ULS; (b) computed
bending moment vs. experimental bending moment for the ultimate strength evaluated with
rigid-plastic approach fFtu,ef, when Sargin’s model in compression and elastoplastic model in
tension are assumed; (c) x-axis position for several concrete compression strength and
several classes adopted. [Prepared by M. di Prisco and G. Zani for a discussion in
EC2/TC250/WG1/SC2/TG2].

In SLS the parameter 𝑓 , is introduced.

𝑓 , 0,37 ∙ 𝜅O  𝜅G ∙ 𝑓 , (L.2)

It is the effective characteristic residual tensile strength for a CMOD equal to 0,5 mm and it
may be derived by axial and moment equilibrium assuming an elastic behaviour in
compression and an elastoplastic behaviour in tension, with the same elastic modulus Ec,
using always a unitary 0 and G. In Figure LB.5c the x-axis position is computed, while in
Figure LB.5d the maximum compressive stress reached for several class strengths, in the
ranges C35  fck  C120 and 1  fR1k  14, is indicated. It is worth noting that the choice of
the coefficient 0.37 is not on the safe side only for fR1k lower than 3 MPa, but the error is

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 770
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

confined to less than 5% (the error is different when using the coefficient 0,4 proposed in
other codes).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure. LB.5 – (a) kinematic model and stress distribution assumed at SLS; (b) computed
bending moment vs. experimental bending moment for the SLS effective strength evaluated
with elasto-plastic approach; (c) x-axis position for several concrete classes; (d) related
maximum compressive strength reached. [Prepared by M. di Prisco and G. Zani for a
discussion in EC2/TC250/WG1/SC2/TG2].

Fibre-orientation is a crucial topic for design of SFRC, especially when the concretes are
flowable, and in the Annex an approach similar to the approaches in [LB.1 and LB.2] is
being used, by correcting the residual strength with an orientation factor 𝜅 .
Firstly, it is important to state that 𝜅 1,0 represents the fibre orientation in the
EN 14651 test beam. Secondly, to be on the safe side, it is stated that 𝜅 should be
taken as 𝜅 0,5 unless otherwise specified in this annex or verified by testing.

In general, 𝜅 1,0 is recommended for cases where long relevant experience has
shown that the “in-situ-strength” and fibre orientation are comparable to the
EN 14651 beam test. Furthermore, for shear, punching and torsion design in ULS ,
and crack width calculations in SLS, 𝜅 1,0 is used in the model verification and
may therefore also be used in determination of the relevant design strength.

On the other hand, 𝜅 0,5 has to be used for cases where the verification is
considered to be not sufficient (f.i. for ties in strut & tie models, and for partially
loaded areas and walls).

For self-compacting concrete the following clause is included: For self-compacting concrete,
𝜅 in every direction should be experimentally determined by using specimens and casting

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 771
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

methods representative for the real structure. For design the value of κO shall not exceed
1.7, that corresponds to the ratio between the unitary orientation factor α0 = 1 corresponding
to a full alignement of the fibres to one direction perpendicular to the crack plane and the
orientation factor α0 = 0.58 assumed to be representative for the EN 14651 specimen, as
computed in [LB.34].

Adjustment of design strength to account for resilience and failure zone size
For serviceability and ultimate limit state design the design strengths,𝑓 𝑓 ,
𝑓 and 𝑓 , from Section L.5 may be increased by multiplying with the factor:

𝜅 1,0 𝐴 ∙ 0,5 1,5 (L.6)

in which Act=area of the tension zone (in m²) of the cross-section involved in the failure of
an equilibrium system. This coefficient becomes significant only for ground slabs and
elevated plates, because of the large volume of the structure involved in the failure
mechanism.

As previously stated in L.5, this aproach makes it possible to utilize the material up to 90%
of the average strength. The most relevant background documents are [LB.1, LB.2, LB.8,
LB.30, LB.31, LB.32].

In Section L.15 Requirements for materials it is stated that under certain conditions
𝜅 , 0,70 may be used. In that case the maximum value for 𝜅 shall be
reduced to 1,3.

Finally the values for the design residual strengths, fFtsd and fFtud should be
calculated as:

𝑓 ∙𝑓 , /𝛾 (L.4)

𝑓 ∙𝑓 , /𝛾 (L.5)

L.5.5.2 Stress-strain relationships in tension

For structural analysis the constitutive law given in Figure L.1 may be used. It is
based on the approach with variable lcs now denoted structural length from fib Model
Code 2010 [LB.1]. The parameters, which later also are used for the linear stress
distribution for capacity calculations (Section L.8.1), should be determined as:

𝑓 , = 𝜅 ∙ 𝜅 ∙ 0,37 fR,1k (L.7)

𝑓 , = 𝜅 ∙ 𝜅 ∙ (0,57 fR,3k – 0,26 fR,1k) (L.8)
𝜀 𝑤 ⁄𝑙 2,5 mm⁄𝑙 𝜀 (L.9)
lcs = min {h; sr,m,cal,F} for members subjected to combined axial and bending (L.10)
lcs = sr,m,cal,F for members subjected to uniaxial tension
sr,m,cal,F =1,5∙c ∙ 1 𝛼  ℎ 𝑥 ∙ (L.26, L28)
. ,
, ∙ ∙ ∙ ,
𝛼 = (L27)

𝜀 𝑓 ⁄𝐸 and 𝜀 , 2∙𝜀 See Figure L.1 (L.11)

where sr,m,cal,F is the mean crack spacing defined in Section L.9.3.

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 772
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

It is stated, as a note, that the value of 𝜀 is 0,02 unless a National Annex gives a
different value.

Figure L.1 Constitutive law for structural analysis

The relationships (L.7) corresponds to fFts,ef defined in (L2), while (L.8) is based on
moment equilibrium of the notched cross-section, considering only the net depth,
assuming a plane-section approach, spreading the strain in the region of the notch
characterized by a width corresponding to the characteristic structural length, a tensile
constitutive law that is rigid-linear softening and a compressive force concentrated in
the top fibre [LB.35].

If a non-linear check of the equation is carried out by considering an elasto-softening

model in tension and a parabola-rectangular model in compression (Figure LB.6a),
the results in Figure LB.6b highlight the error associated to the expression proposed
for several strength classes. The linear-softening model is always more precise than
the elasto-plastic model, the error never exceeds 5% and the x-axis position ranges
between 3% and 8% of the net depth and the failure always is reached with a
maximum compressive stress lower than the uniaxial compression strength.

It is important to underline that the safety introduced by the classes and by the high standard
deviation induces quite always a high safety coefficient, as shown in Figure LB.7 with
reference to 18 materials analysed in the classes (1b, 1e, 2c, 2.5c, 3e, 5c, 6c), in terms of
ultimate bending moments.

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 773
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure. LB.6 – (a) kinematic model and stress distribution assumed for the linear softening
model; (b) computed bending moment vs. experimental bending moment at ULS evaluated
with elasto-plastic model and linear softening model; (c) x-axis position for several concrete
classes; (d) related maximum compressive strength reached with the two model. [Prepared
by M. di Prisco and G. Zani for a discussion in EC2/TC250/WG1/SC2/TG2].

Figure. LB.7 – Safety coefficient computed as the ratio between experimental bending
moment at CMOD = 2.5 mm, M (wu), and the computed bending moment based on elasto-
linear softening model expressed by (L7-L8) relationships, taking into account unitary values
for 0 and G, and sF = 1.5 [LB.39].

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 774
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Where non-linear finite element analysis is undertaken, lcs has to consider the
kinematic model adopted and its value has to be calibrated: it can be estimated in the
range of finite element size. The check of reliability can be investigated reproducing
the behaviour of EN 14651 test [LB.35, LB.36].

When a plane-section approach is used, the ultimate strain 𝜀 is set equal to 0,02
unless a National Annex gives a different value. This value corresponds to an ultimate
crack opening equal to 2.5 mm and a lcs equal to 125 mm. The simplified approach is
based on the assumption of a constant lcs (=125mm) [LB.1 and LB.2]. This
simplification is justified by that the structural length usually is lower or equal to 125
mm. In some thin-webbed open cross-sections, made of the same material, different
lcs can be assumed LB.36, §5]. The constitutive law indicated in Fig. LB.7 can be used
if serviceability conditions are investigated. When a cross-section check is carried out,
the dashed pre-peak behavior is neglected in agreement with the hypotheses
assumed for Reinforced Concrete.

L.6 Durability Steel fibres close to the surface may be subject to corrosion and may potentially
cause rust stains. Due to their relatively small diameter, no spalling from the
corrosion of the fibres will occur, and this will not impact durability. However, the
surface layers of SFRC structures are still vulnerable to deterioration, and therefore
two approaches are included in the Annex L, whether the concrete is designed to be
uncracked or cracked.

Uncracked SFRC in exposed environments

For design of SFRC in exposure classes XC2-XC4, XD1-XD3, and XS1-XS3, designed to
be uncracked, the tensile strength in the outer most tension fibres shall be disregarded
within a layer of cf,dur = 10 mm from the exposed surface. The background is that recent
investigations [LB.12, LB.13] have shown that alteration of the fibre-matrix bond strength
may occur due to alteration of the outermost concrete matrix under e.g. wet-dry exposure
(e.g. due to leaching, carbonation etc.).This may lead to both a decrease of the fibre-
matrix bond strength or else an excessive increase of it (e.g. leading to fibre rupture), that
are not fully understood so far.

Cracked SFRC in exposed environments

Steel fibres in cracks are more exposed to corrosion than in uncracked concrete.
Therefore, for SFRC in exposure classes XC2-XC4, XD1-XD3, and XS1-XS3
designed to be cracked, the residual tensile strength in the outer most tension
fibres shall be disregarded with a distance of cf,dur 𝑘 ∙ 𝑐 , from the
exposed surface, unless protective measures are applied to the steel fibres. The
background is mainly [LB.12, LB.13, LB.14].

Reduced crack width reduces the corrosion risk, and there is therefore a possibility
of reducing the offer-layer by reducing the calculated crack widths. If the
characteristic crack width calculated in accordance with Section 9 is less than the
crack width limit (wlim) stated in Table 9.2 and L.9.3, the values of cf,dur may be
reduced as follows:

,
𝑐, 𝑘 ∙𝑐 , 10 mm (L.13)

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 775
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Minimum cover
To avoid fibre accumulation, a minimum cover of cmin = 20 mm to embedded
reinforcement shall be used for all SFRC members. Obviously, this is not related to
durability, but is included in L.6 Durability for ease of use.

L.7 Structural Analysis

Plastic Analysis
This is an important topic for SFRC as application of elastic theory in statically
indetermined members often is considered to be inefficient for two main reasons:
-Because the steel fibres are uniformly distributed, their contribution to the
moment capacity is the same all over the structural members, and moment peaks
over supports typically found from elastic theory may be difficult to handle in an
economical way.
-The addition of steel fibres in commonly used dosages does not greatly increase
the peak flexural resistance of the concrete because the fibres come into effect
after the peak flexural load [LB.15].
On the other hand, it must be considered that the ductility of SFRC structures is lower
than for ordinary reinforced concrete, and therefore not always sufficient to allow
application of plastic analysis. It is important that this may apply to SFRC both without
and with additional longitudinal reinforcing bars and is illustrated by experimental results
in Figure LB.8. This is the main reason for the limited allowance for using plastic analysis
for structures made of SFRC in this Annex.
The ductility in beams can be usually guaranteed only if a suitable amount of conventional
reinforcement is introduced; otherwise, the maximum bending moment, taking into account
fibre contribution, is always reached, but the localization in one cross-section can be
induced by a not homogeneous distribution of fibres along the beam axis and this
occurrence can transform the expected ductile response into a brittle one as shown in
[LB.37, LB.38, LB.40, LB.41].
A suggestion given by Gebreyesus et al. [LB.38], introduces an effective reinforcement
ratio computed as eff = sft/fy, that controls the capability to activate the yielding of the
reinforcement not only in few cracks, “m”, but in all the cracks, “n”, formed in the bent
cracked region (Figure LB.7). It can be observed that if eff exceeds 1%, all the cracks are
activated and reinforcement yields guaranteeing the same ductility of conventional R/C
beams.
As background for the exceptions made in L.7 Plastic analysis, it should be noted that for
concrete slabs (on ground, on piles or elevated), plastic analysis usually means yield line
analysis based on the upper bound theorem of the theory of plasticity. For this to be safe,
it has to be known by experience that the type of assumed mechanisms can develop. Or
it has to be proven that the plastic deformation capacity of the critical sections are
sufficient for the envisaged mechanism to be formed. For the cases specified in Clause
L.7 this is assumed to be verified by research literature and long practical experience
[LB.2, LB.15, LB.18, LB.28, LB.32, LB.36, LB.37].

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 776
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

a)

b)

Figure LB.8. Ductility of ordinary reinforced concrete versus SFRC-structures with and
without longitudinal bars. (a)Simply supported beams, ρs=0,28%, vf=0,75%, [LB.16]. (b)
Simply supported slabs, vf=0,75% [LB.17].

Figure LB.9. Variability of cracks that open in a bent beam due to yielding of reinforcement
as function of eff = sft/fy. n = number of cracks propagated in the pre-peak behaviour; m
= number of cracks where yielding of the reinforcement takes place [x13].

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 777
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

L.8 Ultimate limit states Moment and axial force contribution from residual tensile strength
Similarly, as for concrete in compression, strain distributions for use in the capacity
L.8.1 Bending with or
without axial force calculations are given in the Annex. The parameters are taken directly from the post-
cracking loads on the three-point loaded beam in EN 14651, through the fictitious flexural
strengths as previously explained in Section L.5.

Moment and axial force contribution from compressive strength

The average strain under maximum load in a compressive test is around 30%
larger than in that of the corresponding plain concrete [LB.9, LB10, LB.11], which
explains the increase of εc2 below. Similarly, the ultimate strain may be calculated
by taking into account that the energy consumed in a rectangular post-peak branch
of the stress-strain curve corresponds to the average increase of such energy in
the database in the above references.

Based on the references [LB.9, LB10, LB.11], the stress distribution in Formula
(8.4) may therefore be used for SFRC. The only change is that the limit strains εc2
and εcu for SFRC in Formulas (8.4a) and (8.4b) may be taken as: εc2 = 0,0025 and
εcu = 0,006.

Verification of the approach for moment design

The check of the global behavior has been carried out with reference to foundation beams
[LB.4], ground slabs [LB.36], pile supported slabs [LB.36] and elevated slabs [LB.28, LB.32,
LB.36, LB.37].

L.8.2 Shear
Shear
Steel fibres work as distributed shear reinforcement crossing the shear cracks as
illustrated in Figure LB.6 below. Furthermore, the experience with steel fibres as shear
reinforcement is wide.

Figure LB.10. Steel fibres working as distributed shear reinforcement.

For SFRC with longitudinal bars in the tensile zone, the design value of the shear
strength should be taken as:

𝜏 , ƞ ∙𝜏 , ƞ ∙𝑓 ƞ ∙𝜏 , ƞ ∙𝑓 (L.19)

ƞ max 1,2 0,5𝑓 ; 0,4 1,0 (L.20)

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 778
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

ƞ 1,0
In this formula the shear reinforcing effect of the steel fibres is described by the additional
term, fFtud as illustrated in Figure LB.10, at the same time as the parameter ƞcF expresses
that the fibre reinforcement term is not fully additive to the ordinary reinforced concrete
contribution, as illustrated in Figure LB.11b) below. The formula is verified against the
experimental data base of [LB.19] in [LB.20] and [LB.43].
When, on the basis of the design shear calculation, no shear reinforcement is required,
minimum shear reinforcement may be needed according to Section L12.
The validity range of the formulas related to residual strength, compressive strength,
cross section size, reinforcement ratio and shear span is illustrated in Figure LB.12
below. It is seen that the experimental data is reasonably well distributed over the entire
range of fR3-values ranging from 1,3 to 10,6 MPa, while the majority of data points belong
to flexural strengths (fR3 ) below 7,5 MPa. From Figure LB.12b), it is further seen that the
experimental data are reasonably well distributed over effective heights between 210 and
1440 mm, shear spans a/d between 2,5 and 4,9, reinforcement amounts (ρ) between 0,9
and 3,7%, and finally compressive strengths between 19 and 96 MPa. It should be noted
that there is lack of data for reinforcement areas between typical minimum reinforcement
ratios (0,2%) and 0,9%; the explanation is simply that it is not possible to obtain
experimental shear failure for such cases, since moment failure then will be always
decisive for possible test set-ups.
It has so far not been documented that the provisions hold for situations with axial
tension, and therefore should the fibre contributions not be applied to members subject to
shear in combination with axial tension without further investigations.

500 1.20
Vanalytical Foster + RILEM + UniBS
[kN]
1/ factor
450
Database
1.00
400 Characteristic
parameters
350 0.80 2017 approach

300 2018 approach

0.60
250

200
0.40
150

100 0.20
MAPE = 25.41%
μ = 0.80
50 C.o.v = 0.280 Vexp
0.00
[kN] 0 2 4 6 8
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Figure LB.11. (a) Calculated versus experimental shear capacities, (b) Illustration of the ƞ-
parameter expressing that the fibre reinforcement term is not fully additive to the ordinary
reinforced concrete contribution [LB.20, LB43].

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 779
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

3.0
Fibre contribution on shear strength

2.5 Quadratic
polynomial curve

Vu,FRC / Vu,RS [-]

R2=0.35

2.0

1.5

1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
fR,3 [MPa]

Figure LB.12. Validity range of formulas. (a) Capacity vs residual tensile strength, (b)
Parameter range for the experimental data base [LB.19].

For members with SFRC that require design shear reinforcement, and have
longitudinal bars in the tensile zone, the design value of the shear strength should
be taken as:

𝜏 , ƞ 𝜌 𝑓 ƞ 𝑓 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 𝜌 𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 (L.21)

ƞ 0,75 and ƞ 1,0

The parameters ƞsw =0,75 and ƞF=1,0 express that the two contributions are not fully
additive. In the literature some research supports the proposed approach, while
others do not, and report that the full capacity of both should be included. The
German regulations, however, assumes full addition of the two terms [LB.2].

L.8.3 Torsion Torsion

The background is the experimental series reported by Oettel [LB.21] and Facconi et al
[LB.22]. The number of experiments are relatively few, and the parameter variation
therefore limited, but on the other hand, the safety margin seems to be large. The
background is partly also the provisions in [LB.2].
The effect of the fibres is, like for shear, distributed reinforcement crossing the cracks,
and the proposed approach is therefore supported by all the positive experiences
achieved in shear.

Punching shear
L.8.4 Punching The provisions for punching shear are based on the same principles as above with an
additional contribution to the design punching shear stress resistance from the fibres
expressed as:
𝜂 ⋅𝑓 with the parameter 𝜂 0,4

Compared to the German regulations [LB.2], the additional stress resistance is somewhat
larger, however including that the critical section now lies 0,5d from the edge of the load,
compared to 2,0d in the German regulations (as in current EC2), the total capacity
contribution is significantly less in Annex L. For further details and background see
reference [LB.43].

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 780
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Similarly as above it has not been proven that the provisions hold for situations with axial
tension, and therefore the fibre contributions should not be applied to members subject to
punching shear in combination with axial tension unless further investigations are carried
out.

L.9 Serviceability limit

Crack width calculations
States Most SFRC structures are designed to crack under tension, thus design for cracking in
SLS is an important topic. The effects of the fibres are reduced tensile strains and
reinforcement stresses, deformations and crack widths. This can be accounted for
utilizing the post-cracking stress-crack width or stress-strain relationships as described in
Annex L. An accurate method is only specified for the crack width calculation in Clause
L.9.3. The latter method is founded on previously published approaches in [LB.1, LB.2],
where the crack spacing is reduced by introduction of the residual strength in the crack
spacing formula.
The final equation for the crack spacing is optimized to an experimental data base by
Plizzari et al [LB.23, LB.24] as illustrated in Figure LB.13.

The reduction in crack width is two-fold since both the crack spacing and the strain
difference between the steel and concrete is reduced, as illustrated by for instance
Berrocal et al [LB.25], Figure LB.14d. The reduction in reinforcement stress must be
determined by conventional cross-section analysis. Furthermore, the crack pattern inside
the concrete may look different for SFRC as illustrated in Figure LB.14.a-c.

Figure LB.13. Predicted versus measured mean crack spacing, Mean Absolute Percentage
Error, MAPE = 21.37% [LB.23, LB.24, LB.44] and Giovanni Plizzari [Private
communication].

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 781
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

d)

Figure LB.14. Internal crack profiles of beams subjected to bending for (a) reinforced
concrete, (b) and (c) hybrid reinforced concrete with steel fibres d) Schematic drawing
illustrating the effects of steel fibres [LB.25].

L.10 Fatigue The topic was thoroughly discussed at several TG 2 meetings until 2018, but it was found
that the results found in the literature were diverging, and it was not possible to agree on
provisions for the Annex. For fatigue verification of SFRC members, the contribution of
fibres should be neglected, unless the fibre effect can be demonstrated from sufficient
and specific testing. This statement holds for fatigue of SFRC under both compression
and tension.

L.11 Detailing of Steel fibres can enhance the anchorage of reinforcing bars and pre-tensioned
Reinforcement and tendons. Especially the transfer and anchorage lengths of pre-tensioned tendons
Post-tensioning may be reduced. However, currently there are no general and validated design rules
Tendons available.
In the Annex it is stated that a clear bar distance ≥ kf times the fibre length should
be used. This limit is included to avoid agglomeration of fibres between reinforcing
bars. The value of kf is 2,0 unless a National Annex gives a different value.

The principle of this section is that the resisting tensile force after cracking
comprises the effects from the reinforcement and the fibres with fFtu,ef including κO

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 782
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

L.12 Detailing of and κG according to relevant clauses. Thus, parts of the reinforcing bars may be
members and replaced by steel fibres.
particular rules
Note that it is stated in L.14.1(1) in FprEN 1992-1-1 that members having less
reinforcement than As,min given in L.12 shall be designed in accordance with the
provisions in Section L.14.

The minimum reinforcement is also important to make the design for shear and
torsion consistent.

In the Annex, it is stated that where quality control measures in accordance with the
L.13 Additional Rules
relevant execution standard are applied, the characteristic values 𝑓 , and 𝑓 , may be
for precast concrete
element and structures determined using 𝜅 , 1,0 if 𝜅 1,0. In this case residual strength and ductility classes
according to Table L.2 may be neglected.
This provision recognises the quality control and testing methods available at
precasting yards to permit the use of more favourable strength parameters.

L.14 SFRC Lightly The intention is that this clause shall provide additional rules and procedures for
reinforced SFRC SFRC structural members where the minimum reinforcement is less than the
Strucures requirements in clause L.12.

L.14.4.3 Shear resistance of SFRC members without longitudinal reinforcement

For SFRC without longitudinal bars or prestressing tendons in the tensile zone, the
design value of the shear strength should be taken as:

𝜏 , 𝑓 (L.35)

Experience has shown that this may be too conservative. One option to be considered is
addition of a minimum term like in formulas (L.21) and (L.25).

Serviceability limit states

For SFRC members without longitudinal bars, and structural hardening behaviour
under bending with or without axial compression, the maximum crack spacing may
be determined as:
Sr,max,cal= h - x (L.28)

L.15 Requirements for

materials: SFRC This section adds some requirements to the material SFRC. It is needed mainly due to the
lack of relevant content in present EN 206. Parts of this section might therefore be
superfluous when EN 206 is revised and updated towards the content in FprEN 1992-1-1.

References [LB.1] fib Model Code 2010 for concrete structures (2013), fib Lausanne.
[LB.2] DIN-EN; “Steel fibre reinforced concrete” to the Eurocode system (DAfstb
November 2012)

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 783
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[LB.3] CEN: EN 14651(2004) Test method for metallic fibred concrete – Measuring the
flexural tensile strength (limit of proportionality (LOP), residual).
[LB.4] Martinelli, Colombo, de la Fuente, Cavalaro, Pujadas, di Prisco; Characterization
tests for SFRC elevated slabs: design considerations. Manuscript submitted for
publication in Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions(2020).
[LB.5] Martinelli, Colombo, Pujadas, de la Fuente, Cavalaro, di Prisco; Characterization
tests for SFRC elevated slabs: identification of fibre distribution and orientation effects.
Manuscript submitted for publication in Materials and Structures/Materiaux et
Constructions (2020).
[LB.6] Zirgulis, G.; Svec, O.; Sarmiento, EV, Geiker, MR, Cwirzen, A., Kanstad, T
Importance of quantification of steel fibre orientation for residual flexural tensile
strength in FRC. Materials and Structures 2016 ;Volum 49.(9) s. 3861-3877.
[LB.7] Sandbakk, S. (2011) Fibre reinforced concrete, PhD‐thesis, Department of
structural engineering, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
[LB.8] di Prisco, Martinelli, Parmentier (2016) ; On the reliability of the design
approach for FRC structures according to fib Model Code 2010: The case of
elevated slabs. fib Structural Concrete.
[LB.9] G. Ruiz, Á. De La Rosa, E. Poveda. Relationship between residual flexural
strength and compression strength in steel-fiber reinforced concrete within the new
Eurocode 2 regulatory framework. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics
103 (2019) 102310.
[LB.10] G. Ruiz, Á. De La Rosa, S. Wolf, E. Poveda. Model for the compressive
stress–strain relationship of steel fiber-reinforced concrete for non-linear structural
analysis. Hormigón y Acero 69 Suppl. 1 (2018) 75–80.
[LB.11] Á. De La Rosa, G. Ruiz, E. Poveda. Study of the Compression Behavior of
Steel-Fiber Reinforced Concrete by Means of the Response Surface Methodology.
App. Sci. 9:24 (2019) 5330.
[LB.12] V. Marcos-Meson, Durability of steel fibre reinforced concrete in corrosive
environments, PhD-thesis, Technical University of Denmark, 2019.
[LB.13] P. Hagelia, Deterioration Mechanisms and Durability of Sprayed Concrete
for Rock Support in Tunnels, PhD-thesis, Technical University of Deltf, 2011.
[LB.14] V. Marcos-Meson, A. Michel, A. Solgaard, G. Fischer, C. Edvardsen, T.L.
Skovhus, Corrosion resistance of steel fibre reinforced concrete - A literature
review, Cem. Concr. Res. 103 (2018) 1–20.
[LB.15] Sotirios Oikonomou-Mpegetis, Behaviour and design of steel fibre
reinforced concrete slabs. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Imperial College London, 2013.
[LB.16] A.N.Dancygier, Z.Savir, Flexural behavior of HSFRC with low
reinforcement ratios. Engineering Structures 28 (2006) pp 1503-1512.
[LB.17] Å.L.Døssland. Fibre reinforcement in load carrying concrete structures:
Laboratory and field investigations compared with theory and finite element
analysis, PhD-thesis, Department of structural engineering, NTNU, Trondheim,
Norway (2008).
[LB.18] H.Falkner, Z.Huang, M. Teutsch, Comparative study of plain and steel fiber
reinforced ground slabs, Concrete international 17, pp45-51, (1995).
[LB.19] Cuenca, E., Conforti, A., Minelli, F., Plizzari, G.A., Navarro Gregori, J., Serna, P.,
“A material-performance-based database for FRC and RC elements under shear
loading”, (2018) Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 51 (1), CL.x]

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 784
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[LB.20] Fausto Minelli and Giovanni Plizzari Shear Design of FRC, University of Brescia,
Italy, Meeting /TC250-SC2-WG1 TC2 "Fibre Reinforced Concrete“ Milano, November 27,
2018.
[LB.21] Oettel V.V. Torsionstragverhalten von stahlfaserbewehrten Beton-, Stahlbeton
und Spannbetonbalken. Dissertation, TU Braunschweig, iBMB, Fachgebiet Massivbau,
2016.
[LB.22] L.Facconi, F.Minelli, G.Plizzari: Torsion in SFRC beams without transversal
reinforcement, University of Brescia, 2019, CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1/TG 2 N 259.
[LB.23] Plizzari, G. Eurocode meeting: FRC crack control, CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1/TG 2
N0258
[LB.24] Tiberti, G., Minelli, F., Plizzari, G. (2015). “Cracking behavior in reinforced
concrete members with steelfibres: A comprehensive experimental study”, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 68, 2015, pp. 24-34,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.10.011
[LB.25] Carlos Gil Berrocal, Ingemar Löfgren: Hybrid Reinforcement Systems for
Crack Width Control in Concrete Structures Final Report – SBUF project number
12250, Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden 2018.
https://research.chalmers.se/publication/503010”.
[LB.26] Ferrara, L., & Meda, A. (2006). Relationships between fibre distribution,
workability and the mechanical properties of SFRC applied to precast roof
elements. Materials and Structures/Materiaux Et Constructions, 39(4), 411-420
[LB.27] di Prisco, M., Radice, L., Nava, G., Zani, G., Colombo, M. (2022). The first
P/R/SFRC bridge in Italy: materials characterization, preliminary tests, design and
construction features, fib Symposium, pp. 2439-2448.
[LB.28] di Prisco, M., Colombo, M., Pourzarabi, A. (2019). Biaxial bending of SFRC
slabs: Is conventional reinforcement necessary?, Materials and Structures, 52 (1),
art. no. 1.
[LB.29] Meda, A., Rinaldi, Z. (2014). Steel-fibre reinforcement for precast lining in
tunnels with different diameters, American Concrete Institute, ACI Special
Publication, 2014-July (SP 310), pp. 363-372.
[LB.30] Colombo, M., Martinelli, P., di Prisco, M. (2017). On the evaluation of the
structural redistribution factor in FRC design: a yield line approach, Materials and
Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 50 (1), art. no. 100,
[LB31] di Prisco, M., Martinelli, P., Dozio, D. (2016). The structural redistribution
coefficient KRd: a numerical approach to its evaluation, Structural Concrete, 17 (3),
pp. 390-407.
[LB.32] di Prisco, M., Pourzarabi, A. and Colombo, M. (2019). Fibre Reinforced
Concrete: from flexural tests to solid slabs, 10th Int. Conf. on Fracture Mechanics
of Concrete and Concrete Structures, G. Pijaudier-Cabot, P. Grassl and C. La
Borderie (Eds).
[LB.33] di Prisco, M., Plizzari, G., Vandewalle, L., (2009). Fibre reinforced
concrete: New design perspectives, Materials and Structures, 42 (9), pp. 1261-
1281.
[LB.34] Dupont, D. and Vandewalle, L. (2005) Distribution of Steel Fibers in
Rectangular Sections. Cement and Concrete Composites, 27, 391-398.
[LB.35] di Prisco, M., Colombo, M., Dozio, D. (2013). Fibre-reinforced concrete in
fib Model Code 2010: Principles, models and test validation, Structural Concrete,
14 (4), pp. 342-361.

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 785
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex L Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[LB.36] fib bulletin n.105, (2022). Fibre Reinforced Concrete. State-of-the-Art

report, ISBN: 978-2-88394-161-8, pp. 1- 446.
[LB.37] Colombo, M., Conforti, A., Di Prisco, M., Haus, A., Leporace, B., Plizzari,
G., Wolf, S., Sonzogni, F., Zani, G. (2022). Experimental investigation on SFRC
plates and shallow beams, fib Symposium, Oslo, pp. 1926-1935.
[LB.38] Gebreyesus, Y.Y., Karinski, Y.S., Dancygier, A.N., di Prisco, M., (2022).
Experimental investigation of cracking localization in RC beams with steel fibers
Structural Concrete, DOI: 10.1002/suco.202200095.
[LB.39] M di Prisco, T Kanstad, G Plizzari, F Minelli, A Haus (2021). Eurocode 2–
Annex L–European Harmonized Standard for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete,
Fibre Reinforced Concrete: Improvements and Innovations II: X RILEM-fib
International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concrete (BEFIB) 2021 10.
[LB.40] de la Fuente, A., Montserrat, A., Tosic, N., and Serna, P. Design of Steel
Fibre Reinforced Concrete Structures according to Annex L of FPr Eurocode 2
2023. Special issue related to FPr Eurocode 2. Spanish magazine Hormigon y
Acero (www.hormigonyacero.com) (2023)
[LB.41] Pfyl, Thomas. Tragverhalten von Stahlfaserbeton (Structural Behaviour of
Steel fibre reinforced Concrete), Doctioral Thesis, Institut für Baustatik und
Konstruktion Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich, 2003.
Permanent link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz‐a‐004501155
[LB.42] Tomislav Markic, Ali Amin, Walter Kaufmann and Thomas Pfyl. Strength
and Deformation Capacity of Tension and Flexural RC Members Containing Steel
Fibers. Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 146: no. 5, pp. 04020069, Reston,
VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2020. external page: DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0002614
[LB.43] Stefano G. Mantelli, Enrico Faccin, Luca Facconi Fausto Minelli and
Giovanni Plizzari : Final proposal on Shear – Punching – Torsion in Annex L prEN
1992‐1‐1 Eurocode 2. CEN TC250/SC2/WG102 online meeting September 15,
2021. CEN document no. N0342.
[LB.44] Plizzari, G., Tiberti, G. Summary of current proposal based on the today
meeting. Minutes from CEN TC250/SC2/WG102 online meeting September 15,
2021. CEN document no. N0341.

27.03.2023 Editorial review and update

T. Kanstad et al

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 786
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex M:

Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Structures

Mikael Hallgren Tyréns AB, SE

Aurelio Muttoni EPFL Lausanne, CH

24.2.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 787
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex M Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared to explain the changes regarding lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC)
structures.

Current provisions for lightweight aggregate concrete structures in EN 1992-1-1:2004 are given in clause 11. In
Reasons for change
FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, the provisions have been moved to a normative Annex M. The reason for this is to
enhance the ease of use. Apart from some general and introducing clauses, the Annex is formed as a table with
one row for each clause in the main text that needs amendment for the application of LWAC. Hereby the user
has a clear overview on which clauses that call for modification when applying LWAC in design.
In general, no technical changes regarding LWAC have been made in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 when compared to
current EN 1991-1-1:2004. Some exceptions to this, mainly due to references to other standards and to
changes in provisions for normal weight concrete in the main text, are given below.

Density classes have been modified to be fully consistent with EN 206:2013. However, this gives no real
Density classes
technical change and does not affect the outcome.

In EN 1992-1-1:2004, the effect of increased brittleness of LWAC is accounted for by reducing the ultimate
Influence of increased
strain. In FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, this effect is accounted for in a similar manner as for concrete strengths with fck
brittleness on design
strength > 40 MPa by the brittleness factor cc to be used in Formula (5.3) (see related Background document).
According to [Kostic, 2209], for a LWAC with  = 1600 kg/m3, the brittleness factor cc should be reduced by
(5.1.6(1))
about 13% to account for the increased brittleness. This can be generalized by using coefficient lw,fc in
determining cc according to Table M.2. Figure C.M.1 shows the influence of the density class on brittleness
factor cc .

1.20

1.00

0.80
cc

0.60

0.40 fck = 30 MPa

fck = 40 MPa
fck = 60 MPa
0.20
fck = 80 MPa

0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Density [kg / m3]

Figure C.M.1: Influence of density class of LWAC on brittleness factor cc

In EN 1992-1-1:2004, the strength increase due to confined concrete was reduced for LWAC to account for
Confined concrete
aggregate’s failures. In FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, the same Formula as in current standard is adopted for c2d ≤
(8.1.4(2)) 0.6fcd (case with sand as fine aggregate not considered), see Formula (8.9), whereas for the case with c2d >
0.6fcd , the coefficient of Formula (8.10) is reduced as given in Table M.2.

In case of LWAC, critical shear cracks in members without shear reinforcement (shear according to 8.2.1, 8.2.2
Shear and punching shear
and punching according to 8.4.3) are typically smoother due to the fact that LW coarse aggregates can fail. As
resistance
a consequence, the shear resistance will be reduced (reduction of aggregate interlocking). According to
[Muttoni et al., 2008], this can be accounted for by reducing parameter to ddg = 16 mm, see Table M.2 (a
comparison with tests by using the Critical Shear Crack Theory and assuming ddg = 16 mm shows fine
agreement).

[Kostic et al., 2009] Kostic N., Topologie des champs de contraintes pour le dimensionnement des structures
References
en béton armé, PhD Thesis EPFL, Lausanne, 2009, 245 p.
[Muttoni et al., 2008] Muttoni A., Fernández Ruiz M., Shear Strength of Members without Transverse
Reinforcement as Function of Critical Shear Crack Width, ACI Structural Journal, 2008, p.
163-172.

List of versions of this document

06.07.2021 1st draft
20.8.2021 2nd draft
07.02.2023 Peer review and update of references to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
24.02.2023 Final draft

M. Hallgren, A. Muttoni 24.02.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 788
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG107 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex N:

Recycled aggregate concrete structures

Nikola Tošić Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain

Jean Michel Torrenti Université Gustave Eiffel, France
Alejandro Pérez Caldentey FHECOR, Spain
07.02.2023.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 789
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared to justify and validate the content of Annex N of FprEN 1992-1-1. The document
relates to the version FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 and is based on a review study by Tošić et al. [1].

Research on recycled aggregates (RA), recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) and RAC structures has reached
N.1
sufficient maturity over the previous years to allow incorporation of design provisions for RAC structures into the
Use of this annex Eurocode 2-revision.
Properties of RAC and RAC structures in which its behaviour is significantly different from natural aggregate
concrete (NAC), so that they require separate or altered design provisions, have been identified in Annex N. For
all properties not identified in Annex N, the standard provisions of the FprEN 1992-1-1 apply.

The provisions of Annex N apply to reinforced and prestressed concrete structures made of RAC, i.e. concrete
N.2
produced with RA, in accordance with provisions for concrete in EN 206 [2] and provisions for aggregates for
Scope and field of concrete in EN 12620 [3].
application
The provisions of Annex N apply to RAC produced with either fine or coarse RA or with both.

The feasibility of using full replacement of natural aggregates (NA) with RA in RAC production has been proven
N.3
in numerous studies [1], [4], [5]. However, a degradation of mechanical and durability properties is typically
General reported for high substitution ratios of RA, particularly for fine RA [4], [5]. For lower replacement ratios, typically,
very similar behaviour to NAC is reported.
These potentially detrimental effects of RA on RAC properties are taken into account by provision of EN 206 [2]
that limit substitution ratios of RA. Therefore, the scope of Annex N covers RAC produced in accordance with
provisions of EN 206 [2].
If the percentage limits for RA given in EN 206 [2] are exceeded, properties of RAC listed in 5.1.2(2) should be
determined by testing in accordance with EN 206 [2], the exposure resistance class (ERC)—if applicable—should
be determined based on durability performance testing and the performance of RAC structures should be
assessed using the framework of EN 1990 - Eurocode 0 [6].
Substitution rate of RA and substitution rate limits
Substitution of NA for RA in RAC production can be performed by substituting only coarse RA, only fine RA or
both. Furthermore, substitution can be done by volume or by mass.
In order to have the most general approach possible, for the purposes of Annex N, the total mass substitution
ratio αRA is used and defined as the mass of total RA (fine and coarse) in RAC divided by the total mass of
aggregates (fine and coarse NA and RA):
total mass of fine and coarse RA in RAC
𝛼 (1)
total mass of aggregates in RAC
The limits on substitution rates of RA are proposed with the aim of facilitating recycling and ensuring the safe and
reliable design of durable RAC structures. The limits are proposed separately for RA type A and type B as
classified by the provisions of EN 12620 [3]. Most of the research and practical experience with RAC is based on
type A RA [1], [4], [5], and therefore higher limits on substitution ratios are proposed for this type of RA.
Further, considering that the amount of research on prestressed RAC structures is significantly smaller than on
reinforced RAC structures, limits on substitution rates are proposed separately for each type of RAC application.
The prevailing finding among experimental results is that for low substitution rates of RA there are no changes to
concrete properties [1]. The limits typically range around 30% of coarse RA substitution and up to 10% of fine RA.
Therefore, a first limit on the substitution ratio represents the amount of RA up to which no changes to RAC are
expected and the standard provisions of the FprEN 1992-1-1 apply. Above this value, a range of RA substitution
ratios was selected in which provisions of Annex N apply. This range was limited keeping in mind the limitations
on RA use in EN 206 [2] and experimental results. Above this limit, all properties of RAC listed in Annex N should
be measured.
The following limits are adopted for type A RA and use of RAC in reinforced concrete:
– when αRA ≤ 0.20, there is no change in RAC properties,
– when 0.20 < αRA ≤ 0.40, the properties in Table N.1 should be used or values should be determined by
testing, and
– when αRA > 0.40 the properties in Table N.1 should be determined by testing.
For type B RA, the limits above are reduced by 50%.
The following limits are adopted for type A RA and use of RAC in prestressed concrete:
– when αRA ≤ 0.20, the properties in Table N.1 should be used or values should be determined by testing,
– when αRA > 0.20 properties in Table N.1 should be determined by testing..
For type B RA, the limits above are reduced by 50%.

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 790
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table N.1 presents the special provisions and formulae for RAC valid within the range of RA substitution ratio
Table N.1
defined in N.3(3).
Special provisions for
Density – 5.1.6(5)
recycled aggregate
concrete In accordance with EN 1991-1-1 [7], the specific weight of concrete should be taken as 24 kN/m3 with an additional
1 kN/m3 for the case of reinforced concrete. Thus, when crushing 1 m3 of concrete (after removing reinforcement),
the specific mass of RA will be ρc = 2400 kg/m3.
When RAC is produced with αRA < 1.0, there will be NA in the mix. In the case of normal weight aggregates, the
specific weight of NA ρag will be between 2550 and 2800 kg/m3. Then, producing a RAC with unaltered (or only
slightly altered) mix design relative to NAC will yield the following decrease of the density of concrete:
Δ𝜌 𝜌 ∙𝑉 𝜌 ∙𝑉 ∙ 1 𝛼 , 𝜌 ∙𝑉 ∙𝛼 , 𝜌 𝜌 ∙𝑉 ∙𝛼 , (2)
where αV,RA is the RA volumetric substitution ratio, Vag is the volume of aggregates and ρcem is the density of
cement. The RA mass substitution ratio can be related to the volumetric substitution ratio as
𝜌 ∙𝑉 ∙𝛼 , 𝜌 ∙𝛼 ,
𝛼 (3)
𝜌 ∙𝑉 1 𝛼 , 𝜌 ∙𝑉 ∙𝛼 , 𝜌 ∙ 1 𝛼 , 𝜌 ∙𝛼 ,

and αV,RA in Equation (2) can be replaced by

𝜌 ∙𝛼
𝛼 , (4)
𝜌 𝜌 𝜌 ∙𝛼
Tošić et al. [1] present an analysis of a representative RAC mix design for 1 m3 with material quantities and
properties in Table NB.1.

Table NB.1: Mix design for a concrete with ρc = 2400 kg/m3

Quantity (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3)
Aggregates 1865 ρag = 2730 Vag = 0.684
Cement 350 ρcem = 3150 Vc = 0.111
Water 185 ρw = 1000 Vw = 0.185
Air – – Vair = 0.020
Total 2400 1.000

Using the data, Equation (2) yields the following:

Δ𝜌 2400 2730 ∙ 0.684 𝛼 , 220 𝛼 , (5)
3
Therefore, considering a reinforced NAC with a density of 2500 kg/m and Equation (4), the specific weight of a
corresponding RAC in kg/m3 will be
𝜌 2500 220 ∙ 𝛼 (6)
The relationship is tested on experimental data [8], [9] with good agreement, as shown in Figure NB.1.

Figure NB.1: Comparison of the evolution of the density using the mass or the volume substitution ratio
with experimental results (reproduced from [1])

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 791
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Compressive strength – 5.1.3(3)

The significant majority of research on RAC is focused on normal strength concretes [1]. Although high-strength
RAC with fcm ≥ 60 MPa can be produced [9]–[11], there are not enough results for generalized conclusions.
Therefore, the provisions of Table 5.1 are limited to RAC with fck ≤ 50 MPa, i.e. to strength class C50/60.
Pacheco et al. [12] performed a detailed study on the statistical distribution of RAC mechanical properties,
controlling for inter- and intra-batch variability. The authors did not find any significant effect of RA incorporation
on the variability of compressive strength nor did they observe significant differences between RAC and NAC
variability. Furthermore, RAC compressive strength was found to be normally distributed.
Therefore, the relation fcm = fck + 8 MPa, confirmed as valid by Torrenti and Dehn [13] is also valid for RAC.
Furthermore, the material partial safety factor for RAC can be maintained as equal to that for NAC so that there
is no need for changing the determination of the design compressive strength fcd as
𝑓
𝑓 𝜂 ∙𝑘 (7)
𝛾
with no changes necessary to values and formulations of ηcc, ktc and γC defined in 5.1.6(1), 5.1.6(1) and 4.3.3(1),
respectively.
For confined RAC under compression, several studies on steel and GFRP tube encased RAC were performed
[14], [15] and found that there was no effect on ultimate strength of such tubes beyond what is explained by the
reduction of compressive strength of RAC relative to NAC. In other words, there is no additional adverse effect
of RA incorporation on compressive strength of confined RAC. Therefore, the provisions for compressive strength
increase given in 8.1.4(2) remain valid for RAC.

Tensile strength – Table 5.1

Pacheco et al. [12] did not find any effect of RA substitution ratio on the variability of RAC tensile strength.
Therefore, its statistical distribution is assumed identical to that of NAC with lower and upper characteristic values
(5% and 95%-fractiles, respectively) being 0.7fctm and 1.3fctm, respectively.
To assess the relationship between fcm and fctm of RAC, 393 mixtures from literature were analysed by Tošić et
al. [1] with the dataset split into NAC (αRA = 0), RAC with RA content covered by the scope of Table N.1 (0 < αRA
≤ 0.4) and high RA contents not covered by the scope of Table N.1 (αRA > 0.4). The relationship between
measured values of fcm and splitting tensile strength fctm,sp (with fctm = 0.9fctm,sp) is shown in Figure NB.2.

Figure NB.2: Relationship between tensile splitting strength and compressive strength for 393 concretes
covering a range of fcm between 10 and 118 MPa (94 with fck ≥ 50 MPa), with different RA contents (137 with αRA
= 0, 62 with 0 < αRA ≤ 0.4 and 194 with 0.4 < αRA ≤ 1), reproduced from [1]

Assessment of the analytical relationship between fcm and fctm of RAC was performed on the following expression:
⁄
𝑓 𝑎∙𝑓 (8)
by first fitting the constant a for NAC concretes. Then, for each RAC concrete, the value of a was fixed according
to its reference NAC and the constant b in the following expression was determined:
𝑏 ⁄
𝑓 𝑎∙ 1 1 ∙𝛼 ∙𝑓 (9)
𝑎
The analysis results in a mean error of 0.2 MPa confirming that, generally, replacement of NA by RA has no
influence on the fcm–fctm relationship. Out of the 393 mixes, only 74 displayed a negative effect of RA with the
fitted term (1 – b/a) between 0.13 and 0.51, whereas only 4 mixes displayed a positive effect of RA with the
adjustment term (1 – b/a) equal to –0.24. For replacement rates αRA lower than 0.4, in particular, the negative

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 792
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

effect, if any, is typically around 13% and is small compared with the uncertainty associated with the effects of
NA.
Hence, it is concluded that no changes to the expressions proposed for NAC are needed.

Modulus of elasticity – 5.1.4

To assess the relationship between fcm and Ecm of RAC, 425 mixtures from literature were analysed by Tošić et
al. [1] with the dataset split into NAC (αRA = 0), RAC with RA content covered by the scope of Table N.1 (0 < αRA
≤ 0.4) and high RA contents not covered by the scope of Table N.1 (αRA > 0.4). The relationship between
measured values of fcm and Ecm is shown in Figure NB.3. The figure clearly shows the detrimental effect of RA
substitution rate on the modulus of elasticity.

Figure NB.3: Relationship between modulus of elasticity and compressive strength for 425 concretes
covering a range of fcm between 15 and 110 MPa, with different RA contents (130 with αRA = 0, 125 with 0 < αRA
≤ 0.4 and 170 with 0.4 < αRA ≤ 1), reproduced from [1]

Starting from the equation relating fcm and Ecm for NAC, the results in Figure NB.3 were analysed in the following
form:
⁄
𝐸 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 ∙𝛼 ∙𝑓 (10)
where kE and kRA represent the effect on Ecm by NA and RA, respectively. For each independent set of data,
coefficients kE and kRA were fitted. This approach gave the following mean values: kE = 9900 and kRA = 7100 with
an overall mean error of 1100 MPa on the prediction of the modulus of elasticity, while the mean error was 1200
MPa when only RAC are considered. Hence, the use of RA does not degrade the precision of the model.
From all obtained kRA values, 17% were in the range of 4000 to 6000, 60% from 6000 to 8000 and 23% were
higher than 8000. Therefore, choosing a fixed value kRA = 7100 would be unconservative in only 17% of the
cases.
If the value kE = 9500 is used for the estimation of the ratio 7100/kE = 7100/9500 = 0.75, as proposed by Ghorbel
et al. [16], Equation (10) could be simplified into Equation (11). This equation fits the experimental data with the
same level of error (1200 MPa for concrete with 𝛼 below 0.4) as Equation (10).
⁄ ⁄
𝐸 𝜂 ∙𝑓 𝑘 ∙ 1 0.25 ∙ 𝛼 ∙𝑓 (11)

Total shrinkage – 5.1.5(4), Table 5.3

Tošić et al. [17] analysed a database of experimental results on RAC and companion NAC shrinkage with 125
shrinkage time curves from 19 studies. The shrinkage model of the fib Model Code 2010 [18] was tested and the
model was found to have inferior performance on RAC relative to NAC, Figure NB.4.

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 793
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure NB.4: Calculated versus experimental shrinkage strain values for NAC and RAC (reproduced from
[17])

Then, using statistical analyses and a time-weighted least-squares regression, the authors proposed a global
correction coefficient for the mean shrinkage strain calculated for NAC, ξcs,RAC:
.
100 ∙ 𝛼
𝜀 , 𝑡, 𝑡 𝜉 , ∙𝜀 𝑡, 𝑡 ∙𝜀 𝑡, 𝑡 𝜀 𝑡, 𝑡 (12)
𝑓
where εcs(t,ts) is the mean shrinkage strain calculated according to the fib Model Code 2010 shrinkage prediction
model.
Within the French national project RECYBETON, based on own experimental results, the following expression
was proposed [19]:
𝜀 , 𝑡, 𝑡 1 0.82 ∙ 𝛼 ∙𝜀 𝑡, 𝑡 (13)
Equation (13) was slightly modified for simplicity as shown in Equation (14) and compared with predictions by
Equation (12), Figure NB.5. It can be seen that predictions by Equation (14) are conservative, approaching the
predictions by Equation (12) in the range of αRA between 0.25 and 0.60, which corresponds well to the scope of
application of Table N.1 Therefore, Equation (14) is adopted for predicting the shrinkage strain of RAC.
𝜀 , 𝑡, 𝑡 1 0.8 ∙ 𝛼 ∙𝜀 𝑡, 𝑡 (14)

Figure NB.5: Comparison of shrinkage correction coefficients ξcs,RAC using Equations (12) and (14)
(adapted from [1])

Creep coefficient – 5.1.5(2), Table 5.2

Tošić et al. [20] analysed a database of experimental results on RAC and companion NAC creep with 46 creep
time curves from 10 studies. The creep model of the fib Model Code 2010 [18] was tested and was found to have
inferior performance on RAC relative to NAC, Figure NB.6.

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 794
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure NB.6: Calculated versus experimental creep coefficient values for NAC and RAC (reproduced from
[20])

Using statistical analyses and a time-weighted least-squares regression, the authors proposed a global correction
coefficient for the mean creep coefficient calculated for NAC, ξcc,RAC:
.
100 ∙ 𝛼
𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 𝜉 , ∙ 𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 1.12 ∙ ∙ 𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 (15)
𝑓
where φ(t,ts) is the mean creep coefficient calculated according to the fib Model Code 2010 creep model.
Within the French national project RECYBETON, based on own experimental results, the following expression
was proposed [19]:
𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 1 0.9 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ 𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 (16)
Considering a lower boundary of RAC strength class in structural applications of C25/30, Equation (16) was
adjusted to agree with Equation (15) over the coarse RA substitution ratio range between 30% and 100%, Figure
NB.7. Hence, Equation (17) is adopted for predicting the creep coefficient of RAC:
𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 1 0.6 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ 𝜑 𝑡, 𝑡 (17)

Figure NB.7: Comparison of creep correction coefficients ξcc,RAC using Equations (15) and (17) (adapted
from [1])

Stress–strain relationship – 5.1.6(3)

Several researchers have investigated the stress–strain relationship for RAC and generally found that NAC and
RAC exhibit similar shapes of the ascending and descending branches of the stress–strain curves, irrespective
of the RA substitution ratio with a similar increase of the peak and ultimate strains, εc1 and εcu1, respectively, with
increasing RA content [21]–[23].
González Fonteboa et al. [21] analysed the stress–strain relationship of RAC using the following expression:
𝜎 𝑘∙𝜂 𝜂
(18)
𝑓 1 𝑘 2 ∙𝜂
where σc is the compressive stress, η = εc/εc1, with εc the compression strain, and k = 1.05 ꞏ Ecm ꞏ |εc1|/fcm. The
curve is limited by the ultimate compression strain εcu1.
⁄
𝜀 0.7 ∙ 𝑓 2.8‰ (19)
𝜀 2.8 14 ∙ 1 𝑓 ⁄108 3.5‰ (20)

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 795
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The authors found a linear increase in peak and ultimate strain for RAC with increasing coarse RA content. The
maximum increase in peak and ultimate was proposed as 21% and 22%, respectively, for full coarse RA
substitution. These results are in line with above-cited research on similar increases in peak and ultimate strains.
However, it is recommended to maintain the upper limits on peak and ultimate strains as 2.8‰ and 3.5‰,
respectively, as this is a conservative approach considering the insufficient amount of experimental results that
would support their increase.
⁄
𝜀 1 0.33 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ 0.7 ∙ 𝑓 2.8‰ (21)
𝜀 1 0.33 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ 2.8 14 ∙ 1 𝑓 ⁄108 3.5‰ (22)

Minimum clear cover cmin,dur due to durability requirements – Tables 6.3(NDP), 6.4(NDP)
When relevant, the exposure resistance class (ERC) of the RAC should be determined by testing. In this case,
the same minimum clear cover cmin,dur due to durability requirements should be applied to both RAC and NAC if
they pertain to the same ERC.
If ERC is not determined by testing, then differences in durability performance between RAC and NAC of same
compressive strength must be considered.
In terms of carbonation resistance, when RAC and NAC of same compressive strength are compared, RAC
typically shows the same or only slightly higher carbonation depths [24]–[27]. This is mostly because of the fact
that typically more cement is used to produce RAC with equal compressive strength as NAC and a higher amount
of alkalis that can be carbonated is present in the concrete cover, thus decreasing the depth of carbonation [28].
As for concrete cover in the case of exposure to carbonation (XC-exposure classes), only a few studies carried
out service life investigations on RAC [25], [29]. Results showed that for RAC with a coarse RA substitution rate
of 0.1–0.5, there is no need to increase concrete cover to reach a service life of 50 years with the same reliability
as a reference NAC of the same concrete strength class. In case of RAC with 100% of coarse RA, an increase
of 1 to 5 mm is needed to reach the same goal but only for lower concrete classes (up to C25/30). Considering
the above results and the fact that these studies did not analyse the potential incorporation of fine RA, a
conservative proposal is the adoption of a 5-mm increase in concrete cover for RAC exposed to carbonation, i.e.
exposure classes XC2, XC3, and XC4.
For chloride ingress, Ma et al. [30] summarized the results of numerous investigations from China to conclude
that the relation between the chloride diffusion coefficients of RAC (DRAC) and a reference NAC (DNAC), i.e., the
relative diffusion coefficient, Drd = DRAC/DNAC, increases linearly with the increase of RA content. For a coarse RA
content of 100%, the range of values for this relation is between 1.2 and 2.1, with an average of 1.5. Silva et al.
[31] analysed results from 31 publications with 1115 measurements to conclude that when using 100% of coarse
or fine RA there is a probability of 95% (upper confidence level, UCL) that the chloride migration coefficient (Dnssm)
may increase up to 1.65 and 2.95 times with respect to a reference NAC, respectively. For replacement levels
close to the limits permitted by EN 206 [2], e.g. 50% of coarse RA or 20% of fine RA, the UCL values of Drd are
1.32 and 1.39, respectively. Considering the square root law between the diffusion coefficient and concrete cover
depth [18], the effect of 50% coarse or 20% fine RA in RAC is estimated as 15% and 18% increase in concrete
cover depth.
Analysing the typical values of minimal concrete covers for structural elements in XD- or XS-exposure classes
that come from the durability design of NAC (cmin,dur ≈ 45 mm), the final result of 50% coarse RA or 20% fine RA
use would be an increase in concrete cover of 8 mm compared with a reference NAC. Considering the fact that
these results do not consider the potential simultaneous replacement of coarse and fine RA and the compounding
effect on durability, a reasonable conclusion can be that concrete cover for RAC exposed to chloride ingress
should be increased by 10 mm for all XD/XS exposure classes.

Shear resistance of members not requiring design shear reinforcement – 8.2.1(4), 8.2.2(2)
Pacheco et al. [32] performed a reliability-based calibration of the partial safety factor for shear strength of RAC
members without shear reinforcement. For this purpose, a database was composed of slender (shear span-to-
effective depth ratio a/d ≥ 2.5) NAC and RAC beams with 50% and 100% of coarse RA. The histogram of the
database with respect to compressive strength, effective depth, a/d ratio and reinforcement ratio is presented in
Figure NB.8.

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 796
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure NB.8: Histograms for NAC and RAC beams without shear reinforcement (reproduced from [32])

Using a FORM analysis, the authors determined that an increase in the shear resistance partial factor for concrete
was needed: instead of 1.5 for NAC, the authors suggested values of 1.6 and 1.7 for 50% and 100% of coarse
RA substitution. In effect, this means that shear resistance for RAC with 50% and 100% of coarse RA is 1.5/1.6
= 0.94 and 1.5/1.7 = 0.88 of the NAC shear resistance [32].
In order to not change the partial safety factor, and considering a negative linear dependence between shear
strength and RA substitution ratio, the following modification is proposed:
𝜏 , ∙𝜂 𝜏 , ∙𝜂 (23)
⁄
0.66 𝑑 11 𝑓 𝑑
1 0.2 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ ∙ 100 ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝑓 ∙ 1 0.2 ∙ 𝛼 ∙ ∙ (24)
𝛾 𝑑 𝛾 𝑓 𝑑

General method for deflection calculations – 9.3.4(3)

Tošić et al. [1], [33] compiled a database of experimental sustained load tests on RAC and NAC beams [34]–[37],
Table NB.2.

Table NB.2: Range of parameters of the analysed beams under sustained load
No. of No. of
Database RCA (%) b (mm) d (mm) fcm (MPa) L (mm)
beams deflections
NAC 62 124 0 100–750 95–300 21.5–60.7 1829–6400
RAC 18 34 50, 100 150–200 169–249 28.1–51.8 3200–3700
Database L/d (–) ρ1 (%) ρ2 (%) t0 (days) t (days) Mmax/Mcr σc(t0)/fcm(t0)
10.7–
NAC 0.44–2.64 0.00–1.67 7–56 60–1734 0.81–4.08 0.10–0.58
39.9
13.7–
RAC 0.58–1.32 0.00–0.47 7–42 119–1000 0.68–2.52 0.10–0.45
18.9

The deflections were predicted using the fib Model Code 2010 approach of interpolating curvatures in the
uncracked and fully cracked state followed by a double numerical integration [18], [38]. For RAC beams,
deflections were first calculated applying only corrections for the modulus of elasticity, shrinkage strain and creep
coefficient, Table NB.3. As seen by the results in terms of the calculated-to-experimental deflection acalc/aexp, this
produced good agreement between NAC and RAC beams only for initial deflections (at time of loading t0) but the
long-term deflections were underestimated relative to NAC.

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 797
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table NB.3: Statistical descriptors of the acalc/aexp ratios for the NAC and RAC beams under sustained
load
Database Corrections Deflections No. of beams Mean CoV (%)
Initial 62 1.191 30.1
NAC –
Long-term 62 1.035 15.3
Initial 18 1.171 19.1
Ecm, εcs, φ
Long-term 16 0.939 23.9
RAC
Initial 18 1.171 19.1
Ecm, εcs, φ, β
Long-term 16 1.062 18.2

Therefore, a change was introduced into the distribution coefficient ζ by changing the empirical tension stiffening
factor β for sustained or repeated loading from 0.50 to 0.25, thus producing a better agreement, Table NB.3.
𝜎
𝜁 1 𝛽 ∙ (25)
𝜎
In Equation (25), σsr is the stress in reinforcement under the cracking load (calculated on the basis of a cracked
section) and σs the stress in reinforcement under the considered load combination, and βtRA is a coefficient
accounting for the influence of the duration of loading or repeated loading.
𝛽 1.0 for single, short term loading
(26)
𝛽 0.25 for sustained or repeated loading

Simplified deflection control by span/depth-ratio – Table 9.3

In order to test the applicability of the slenderness limits in clause 9.3.2, the simplified method for calculating long-
term deflections of clause 9.3.3 was assessed for RAC considering RA substitution ratios of 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4.
Adjustments were applied for determining the modulus of elasticity, shrinkage strain, creep coefficient, and
tension stiffening, i.e. Eqs. (11), (14), (17), and (26), respectively. The results of the simplified model comparison
against the ζ-method, considering expressions of clause 9.3.3(2) are shown in Figure NB.9.
The average values of the ratio between the simplified model and the ζ-method were obtained as 1.10, 1.11,
1.11, and 1.11 for αRA = 0, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4, respectively, with CoV values of 7.96%, 7.99%, 8.01%, and 8.04%,
respectively. Considering the obtained performance, it can be considered that the model behaves equally on NAC
and RAC elements, once appropriate adjustments are considered for RAC.
Therefore, it can be considered that the simplified model for deflection control can also be applied to RAC, as
well as the expression for slenderness limits, derived directly from the simplified model:

𝐿 𝐸, ℎ 1
5 𝐸 2∙ℎ (27)
𝑑 12 ∙ 𝑎 ∙ 𝑘 𝑑 𝐾∙𝑘 ∙ ∙𝑓 ∙𝜔∙ 1 0.5 ∙ 𝜔 𝑘 ∙𝐾 ∙𝜀 ∙ ∙𝜌∙ 1
48 8 𝑑
where
kI is an adjustment coefficient to account for the effect of cracking, for tension stiffening and creep (clause 9.3.3)
a is the limit value for the span over deflection (L/) ratio
K is a factor that considers the support conditions for the deflection due to uniformly distributed loads
kDL is the ratio between the quasi-permanent load and the design load (qqp/qRd)
ω is the mechanical reinforcement ratio
kS is a coefficient to account for the effect of cracking on the shrinkage deflection (clause 9.3.3)
Kcs is a factor that considers the support conditions for the deflection due to shrinkage

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 798
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

200

180

160

Deflection Simpl. Formula [mm]

140

120 y = 1.1013x
R² = 0.9936
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Deflection ‐method [mm]

Series1 45º Line Regression Line

200

180

160
Deflection Simpl. Formula [mm]

140

y = 1.1107x
120 R² = 0.9938

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Deflection ‐method [mm]

Series1 45º Line Regression Line

200

180

160
Deflection Simpl. Formula [mm]

140
y = 1.1154x
120 R² = 0.9938

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Deflection ‐method [mm]

Series1 45º Line Regression Line

200

180

160
Deflection Simpl. Formula [mm]

140
y = 1.1202x
120 R² = 0.9939

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Deflection ‐method [mm]

Series1 45º Line Regression Line

Figure NB.9: Comparison between the simplified model and ζ-method for (from top to bottom) αRA = 0, 0.2,
0.3, and 0.4

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 799
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure NB.10 shows the ratio of the deflection with 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 aggregate replacement with RA and the
deflection with no aggregate replacement. The ratio is fairly independent of other variables. The increase in
deflection can be well described by multiplying the deflection for the specimen without RA replacement by
(1+0.12RA). Therefore, the values of slenderness ratios given in Table 9.3 should be divided by this ratio.

Effect of %RA on estimated deflection

1.150

deflection RAC/deflection NAC

1.100

CASES WHERE CRACKING DOES NOT OCCUR

(LOW REINFORCEMENT RATIOS AND HIGH CONCRETE STRENGTH)

1.050

1.000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Case number of 486 computed
alpha RA=20% alpha RA=30% alpha RA=40%

Figure NB.10: Ratio between the deflection of specimens with 0.0, 0.2, 0.2 and 0.4 replacement of
aggregate with RA

[1] N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, T. Sedran, and I. Ignjatović, “Toward a codified design of recycled
References aggregate concrete structures : Background for the new fib Model Code 2020 and Eurocode
2,” Struct. Concr., pp. 1–23, 2020, doi: 10.1002/suco.202000512.
[2] EN 206, “Concrete - Specification, performance, production and conformity,” CEN, Brussels,
2013.
[3] EN 12620, “Aggregates for concrete,” CEN, Brussels, 2013.
[4] H. Hafez, R. Kurda, R. Kurda, B. Al-Hadad, R. Mustafa, and B. Ali, “A critical review on the
influence of fine recycled aggregates on technical performance, environmental impact and cost
of concrete,” Appl. Sci., vol. 10, p. 1018, 2020, doi: 10.3390/app10031018.
[5] K. P. Verian, W. Ashraf, and Y. Cao, “Properties of recycled concrete aggregate and their
influence in new concrete production,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 133, pp. 30–49, 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.005.
[6] EN 1990, Eurocode - Basis of structural design. Brussels: CEN, 2002.
[7] EN 1991-1-1, “Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-
weight, imposed loads for buildings,” Eurocode 1, 2002, doi: ICS 91.010.30; 93.040.
[8] P. Dantec, “Experimental construction sites,” in Concrete Recycling: Research and Practice, F.
De Larrard and H. Colina, Eds. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2019.
[9] A. Adessina, A. Ben Fraj, J. F. Barthélémy, C. Chateau, and D. Garnier, “Experimental and
micromechanical investigation on the mechanical and durability properties of recycled
aggregates concrete,” Cem. Concr. Res., vol. 126, p. 105900, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105900.
[10] M. Amario, C. S. Rangel, M. Pepe, and R. D. Toledo Filho, “Optimization of normal and high
strength recycled aggregate concrete mixtures by using packing model,” Cem. Concr.
Compos., vol. 84, pp. 83–92, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.08.016.
[11] G. Andreu and E. Miren, “Experimental analysis of properties of high performance recycled
aggregate concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 52, pp. 227–235, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.054.
[12] J. Pacheco, J. de Brito, C. Chastre, and L. Evangelista, “Experimental investigation on the
variability of the main mechanical properties of concrete produced with coarse recycled
concrete aggregates,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 201, pp. 110–120, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.200.
[13] J. M. Torrenti and F. Dehn, “On the relation between the mean compressive strength and the
characteristic one,” Struct. Concr., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 409–412, 2020, doi:
10.1002/suco.201900153.

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 800
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[14] J. Xiao, Y. Huang, J. Yang, and C. Zhang, “Mechanical properties of confined recycled
aggregate concrete under axial compression,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 591–
603, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.062.
[15] I. T. Kadhim and E. M. Güneyisi, “Code based assessment of load capacity of steel tubular
columns infilled with recycled aggregate concrete under compression,” Constr. Build. Mater.,
vol. 168, pp. 715–731, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.088.
[16] E. Ghorbel, T. Sedran, and G. Wardeh, “Instantaneous mechanical properties,” in Concrete
Recycling, F. De Larrard and H. Colina, Eds. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2019.
[17] N. Tošić, A. de la Fuente, and S. Marinković, “Shrinkage of recycled aggregate concrete:
experimental database and application of fib Model Code 2010,” Mater. Struct. Constr., vol. 51,
no. 5, p. 126, 2018, doi: 10.1617/s11527-018-1258-0.
[18] FIB, fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Lausanne: International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), 2013.
[19] R. Bodet et al., “Comment recycler le béton dans le béton: Recommendations du projet
national Recybeton,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnrecybeton.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/RECYBETON_Recommandations_2018-11-26.pdf.
[20] N. Tošić, A. de la Fuente, and S. Marinković, “Creep of recycled aggregate concrete:
Experimental database and creep prediction model according to the fib Model Code 2010,”
Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 195, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.048.
[21] B. González Fonteboa, F. Martínez Abella, D. Carro López, and S. Seara-Paz, “Stress-strain
relationship in axial compression for concrete using recycled saturated coarse aggregate,”
Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 25, pp. 2335–2342, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.031.
[22] G. Wardeh, E. Ghorbel, and H. Gomart, “Mix Design and Properties of Recycled Aggregate
Concretes: Applicability of Eurocode 2,” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater., 2015, doi:
10.1007/s40069-014-0087-y.
[23] M.-D. Nguyen, G. Wardeh, and E. Ghorbel, “Mechanical properties and stress-strain
relationship for recycled aggregate concrete,” Int. Conf. Sustain. Struct. Concr., pp. 320–329,
2015.
[24] S. Levy and P. Helene, “Durability of concrete mixed with fine recycled aggregates,” Exacta,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25–34, 2007, doi: 10.5585/exacta.v5i1.1027.
[25] P. S. Lovato, E. Possan, D. C. C. D. Molin, Â. B. Masuero, and J. L. D. Ribeiro, “Modeling of
mechanical properties and durability of recycled aggregate concretes,” Constr. Build. Mater.,
vol. 26, pp. 437–447, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.043.
[26] G. Moriconi, “Recyclable materials in concrete technology : sustainability and durability,” Proc.
Spec. Sess. First inter. conf. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol., vol. 12, 2007.
[27] R. V. Silva, R. Neves, J. de Brito, and R. K. Dhir, “Carbonation behaviour of recycled
aggregate concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos., vol. 62, pp. 22–32, 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.04.017.
[28] R. V. Silva and J. De Brito, “Helping structural designers to use recycled aggregate concrete,”
in New Trends in Eco-efficient and Recycled Concrete, 2018.
[29] L. F. Jiménez and E. I. Moreno, “Durability Indicators in High Absorption Recycled Aggregate
Concrete,” Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 8, 2015, doi: 10.1155/2015/505423.
[30] Z. Ma, Q. Tang, D. Yang, and G. Ba, “Durability Studies on the Recycled Aggregate Concrete
in China over the Past Decade: A Review,” Adv. Civ. Eng., vol. 2019, p. 4073130, 2019, doi:
10.1155/2019/4073130.
[31] R. V. Silva, J. De Brito, R. Neves, and R. Dhir, “Prediction of chloride ion penetration of
recycled aggregate concrete,” Mater. Res., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 427–440, 2015, doi:
10.1590/1516-1439.000214.
[32] J. Pacheco, J. de Brito, C. Chastre, and L. Evangelista, “Uncertainty of shear resistance
models: Influence of recycled concrete aggregate on beams with and without shear
reinforcement,” Eng. Struct., p. 109905, 2019, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109905.
[33] N. Tošić, S. Marinković, and J. de Brito, “Deflection control for reinforced recycled aggregate
concrete beams: Experimental database and extension of the fib Model Code 2010 model,”
Struct. Concr., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 2015–2029, 2019, doi: 10.1002/suco.201900035.
[34] B. Espion, Long-Term Sustained Loading Test on Reinforced Concrete Beams. Brussels:
Université Libre de Bruxelles Service Génie Civile, 1988.
[35] S. Seara-Paz, B. González-Fonteboa, F. Martínez-Abella, D. Carro-Lopez, and D. Carro-
López, “Long-term flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams with recycled coarse
aggregates,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 176, pp. 593–607, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.069.
[36] A. M. Knaack and Y. C. Kurama, “Sustained Service Load Behavior of Concrete Beams with
Recycled Concrete Aggregates,” ACI Struct. J., vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 565–578, 2015, doi:
10.14359/51687799.
[37] N. Tošić, S. Marinković, N. Pecić, I. Ignjatović, and J. Dragaš, “Long-term behaviour of
reinforced beams made with natural or recycled aggregate concrete and high-volume fly ash
concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 176, pp. 344–358, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.002.

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 801
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex N Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[38] A. W. Beeby and S. Narayanan, Designer’s guide to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete

structures. London: Thomas Telford, 2005.

List of versions of this document

22.02.2021. 1st draft
19.05.2021. 2nd draft
27.12.2022. 3rd draft
07.02.2023 4th draft after Peer review

N. Tošić, J. M. Torrenti, A. Pérez Caldentey 27.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 802
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2 Project Team T1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex O:

Simplified approaches for second order
effects

Simon Wijte, Eindhoven University of Technology

Alejandro Pérez Caldentey FHECOR, Spain

28.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 803
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex O Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document provides background information to Annex O Simplified approaches for second order effects.

This clause is partly a revision of clause H.1.2 and H.1.3 of EN 1992-1-1:2004. In connection to this, it should
O.3
be noted that formula O.3 is identical to equation H.4 which is revised by EN 1992-1-1/A1 [2015]:
Critical load of building
structures ns 1 EI
FV,BB = 7,8 [O.3.1]
ns  1,6 1  3,9fr L ²

where ns is the number of storeys, fr is the relative rotational restraint, EI is the effective stiffness of the bracing
element and L is the height of the braced element (height of the structure). This equation corresponds to the
buckling load of a cantilever in which the load is introduced progressively at the location of the floors and
subjected to a curvature law that is triangular. The term that includes the rotational restraint, fr, allows to
consider the case where the cantilever is not fully fixed at the base.

The classical buckling load of a fully fixed cantilever, with a buckling length equal to twice the member length,
is:

EI EI
Fcr  c c
(l0 )2 (2L)2

where c depends on the distribution of curvature and is equal to 8 for constant curvature, 9,6 for parabolic
curvature, 2 for sinusoidal curvature and 12 for triangular curvature. Substituting in Equation [O.3.1] ns=1 (all
the load is applied at the top) and fr =0 (fully embedded cantilever), and in the previous equation c=12, both
equations are the same:
3EI
Fcr 
L2

Formula O.3.1 can be rewritten as:

EI
FV,BB = 0 1 [O.3.2]
L²
where:

ns
0 = 7,8 [O.3.3]
ns  1,6

1
1 = [O.3.4]
1  3,9 fr

Background information on formula O.3.3 is described in 5.8.3.3.2 of [1]. In situations with constant stiffness,
equal load increment over the height and rigid rotational restraint at the base, the buckling load depends on
the number of storeys and to some extent on the ratio of the vertical load on braced and bracing members.
See figure C7.4.3.2-2 where this ratio is varied from 0 to .

Figure C7.4.3.2‐2 Global buckling due to bending and coefficient for buckling load in case of constant
stiffness and equal load increment. (Figure 5.6 [1])

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 804
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex O Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Formula O.3.3 results in a good approximation of the upper curve in the graph and results in a slight
overestimation in the non-realistic situation that all vertical load is acting on the braced members.
The effect of the rotational restraint presented in EN 1992-1-1:2004 is described 5.8.3.3.3 of [1]. There 1 is
1
described as . However, this has been changed later in EN 1992-1-1/A1 [2015]. The reason for this
1  0,7fr
change is explained hereafter by looking for an analytical solution based on known formulae for the case of
a two-storey building and in case of a uniform vertical load distribution over the height of the bracing elements.
The case of a two-storey structure is sketched in figure C7.4.3.2-3. The stiffness of the rotational restrained
is expressed by C = M/

Figure C7.4.3.2‐3 Scheme of a bracing members for a two storey structure with a rotational
restraint C and a constant bending stiffness EI
In case of a fixed rotational restraint the total buckling load of the structure can be derived from
32 EI EI
FV,BB,EI = = 4,57 [O.3.5]
7 L² L²

In case of a two storey structure with a fixed rotational restraint (C=M/ =   fr = 0) formula O.3.1 results
in:

2 EI EI
FV,BB = 7,8 = 4,33 [O.3.6]
2  1,6 L ² L²

which results in an acceptable comparison.

In case of an infinite bending stiffness and a limited rotational restraint the total buckling load of the structure
can be derived from

4C
FV,BB,C = [O.3.7]
3L

From formula O.3.5 and O.3.7 the total buckling load of the two storey structure with limited rotational restraint
can be derived:

1
FV;BB = [O.3.8]
1 1

FV,BB,EI FV,BB,C

with

EI
fr = [O.3.9]
CL

the following formula for FV,BB can be found for a two storey structure:
1 EI
FV,BB = 4,57 [O.3.10]
1  3,43 fr L ²

The case of a bracing structure with an uniformly distributed vertical and horizontal load is sketched in figure
C7.4.3.2-4.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 805
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex O Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Figure C7.4.3.2‐4 Scheme of a bracing members with a large number of storeys, a rotational restraint
C and a constant bending stiffness EI
In case of a fixed rotational restraint the total buckling load of the structure can be derived from
EI
FV,BB,EI =7,83 [O.3.11]
L²

In case of an infinite bending stiffness and a limited rotational restrained the total buckling load of the bracing
member can be derived from
2C
FV,BB,C = [O.3.12]
L

From formula O.3.11 and O.3.12 the total buckling load of the bracing member with limited rotational
restrained and limited bending stiffness can be derived, using equation O.3.8 and O.3.9:

1 EI
FV;BB = 7,83 [O.3.13]
1  3,91fr L ²

From both formula O.3.10 and O.3.13 is can be found that formula O.3.4 describes the effect of a limited
rotational restraint on the buckling load of a bracing member adequately.

In case of reasonably symmetrical building structures having distinct bracing members (typically shear walls)
with reasonably constant bending stiffness along the height, and with approximately equal loading on each
level and negligible global torsional action, formula O.3.1 can be rewritten in a way that the sum of the
influence of the stiffness and relative rotational restrained of the individual shear walls can be considered. In
that case the buckling load of the bracing structure can be calculated as follows:

7,8 ns  1 EIi 
FV,BB = 
ns  1,6  1  3,9fr i L2 
 [O.3.14]

Formula O.4 provides the buckling force when considering purely shear deformation. This formula together
with Formula O.2 can be derived by considering the deflection of a cantilever subjected to a horizonal force,
V, and an axial force F applied at the top, accounting for the additional deflection due to shear:

VL3 VL 
  V  3
3EI GAc L L

EI GAc

The internal bending moment, and the corresponding eccentricity, at the embedment of the cantilever can
then be written as:

 VL  /F
M  VL  e  2
L2 1 F L 1
 
EI GAc EI GAc

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 806
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex O Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The external bending moment, and the corresponding eccentricity at the embedment, accounting for the
second order moment due to the axial force can be written, from equilibrium conditions, as:

M VL
M  VL  F  e   
F F
e0

For a non-critical value of F, a point of equilibrium would be reached when both eccentricities are the same,
as shown in figure C7.4.3.2-5. The critical axial force is obtained when both lines, one representing the
external action, and the other the internal action, become parallel so that there is no equilibrium point:

1/ FVB 1 1
 1,00  FVB  2 
L2 1 L 1 1 1
  
3EI GAc 3EI GAc FVBB FVBS

Of course, FVBB is generalized as explained above to the case when the axial force is not fully applied at the
top of the cantilever and when the embedment is not fully rigid. This effect is not accounted for in the term
considering the added flexibility due to shear deformation because its magnitude with respect to the flexural
flexibility is small and it does not seem to be necessary to overcomplicate the expressions for a small increase
in accuracy. FVBS is corrected in FprEN1992-1-1:2023 by factor kc in the nominator to account for cracking.

1,00

Equilibrium point, accounting for

second order effects

Figure C7.4.3.2‐5 Equilibrium between external and internal forces

It should be noted that simplifications where the sum of the bending stiffness of the bracing elements is used
in EN 1992-1-1:2004, are removed from the code. This is done because considering the sum of the bending
stiffness in structures where the bracing elements create a statically determined bracing system, can lead to
an underestimation of the second order effect in the bracing elements.

No background information is necessary as this is standard textbook material.

O.4
Critical load of isolated
members

In [2] and 3.1.3 of [3] alternative formulae for the effective length of both braced and unbraced columns with
O.5
a constant normal force and a constant bending stiffness are given. Expressed in variables according EN
Slenderness ratio and 1992-1-1:2004 these formulae for braced columns are:
effective length of
isolated members 1
Ri = (i = 1 or 2) [O.5.1]
1  2,4fr i

l0 = 0,5 l  2  R1   (2  R2 ) [O.5.2]

and for unbraced columns

R1  R2  R1R2
l0 = 2 l [O.5.3]
R1  R2

These formulae are based on physical models while the formulae for the effective length in EN 1992-1-1:2004,
formulae 5.15 and 5.16 are partly based on curve fitting [4].

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 807
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex O Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

From the comparison between formula 5.15 and formula O.5.2, as shown in figure C7.4.3.2-6, it is clear that
there is no significant difference between the two. Therefore formula 5.15 is not changed and can be found
in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 as formula O.9.

l0
l

Figure C7.4.3.2‐6 Comparison between formula 5.15 (continuous line) and formula O.5.2 (dotted
line) for different values of k1 and k2

A comparison between formula 5.16 and formula O.5.3, both applicable for unbraced columns, shows that
significant differences can be found in case there is a large difference between k1 and k2, see figure C7.4.3.2-
7. This difference can be equal to circa 10%. Therefore, it was decided to replace formula 5.16 by formula
O.5.3. For this, formula O.5.3 is rewritten so that the variables in formulae 5.15 and 5.16 are used:

l0
l

Figure C7.4.3.2‐7 Comparison between formula 5.15 (continuous line) and formula O.5.2 (dotted line)
for different values of k1 and k2

The difference between the results of both formulae can be equal to circa 10%. Therefore, it was decided to
replace formula 5.16 by formula O.5.3. For this, formula O.5.3 is rewritten so that the variables in formulae
5.15 and 5.16 are used:

(1  2,4 fr1  2,4 fr 2 )(1  2,4 fr1 )(1  2,4 fr 2 )

l0 = l [O.5.4]
1  1,2 fr1  1,2 fr 2

The background of this method is described in 5.8.3.1 of [1]

O.6
Slenderness criteria for
isolated members

The background of this method is described in 5.8.8 of [1]

O.7
Simplified analysis of
isolated members based
on nominal curvature
Some background information about the determination of second order effects using a linear elastic method
O.8
is described in 5.8.7.4 of [1]. The given simplification for the bending stiffness used is already presented in
annex H of EN 1992-1-1:2004.

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 808
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex O Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Second order elastic

method

1. Walraven, J., Westerberg, B. (2008), e.o. Eurocode 2 – Commentary. European Concrete Platform
References
ASBL.
2. Hellesland, J. (2012). Evaluation of effective length formulas and applications in system instability
analysis. Engineering Structures, 45(12). 405-420.
3. Hellesland, J. Challamel, N. , Casandjian, C., Lanos, C. (2013) Reinforced Concrete beams, column
and frames – Section and slender member analysis, ISTE Ltd, London, and John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, N.J.
4. Westerberg, B. (2004) Second order effects in slender concrete structures – Background to the rules in
EC2, TRITA-BKN Report 77, Betongbyggnad, KTH, Stockholm

List of versions of this document

10-8-2021, 1st draft
2-9-2021 2nd draft
23-12-2022
27.03.2023 Peer review
28.03-2023 Final

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 809
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG10 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background to
ANNEX P (INFORMATIVE): ALTERNATIVE
COVER APPROACH FOR DURABILITY

Frank Fingerloos German Society for Concrete and Construction Technology

Mikael Hallgren Tyréns AB, SE
Narayanan, R. S. UK

Steinar Helland S Helland Konsult, NO

26.02.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 810
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex P Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to explain how durability design can be carried out using either
– the new performance-based concept with Exposure Resistance Classes ERC according to clause 6 in
prEN 1992-1-1-D7,
– or the current descriptive concept in EN 1992-1-1:2004 in combination of parts of clause 6 in prEN 1992-
1-1-D7 with Annex P.

Annex P (informative): Problem

Alternative cover approach
for durability The future EN 1992-1-1 should provide minimum concrete cover as a function of Exposure Classes of the
member or structure, Design Working Life and Exposure Resistance Classes ERC for the design of structures
[1]. The innovative ERC-concept will create for the first time in concrete sector a coherent link between feed-
back from long term on-site experience, limit value for the definition of concrete mixes and modelling of con-
crete durability [2].
The Joint Chairmen Panel (JCP)1 discussed the way forward. A smooth transition from current concept to the
future concept with verification based either on DtS or on performance testing. At it´s meeting on 2020-06-19,
the JCP recommended the following:
« JCP on ERC proposes to include Chapter 4 of the EN 1992-1-1 :2004 as informative Annex to the new EC2
to keep the old system for a transition period coupled with the obligation to CEN/TC 104/SC 1 to revise EN 206
for ERC. »
So FprEN 1992-1-1 provides minimum concrete cover as a function of Exposure Classes of the member or
structure, Design Working Life, and Exposure Resistance Classes ERC.[1].
As of now it is not clear when ERC will be implemented in EN 206. EN 1992-1-1 relies on EN 206 to provide
the rules for concrete mixes (DtS-sets) or performance tests relating to new ERC.
Therefore clause 6.4 of prEN 1992-1-1 contains Notes to allow the smooth transition. The Notes are reproduced
below:
NOTE 1: As specified in EN 206 complemented by the provisions valid in the place of use, the ERC may be
satisfied by compliance with relevant limiting values and/or, for some ERCs, by proving the performance in
meeting specification of relevant physical characteristics determined using standardized test methods. In the
event EN 206 does not refer to ERC, the National Annex or National Application Document to EN 206 can
provide the necessary advice on how to implement ERC rules in a country.
NOTE 2: An informative Annex P provides an alternative approach to design cover for durability without use of
Exposure Resistance Classes (ERC) based on EN 1992-1-1:2004. The use of ERC according to 6.4 applies
unless the National Annex specifies use of Annex P.

Alternative 1: New design The whole of Clause 6 of prEN 1992-1-1 applies.

concept with ERC It is expected that EN 206 (or a NAD) will provide data for EN 206 in Annex F or in a new Annex in terms of
ERC referring to XRC-XRDS-Exposure Resistance Classes instead of XC-XD-XS-Exposure Classes.

Alternative 2: Current de- Clauses 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5.1, 6.5.3 of FprEN 1992-1-1 apply also (with updated Exposure class conditions in
sign concept without ERC Table 6.1 and national choices for informative examples).
Instead of 6.4 and 6.5.2 of FprEN 1992-1-1, cover for durability shall be related to the Structural Classes S in
Annex P and not to Exposure Resistance Classes ERC. Clause P3 states the requirements for concrete mixes
for Structural Class S4 for Exposure Classes XC, XD, XS (former Annex E: « Indicative strength classes for
durability ») and current Annex F in EN 206 with NAD.
Table B.P.1 summarises the salient features of the two alternatives.

1
JCP with chairmen of CEN/TC51, CEN/TC104, CEN/TC104/SC1, CEN/TC104/SC1/WG1, CEN/TC104/SC2,
CEN/TC229, CEN/TC250/SC2 and CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG10

17.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 811
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex P Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Summary of design steps Table B.P.1: Comparison of 2 possible design alternatives for durability
in the two alternatives Alternative 1: New de- Alternative 2: Current de-
Design step
sign concept with ERC sign concept without ERC
Exposure classes XC, XD, XS, XF, XA, XM 6.3 Environmental exposure conditions
related to environmental conditions 6.3.3, Table 6.1 : Exposure classes X
Exposure resistance classes XRC, XRDS, 6.4 Exposure Resistance not applicable
XRF related to concrete resistance against Classes (ERC)
corrosion or abrasion attacks
Minimum concrete strength New Annex in EN 206 or Annex F in EN 206 or NAD;
in NAD Indicative strength classes
for durability in P.3
Minimum cover cmin 6.5.2.1 General:
cmin = max {cmin,dur – cdur,red + cdur,abr; cmin,b; 10 mm}
Minimum cover cmin,dur for durability cmin,dur depending on : cmin,dur depending on :
– XC, XD, XS and – XC, XD, XS and
– Exposure Resistance – Structural class S and
Class XRC, XRDS and – design service life 50 y or
– design service life 50 y 100 y
or 100 y
6.5.2.2 Minimum cover for P.2 Minimum cover for dura-
durability – carbon and bility – carbon, stainless and
prestressing steel prestressing steel
Q.2 Minimum cover for du-
rability – stainless steel
Minimum cover cmin,b for bond 6.5.2.3 Minimum cover for bond
Allowance in design for deviation cdev 6.5.3 Allowance in design for deviation, Table 6.7(NDP)
Nominal cover cnom 6.5.1 Nominal cover: cnom = cmin + cdev
Description of concrete durability (exam- C35/45, XRC2, XRDS4, C35/45, XC4, XD3, XF2,
ples): XRF, XA2, XM1…. XA2, XM1….
cmin = 50 mm cmin = 50 mm
cnom = 60 mm cnom = 60 mm
NOTE: EN 206:2017, Cl. 11 (1): If the concrete is exported the exposure class(es) followed by the abbreviation of the
country name that issued the provisions for the limiting values, concrete composition and concrete properties or other set
of requirements, e.g. XD2(F) where the French provisions apply.

References [1] CEN-TC250-SC2_N1481 JCP Synthesis paper – Final Version 2017-12-05-Rev 2019-02-07.

[2] CEN/TC250-SC2_N1873 JCP Benefits from a performance-based approach on durability of con-

crete – Exposure Resistance Classes (ERC) – 2021-02-01 (final)

List of versions of this document

19.01.2021 1st draft
19.02.2021 2st draft
22.02.2021 3st draft
17.02.2023 editorial updates

17.02.2023
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 812
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to
Annex Q (normative):
Stainless Reinforcing Steel

Craig Giaccio Arcadis Consulting Ltd, UK

Kaloyana Kostova National Composite Centre, (UK)
Frank Fingerloos German Society for Concrete and Construction Technology, DE

27.03.2023

Giaccio, Kostova, Fingerloos 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 813
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to explain the additional and substituted rules
in Annex Q for Stainless Reinforcing Steel. The requirements to the manufacturer of
Stainless Reinforcing Steel are given in Annex C, clause C.4.2 (see BD EN 1992-1-1,
Annex C).

Q.3 General For “Ease-of-Use” Table Q.1 contains the special provisions for stainless reinforcing steel
relating to clauses for carbon reinforcing steel of the main text of the standard.

Table Q.1 to 5.2.2(2) Yield Strength

The 0,2% proof strength is used in place of the yield strength owing to the lack of a defined
yield point in stainless reinforcing steel. The use of this terminology was adopted from
prEN 10370:2019 [1]. According to prEN 10370:2019 [1] the Rp0,2 – 0,2 % proof strength
(tensile yield strength) shall comply with those given in Table 2 of prEN 10370:

The tensile test for the determination of the 0,2 % proof strength for bars and coils shall be
in accordance with EN ISO 15630-1 [2]. The tensile test for the determination of the tensile
yield strength for welded fabric shall be in accordance with EN ISO 15630-2 [2].
The requirements in prEN 10370 [1], Table 2 are compatible with the design assumptions
in FprEN 1992-1-1 for Ductility classes A, B, C in 5.2.2(2), Table 5.5. The requirements to
the manufacturer in C.4.2 according to testing and quantile of declared properties shall be
obtained and declared (in the DoP).
It should be noted that in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 reference for stainless reinforcing steels is
made to “relevant standards for stainless steel” which may be specified in the National
Annex. It is added in a following note that the harmonised product standard EN 10370 for
stainless steel is currently under development.

Table Q.1 to 5.2.3(2) Welding

An appropriate reference was included for welding of stainless reinforcing steel. The
weldability of stainless steel for the reinforcement of concrete is a function of the chemical
composition. The list of the stainless steels designations is given in EN 10088-1 [3] or EN

Giaccio, Kostova, Fingerloos 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 814
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

10088-5 [4]. The informative Annex E of prEN 10370 [1] contains guidance on welding
procedures.

Table Q.1 to 5.2.4(2) Post-elastic Response

This clause is simply recognising that the provisions in 5.2.4 can be used for stainless
reinforcing steel and substituting in appropriate terms f0,2 (= Rp0,2) for stainless reinforcing
steel. It should be noted that for stainless reinforcing steel the same values of uk as for
carbon reinforcing steel, and both assumptions for the stress-strain diagrams apply.

Table Q.1 to 5.2.4(3) Youngs Modulus of Stainless Steel

Youngs Modulus can vary significantly more than assumed for carbon reinforcing steel with
Es = 200 000 MPa in 5.2.4(3). prEN 10370 [1] provides an informative Annex G: Design
guidance: constitutive relationship. There the range of Youngs Modulus related to Stainless
families is given in Table G.1:

The proposed value of Es = 200 000 MPa in Table Q.1 for stainless reinforcing steel is a
simplification in combination with the simplified stress-strain-diagram in Fig. 5.2.
Provisions that were implemented permitted use of 200 GPa as modulus on the following
bases:
- a note was included to illustrate to users of the standard that they need to be aware of
the possibility of the impact of lower modulus steel;
- lower modulus will not substantially impact the calculation of capacity of concrete
members under bending with or without axial force. In fact, it has been demonstrated
by the Project Team during drafting the provisions for stainless reinforcing steel that
using the design assumptions given in 5.2.4 for carbon reinforcing steel result in
conservative ultimate capacity;
- there may be a reduction in shear strength from lower modulus bars (and hence, larger
axial strain) which will be proportional to (Estainless/200 GPa)1/3. Most commonly available
bars are Estainless > 185 GPa which would result in only a very small reduction in
calculated strength (ca. 2,5 %). In any instance, the note drawing the user’s attention to
lower modulus bars will ensure there is awareness of the impacts;
- the change in modulus could impact calculated crack width, however, given the
variability of measured crack widths against those calculated along with the small
percentage under-estimate of calculated value, it was not considered necessary to
apply a different value;
- in normal cases there is no substantial impact on axial force capacity calculation.
However, the actual stress-strain diagram of stainless reinforcing steel may have a more
pronounced non-linear character close to yield strength (lower secant modulus than carbon
reinforcing steel). For some particular design tasks, a more precise stress-strain diagram
than the idealised relationship given in Fig. 5.2 should be used, if relevant. Such design
tasks can be e.g.:
- ULS design for compressive reinforcement in bending members and
columns without yielding,
- refined stress limitation and crack control with very high requirements,
- refined deflection control with very high requirements.
EN 1993 gives calculations based on the secant modulus Es of stainless steel as
shown in Fig. BD.Q.1 with a refined stress-strain-relation:

Giaccio, Kostova, Fingerloos 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 815
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Legend
E0 initial modulus of elastic Et tangent modulus Es secant modulus
fy yield strength (Rp0,2: 0,2 % proof strength)
fp proportional limit
Fig. BD.Q.1: Stress-strain-relation of stainless steel
More accurate models can be used for stress-strain analysis. These include:
 Two stage modified Ramberg-Osgood model [5],
 Menegotto-Pinto model [6].

Properties of stainless steel at elevated temperatures up to 100°C

Research studies [7] have indicated that the strength and maximum elongation may be
significantly reduced for some stainless steels at +100 °C, which is the upper limit of
5.2.1(4), see Table BD.Q.1.
While this is not expected to cause problems for typical application, it may need to be
considered where structures are in elevated temperatures over about +60 °C.
Table BD.Q.1 – Reduction factors for stainless steel properties at +100 °C
Material property Austenitic Duplex Duplex
1.4307, 1.4311 1.4162 1.4362
0,2% proof strength 0,78 0,82 0,82
Ultimate strength 0,80 0,97 0,94
Elastic modulus 0,96 0,96 0,96
Ultimate strain 0,56 0,87 1,00
Fracture strain 0,78 0,90 0,90

Table Q.1 to 5.2.4(5) Coefficient of thermal expansion

Coefficient of thermal expansion is taken as for carbon reinforcing steel for design
purposes. Actual coefficient of thermal expansion of stainless reinforcing steel can be
higher. More accurate values are given in the informative Annex E of prEN 10370 [1]:
Table E.1 [1]. Comparative thermal coefficient of expansion data (+20 °C to +100 °C)
Steel number s,th
1.4003 10,4 x 10–6
1.4062, 1.4162, 1.4362, 1.4462, 1.4482 13,0 x 10–6
1.4301, 1.4311, 1.4315, 1.4401, 1.4406, 1.4429, 1.4436, 1.4571 16,0 x 10–6

Q.4 Minimum Cover Durability

To 6.4 and 6.5 Alternative 1: New design concept with ERC
The design of minimum cover cmin,dur with Exposure Resistance Classes (ERC) is
implemented in clause Q.4 (see Background document to Annex Q.4). Therefore, a new
definition of Stainless Steel Resistance Classes (SSRC) dependent on the Pitting
Resistance Equivalent is given (Table Q.2).
Design steps: Determination of Exposure class  Exposure Resistance Class  Stainless
Steel Resistance Class  minimum cover cmin,dur from Table Q.3(NDP) for service life 50 y
and 100 y.
Alternative 2: Current design concept without ERC

Giaccio, Kostova, Fingerloos 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 816
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Cover for durability can be further designed related to the Structural Classes S in Annex P.
Clause P.3(3) stated, where stainless steel is used the minimum cover of Table P.2(NDP)
may be reduced by a value cdur,st. The effects on all relevant material properties should
be considered, including bond. The value of cdur,st for use in a Country can be found in its
National Annex. The recommended value, without further specification, is 0 mm.

Q.5 Fatigue verification Fatigue verification has been included based on BS 6744:2016 [8]. This standard adopts
the same S-N curves for B500 grade stainless steel reinforcing as for carbon steel based
on a modified regime of testing. The provision of the standard extends this for other
grades of stainless reinforcing steel and provides countries with a national choice as to
whether this approach is adopted or modified.

Giaccio, Kostova, Fingerloos 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 817
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

References [1] prEN 10370:2019: Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Stainless steel.
[2] EN ISO 15630-1:2019: Steel for the reinforcement and prestressing of concrete -
Test methods - Part 1: Reinforcing bars, rods and wire, - Part 2: Welded fabric and
lattice girders.
[3] EN 10088-1:2014: Stainless steels - Part 1: List of stainless steels.
[4] EN 10088-5:2009: Stainless steels - Part 5: Technical delivery conditions for bars,
rods, wire, sections and bright products of corrosion resisting steels for
construction purposes.
[5] K.J.R. Rasmussen. Full-range stress–strain curves for stainless steel alloys,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 59 (1) (2003) 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(02)00018-4
[6] fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Lausanne, Switzerland: International
Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9783433604090
[7] L. Gardner, Y. Bu, P. Francis, N. R. Baddoo, K. A. Cashell, F. McCann: Elevated
temperature material properties of stainless steel reinforcing bar, Construction and
Building Materials. 114 (2016) 977-997.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.009
[8] BS 6744:2016: Stainless steel bars. Reinforcement of concrete – Requirements and
test methods.

List of versions of this document

29.05.2021 1st draft
07.02.2023 Peer review and update of references to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
27.03.2023 Final version

Giaccio, Kostova, Fingerloos 27.03.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 818
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG10 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background to
ANNEX Q STAINLESS REINFORCING
STEEL (clause Q.4)

Fritz Hunkeler Hunkeler Ingenieurberatung,

CH-5103 Möriken/Switzerland

Möriken, 03.03.2021

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 819
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

In clause 6.2(4 reference is made to the normative Annex Q “Stainless Reinforcing Steel”. Additional information
1 Introduction
to clause Q.4 Minimum cover for durability are given in the section 2 and 3 below.

Stainless steels might have a significant higher corrosion resistance than carbon reinforcing steel.

To make use of this potential, the corrosion resistance of these steels was classified in the past for the same
as well as for other purposes [1 - 7]. One of the first classification of stainless steels for use in constructions
was given in [1]. Some years later (ca. 1990) DIBT [2] published a similar classification in his approval for
stainless steels. In 1998 (revised in 2019) the Swiss Standardisation body SIA published a classification for
fixings in concrete and masonry based on [1]. Later, in 2013, the Swiss prestandard 2029 for stainless steel
reinforcement with a classification of stainless steels and reduced concrete covers was published. EN 1993-1-
4:2015-10, Eurocode 3, contains a classification for atmospheric exposure conditions. Based on these
documents the Table Q. was elaborated.

2 Stainless Steel The corrosion resistance of stainless steels strongly depends on their composition. They can be classified
Resistance Classes SSRC based on their Pitting Resistance Equivalent PRE. This leads to Stainless Steel Resistance Classes SSRC 0
(carbon steel reinforcement) to SSRC4 (stainless steels with the highest corrosion resistance).

The PRE depends mainly on Chromium (Cr), Molybdenum (Mo) and, to a certain extent, on Nitrogen (N).

The PRE was calculated based on the Equation 1 (see Table Q.2)

PRE = Cr + 3,3 Mo + n N; Cr, Mo and N in M.-% Equation 1

The minimum content of Cr, Mo and N according to EN 10088-1 was used for the calculation. The efficacy of
N for improving the corrosion resistance depends on the type of stainless steel, i.e.:
- n = 0 for ferritic steels
- n = 16 for Duplex steels
- n = 30 for austenitic steels.
Examples of stainless steels are given in Table Q.2.

The corrosion resistance of stainless steels might be reduced by welding. Thus, if welding of stainless steels is
necessary, the weldability and the sensitivity of intercrystalline corrosion (stress corrosion cracking) shall be
considered for the selection of the appropriate stainless steel. In this context, the location of the welding
points/area and the diameter of the reinforcement are to be considered additionally.

The (informative) Annex C “Guidance on durability” of EN 10370 shall not be applied to classify the corrosion
resistance of stainless steels. The procedure given in this annex is not proven to provide robust and
reproducible results. It might, therefore, lead to a different classification. Thus, it should not be used for this
purpose here.

3 Minimum concrete cover In Table Q.3 the minimum concrete cover is listed in dependence on the exposure class, exposure resistance
class (XRC, XRDS) and SRCC. The differentiation is based on 5 to 10 mm steps of the cover thickness. The
covers of carbon reinforcing steel were taken as starting point to determine the covers in dependence on SRCC.

The corrosion resistance of stainless steel in chloride contaminated concrete depends on the composition and,
specifically, on the pH of the pore solution in the concrete. The carbonation of concrete changes the rate of
chloride ingresses and the amount of bound chloride. Further, the critical chloride content decreases if the
carbonation depth has reached the reinforcement. In case of combined action of carbonation and chloride
induced corrosion the concrete cover has, therefore, to be increased or a higher SSRC has to be chosen.

The risk of corrosion due to the combined action is higher in concrete members with a lower exposure resistance
class and lower SSRC. For the ease of use one single value of the increase of the cover is proposed (≥ 20
mm). Instead of higher cover a higher stainless steel corrosion resistance class might be used, e.g., class
SSRC3instead of SSRC1.
Under the XD2 exposure conditions the chloride content of the water my vary in wide range (e.g., swimming
pool with drinking water or with salt water, industrial water). Thus, if the chloride content of the water is
sufficiently low (e.g., 0.5 g/l) and if there is no risk of enrichment of the chloride content in the concrete du to
drying out then XD1 applies.

[1] F. Hunkeler, Entscheidungskriterien für die Werkstoffwahl, SIA Tagung Korrosion und
References
Korrosionsschutz, Teil 3: Einsatz von "nichtrostenden" Stählen im Bauwesen, 16. Nov. 1988, SIA
Dokumentation D 030, 1988 S. 77-93.
[2] Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBT), Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung Z-30.3-6 vom
12.05.2017 „Erzeugnisse, Bauteile und Verbindungsmittel aus nichtrostenden Stählen“.
[3] SIA 179, Befestigungen in Beton und Mauerwerk, Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein
SIA, prestandard (recommandation) 1998, standard 2019.
[4] G. Markeset, S. Rostam and O. Klinghoffer, Guide for the use [4 stainless steel reinforcement in
concrete structures, Nordic Innovation Centre project – 04118: “Corrosion resistant steel
reinforcement in concrete structures (NonCor)”, Project report 405 – 2006.

F. Hunkeler 03.03.2021
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 820
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex Q Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[5] A. Šajna et al., Recommendations for the use of corrosion resistant reinforcement, Sustainable
Development, Global Change and Ecosystems Sustainable Surface Transport, ARCHES-03-DE11,
5.08.2009.
[6] SIA 2029 (prestandard), Nichtrostender Betonstähle, Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und
Architektenverein SIA, 2013.
[7] EN 1993-1-4:2015-10, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-4: General rules -
Supplementary rules for stainless steels, CEN 2015.
[8] A. Pachón-Montaño, J. Sánchez-Montero, C. Andrade, J. Fullea, E. Moreno, V. Matres, Threshold
concentration of chlorides in concrete for stainless steel reinforcement: Classic austenitic and new
duplex stainless steel, Construction and Building Materials 186 (2018) 495–502.

List of versions of this document

01.02.2021 1st draft
03.03.2021 2nd draft
17.02.2023 Peer reviewed, only editorial updates

F. Hunkeler 03.03.2021
For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 821
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to Annex R:

Validation of expressions for Embedded
FRP Reinforcement

Craig Giaccio Arcadis Consulting (UK)

Andre Weber Schoeck Bauteile GmbH (DE)
Anett Ignatiadis Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton e. V. (DE)
Martin Kurth Martin Kurth Ingenieurbüro (DE)
Renata Kotynia Lodz University of Technology (PL)
21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 822
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Introduction
This document has been prepared in order to explain the proposed EC2-provisions for embedded FRP
reinforcement. The basis for the proposed provisions were fib-bulletin 40 [1], fib-Model Code 2010 [2] and national
approvals [3], [4], [5].

FprEN1992-1-1 does not cover resistance to fire, consequently this is also not covered in Annex R. In 1.1 (4) of
R.2
the main text reference to EN 1992-1-2 is made. However, current FprEN 1992-1-2 does not contain specific rules
for embedded FRP reinforcement.
Fire design of concrete with FRP reinforcement will consider the evaluation of the fire resistance of the individual
FRP reinforced member, as well as reflect possible effects on the fire resistance of the whole structure.
Note that in FRP reinforced concrete elements the reinforcing bars are embedded in concrete and the
reinforcement cannot burn due to the lack of oxygen, but the resin will soften at temperatures beyond the glass
transition temperature (TG). At high temperatures the decay of bond for FRP bars is more significant than that
experienced by steel bars.
In a simplified conservative design, it shall be verified, through thermal analysis, that the concrete cover is such
that the temperature at the location of the FRP rebars remains limited to TG, in which TG is considered as a lower
bound value of the glass transition temperature range.
In a more comprehensive design, the analysis is generally performed by separating the thermal and mechanical
response models. The thermal analysis will allow to establish the acting temperature in the load resisting materials
(concrete and FRP). The mechanical analysis, at time t of fire exposure, shall apply temperature dependent
constitutive models, and the associated reduced mechanical properties, in applying the structural capacity
models. The temperature dependent properties of the FRP in terms of tensile stress-strain behaviour and bond
behaviour shall be established through design by testing and are required for a more comprehensive fire analysis.
As a specific case, the fire design can consider members with FRP properly anchored in cold zones, so to allow
for an upper bound fire endurance of the FRP, which mainly depends on the fibre type (instead of TG). This case
is conditional to the following:
 the anchorage of the FRP rebars is located in cold (or protected) zones, so that suitable anchorage of
bars at the ends is guaranteed once TG has been reached in the fire-exposed zone of the member and
the resin softening reduces adhesion at the FRP-concrete interface;
 the use of overlapping bars in the zone exposed to fire is omitted.

As there is no significant experience with prestressed FRP reinforcement, no provisions for prestressed FRP-
R.2 (1)
reinforcement are given.
Sufficient data for validation of the provisions is available for glass and carbon FRP reinforcement only. The
database for shear mainly pertains to glass fibre bars. There are however tests from 39 tests on CFRP beams in
shear, therefore provisions in this submission cover both glass and carbon fibre.

There is insufficient information available on members with FRP reinforcement and lightweight aggregate to
R.2 (2)
include this. There is also insufficient information available on members with FRP reinforcement and recycled
aggregate to include this.

A predominately static member in Annex R is defined as one in which a maximum stress range of 10 % of fftk,100a
R.2 (3)
with a maximum stress 0,5 x fftk,100a cycles for a maximum of 2x106 cycles. For lower maximum stresses higher
stress ranges are known to replicate predominately static conditions, but are not quantifiable at the time of writing.
If FRP-reinforcement is considered for fatigue verification, the relevant information shall be given in the European
Technical Product Specification. Methods for fatigue may be developed over the time which this code is in use.
These could be covered by NCCI’s if needed.

R.3 General Approach

The main issue in design of embedded FRP reinforcement is the differing modulus of elasticity. In addition, there
are some material specific properties (e.g. linear elasticity and long-term behaviour).
To handle FRP materials in the same way like reinforcing steel, which design parameters to enable a design
process as near as possible to the normal design process for reinforcing steel.
Other design guides like CSA S806 [6] or ACI 440 follow a different approach and suggest a design process
starting with an environmental design process as well as using a different safety approach with suggested over
reinforcement. There was a clear wish from users as well examples from European approvals, that such a different
design approach can and need not be integrated in a general design code.
There is not yet any European approval in existence for any embedded FRP reinforcing material. A European
Assessment Document (EAD) is therefore required for suppliers to align production with this standard. This
document is now in existence (see [7]).

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 823
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Another important issue is the linear elasticity. While the common thinking sees a danger to combine two brittle
materials, there is no deformability problem for FRP reinforced members seen by most experts. Despite of the
linear elasticity most constructions under overload will fail with the known warning signs like great crack widths
and large deflections. In so far with dependable material specific properties, a design according the basic outline
of Eurocode is safe. Special steel specific design issues taking account for the yielding which could lead to
unconservative design have been addressed in the annex to avoid this issue.
The different modulus of elasticity has a great effect on bending design, shear design as well as deflection and
crack width limitation. This has been taken into consideration in the provisions of Annex R.

The partial safety factors for the material in Table R.1 consider also the model uncertainty.
R.4 (1)
The partial safety factors of Table R.1 are based on the following assumptions:
 Reliability index ß = 3,8

 The safety factors are based on the characteristic long-term strength of FRP reinforcement, where the
long-term strength is evaluated as the characteristic value of the stress leading to a 5% probability of a
failure under 100 years of sustained stress in 40°C wet concrete (fftk,100a). For evaluation of the long-
term strength see R.5.3 (2) and [7].
 The short-term strength (e.g. according to ISO 10406-1) evaluated as the characteristic value of the
stress leading to a 5% probability of a failure under stress (fftk0) with a maximum coefficient of variation
of 10%. According to the long-term quality level of production (quality assurance) this characteristic
value has to be reached with a 90% probability.
If all of the conditions stated above are true, FRP for ULS could be taken as 1,3, however, proving a beta value of
3,8 from tests is difficult to achieve, so a safe value of 1,5 is taken for the purpose of codification. Should a supplier
be able to demonstrate the required reliability, then the possibility exists for this value to be reduced to 1,3. This
is in accordance with existing rules [3], [6], [8], considering that the 1,5 for concrete covers high variation and
brittle failure. FRP-reinforcement is also a brittle material, but preannouncement of failure occurs especially for
low E-modulus in the form of large deflections and wide crack width. For all materials used within this Annex a
long term failure strain of 0,005 is defined. This strain is greater than the strain at the beginning of the yielding of
concrete steel. Prewarning through wide opening of cracks and large deflections are expected before failure.
No partial factor for serviceability is readily available in literature, it is understood that fib Task Group 5.1 may be
developing this partial factor.
For stirrups and bent shapes in the bent section a reduced strength is observed. This locally reduced strength is
taken for all design purposes as representative for the whole shape of this element. This reduction is a function
of geometrical, manufacturing as well as material parameters. Differences in long term reductions between
straight and bend shapes are expected as well. Individual limits of the used materials have to be taken into account
together with the limits of the shear design.
In table 4.3 the safety factor for shear v has been introduced. As the database for FRP reinforcement is smaller
than for reinforcing steel v = 1,5 is recommended. Also validation for formula (R.5) has been done with 1,5.

The limits provided in this section have been selected to reflect to testing ranges used in the development of
R.5.1 (3)
relationships used in this annex. They also correlate with products widely available on the market. For products
which do not fulfill these requirements the applicability of Annex R can be individually regulated in the approval of
the product.
The limit for the ratio of the long-term strength and the E-modulus is given to avoid brittle failure (see also R.4).
This limit does not apply for shear reinforcement. The forming of a shear crack is less influenced by the stirrup
than bending cracks through bending reinforcement. The shear crack can occur at every portion of the reinforced
section. Also, in the weakest section of a stirrup the load has to be transferred. Under these conditions the
characteristic long term strength of the bent section has to be taken into account for design. For this section
considerably lower strength is reached especially for sustained stresses. In many cases the limit is not reached
in this section. The ductility of shear reinforcement is less important for overall ductility than the ductility of bending
reinforcement.
The lower limit on compressive strength of concrete for use of this annex results from the limit on the parameter
fbd,100a.
The value of lf was introduced to ensure that very heavily reinforced sections were not designed to this standard.
The properties of FRP-materials currently on the market (from different sources, CSA S807, and specific
manufacturer information) are listed in table BD-R-1. There can be observed, that there is a wide range of E-
Modulus as well as for strength. For the designation of the product E-Modulus and strength should be imprinted
on the product.

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 824
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Table BD-R-1a: Properties of current FRP reinforcing bars

Modulus EfR GPa 45 50 60 120 150
Characteristic short term 500- 700- 900- 1400- 1600-
ffk0 MPa
strength 800 1100 1500 2200 2500
Maximum bond strength in
fbk0 MPa 5-15 5-15 5-15 5-15 5-15
C25/30
Glass fibre bar x x x
Basalt fibre bar x x x
Carbon fibre bar x x

Table BD-R-1b: Properties of current bent FRP bars

Modulus EfwR GPa 40 45 50 120 150
Characteristic short term
ffwk0 MPa 230-400 320-500 390-600 400-800
strength bent section
Characteristic short term 800- 850-
MPa 500-700 600-900
strength straight section 1100 1500
Maximum bond strength in
fbk0 MPa 5-15 5-15 5-15 5-15
C25/30
Glass fibre bar x x x
Basalt fibre bar
Carbon fibre bar x

For further information see also background to R.15 [7].

This clause performs two functions:

R.5.2 (1) and (2)
It provides input required to use provisions in Annex R and lists a series of parameters that will be needed for
manufacture of the FRP reinforcement. (2) is included as there is no EN product or execution standard, or EAD,
for FRP reinforcement. It is the information from design that will be required to be addressed in these future
standards, or in a future EAD.
The material properties are product-specific and have to be given by the supplier. There are some standard test
procedures in ISO 10406-1 but not for all relevant properties. For example, the long-term bond strength fbd,100a
cannot be determined in accordance with ISO 10406-1 because this standard only provides short term pull-out
values. Also, there are other test procedures also possible, e.g. for long-term characteristic tensile strength.
Further some of the design parameters may not be directly derived from the test results. In this case or where test
procedures are not standardized yet, conservative values are given in the corresponding sections of Annex R.
For further information see “Recommendations for determining the design and application parameters of
embedded FRP reinforcement (Background to R.15)” [7].
According to the Construction Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (CPR)) on EU level test
procedures for the essential characteristics of construction products may be included in two types of technical
specifications for construction products:
- European harmonised product standards or
- European Assessment Documents (EAD).
At the time of this writing, none of the two types of technical specification was available for Embedded FRP
Reinforcement. EADs are under preparation. That’s why [7] contains not only methods for determining the design
parameters for Annex R, but also the descriptions of possible test procedures, where necessary.
The design in Annex R is suitable for all application with a maximum long term temperature of 40°C. This includes
temperatures inside concrete members of up to 65°C through solar radiation or other effects for a limited time. All
exposure classes defined for reinforcement durability are included.

The behavior of FRP reinforcement under tension is linear. In contrast, to steel reinforcement the FRP
R.5.3 (2)
reinforcement should be taken into account only as tension reinforcement. This leads to a different design stress
strain diagram for FRP reinforcement than for steel reinforcement. Due to the characteristic of the material there
is a significant reduction in the strength over the time.

Definition of characteristic value of tensile strength for (long term) design

For determining the design tensile strength the long-time tensile strength fftk,100a is needed in formula (R.1). For
composite materials despite of the good durability most properties are a function of time, temperature and
environmental influence. The value fftk,100a includes all three main influences. Tests to determine fftk,100a directly are
to be defined in EAD, for recommendations see [7].

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 825
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

All three influences can also be derived separately. This is considered in formula (R.2). ISO 10406-1 [9] lists tests
for determining the characteristic tensile properties chapter 6 , the creep resistance chapter 12 and the durability
chapter 11.
If no tests for long-term behaviour are done the values for Ct , Cc and Ce are given. These values are conservative
and may lead to fail the limit of fftk,100a or fftk,100a/EfR in section R.5.1 (3). That’s why performing tests is
recommended. Ce and Cc or the combined test for fftk,100a shall be determined for the smallest, a medium and a
big diameter rebar.
For Cc and Ce ISO tests are available. The recommendations for Ct are according to fib-bulletin 40 [1]. The time
temperature shift of the ISO 10406-1 tests is based on the mean annual temperature. Temperature increase
through solar warming is not included. So 0,8 is introduced for outdoor structures according to fib-bulletin 40 [1].
For Cc a statistical determination is mandatory. Values around 0,5 are probable for several products for ECR fibre
based FRP. To prevent unconservative design with unknown materials and to encourage the producers to
determine the exact values a conservative value of 0,35 is proposed. This is the minimum value which has to be
shown for an ACI 440 and CSA evaluation. Cc values for other service life classes (20a, 5a) can be determined
to allow a medium term design (ffk,20a or ffk5a). The Ce reduction factor is determined in ISO 10406-1 according the
mean values. The value 0,7 is the lowest of the values used in CSA and ACI as well the minimum value for the
evaluation.

Factor for time influence (creep rupture or time to failure factor) (Cc)
For Cc in some guides conservative values based on values from old literature in the range of 0,2 – 0,3 for GFRP
are given. In ACI 440 as well as in CSA these general values are under discussion. Therefore measurements
have been performed with current materials in different labs. The aim is not the qualification of materials but the
general increase of the Cc factor. Results are presented by different authors. Most authors have started test
regimes, which have not (yet) fulfilled all conditions of the ISO 10406-1 [9] or the similar ASTM D7337 [10]. The
evaluation in ISO and ASTM is semi logarithmic while the European evaluation EN 705 is double logarithmic. This
makes no essential difference for a typical set of data.

Figure BD-R.1: Force ratio to logarithmic time extracted from ASTM [10]

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 826
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Figure BD-R.2: Logarithmic time to failure extracted from Shayad-Ahmed et al (2019) [11]

Figure BD-R.3: Sustained load vs logarithmic time to failure extracted from Rossini et al (2019) [12]

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 827
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Figure BD-R.4: Logarithmic time-to-failure (creep-rupture) curve from database tests. Runout and
ongoing tests were not included in the creep-rupture trend line extracted from
Benmokrane et al (2019) [13]
For the Ce factor similar test series for actual materials are available. This test is performed in ISO 10406-1 in
Chapter 11 without load. For this guideline a duration of the ageing of 3000h at 60°C is assumed. For the
determination of the factor the tensile strength of specimen aged in alkaline solution is compared to the tensile
strength of pristine specimens. This test is standard for most guidelines worldwide and a minimum value must be
reached. This particular value is not used for design in these guidelines. Here in FprEN 1992-1-1 the particular
value shall be used. (Performance based design).
For determining the design tensile strength of shear reinforcement ffwRd instead of Formula (R.1) the properties of
the shear reinforcement have to be used:
ffwRd = ffwk,100a / FRP
where ffwk,100a should be determined directly by tests. If the alternative method by using Formula (R.2) is applied,
the C-factors have to be determined. The values given for the C-factors for straight bars or the assumed minimum
values cannot be applied, especially Cc. For further information see [7].
Existing provisions, e.g. in fib Bulletin 40, which give a general comprehension to the strength properties of bent
bars in dependence of the mandrel diameter are based on older data. In the meantime most manufacturer deliver
stirrups with mandrel diameter mand = 6-7. The differences in strength are less caused through geometry than
by different manufacturing methods and materials. At the end the properties determined by testing shall be taken
for design.

FRP reinforcement is anisotropic and has widely different properties in the different directions. While the primary
R.5.3 (3) and (4)
used tensile properties have been researched for decades, only limited knowledge is available for the
compression properties. In several publications a compression strength in the range around 50% of the tensile
strength (strains around 1%) has been published. In so far as the placement of FRP reinforcement in a
compression section with a maximum strain of 0,3% in ultimate limit state seems to be conservative. While ACI
and CSA already discuss the use of FRP as compression reinforcement the project team has decided against
this in absence of long term data and experience for this particular use.
For a maximum reinforcement ratio of 5% it is seen as safe to use the whole section of the compression section
for design.
Guidelines in ACI and CSA currently being developed permit the beneficial effects of compression reinforcement,
but it offers little benefit in reality because of the relatively small stiffness difference.

cmin,dur is set to zero because corrosion induced by carbonation or chlorides does not occur for FRP reinforcement,
R.6 (1)
therefore a minimum concrete cover due to environmental conditions (cmin,dur) is not necessary.

The concrete cover due to bond requirements may be higher as for steel reinforcement, in dependence on the
R.6 (2)
product, because of possibly higher splitting forces. Especially materials with lower modulus show higher slip
values and as consequence higher splitting forces may occur in comparison with steel reinforcement with the
same anchored forces. This effect is a function of the individual bar surface as well as the local combination of
the reinforcement. FRP rebars frequently show important differences between short term bond and long term
bond properties. For determining the concrete cover the short term bond properties are crucial. For materials with
lower splitting forces concrete cover can be reduced. (Minimum is 1). This has to be shown in beam end or
splitting tests.

Carbon Fibre Reinforcement can form an electrical element which can cause corrosion in steel reinforcement, if
R.6 (3)
there is an electrical conductive contact.

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 828
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Curved FRP reinforcement bars are commonly curved in the fabrication phase.
R.7 (1)
In some instances, they can be fabricated straight, and bent in great radii for installation. This introduces bending
stresses into the bar.
Where appropriate, stresses in the bar from bending shall be superimposed onto tension stresses resulting from
bending or shear. Only elastic bending could be undertaken for such an installation, and an execution standard
will need to confirm this.

While there have been a limited of number of publications indicating that it could be possible for some
R.7 (2)
redistribution to be considered, both the small number of studies, and the clear consequences of the lack of
ductility of FRP reinforcement have led to this clause.

Non-linear finite element analysis is considered appropriate as the designer will have control of the material model
R.7 (4)
for the FRP reinforcement and be able to model the non-ductile response of FRP accurately.

This clause appropriately adjusts clauses in the main text for FRP reinforcement.
R.8.1 (1)
The assumptions in section 8.1 are the same for FRP-reinforcement as for steel reinforcement only a different
design stress-strain diagram is used.

This paragraph refers to Section 8.1.4 of the main text. A conservative approach has been adopted for this clause.
R.8.1 (3)
Confinement works through reducing the perpendicular strain in concrete. For the same geometrical conditions
this is more effective for materials with higher modulus. In the literature [29], [30] the effectiveness is described.
For glass fibre reinforcement as confining reinforcement a clearly reduced behaviour is observed. The chosen
conservative approach takes into account a linear function between effectiveness and modulus. [29] and [30]
describe the reduced confinement effect on bond behaviour.

The minimum shear resistance of members without shear reinforcement is based on the Critical Shear Crack
R.8.2 (1)
Theory (CSCT) failure criterion according to [16] and depends on the strain of the longitudinal reinforcement in
the member as shown in Figure BD-R.5.

Figure BD-R.5: Figure C8.6 extracted from [16]

According to this failure criteria, the minimum shear resistance decreases with higher strain. Thus, to determine
the minimum shear resistance of FRP reinforced members, the maximum possible reinforcement strain of the
longitudinal reinforcement v,max need to be used that can be determined as follows.

ε , (BD-R.1)

Following the approach which Formula (8.20) in FprEN 1992-1-1 is based on, according to Formula (R.3) the
minimum shear stress resistance can be calculated using:

𝜏 , ∙ ∙ (BD-R.2)

Comparison with datasets

To verify the Formula (R.3) resp. (BD-R.2), the shear capacity measured in several tests is compared to the
calculated minimum shear resistance without safety factor. The datasets include tests that are listed in [17].
However, tests with small member thickness (75 – 83mm) and tests with short anchorage length of the longitudinal
reinforcement were neglected.

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 829
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

3,0

2,5

2,0

R, test / R,min,calc [-]

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a / d [-]

Figure BD-R.6: Comparison of the calculated minimum shear stress resistances without safety factor
Formula against experimental results.
The comparison shows that the Formula (BD-R.2) resp. FprEN 1992-1-1, Formula (R.3) provides safe
results.
Generally, the theoretical approach, which the current FprEN1992-1-1 – clauses are based on (Critical Shear
R.8.2 (2)
Crack Theory, CSCT) can also be applied on FRP-reinforced members. However, to account for the
predominantly lower axial stiffness of the FRP longitudinal reinforcement, the shear capacity of members without
shear reinforcement needs to be modified. Therefore, the reinforcement ratio for longitudinal reinforcement in
Formula (8.28) in FprEN 1992-1-1 is adjusted as outlined in Formula (BD-R.3).

𝜌 ∙ (BD-R.3)
∙
where Afl is the longitudinal FRP-reinforcement.
The modification factor EfR/Es is also used in several design guidelines, e.g. in JSCE (1997) [14] or in ACI 440.1R-
06 [15] (see [1]).
The approach to determine the shear stress resistance in presence of high tension (+NEd) that produces separation
cracks in the member should not be applied. There is an insufficient testing database to validate this approach.
However, for members under small tensile loads e.g. due to shrinkage this approach should be applicable. In that
case, a compression zone due to bending of at least 0,1d should be provided.

Comparison with datasets

The modified formula to calculate the design value of the shear stress resistance of members with FRP
reinforcement is verified using experimental studies. Therefore, similar to the comparison presented above, the
experimental shear resistance is compared to the predicted shear strength using the mean values of the concrete
strength without safety factors.

3,0

2,5

2,0
R, test / R,calc [-]

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a / d [-]
Figure BD-R.7: Comparison of the shear stress resistances against the experimental results

There is good agreement between the experimental and the predicted shear stress resistance.

R.8.2 (3) Current FprEN1992-1-1 clauses

In the current prEN1992-1-1, the formula for the shear resistance of members with shear reinforcement is based
the strut-and-tie model. The particular contributions of the concrete and the shear reinforcement are not
considered separately, however, the concrete contribution is included through the cotangent of the inclination of

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 830
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

the compression field. The shear capacity is limited yielding of stirrups respectively by the carrying capacity of the
concrete struts.

Need for modification

Due to the different properties of the FRP-reinforcement compared to steel reinforcement, the formulae in the
current FprEN1992-1-1 cannot be adopted for FRP reinforced members without further ado.
As observed in shear tests on members with FRP shear reinforcement, shear compression failure can occur,
before the FRP shear reinforcement is completely activated, respectively, before the shear reinforcement fails.
Thus, the allowable strain in the shear reinforcement should be limited. In [17] and [18] a corresponding strain
limit that is dependent on the flexural stiffness of the member was proposed. For a simplified calculation of the
shear resistance based on the 45°-truss analogy (cot =1,0), the limitation value of 4‰ can be assumed.
Furthermore, the capacity of the concrete strength in the compression field needs to be modified because of larger
deformations in the compression field that can arise using FRP reinforcement with lower modulus of elasticity.
Besides the axial stiffness of the reinforcement bars, also the stiffness in the transverse direction is relevant.
According to the investigations in [14] and [16] the efficiency factor for the capacity of the concrete strength in the
compression field need to be reduced to about 0,35.
Taking into account the specific properties of FRP and using modification factors as mentioned above, the shear
stress resistance can simplified be computed as follows:
∙
𝜏 , 𝜌 ∙𝑓 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 (BD-R.4)

where:
ffwRd ≤ 0,004 ∙ EfwR
 is the efficiency factor for the capacity of the concrete strength in the compression field
which is limited to  =0,35.
cot  is the cotangent of the inclination of the compression field, which is limited to cot =1,0

This simplified approach produces provisions that are on the very conservative side. It is not included in Annex
R.

Comparison with datasets

To verify the simplified formula, the shear capacity measured in several tests which are listed in [17] is compared
to the corresponding calculated value as illustrated in Figure BD-R.8. Therefore, the mean values of the concrete
strength and of the tensile strength of the shear reinforcement with an assumed value of 0,006 EfwR were used.

8,0
4,0
7,0
3,5
6,0
3,0
R,test / R, prEN1992-1-1 for FRP [-]

5,0
R,test / R, prEN1992-1-1 for FRP [-]

2,5
4,0
2,0
3,0 1,5
2,0 1,0
1,0 0,5
0,0 0,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
w* =wꞏEfwR/Ec[%] w* =wꞏEfwR/Ec[%]
Figure BD-R.8: Comparison of predicted results against test results

The comparison shows that the proposed simplified formula yields very conservative estimates of the shear stress
resistance. Especially in the range of small shear reinforcement ratios, very small shear stress resistance arises.
In some cases, the calculated shear stress resistance of the members with shear reinforcement is lower than the
calculated shear stress resistance of members without shear reinforcement, which can be computed according
to R.8.2 (2) (FprEN1992-1-1).
Thus, to avoid an uneconomical design, another approach for FRP-reinforced members needs to be included.

Additive approach in Annex R

The change in the shear resistance between members without shear reinforcement and with shear reinforcement
can appropriately be described using the additive approach. Consequently, a more economic design is possible.
Generally, the additive design was already used in several design codes (see [1]). The background to the formula
presented here can be found in [17] and [18].
As mentioned above, the tensile strength of the shear reinforcement, respectively, the strain of the shear
reinforcement needs to be limited to avoid shear compression failure. Following [17] and [18] the limitation of the

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 831
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

design value of the shear reinforcement - strain should be calculated taking the flexural stiffness of the member
into account. In contrast to the simplified formula, in the additive approach with a particular concrete contribution
to the shear resistance, the shear reinforcement - strain needs to be limited more strictly. To access the flexural
stiffness of the member, a simplified formula that is included in Formula (BD-R.7) is proposed.
To analyze the inclination of the compression field, a study was carried out in [17] and [18]. It was shown that the
inclination of the concrete compression strut depends on the strains arising in the compression field. Based on
the compression field theory, a formula to determine this inclination was developed. The calculated inclination
ranges between 20° and 50°. The cotangent of the inclination is then used to compute the contribution of the
shear stress resistance provided by the shear reinforcement. In a pragmatic sense, the cotangent of the inclination
may be taken as 0,8. This value is on the safe side. For members with low reinforcement ratio a more progressive
value of cot  = 1,0 may be unsafe applying the additive model. More detailed approaches are possible but with
further considerations (e.g of the strain state.)
According to this investigation, the shear stress resistance is as follows:
∙
𝜏 , 𝜏 , 𝜌 ∙𝑓 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 (BD-R.5)

where:
  Rd,c is the shear stress resistance of the member without shear reinforcement according to
R.8.2 (2) (concrete contribution in the additive approach)

ffwRd = ffwk,100a / FRP ≤ fwRd ∙ EfwR (BD-R.6)

where:
∙ ∙ , ∙
𝜀 0,0023 ∙ 10 0,007 (BD-R.7)

Afl is the cross section area of longitudinal FRP reinforcement

d is the effective depth of a cross-section
cot  is the cotangent of the inclination of the compression field, which may be taken in
the additive approach as cot =0,8
 is the efficiency factor for the capacity of the concrete strength in the compression field
= 0,35
Since the efficiency factor for the capacity of the concrete strength in the compression field  is limited for members
with FRP reinforcement to  = 0,35, the Formula (BD-R.5) may also be simplified to:
𝜏 , 𝜏 , 𝜌 ∙𝑓 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 0,17 ∙ 𝑓 (BD-R.8)
as done in FprEN 1992-1-1 Formula (R.5).
This strain limit is verified for members with h ≥ 200 mm (see Figure BD-R.9, right).

Comparison with datasets

To verify the additive approach, a comparison with mean values similar to that presented above is carried out and
is illustrated in Figure BD-R.9. The calculations show that the proposed design formulae allow a more economical
design.

4,0 4,0
3,5 3,5
3,0 3,0
R,test / R, Annex JA [-]

R,test / R, Annex JA [-]

2,5 2,5
2,0 2,0
1,5 1,5
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
0,0 0,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
w* =wꞏEfwR/Ec[%] h [mm]
Figure BD-R.9: Comparison of predicted results against tests for concrete beams with FRP shear
reinforcement

Further verification has been done based on test results published by Szczech and Kotynia [36] and PhD thesis
by Szczech supervised by Kotynia [37]. The test program consists of 12 concrete beams. In this test program the
following influences have been investigated:
- Cross section (T/R) – effect of the compressive concrete depth on the shear capacity
- GFRP/Steel – effect of the type of reinforcement on the shear capacity

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 832
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

- Reinforcement ratio ρl - effect of flexural reinforcement ratio on the shear capacity

- Reinforcement ratio ρw - effect of shear reinforcement ratio on the shear capacity (for two different
diameters: 8 mm and 12 mm and various stirrups spacing
The evaluation of the test result confirmed that neglecting the concrete contribution leads to very small values of
shear resistance. Also, a strain limit of 0,007 is proposed in [37] in consensus with Formula (BD-R.7). For the
tests in [36] The real θ achieved in the tests in [36] was much lower than the assumed cot θ = 0,8. So the
comparison of calculated and test shear stress which is shown in table BD-R.2 was based on the assumption of
cot θ =1,0. The calculated shear stresses are within a safe range (see figure BD-R.10).
Table BD-R.2: Comparison of calculated and test shear stress based on the changed assumptions
(cot θ = 1,0 and f = 0,007 ) [32]
CEN TC250 EC2 (for: cot θ = 1.0 ; εf = 0.007)
τRdc.
ddg ρfl τRdc VRd.c cot θ εf*Ef f ftd* ffwRd ρfw 0.17*fck τRd.f VRd.f τRdc + τRdf VRd.c + VEd.tes t
Element min θ [°] εf rf /df Vtest/VRd.C+F Vtes t/VRd.FRP
[mm] [‐] [MPa] [kN] [‐] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [‐] [MPa] [MPa] [kN] [MPa] VRd.f [kN] [kN]
[MPa]
T‐G‐525‐8/250‐30 24 0,268 0,029 1,341 111,91 41,00 1,0 0,007 538,19 3,5 665,0 538,19 0,0016 6,75 0,87 72,18 2,21 184,09 187,50 1,02 2,60
T‐G‐525‐8/200‐30 24 0,268 0,029 1,341 111,91 40,00 1,0 0,007 538,19 3,5 665,0 538,19 0,0020 6,75 1,08 90,23 2,42 202,14 245,83 1,22 2,72
T‐G‐525‐8/120‐30 24 0,268 0,029 1,341 111,91 38,00 1,0 0,007 538,19 3,5 665,0 538,19 0,0033 6,75 1,80 150,38 3,14 262,29 325,00 1,24 2,16
T‐G‐525‐12/270‐30 24 0,268 0,029 1,341 111,91 31,00 1,0 0,007 497,53 3,5 665,0 497,53 0,0033 6,75 1,67 139,02 3,01 250,93 279,17 1,11 2,01
T‐G‐525‐N‐30 24 0,268 0,029 1,341 111,91 55,00 1,0 1,34 111,91 110,00 0,98
T‐G‐528‐8/250‐30 24 0,270 0,037 1,459 120,18 32,00 1,0 0,007 538,19 3,5 665,0 538,19 0,0016 6,75 0,87 71,27 2,32 191,46 208,33 1,09 2,92
T‐G‐528‐8/200‐30 24 0,270 0,037 1,459 120,18 43,00 1,0 0,007 538,19 3,5 665,0 538,19 0,0020 6,75 1,08 89,09 2,54 209,27 250,00 1,19 2,81
T‐G‐528‐8/120‐30 24 0,270 0,037 1,459 120,18 35,00 1,0 0,007 538,19 3,5 665,0 538,19 0,0033 6,75 1,80 148,49 3,26 268,67 358,33 1,33 2,41
T‐G‐528‐12/270‐30 24 0,270 0,037 1,459 120,18 43,00 1,0 0,007 497,53 3,5 665,0 497,53 0,0033 6,75 1,67 137,27 3,13 257,45 225,00 0,87 1,64
T‐G‐528‐N‐30 24 0,270 0,037 1,459 120,18 38,00 1,0 1,46 120,18 117,50 0,98
P‐G‐525‐8/120‐30 24 0,268 0,029 1,341 111,91 38,00 1,0 0,007 538,19 3,5 665,0 538,19 0,0033 6,75 1,80 150,38 3,14 262,29 262,50 1,00 1,75
P‐G‐525‐12/270‐30 24 0,268 0,029 1,341 111,91 36,00 1,0 0,007 497,53 3,5 665,0 497,53 0,0033 6,75 1,67 139,02 3,01 250,93 200,00 0,80 1,44

a) b)

Figure BD-R.10: Comparison of predicted and test results

a) with contribution of FRP shear reinforcement and concrete
b) without concrete contribution

The same limits used in R.8.2 (3) are applied in this clause for interface shear resistance.
R.8.2 (4)
In difference to clause (3) basis of this clause is the strut-and-tie-model without concrete contribution, so cot theta
= 1,0 is safe enough.

The efficiency factor for the capacity of the concrete strength in the compression field has been changed as
R.8.2 (5)
outlined in the background to R.8.2 (3).
The positive influence of the reinforcement is not taken into consideration because of lack of data.
Further information can be found in [32] and [33].

Adjustments for torsion resistance are made in the same manner as outlined in the background to R.8.2 (3) for
R.8.3
the simplified approach.
For combined shear and torsion the compatibility of strains has to be ensured because different approaches are
applied for shear and for torsion.

Design concept in section 8.4.3 of FprEN 1992-1-1 may be in principle applicable for members with FRP
R.8.4 (1)
reinforcement, but some adjustments to the reduction of l by EfR/Es may be necessary, e.g. factor kpb. As there is
not enough data yet, the punching resistance shall be limited to shear resistance.
FRP-reinforcement may not be considered integrity reinforcement against progressive collapse according 12.5.2.

There is an insufficient testing database to validate any proposed approach.

R.8.4 (2)

The use of FRP reinforcement for strut and tie mechanisms is not covered in this annex as the effectiveness
R.8.5
factors for the concrete struts may need modification for FRP to ensure a reasonably accurate evaluation of
strength is made with some ability for a ductile response of a structure. This is due to FRP reinforcement stiffness
generally being lower with accompanying higher strengths.

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 833
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

There is an insufficient body of knowledge available for adjustment of the effectiveness factor.

Provision 9.1 (5) cannot be applied for FRP reinforcement in general as the modulus of elasticity can have a high
R.9.1 (1)
variety of values depending on the FRP material.

There isn’t known any validation for FRP reinforcement that shows, if provisions of minimum reinforcement for
R.9.2 (1), (2)
robustness allow to omit crack control. The same for the provisions for web surface reinforcement according to
S.5 (1).
On the safe side crack control should be performed in all cases at the moment.

Instead of fyk the design tensile strength of FRP reinforcement fftd is considered in Table R.2 with FRP for ULS,
R.9.2 (3)
because there is no reserve due to yielding.
For the concrete stress the relevant provisions of the main text apply in Table R.3.
For FRP reinforcement crack width is generally not as important for members with FRP reinforcement.
FRP reinforcement has issues related to aesthetics and also where fasteners are presents, or in environments
with freeze/thaw, and where wheel loads are present. For these applications with 0,4 mm a safe limit has been
chosen in Table R.3.

This provision aligns with ISO 14484: 2019.

R.9.2 (4)

Fatigue is excluded as the body of knowledge is not considered sufficient for codification at this time.
R.10
Bridge decks are often considered as predominately static.

Properties of bend FRP bars are different from straight bars. The mandrel diameter is characteristic of the specific
R.11.3 (2)
product and reduces the strength of the bent shape itself. The minimum values were determined analogous 11.3
for bars without welds in order to adopt provisions for verification of concrete inside the bent.

This provision was adopted from 11.3 (4) for reinforcing steel for the same geometrical conditions, to avoid the
R.11.3 (3)
local damage and splitting of the concrete.

This conservative limit is consistent with R.11.3 (3).

R.11.3 (4)

There is no need to exclude this from use as the conditions relate to force transfer through concrete. Bent bars in
R.11.4 (2)
the forms shown in (b) and (c) are not as common (although available).

Formula (11.3) describes the splitting failure of concrete as a function of different parameters. These principles
R.11.4 (3)
are generally valid for FRP reinforcement. For FRP rebars where the bond strength is not only dependent from
the concrete strength the long term bond strength shall be taken into account. For FRP rebars having a different
spalling effect the diameter is modified.
The recommended value of fbd,100a is set to the value in fck = 20 MPa concrete, but will increase at higher grades,
therefore the lower limit on application of this annex is now included in R.15.
As most clauses in this Annex are based on the same principles as for steel reinforced concrete a more or less
similar bond behaviour is needed. Therefore, a certain percentage of the bond of reinforcing steel is needed to
distinguish this reinforcement from smooth reinforcement which has been used with different clauses some
decades ago. For smooth reinforcement around 1 MPa can be assumed. Most materials have sufficient or
superabundant short term bond strength, while for many materials the long-term bond strength is not yet tested
explicitly. For a long-term bond stress less than 1,5 MPa no experience is available. A minimum (long term) bond
strength is needed to satisfy the rules of this code.
For further information see [38].
Formula (R.10) describes the dependence of the bond length from the most important geometrical and concrete
parameters. This formula takes into account the resistance against (short term) spalling. In Formula (R.11) the
long term performance of the material is taken into account and a save formula against long-term pullout failure
is given.
Additional background is given further down.

This provision may be applied if it not otherwise shown that the forces can be transferred. For reinforcement bars
R.11.4 (4)
with a different splitting action the value received through a comparative eccentric pullout test with a concrete
steel with one diameter concrete cover (the value is a concrete cover expressed in ) shall be taken as diameter.
Cs and cx have been shown in tests as much more important than the cy. The limit value of 0,0035 is received
through the comparison with rules for reinforcement steels up to a fyk of 600 MPa in EN 1991-2 in combination
with approvals for stainless steel. Strain limit: 600MPa/150000MPa/1.15 = 0.0035

Bundles are used in practice. But there is not enough data to give generally applicable code provisions.
R.11.4 (5)

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 834
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

There is not enough data to consider the influence of bends, hooks and loops on the required anchorage length.
R.11.4 (6), (8)

A database of 126 available tests from 15 authors with GFRP-reinforced lap splices has been set up and
R.11.5
evaluated. The influence of concrete strength and diameter seem to be similar as for reinforcing steel. The effect
of concrete cover as well as the effect of bar distances cannot be summarized unambiguously through the
different surface preparations of the different products tested in this database. So a conservative limitation has
been defined for cmin,b. In addition, a limit for the maximum strain for unconfined lap splices is given. This limit
takes into account the different stiffness of the materials tested.
Further 27 tests investigating the influence of bar diameter and surface on the bond behaviour can be found in
[34] and [35].

Definition of limits for lap splices

This database is set up including 126 tests from 15 different authors of the years 1999 to 2019 ([21] to [28]). A
part of the tests had been already reviewed in [20]. It has to be stated, that the test setups (beam and slab), the
tested bars from surface preparation to modulus have a great variance. Here for example the diameter influence
is shown from [20]. For compatibility reasons in Annex R the same exponent as for concrete steel has been
chosen.

Figure BD-R.11: diameter influence bond of GFRP rebars

The extended raw data of this database is shown in figure BD-R.12. Here the bar stress is depicted against the
normalised bond length l/d.

Figure BD-R.12: Compilation of all collected lap splice tests

In figure BD-R.13 the values have been normalised according diameter, concrete strength, concrete cover and
modulus. Here the transferable strain is depicted against the normalised bond length. For unconfined splices a
strain limit of 0,006 can be justified, as longer length will not automatically lead to higher transferable forces.

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 835
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Figure BD-R.13: Maximum bar strain for confined and unconfined lap splices

Figure BD-R.14: Different bond descriptions in EC2 and lap splice datapoints:
The black line describes the design according EN 1992-1-1 (2004) for steel reinforcement. Values for higher
stresses have been extrapolated. In FprEN 1992-1-1:2022 (E) for steel reinforcement we have a combination of
the linear and nonlinear behaviour with a transition value of 435 MPa. For FRP in the FprEN 1992-1-1:2022 (E)
the black line is followed throughout 217 MPa while for higher stresses the orange curve is proposed. That means
the same regularities are followed with a transition value in the half magnitude. In this case the limit of 0,006 strain
can be relaxed.

In principle provisions of Section 12 can be used with FRP reinforcement for members covered within the scope
R.12
of Annex R, however some adjustments have been necessary, considering mainly:
- Scope of Annex R also considering restriction in section R.11
- FRP-reinforcement may not be considered as integrity reinforcement against progressive collapse.
- Minimum spacings (especially for shear)
- considering design value fftd instead of characteristic value fyk
- Provisions for structures sensitive to punching shear have been excluded

FRP reinforcement is applied in precast members in practice. Provisions in R.1 to R.12 apply also for precast
R.13
members. Provisions considering prestressing have been excluded. Provisions for pocket foundation have been
excluded due to sensitivity to punching shear. Design value fftd has been considered instead of characteristic value
fyk in Formula (R.14).

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 836
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

[1] fédération internationale du béton (fib): Technical Report on the design and use of FRP reinforcement
References
in Reinforced Concrete Structures. fib Bulletin 40; 2007.
[2] fédération internationale du béton (fib): fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Ernst & Sohn,
2013.
[3] Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung (National technical approval): Z-1.6-238: Bewehrungsstab
Schöck ComBAR aus glasfaserverstärktem Kunststoff. Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), Berlin
2014. (TG1-Document N 70)
[4] Kiwa N.V.: Nationale Beeoordelingsrichtlijn (BRL0513): glasvezelstaven voor toepassing als wapening
in beton. (National assessment document: Use of glass fibre bars as reinforcement in concrete). Kiwa
N.V. Rijswijk (NL), 06/2010.
[5] KOMO: Attest-met-productcertificaat K449001/01: ComBAR glasvezelstaven voor toepassing als
wapening in beton. Kiwa N.V., Rijswijk (NL), 06/2010. (TG1-Document N 71)
[6] CSA S806-12: Design and construction of building stuctures with fibre reinforced polymers. Canadian
Standards Association (CSA), March 2012.
[7] Recommendations for determining the design and application parameters of embedded FRP
reinforcement, May 2021. (Background-Document to Annex R.15).
[8] BÜV-Empfehlung: Tragende Kunststoffbauteile im Bauwesen – Entwurf, Bemessung und Konstruktion
(Guideline of society of structural audit and supervision: Structural polymers in construction - planning,
design and detailing). Bauüberwachungsverein (BÜV e.V.), Berlin, 08/2010.
[9] ISO 10406-1 (2015): Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement of concrete – Test methods – Part
1: FRP bars and grids.
[10] ASTM D7377/D7337M – 12 (2019): Standard Test Method for Tensile Creep Rupture of Fibre
Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars.
[11] Sayed-Ahmed, M.S., Benmokrane, B, Mohamed, K. (2017), Creep rupture and creep behaviour of
newly third generation GFRP bars subjected to sustained loads 2019.
[12] Rossini, Saqan, Nanni, (2019) Prediction of the creep rupture strength of GFRP bars Journal of
Construction and Building Materials 227
[13] Benmokrane, B., Brown V.L., Rossini, Mohamed, K, Nanni, A., Rossini, M, (2019) Creep rupture limit
for GFRP bars sustained loads technical note, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Durability of FRP Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation of Structures, Quebec, Canada.
[14] JSCE (1997), Recommendation for design and construction of concrete structures using continuous
fibre reinforcing materials, Research Committee on Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials, Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo, Japan.
[15] ACI 440.1R-06: Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP
Bars. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA, 2006.
[16] Background documents to the final PT1 draft prEN 1992-1-1:2018, Subsections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2: Shear
in members without shear reinforcement, A. Muttoni, M. Fernández Ruiz, F. Cavagnis, J.T. Simões ;
EPFL, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
[17] Kurth, M.: Zum Querkrafttragverhalten von Betonbauteilen mit Faserverbundkunststoff-Bewehrung.
Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Lehrstuhl und Institut für Massivbau,
Dissertation 2012.
[18] Kurth, M., Hegger, J.: Zur Querkrafttragfähigkeit von Betonbauteilen mit Faserverbundkunststoff-
Bewehrung – Ableitung eines Bemessungsansatzes, Bauingenieur, Band 88, Oktober 2013
[19] Kurth, M., Hegger, J.: Zur Querkrafttragfähigkeit von Betonbauteilen mit Faserverbundkunststoff-
Bewehrung – Experimentelle Untersuchungen, Bauingenieur, Band 88, September 2013
[20] Rakhshanimehr M et al.: Establishment and experimental validation of an updated predictive equation
for the development and lap-spliced length of GFRP bars in concrete Mats. And Struct. (2018) 51 :15
RILEM
[21] Aly R Experimental and analytical studies on bond behavior of tensile lap spliced FRP reinforcing bars
in concrete. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke 2005.
[22] Harajlli M, Abouniaj M.: Bond performance of GFRPbars in tension: experimental evaluation and
assessment of ACI 440 guidelines. ASCE J Compos Constr 14(6):659–668ACI 440.1R-06:
[23] Choi DU, Sun SC Ha S, Bond strength of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars in unconfined concrete.
Eng Struct 34:303–313 (2012)
[24] Thighiouart B, Benmokrane B Mukhopadhyaya Bond strength of glass FRP rebars splices in beams
under static loading. Constr Build Mater 13(7):383–392: (1999)
[25] Choi et al. Splice length of GFRP bars in reinforced concrete slabs ACF conference 2008
[26] Weber A : Übergreifungsversuche mit geringer Betondeckung unpublished Baden-Baden 2019

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 837
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
Annex R Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

[27] Mertens K: Theoretische und experimentelle Untersuchungen zu Übergreifungsstößen von

Faserverbundkunststoff-Bewehrung Masterthesis unpublished 2014 RWTH Aachen
[28] Heinrich S: Zusammenhang von Verbundkraft, Spaltzugwirkung und Kraftübertragung durch
Übergreifungsstöße bei nichtmetallischer Bewehrung Masterthesis unpublished 2015 FH Potsdam
[29] Hamad B, Rteil A.: Comparison of Roles of FRP Sheets, Stirrups, and Steel Fibers in Confining Bond
Critical Regions J Comp in Constr. 2006
[30] Quayum S, Rteil A.: Bond Strength of FRP Rebar to Concrete: Effect of Concrete Confinement Proc.
CICE 2010 Beijing
[31] Sheikh Saqan Johal Long term durability of GFRP bars and bends.
[32] Cairovic, D.; Zlamal, M.; Venclovsky, J.; Girgle, F.; Sulak, P.; Stepanek, P.: FRP Shear dowels as
alternative reinforcement of concrete-to-concrete interface. Proceedings of the fib Symposium 2019
“Concrete – Innovations in Materials, Design and Structures”
[33] Weber, A.: Useful shear tests for FRP dowels and rebars. Proceedings of the fib Symposium 2019
“Concrete – Innovations in Materials, Design and Structures”
[34] Szczech, Renata Kotynia: Beam bond tests of GFRP and steel reinforcement to concrete. Archives of
Civil Engineering, vol. 64, no. 4, 2018, p. 243-256.
[35] Szczech, D.; Kotynia, R.: Bond Analysis of GFRP and Steel Reinforcement to Concrete. fib
International Symposium, Concrete Innovations in Materials, Design and Structures, Kraków, 2019, pp.
125-126.
[36] Szczech, D.; Kotynia, R.: Shear tests on GFRP reinforced concrete beams. Streszczenie. AMCM' 2020
10th International Conference on Advanced Models and New Concepts, Lublin, p. 113-114.
[37] Szczech, D. PhD thesis. Shear tests on GFRP and steel reinforced concrete beams. [in final
preparation]
[38] Pahn, M.; Caspari, C.: Lückenforschung Faserkunststoffbewehrung (FKB) – Untersuchung des
Langzeitverbundverhaltens von Bewehrung aus faserverstärktem Kunststoff. Research Report SWD-
10.08.18-17.62. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.

List of versions of this document

14.03.2021. 1st draft
13.04.2021 2nd draft
26.04.2021 3rd draft
17.05.2021 4th draft
29.05.2021 5th draft
21.11.2022 6th draft
21.12.2022 7th draft

C. Giaccio, A. Weber, A. Ignatiadis, M. Kurth, R. Kotynia 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 838
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1/TG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Background document to subclause R.15

Material requirements for FRP
Reinforcement

Andre Weber Schoeck Bauteile GmbH, DE

Matthias Pahn TU Kaiserslautern, DE
Lars Eckfeldt Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), DE
Anett Ignatiadis Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton e.V., DE

21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 839
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

R.15 1 Introduction and scope

In clause R.5 and R.15 of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E) are listed the design parameters for concrete members
reinforced with FRP reinforcement according to Annex R of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E). Annex R of FprEN 1992-
1-1 contains design rules for concrete members in new structures reinforced with non-prestressed glass and
carbon fibre reinforcement bars. The reinforcement may be profiled or roughened.
The design rules of Annex R of FprEN 1992-1-1 are based on rules in international codes and national approvals.
They consider experiences from practical applications in projects and test results from material development and
research.
For a complete design according to Annex R some product-specific parameters are needed, which can be
determined with the help of specific tests. In addition, some of these parameters may not be directly derived from
the test results. To define the procedures determine the design parameters from test results and explain the
assumptions made based on the knowledge of currently available products is the main subject of this document.
According to the Construction Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (CPR)) on EU level test
procedures for the essential characteristics of construction products may be included in two types of technical
specifications for construction products:
 European harmonised product standards or
 European Assessment Documents (EAD).
At the time of this writing, neither technical specification for the above mentioned FRP reinforcement was
available.
Because of this current situation, the following follows for this background-document:
 This document must not only contain methods for determining the design parameters for Annex R of
FprEN 1992-1-1 from test results, but also the descriptions of the test procedures themselves. This is
done in Annex BD-D. The test procedures in Annex BD-D are recommendations which clarify the
assumptions for determining the design parameters. Other test methods may be applied, if the output
agrees with these assumptions.
 If at any time one of the technical specifications mentioned above is available, this document has to
be revised as follows:
 The content of Annex BD-D, which is included in the above mentioned technical specifications
shall be deleted.
 All references in the text of this document to deleted clauses in Annex BD-D shall then be
replaced by references to the European harmonised standards or European Assessment
Documents.
In article 4 (1) of the CPR is written:
"When a construction product is covered by a harmonised standard or conforms to a European Technical
Assessment which has been issued for it, the manufacturer shall draw up a declaration of performance when
such a product is placed on the market."
As long as such technical specifications are not available, the manufacturers cannot explain the performance of
their reinforcing material via such a declaration of performance. These can currently only be stated in test reports
for the tests according to the Annex BD-D that are not binding with regard to EU Construction Products
Regulation (CPR).
But important for the application of the FRP reinforcement are not only the design parameters but also the
application parameters which are also derived from the tests according to Annex BD-D.

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 840
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

2 Product-specific design and application parameters for embedded FRP

reinforcement
The product-specific design parameters for embedded FRP reinforcement included in FprEN 1992-1-1 are the
following:
Table 1: Product-specific design and application parameters included in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E), Annex R
Symbol Meaning used in FprEN 1992-1-1
𝐶 reduction factor for creep rupture R.5.3
𝐶 reduction factor for environmental attack R.5.3
𝐶 reduction factor for temperature R.5.3
𝐸 Modulus of elasticity of longitudinal FRP reinforcement R.5.1, R.5.2, R.5.3, R.8.1, R.8.2,
R.8.3, R.9.2, R.12.1, R.13, R.16
𝐸 Modulus of elasticity of the stirrup R.8.2, R.8.3
(𝑇 ) Installation temperature R.5.2
(𝑇 ) Minimum service temperature of the FRP reinforcement R.5.2
(𝑇 , Maximum service temperature of the FRP reinforcement
and R.5.2
𝑇 , )
𝑐 , Minimum concrete cover due to bond R.6
𝑓 , Long term bond strength R.5.2, R.11.4, R.15
𝑓 Characteristic short term tensile strength of FRP
R.5.2, R.5.3, R.8.2, R.15
reinforcement
𝑓 , Characteristic long term tensile strength of FRP
R.5.1, R.5.2, R.5.3
reinforcement
𝑓 , Characteristic long-term tensile strength of the stirrup R.8.2
𝛼 ,  Coefficient of thermal expansion in longitudinal direction R.5.3
𝛾 Partial safety factor of FRP reinforcement R.4 Table R.1
𝜀 Rupture strain of FRP reinforcement R.5.3 Figure R.1
𝜀 , Long term rupture strain of FRP reinforcement
R.5.1, R.5.3 Figure R.1
(𝑓 , /𝐸 )
𝜌 Mean density R.5.3
 Diameter R.5.2

 Fatigue properties; robustness R.5.2

 Exposure classification R.5.2

 Minimum strength retention after alkali-resistance test

R.15
without stress

2.1 Boundary conditions of the intended use of the FRP-reinforcement

Reinforcement tested in accordance to Annex BD-D can be applied under the following environmental conditions
for a design life of 100 years:
 The FRP reinforcement may be used for normal concrete in the range of compressive strength classes
between 𝐶 to 𝐶 according to EN 206 [8] sufficient bond behaviour assumed.
 The FRP reinforcement is used for exposures where chemical resistance of the FRP reinforcement
and for the bond between the FRP reinforcement and the concrete exists.
 The application of the embedded FRP reinforcement should pertain to a given temperature range.
The range of compressive strength classes and the range of temperature are not given in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
(E). Also there are no general restrictions on the exposure classes. Therefore, it is necessary to be declared by
the manufacturer and confirmed by the tests, e. g. in accordance with Annex BD-D. If there is no confirmation
by tests, the manufacturer's declaration shall suffice or Annex BD-D should be supplemented by suitable tests.

2.2 Boundary conditions of the installation of the FRP-reinforcement

The manufacturer's instructions and safety information shall be considered. In particular, it shall be ensured that
the temperature during installation is always between the minimum and maximum installation temperature of the
FRP-reinforcement (considering e. g. UV radiation on site, hydratation of the concrete).

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 841
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

2.3 Design and application parameters according to Annex R of FprEN1992-1-1 and

their recommended determination
As the design and application parameters are product-specific parameters they should be determined based
on tests.
Table 2: Recommended test procedures, recommended values and requirements for application of
FprEN1992-1-1, Annex R
Symbol Test procedure Recommended value in Requirements for the application of
and assessment FprEN 1992-1-1, Annex R FprEN1992-1-1, Annex R
in Annex BD-D
𝐶 D.3 Estimation as save value from
ACI and CSA 0,35 for GFRP.
0,8 for CFRP.
𝐶 D.3 Save Estimation from ACI
and CSA 0,7
𝐶  D.3 0,8 for general use or 1,0 for
use at 20°C (indoor and
underground)
𝐸 D.6 ≥ 40.000 Mpa
𝐸 D.6 ≥ 40.000 Mpa
𝑇 D.7 See 2.3.2
𝑇 D.7.2 -40 °C See 2.3.2
𝑇 , D.7.1 See 2.3.2
𝑇 , D.3 See 2.3.2
𝑐 ,  D.8.1 A test series showing that smaller
2 concrete cover leads to comparable
results, if cminb < 2 is used
𝑓 , D.8.2 Long term tests in higher strength
concrete
𝑓 D.2
𝑓 , D.3
𝑓 , D.4 𝑓 , 1,3 ∙ 𝑓
If this is not reached with the chosen
product, the design value for shear
shall be decreased accordingly.
𝛼 , D.7.4 5 ∙ 10-6 K-1 for GFRP bars
0 for CFRP bars
(test values might differ)
𝛾 See 2.3 FRP may be reduced from 1,5 to 1,3 if it
See Table R.1 is proofed with reliability analysis (see
background to Annex R, Clause R.4)
𝜀 D.2
𝜀 , D.5 𝑓 , /𝐸 0,005
𝜌 2000 kg/m³ for GFRP
1650 kg/m³ for CFRP
 D.1 For diameter between 6 mm
At the moment no limits in Annex R, but
and 32 mm broader
in the main text
experience is available
Fatigue, D.9 Tests shall show sufficient robust-ness
robustness and resistance against pre-dominantly
statical loads.

Minimum Alkali-resistance test without stress

strength according to ISO 10406-1 or to the
retention relevant product standards shall be
greater than 0,7 𝑓

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 842
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

2.3.1 Long-term tensile strength

The long-term tensile strength is evaluated as the characteristic value of the stress leading to a 5% probability
of a failure under 100 years of sustained stress in 40°C wet concrete (𝑓 , ).
The long term tensile strength 𝑓 , can be determined from the characteristic short term strength and three
individual factors 𝐶 , 𝐶 and 𝐶 . (See Annex BD-D, Clause D.3.1)
A more accurate straight forward way is to determine𝑓 , directly from an appropriate test which is described
in Annex BD-D, clause D.3.2. Therefore the known test setups from ISO 10406-1 [1] or comparable international
standards worldwide are extended so that the factors time, temperature and alkalinity are included. There are
different test conditions and evaluation of test results:
 Method A (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.3.2.1) applies a time temperature shift principle and evaluates
time to failure tests in wet concrete at 60 °C to a duration of 8800 h
 Method B (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.3.2.2) extrapolates time to failure tests in the failure time range
between 40 h and more than 4000 h for different load levels in wet concrete at 40 °C to a duration of
100 a. Extrapolation is allowed to 100 a (further then specified in EN 705 [3], Method A) if a second
series at 60 °C shows linearity for the same time range
 Method C (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.3.2.3) applies a load of 𝑓 , ∙ (1+V) for 5000 h in wet concrete
at 60 °C without failure. V is the Variance of the failure stress in tensile tests. (For a residual strength
of more than 90 % and a residual strength of minimum twice the applied test load the failure probability
can be seen as 0 and the applied load is seen as characteristic strength.) The concrete used for this
test shall be cracked through the tensile strain of the tested bar and shall have a high alkalinity,
alternatively an artificial pore solution with pH 13,7 shall be taken.
For higher service temperatures, testing shall be executed with accordingly increased testing temperature to
give the corresponding strength.
Optional: The characteristic strength 𝑓 , for use in auxiliary and medium term (temporary) constructions can
be taken as characteristic strength determined from long term tests with accordingly reduced time above. This
value is in the range between 1,15 and 1,5 ∙ 𝑓 , .

The long-term tensile strength𝑓 , of bent bars resp. stirrups shall be determined at the bend portion of the
bar (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.4). Direct determination is recommended.
2.3.2 Temperature
In comparison to reinforcing steel the properties of FRP reinforcement are more sensitive to temperature due to
the polymer. The service temperature refers to the validity of the given properties of the FRP reinforcement not
to the general application of Annex R.
For the service temperatures the temperatures inside the concrete member have to be considered. For the
estimation of temperature inside the member beside the outside temperature, also other influences as the
member thickness and the location regarding sun exposure have to be considered. Further information can be
found in [7]. If the long-term tests (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.3) are performed with a constant temperature of
60°C it is seen as representative concerning the durability for 100 years working life in all European regions
including the effect of the different daily and yearly surface temperature fluctuations up to 70°C short-term. For
thin, dark-coloured members under sun exposure higher temperature may have to be considered.
The minimum service temperature 𝑇 shall be proofed to exclude significant influence on the stress-strain
behaviour due to low temperatures (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.7.2).
The maximum permissible temperature 𝑇 , (see Annex BD-D, clause D.7.1) is the temperature which should
not be exceeded even for a short time. If it is exceeded, irreversible damage of the reinforcing material cannot
be excluded. So also the temperature during storage, transport and installation should not exceed 𝑇 , .
The maximum service temperature 𝑇 , considers also long-term effects as ageing and creep which is
accelerated with increasing temperature. The maximum service temperature depends on the test conditions for
the long-term tests (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.3).
2.3.3 Bond
The design rules in FprEN 1992-1-1, Annex R assume bond properties of the embedded FRP reinforcement
which are in the range of steel reinforcement.
The tests for minimum concrete cover due to bond (see Annex BD-D, clause D.8.1) should be performed to proof
the rules for minimum cover and spacings.
Determining the bond-strength (see Annex BD-D, Clause D.8.2) long-term effects have to be considered
analogous the long-term tensile strength. The minimum requirement for the long-term bond strength
𝑓 , 1,5 MPa ensures that the bond properties do not differ to much from steel reinforcement. Performing
the bond tests different influences, e. g. concrete strength and bond conditions have to be considered.

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 843
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Annex BD-D – Recommendations for test program for FRP reinforcement

D.1 Cross section for design

All measured values and design are related to the nominal cross section. If this nominal cross section cannot be
assessed by direct measurements, the area shall be measured according to ISO 10406-1 [1].

D.2 Short-term tensile strength

D.2.1 Test procedure
Purpose of the assessment:
Determination of short term strength
Test conditions:
The test is carried out on rebars not cast into concrete at 20 °C. Both ends of the rebar are supported sufficiently
restraint to cause tensile failure of the rebar in the clear distance. Report the failure load and failure mode of
each test. The test method according to ISO 10406-1 [1], clause 6 is used.
Assessment method:
Assessment of failure loads according to D.2.2 and determine the tensile resistance according to Formula (D.1):
𝑓 𝐹 % 𝑁1 /𝐴 (D.1)
with
𝐹 % 𝑁1 5%-fractile of the failure loads of test series N1;
𝐴 Nominal cross section of the rebar according to direct measurement of cross section or in the
case of irregular sections according ISO 10406-1 [1] (see D.1).
If the maximum limit for the coefficient of variation of the failure loads of 10% is exceeded the number of tests
shall be increased to meet this limit.
D.2.2 Determining the characteristic value (5 % - fractile)
The 5%-fractile of the ultimate loads measured in a test series is to be calculated according to statistical
procedures for a confidence level of 90 %. If a precise verification does not take place, a normal distribution and
an unknown standard deviation of the population shall be assumed.
𝐹 , % 𝐹, 1 𝑘 ∙ 𝑐𝑣 (D.2)
with
𝐹 mean failure load of a test series;
𝑘 tolerance factor corresponding to a 5 % probability of non-exceedance with a confidence of
90%, in general derived from a Gaussian distribution for which the population standard
deviation is unknown, values for specific sample sizes n may be taken from statistical
handbooks,
e.g.: n = 5 tests: 𝑘 = 3,40
n = 10 tests: 𝑘 = 2,57
𝑐𝑣 coefficient of variation [%] related to loads.

D.3 Long-term tensile strength

D.3.1 Determination of 𝒇𝒇𝒕𝒌,𝟏𝟎𝟎𝒂 with the characteristic short term strength reduced
by the factors 𝑪𝒄 , 𝑪𝒆 and 𝑪𝑻 .
The long term tensile strength 𝑓 , can be determined from the characteristic short term strength and three
individual factors 𝐶 , 𝐶 and 𝐶 .
𝐶 is the proportion between the characteristic strength after ageing and before ageing of the same
production charge. The factor can be determined according to the test concept in ISO 10406-1 [1]. To
speed the ageing process the specimen is exposed at 60 °C. In difference to ISO 10406-1 [1] the
exposition has to be done for a duration of 3000 h (to estimate 100 a) according to ASTM [9].
𝐶 is the proportion between the strength under sustained load and the strength under short-term load. The factor
can be determined according to ISO 10406-1 [1], clause 12.
𝐶 is a factor considering temperature effects. It can be taken as 0,8 for outdoor elements and building
components if heating through solar radiation cannot be excluded (values estimated from fib-bulletin 40 [2]).

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 844
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

D.3.2 Direct determination of 𝒇𝒇𝒕𝒌,𝟏𝟎𝟎𝒂

Purpose of the assessment:

Determination of long-term tensile strength of the rebar for permanent loads. (Creep rupture in alkaline
environment).
Test conditions:
There are different test conditions and evaluation of test results: Method A, B and C. One of the three methods
can be selected. For all methods the load is kept constant. The here described methods A and B are based on
the “Creep failure” test according to ISO 10406-1 [1], clause 12 and are modified for reinforcing materials used
in concrete through the use of a high alkaline wet concrete prism with defined temperature (Figure D.1). The
used cement should have a Na2O content of 1 %. The ends of the anchor are supported sufficiently restraint to
cause failure of the bar. The concrete prism should be designed that minimum one tensile crack occurs inside
the length l. Method C is based on ISO 10406-1 [1], clause 11 “alkali resistance” and modified through the use
of alkaline wet concrete according to Figure D.1 and the assessment method compatible to the semi-probabilistic
safety system.

Figure D.1: Example for a specimen and loading setup for long term test under sustained load.
Assessment method:
Assessment of failure loads according to D.2.2 and determine the long-term tensile resistance according to
following Formula:
𝑓 , 𝐹 % /𝐴 (D.3)
with
𝐹% 5%-fractile of the failure loads according to D.2.2;
𝐴 Nominal cross section of the rebar according to D.1.
D.3.2.1 Method A: Regression with time temperature shift
Test conditions:
The test is carried out on connector cast into high alkaline concrete. One end of the rebar is restraint to cause
failure of the connector. The connector is stored in a tempered water bath. The load is applied and held constant
until failure.
The load is chosen on different levels.
An example of a testing rig is shown in Figure D.1. Report the sustained load level, failure mode and time of
failure of each test. Test load has to be plotted against failure time for all tests.
Assessment method:
EN 705 [3], Method A describes the evaluation method for determination of the average of load for a time of
8800h. There shall be a minimum of n = 10 tests.
20 h – 100 h > 2 specimens
100 h – 1000 h > 2 specimens
1000 h – 5000 h > 2 specimens
> 5000 h > 2 specimens
The coefficient of variation r² must be greater than or equal to 0,85 for n = 10 specimens.
If the coefficient of variation r² is smaller than 0,85 the number of tests has to be accordingly increased so that
r² according to EN 705 [3] is achieved.
The mean value can be obtained for the value 8800 h and 60 °C. The curve is to be evaluated by means of
EN 705 [3], Method A. Subsequently, using the methods of the statistics, the 5% fractile/percentile has to be
determined using the residual standard deviation and the student value.
This characteristic value of tensile strength is representative to a value of 100 years and 40 °C 𝑓 , due to
time temperature shifting.

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 845
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

D.3.2.2 Method B: Long term test with extrapolation with additional linearity check at elevated
temperature
Required tests:
Perform the tests according to Figure D.1 until failure. 40 °C is tested.
Test conditions:
The test is carried out bars cast into high alkaline concrete. The concrete is stored in a tempered water bath.
The load is applied and held constant until failure. The concrete around the anchor cracks through the applied
force. The load is chosen on different levels. An example of a test setup is shown in Figure D.1. Report the
sustained load level, failure mode and time of failure of each test.
Assessment method:
EN 705 [3], Method A describes the evaluation method for determination of the characteristic value of load for a
time of 880.000h. There shall be a minimum of 10 tests for at least 5 load levels and a minimum of 2 specimens
reaching a failure time of more than 5000h.
20 h - 100 h >2 specimens
100 h – 1000 h >2 specimens
1000 h – 5000 h >2 specimens
> 5000 h >2 specimens

D.3.2.3 Method C: Long term test with increased load and time temperature shift.
Representative load concept
This method can be applied for materials where failure in determined time ranges is difficult to be pre-determined.
The tests proofs that failure will not occur for a determined load in 5000h.
Test conditions:
See figure D.1.
The load is chosen by increasing the intended characteristic long-term strength 𝑓 , , by the estimated
variance of the strength.
𝑓 , 𝑓 , , 1 𝑠 [kN] (D.4)
with
𝑓 , sustained tension load for tests in kN;
𝑓 , , characteristic intended long-term strength of FRP under tension in kN;
𝑠 variance of tests.
Note: The characteristic resistance is lower than the test load, as a failure probability has to be evaluated
even if no specimen fails during the test.
Report the sustained load level 𝑁 , .
There shall be a minimum of 10 tests.
If one or more tests fail during the 5000h, the series shall be repeated for a smaller load.
Assessment method:
The basic value of characteristic resistance 𝑓 is determined according to following Formula:
𝑓 , 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑓 , / 1 𝑠 [kN] (D.5)
with
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑓 , minimum sustained load of all tests without failure in kN;
𝑓 , characteristic resistance of FRP under tension load in kN;
𝑠 variance of tests (long-term).

D.4 Long-term tensile strength of bent bars (stirrups)

The value for 𝑓 , has to be derived from analogous short- and long-term tests as for straight bars.
The long term strength of bent bars shall be determined at the bend portion of the bar embedded in wet high
alkaline concrete. The free leg length shall be sufficient, that slippage can be excluded. The concrete shall be
stored in water. Test setup and evaluation method is according to D.2 and D.3.2. For the alternative method by
using the short term strength and the 𝐶 , 𝐶 and 𝐶 factors in D.3.1 shall be noted, that especially the 𝐶 factor
is expected to be different through a different mechanical stress state and different fibre orientation in the bent
section. A possible setup is sketched in figure D.2. It is important, that the embedment length is sufficient, that

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 846
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

the free end does not move. The test specimen shall be reinforced sufficiently, that no extensive cracking occurs.
Leg length and perpendicular reinforcement shall be noted for each test.

Figure D.2: Example for test setup for long term tensile testing of bend bars

D.5 Long-term deformation

The long-term strength evaluation should also give information about the long-term deformation (creep rule) for
proper evaluation by the design engineer of time-dependent effects. If creep strain for 8800 h at 60 °C with a
load of 50 % of 𝑓 , is less than 5 % of initial strain of this load time dependent effects can be neglected. If
this is not the case the modulus for design shall be decreased by the same percentage.

D.6 Modulus of Elasticity

Modulus of elasticity 𝐸 as mean value is determined by short-time tensile tests according to ISO 10406-1 [1],
whereas 𝐸 has to be evaluated between 10 % and 100 % of 𝑓 , . If it cannot be proved that the creep
influence in the serviceability limit state is less than 5 % an effective E-Modulus has to be used for long-term
load.

D.7 Temperature
D.7.1 Maximum permissible temperature
For determining the maximum permissible temperature of the FRP reinforcement 𝑇 , the glass transition
temperature according to EN 12614 [4] has to be determined considering 𝑇 in the first cycle. Then follows for
the maximum permissible temperature:
𝑇 , 𝑇 30𝐾 (D.6)
D.7.2 Short-term strength at minimum temperature of intended use
These tests shall be performed to exclude significant influence on the stress-strain behaviour due to low
temperatures. The test can be performed with a medium sized bar. The tests length must be exposed to air with
the minimum service temperature 𝑇 sufficiently, that the temperature is constant in the whole specimen.
D.7.3 Glass transition temperature or fusion temperature
The glass transition temperature can be determined according to EN 12614 [4] considering 𝑇 in the first cycle.
For materials with high fibre content different methods like DMA or DMTA which measure the thermo-mechanical
properties over temperature can be used. 𝑇 is a temperature range, where the mechanical and physical
properties of the resin changes gradually to a softer state.
D.7.4 Coefficient of thermal expansion 𝜶𝑭𝑹𝑷,𝒕𝒉
While the used fibres glass and carbon generally have smaller coefficients of thermal expansion than the typical
concrete, the resin has a much greater coefficient of expansion. The value can be measured by TMA or other
known methods. Due to the unidirectional structure of most bars the value is a function of the fibre content the
factor 𝛼 , of the used fibre and resin. For Carbon FRP reinforcement the value of 𝛼 , may be < 0.

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 847
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

D.8 Bond properties

D.8.1 Minimum concrete cover due to bond
The concrete cover 𝑐 , due to bond requirement to be tested in comparative (considering the bond strength)
eccentric bond tests with standardized B500 concrete steel with an average 𝑓 . Therefore, a modified RILEM
RC6 test setup with one diameter concrete cover (EN 10080 [5]) should be used (see Figure D.3). No additional
reinforcement shall be used in the cube. Tests should be performed in a concrete of a compressive strength
𝑓 of 30 MPa. The reduction in bond strength from centrical test to eccentrical test shall not be greater than
the corresponding reduction for reinforcing steel. If the value is not reached the test shall be repeated with higher
concrete cover. Alternatively this test can be performed by the beam end test (see Figure D.6) with the same
concrete cover and conditions.

Figure D.3: Example for test setup for eccentric bond test (modified RILEM RC 6)
D.8.2 Long-term bond strength 𝒇𝒃𝒅,𝟏𝟎𝟎𝒂
Bond failure of FRP reinforcement can take place in the concrete or in the bar surface. For higher concrete
strength the bar surface failure is more probable. The limit of the bond stress for GFRP reinforcement surface
failure (long term) 𝑓 , shall be proved by long term tests according to the same procedure as the long term
tensile strength tests. Therefore, bond tests at elevated temperatures (40 °C or 60 °C) with bond lengths between
3 and 10 times the diameter shall be performed. Additional reinforcement to prevent splitting is allowed. The
concrete cover and the concrete strength shall be chosen to ensure failure of the surface of the bar in long-term.
The mix shall be composed without silika fume or other ingredients which reduce alkalinity or water transport.
The bond length shall be water-saturated for the testing time.
Methods A, B and C according to D.3.2 can be used.

Figure D.4: Long term bond test in saturated concrete. Bond length between 3 and 10 diameter for different bar
diameters
To proof that bond works also in poor conditions or conditions with longitudinal cracks (e. g. comparison of pull-
out tests with poor and good bond condition) centric RILEM RC6 tests should be used. It is recommended to use
a double form with the lower cube for good conditions and the upper cube for poor conditions. The difference of
the mean values between upper and lower specimens should be smaller than 20 %. If this cannot be reached,
the factor 𝑘 1,2 in FprEN 1992-1-1 has to be adjusted accordingly.

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 848
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

Mean values are taken for the assessment as bond is averaging through number and length of bars for general
reinforcement

Figure D.5: Specimen for comparison between normal and weak bond conditions
Centric RILEM RC6 tests in cubes with bond length of 5 times the diameter are recommended. Additional
reinforcement to prevent splitting is allowed.
D.8.3 Anchorage length
Experimental verification of the calculated anchorage length based on the centric RILEM RC6 tests shall be
performed with specimens similar to the planned use of the rebar. If for example the rebar shall be used with a
minimum concrete cover of 26 mm, the beam end test shall be performed with this concrete cover. The proposal
for bond length in beam end test is between 5 and 15 times the diameter.
Optional: factors for determination of design anchorage length 2,

Figure D.6: Beam end test setup to determine anchorage length and 𝑐 ,

The comparative short term tests with adapted geometry shall be performed in comparison to concrete steel.
The tests above are performed without additional reinforcement. If additional reinforcement is used, the rules of
the assessed material shall be adapted accordingly. The determination of the values should be according to the
rules of reinforcement steel. (A database with more than 1000 values for steel reinforcement is available as
comparison for the fib model code 2010 [6].)

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 849
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
R.15 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 (E)

D.9 Tensile fatigue/Robustness

For tensile fatigue test anchoring failure can be problematic. If the tests cannot be performed in air, it is
recommended to perform the tests in T-shaped bending beams in a 4-point bending setup (see Figure D.7). The
stress can be calculated. Crack width at peak load shall be not greater than 0,5 mm. Recommended testing
speed for the beam test is between 1 and 10 load cycles per second to prevent overheating.

Figure D.7: Test setup for tensile fatigue/robustness

To meet the minimum requirements a upper stress of 0,5 ∙ 𝑓 , shall be chosen. This corresponds with the
SLS limits and is comparable to the 0,5 ∙ 𝑓 oder 0,7 ∙ 𝑓 stress level for reinforcing steel. As lower stress level
0,4 ∙ 𝑓 , should be chosen to show sufficient robustness. 2 Mio. load cycles is the minimum number for
reinforcing steel connections to show the enough robustness for predominantly static applications.

[1] ISO 10406-1 (2015): Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement of concrete – Test methods – Part
References
1: FRP bars and grids.
[2] fédération internationale du béton (fib): FRP reinforcement in RC structures, fib bulletin 40. Technical
Report. Lausanne, 2007.
[3] EN 705 (1994): Plastics piping systems - Glass-reinforced thermosetting plastics (GRP) pipes and
fittings - Methods for regression analyses and their use.
[4] EN 12614 (2005): Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures - Test
methods - Determination of glass transition temperatures of polymers.
[5] EN 10080 (2005): Steel for the reinforcement of concrete - Weldable reinforcing steel – General.
[6] fédération internationale du béton (fib): Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010.
[7] A. Weber; C. Witt: Representative Application-based Temperatures for Durability Testing. 6th
International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, 22-25 May
2012, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
[8] EN 206 (2017): Concrete: Specification, performance, production and conformity
[9] ASTM D7957 / D7957M (2017): Standard Specification for Solid Round Glass Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Bars for Concrete Reinforcement

List of versions of this document

14.03.2021. 1st draft
14.05.2021 2nd draft
21.11.2022 3rd draft
21.12.2022 4th draft

A. Weber, M. Pahn, L. Eckfeldt, A. Ignatiadis 21.12.2022

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 850
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2 Project Team T1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause S.3

Minimum reinforcement areas for crack
control

Alejandro Pérez Caldentey FHECOR, Spain

01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 851
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document provides the background to clause S.3 (Minimum reinforcement areas for crack width control).

S.3 Reasons for change

Minimum reinforcement An expression to determine minimum reinforcement for bending combined with axial force has been
areas for crack width demanded by many countries in the comments to draft D1. The current formulation of EN 1992-1-1:2004
control which is rather long and not easy to understand, is a safe-sided approximation that has no upper bound and
does not explicitly account for distribution of reinforcement in members subjected to tension for which more
than one layer is necessary. The proposed formulation improves on all these aspects and introduces the
difference between primary cracking and secondary cracking, thereby limiting the amount of minimum
reinforcement needed for deep members.

Enhancement of ease of use

The proposed formulation is more compact and provides better guidance for engineers. Simplifications of the
general formulation for pure bending and pure tension are introduced first since they will cover 90% of
practical cases.

S.3 Derivation of the formulation for minimum reinforcement

Expression (S.3) Given a certain axial load in SLS, NEd (compression negative), which should be taken as the minimal
compressive force that is expected to be present at a given section or the maximum SLS tensile force, if
relevant, the bending moment that will result in the section cracking, Mcr, can, in general be determined from
Eq. (1):

 
f 
 N Ed  M cr N
 ct , ef  Ed 
M cr   f ct , ef  W1   (1)
 Ac  f W1  f ck f Ac 
ck
  ck
 
 cr   
where:
Ac is the area of the cross section,
fct,ef is the effective tensile resistance,
W1 is the resistance modulus referred to the most tensioned fibre,
 is the non-dimensional axial force acting on the concrete section, and
cr is the non-dimensional moment that cracks the concrete section.
For general flanged or box cross sections, the following analysis requires the subdivision of the section into
rectangles and the decomposition of the axial force, NEd, and the cracking moment, Mcr, into the axial forces,
NEdi, acting on each rectangle and the eccentricity of each of these axial forces with respect to the centre of
the rectangle, ei.
If the distance from the centroid of the full cross section to the centroid of the rectangular part is yi, the values
of NEd,i and associated eccentricity of this force with respect to the centre of the rectangle can be derived from
Eq. (2), obtained from simple resistance of materials formulations1:

bh M cr
N Ed ,i  N Ed  yi bh
Ac Ic
 1 N Ed 1 M cr  3 h
   yi    (2)
1 2 A 3 I c  2 4
e  h  bh c

2 N Ed ,i
 
 
where:
Ic is the inertia of the full uncracked concrete section,
b is the width of the rectangle being considered, and
h is the height of the of the rectangle being considered.
Eq. (2) can be re-written in non-dimensional form as shown in Eq. (3):

1
The second equation is derived by determining the stresses at the upper and lower fibres of the rectangle and determining the centroid of the
stress law, and then its distance to the middle of the rectangle.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 852
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

N Ed ,i N Ed M cr W1h y i Wh y
    i     cr 1 i
f bh f Ac f ck W1 I c h Ic h
ck
 ck
i 
   
cr
 
 
 1 N Ed 1 M cr W1h  3 yi 1  
   
e h  1 2 f ck Ac 3 f ck W1 I c  2 h 4  
    Introducing Eq. (1) 
d d 2 N Ed ,i 
  (3)
 f bh 
 ck
 
 i 
 1 1  f ct ,ef W h  3 
yi 1  
       1   

e h 1 2 3  f ck  Ic  2 h 4  
   
d d 2 i 
 
 
The cracked, rectangular, cross section part should then be able to resist the axial load acting on it (NEd,i) with
the eccentricity determined according to Eq. (2), with a given limited crack width, that is considered acceptable
for SLS and which is directly related, as will be seen later on, to a given stress in the reinforcement, s. Fig.
1 shows the strains and stresses of the rectangular cross section part after cracking, assuming that part of its
section remains under compression. To determine the minimum reinforcement, As,min, the depth of the neutral
axis, x, needs to be determined first. This can be done by expressing the condition of equilibrium of moments
with respect to the fibre of tensioned reinforcement, as shown in Eq.(5). But first, it is convenient to establish
a condition of compatibility between the maximum compressive strain of the concrete part, c, and the strain
in the tensioned steel, s, which provides a relationship between the maximum compressive stress of the
section part, c, and the target tensile stress, s, as given in Eq. (4):

x x E x  x
c  s   c  Ec  c  Ec  s  c s  s (4)
dx d  x Es d  x e d  x
where:
Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete,
Es is the modulus of elasticity of steel, and
e is the modular ratio (Es/Ec).

c =Ecc
C 1/3x
h/2 NEd,i<0
x
e<0
d
y

s
sAs,min
Fig. 1 Cracked cross section – Strains and stresses, assuming that the rectangular section part is partially in
compression2.
Therefore, given that the width, b, of the section part under consideration is constant, the equilibrium of
moments, taken with respect to the bottom reinforcement, results in a third-degree equation which allows to
determine the depth of the neutral axis, x (see Eq. (5)).

2
The figure shows a typical case where both the eccentricity and the axial force represented have negative values, to be accounted for when
writing the equilibrium equations.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 853
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1  1   h 
 c bx d  x   N Ed , i  d   e   0 
2  
 3   2 
C
1 s x  1   h 
bx  d  x   N Ed , i  d   e   0 
2 e d  x  3   2 
1  s 2 1   h 
bx  d  x   N Ed , i  d   e d  x   0 
2 e  3   2 
1 s 3 1 s  h   h 
 bx  bdx 2  N Ed , i  d   e  x  N Ed , i  d   e d  0 
6 e 2 e  2   2 
N Ed , i  N Ed , i  (5)
h  h 
x 3  3dx 2  6 e  d   e  x  6 e  d   e d 
b s  2  b  s  2 
3
 
x 2
N
   3 x   6 e Ed , i h ck 1  h  e  x
f

d d  f ck bh d  s  2d d  d
       
  i  
N Ed , i h f ck  h e
 6 e 1   0
f bh d  s  2d d 
ck
  
i 

where:
h is the height of the rectangle under consideration,
d is the effective height of the rectangle under consideration,

N Ed ,i
i is the non-dimensional axial force  i  , acting on the given cross section part, and
f ck bh
fck is the characteristic strength of concrete.

Eq. (5) can be written in non-dimensional form as in Eq. (6):

x N  h e
  i  Ed ,i   1   
d f ck bd  2d d 
(6)
h f ck h f ck
 3  3 2  6 e i   6 e i  0
d s d s
Eq. (6) can be solved analytically using Cardano’s solution for the third-degree equation. The relevant
expression is given in Eq. (7):

h f ck 
 18 e i  9 
d s h f ck
p  6 e i  3 
3 d s 

h f ck h f ck
 54  162 e i   27  6 e i  
d s d s  4 3
q     q 2  p 0
27  27
h f ck h f ck 
 2  6 e i   6 e i   2 
d s d s  (7)



   
  q  
p 1  2  4 
  2  cos arccos 1 . 5   3
3 3  p  3 
   3   
    

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 854
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The minimum reinforcement, As,min, can then be determined by equilibrium of axial forces, as shown in Eq.
(8):

1
 s As,min   c bx  N Ed ,i 
2
s x
As,min 1  e d  x N Ed ,i h f ck
 bx  (8)
 2 bd s
bd f ck bh d  s
 min
1 2 1 h f ck
 min    i
2 e 1 d s
The previous equations are valid if the axial force is such that at least part of the section remains under
compression after cracking. The limiting value occurs when the solution to Eq. (6) returns a value of 0 for x,
that is, when the eccentricity is equal to d-h/2 (see Eq. (9)). The resulting eccentricity is positive, which means
that the force is below the centroid of the section part. The axial force, of course, must be a tensile force,
otherwise part of the section would be in compression.

h f ck h f ck
 3  3 2  6 e i   6 e i  0& 0
d s d s
(9)
h e e h h
 1   0  1 ed
2d d d 2d 2
This condition can also be expressed in terms of the reduced axial force i applied to the given rectangular
section part, by introducing into Eq. (9) the value of e/d given by eq. (3), thereby deriving the expression of
Eq. (10):

 1 1  f ct , ef  W h  3 yi 1  
      1   
e h 1 2 3  f ck  I c  2 h 4 h
    1 
d d 2 i  2d
 
  (10)

1  1 1  f ct , ef  W h  3 yi 1  
i        1   
h  
1  2 3  f ck  Ic  2 h 4  
d
When the tensile axial force becomes greater than this value, a different scheme needs to be adopted, in
which it is necessary to provide two layers of minimum reinforcement to absorb the eccentric axial force. In
this scheme, it is assumed that both layers have the same stress and strain (see Fig. 2)3, but provide different
forces.

sA’s,min
d'
h/2

d
y e>0
NEd,i>0
sAs,min
s

Fig. 2 - Cracked cross section – Strains and stresses, assuming all the section part is in tension
The area of the upper reinforcement, A’s,min, can be determined by equilibrium of moments with respect to the
fibre of the lower reinforcement as expressed in Eq. (11).

3
This assumption is correct for rectangular sections and reasonable, but not exact, if dealing with flanged or box sections, since the curvature will
be dependent on the distribution of reinforcement in the full section and cannot be determined with precision for a single part of it in an independent
manner.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 855
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

'
 s As,min   
d  d '  N Ed ,i  d 

h
2

 e  0 

 h e
' 1    (11)
' As,min N Ed ,i h f ck  d d  h f ck 
 min   i
bd f ck bh d  s d ' d  s 1 d' / d
1
d
where:
d’ is the mechanical cover of the upper reinforcement
The lower reinforcement can then be determined by equilibrium of axial forces as expressed in Eq. (12):

'
 s As,min   s As,min  N Ed ,i  0 
N Ed ,i h f ck ' h f ck ' (12)
 min    min i   min
f ck bh d  s d s
This scheme is valid until the eccentricity becomes zero, and the applied axial force is equal to the force that
cracks the section in pure tension (see Eq. (13)):

 1 1  f ct ,ef  W h  3 yi 1  
      1   
e h1 2 3  f ck  I c  2 h 4
   0
d d 2 i 
  (13)
 
2  f ct , ef  W h  3 yi 1 
i       1   
3  f ck  Ic  2 h 4 
For this situation, the amount of reinforcement that is necessary is equal for the top and bottom reinforcement,
each one having the capacity to resist half of the force that cracks the cross section without a bending moment
(see Eq. (14)).
'
' ' As,min h f ct , ef
 s As,min  0,5bhf ct , ef   min   0,5
bd d s
(14)
As,min h f ct , ef
 s As,min  0,5bhf ct , ef   min   0,5
bd d s
In summary, the expression for the reinforcement needed to control cracking is a discontinuous function that
can be plotted in non-dimensional terms as a function of the reduced axial force. The resulting diagram is
presented in Fig. 3 for a concrete class C30, a limiting steel stress of 500 MPa (equal to the yield strength of
a B 500 steel) and a ratio of effective depth to total depth of 0,9. The plot includes:
- the reinforcement ratio necessary in the most tensioned face min,
- the reinforcement ratio necessary in the least tensioned or compressed face ’min,
- the sum of both reinforcements, and
- the proposal of current Eurocode 2 - EN 1992-1-1:2004, which has no upper limit, does not
distinguish between top and lower reinforcement and is a safe-sided approximation to the exact
solution.
It is evident that the relationship between the reinforcement needed in the most tensioned face and the
reduced axial force is linear. Since the values of minimum reinforcement needed for pure flexure and pure
tension are well known – they can be taken as the simplified values provided by EN 1992-1-1:2004 – the
exact expression can be easily approximated in this range by a straight line using these values (see Eq. (15)
and Fig. 3). Fig. 3 shows that there are slight differences between the theoretical line and the interpolated
line. This is because the expression for pure bending included in EN 1992-1-1 is, itself, an approximation.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 856
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

0.010
d/h=0,9
C30 0.009
 s,lim=500 MPa
0.008

min=As,min/bd 'min=A's,min/bd
0.007

min,tot=As,min/bd+A's,min/bd
0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000
‐0.20 ‐0.15 ‐0.10 ‐0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
‐0.001
i=NEd,i/fckbh

EN 1992‐1‐1:2004 rho+rho' rho' rho Proposal rho Proposal rho'

Fig. 3 Reinforcement needed for crack control as a function of the reduced axial force acting on the cross
section part


0,2k h f ct , ef bh
N Ed ,i  0  As, min  
s
 0,3N Ed ,i  0,2k h f ct , ef bh
  As, min  
k h f ct , ef bh  s
N Ed ,i  k h f ct , ef bh  As, min  0,5 (15)
s 

A h f f ct , ef 
 min  s, min   0,3 i ck  0,2k h 0
bd d s  s 
In Expression (15), the effect of non-uniform self-equilibrating stresses, due to shrinkage and hydration heat,
which reduce the effective cracking stress is introduced by means of coefficient kh. This empirical coefficient
is taken to be 0,8 for sections, or section parts, whose minimum dimension is less than 0,3 m and 0,5 for
those whose minimum dimension is more than 0,8 m with linear interpolation in between (see Eq. (16)).

 0,8
kh  0,8  0,6  min  b, h   0,3  (16)
 0,5
where:
b is the width of the part of the section under consideration.
A value of kh =1,0 has been considered in Fig. 3 for purposes of comparison with EN 1992-1-1:2004 which
has a different definition for this coefficient.
The reinforcement needed on the less tensioned face can be determined from equilibrium of axial forces (see
Eq. (17), where factor kh is also considered).

 0
h f f ct , ef 
 min   0,3 i ck  0,2k h 
d s s   0,5k h f ct , ef
 h
d s

' N Ed ,i h f ck h f ck
 min    min i   min (17)
f ck bh d  s d s
 0
h f f 
  0,7 i ck  0,2k h ct , ef 

d s s   0,5k h f ct , ef
 h
d s

The axial force for which no minimum reinforcement is needed at all, can be determined by setting min to
zero in Eq. (15), as shown in Eq. (18).

h f f  2 f
 min   0,3 i ck  0,2k h ct , ef   0   i   k h ct , ef (18)

d s s  3 f ck


A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 857
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

The above equations can then be summarized as follows (see Eq. (19)):

2 f ct , ef '
 i   kh   min   min 0
3 f ck
2 f ct , ef 1  1 1  k h f ct , ef  W h  3 yi 1  
 kh  i       1   
3 f ck h  2 3 f I  2 h 4  
1   ck  c
d
 h f f ct , ef 
  min   0,3 ck  0,2k h 
 d s  s 
 '
  min  0
1  1 1  k h f ct , ef  W h  3 yi 1  
     1     i
h 2 3  f ck 
1   Ic  2 h 4  (19)
d
2  k h f ct , ef  W h  3 yi 1  k h f ct , ef h
      1   
3  f ck  I c  2 h 4  f ck d
 h f f ct , ef 
  min   0,3 i ck  0,2k h 
 d s  s 

  '   f ck  
 min i
s
min

2  k h f ct , ef  W h  3 yi 1  k h f ct , ef h ' h f ct , ef
 i       1      min   min  0,5k h
3  f ck  I c  2 h 4  f ck d d s

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 858
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Consideration of deep members

In deep members, it is important to control crack widths occurring at the concrete surface, but larger cracks
can be tolerated inside the concrete, away from the surface reinforcing bars. The larger cracks form away
from the bar through a process of convergence of the well distributed cracks at the level of reinforcement
resulting in a larger crack spacing and a typical branch-like cracking pattern as shown in Fehler!
Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.. A similar phenomenon has been observed in thick walls
symmetrically restrained, as already observed by Leonhardt in 1976 (see ref. [C09-2])

Fig. 4 In absence of volume reinforcement well distributed cracks converge as the distance from the main
reinforcement increases, resulting in larger cracks due to larger crack spacing (Tests by Helmus [C09-1])

Fig. 5 Section of thick wall with centric restraint (from Leonhardt [C09-2])
This can be accounted for by considering that minimum reinforcement should comply with two different
conditions (see ref. [C09-3]):
- For first cracking, there should be enough reinforcement to avoid crack localisation. This means
that minimum reinforcement should be enough to resist the cracking loads corresponding to the full
concrete section, working at a stress equal to the characteristic yield stress, s=fyk.
- For subsequent cracks, only the effective area around the tensile reinforcement needs to be
considered. However, if the crack opening is to be limited to a given value, this may require a
reduction in the SLS stress, according to the section below titled ‘Limits to the steel stress in SLS
for the determination of minimum reinforcement’.
To comply with the second condition, some modifications of the formulas derived in the previous section are
needed. A 3-part broken linear relationship between reduced axial force and steel ratio can still be assumed.
However, in this case, the effective area will be considered, instead of the full tensioned area, as the area

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 859
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

that needs to reach fct,ef to produce a new crack. Also, the variation of stresses within the effective area and
not within the full tensioned area should be considered.
Indeed, a much smaller amount of reinforcement is needed for bending with respect to tension. This is due
to the distribution of stresses before cracking which introduces a reduction factor of kc=0,4 for bending with
respect to tension, for which the corresponding kc is equal to 1,0 (see EN 1992-1-1:2004). This factor can be
divided, for the case of bending, into kc,1 kc,2=0,80,5, where the factor 0,8 has to do with the lever arm in
bending, and is incorporated into the above formulation, while the factor of 0,5 has to do with the stress
distribution in the tension zone prior to cracking. This second factor (also already considered in the
formulation) is estimated on the unsafe side for large depths since it assumes a triangular stress distribution
which does not correspond to the stress distribution in the effective area for deep members. This factor can
be adapted to account for this effect as shown in Eq. (20).

h  hc ,eff
kc ,2  (20)
h
With this correction, the formulation for the second condition would be that shown in Eq. Fehler!
Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.:

h  hc ,eff 
0,8 f ct ,eff Ac ,eff 
N Ed ,i  0  As , min  h 
s 
f ct ,eff Ac ,eff 
N Ed ,i  2 f ct ,eff Ac ,eff  As , min  
s 
(21)
 h  hc ,eff  h  hc , eff
 0,5  0, 4  N Ed ,i  0,8 f ct , eff Ac , eff
 h  h
 As , min  
s
As , min  h  hc ,eff  h f ck h  hc ,eff hc , eff f ct ,eff
 min    0,5  0, 4  i  0,8 0
bd  h  d s h d s
By extrapolating the above expression to a value of zero, the axial force for which no reinforcement is
necessary can be determined from Eq. Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.. However,
it is not simple to determine the axial force for which a second layer of reinforcement is needed. All these
limits change from the case in which the full cross section is considered (see condition to avoid crack
localisation detailed above).

 h  hc , eff  h f ck h  hc , eff hc , eff f ct , eff

 min   0,5  0, 4  i  0,8 0
 h  d  s,lim h d  s,lim
h  hc , eff
0,8 (22)
h hc , eff f ct , eff
i  
 h  hc , eff  h f ck
 0,5  0, 4 
 h 
Instead, Eq. (19) and Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. can be joined and
summarized as shown in Eq. Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.. In this case the
limiting values of the axial force are different depending on which condition is governing (primary or secondary
cracking) and this makes the formulation in terms of the axial force too complex. For this reason, it makes
much more sense to fix limits to the values of min and ’min, instead of trying to determine the precise i ranges
for which each expression is valid.

 h 0,3 i f ck  0, 2kh f ct , eff

 h  hc ,eff  h h  hc ,eff hc ,eff 
 0,5  0, 4  f ck  0,8 f ct ,eff  d f yk
 h  d h d 
 min   0
 s,lim 
 max  hc ,eff f ct , eff
;0,5kh
h f ct ,eff 

(23)
  d  s,lim d f yk
  
h f ck  
 min
'
i   min  min
d  s,lim  0
Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. represents the minimum reinforcement required to
control primary and secondary cracking, for a limiting serviceability stress of 200 MPa and for a given cross
section height of 50 cm (which influences kh) and an effective depth to total depth ratio of 0,9. Secondary
cracking is determining for this case in the full range of axial forces due to the very small value of allowed
tensile stress.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 860
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

h=0,5 m (kh=0,68) 0.009

c=40 mm; =16
0.008
d/h=0,9
C30 0.007

min=As,min/bd 'min,=A's,min/bd
s,lim=200 MPa

min,tot=As,min,/bd+A's,min/bd
0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000
‐0.10 ‐0.08 ‐0.06 ‐0.04 ‐0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
i=NEd/fckbh
rho Primary cracking rho' Primary cracking rho+rho' Primary cracking
rho Secondary cracking rho' Secondary cracking rho+rho' Secondary Cracking

Fig. 6 Minimum reinforcement required to control primary and secondary cracking for s,lim=200 MPa
If a value of fyk=500 MPa is adopted for s,lim, secondary cracking is still governing up to level of reduced axial
force of about 0.02 as can be seen in Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden..

h=0,5 m (kh=0,68) 0.005

c=40 mm; =16
d/h=0,9
C30 0.004
min=As,min/bd 'min,=A's,min/bd

s,lim=fyk=500 MPa
min,tot=As,min,/bd+A's,min/bd

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000
‐0.10 ‐0.08 ‐0.06 ‐0.04 ‐0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
i=NEd/fckbh
rho Primary cracking rho' Primary cracking rho+rho' Primary cracking
rho Secondary cracking rho' Secondary cracking rho+rho' Secondary Cracking

Fig. 7 Minimum reinforcement required to control primary and secondary cracking for s,lim=fyk=500 MPa
So now the question is: what should the limit to the working stress of the reinforcement be? A possible answer
to this question is given in the next section.
Before this, however, it is important to have a feeling regarding whether the above formulations provide
reasonable values for the minimum reinforcement in deep members. For this, the required reinforcement ratio
and reinforcement area per meter of width are plotted in Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden
werden. for pure bending and in Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. for pure tension,
as a function of the cross-section height, assuming a limiting stress in the reinforcement of 200 MPa. The
values of reinforcement needed are not excessive and can be easily materialized by using usual reinforcing
bar diameters set up in a single layer, even for the very large elements.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 861
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

0.0040 16

Minimum reinforcement area As,min,SLS [cm2/m]

0.0035 14

0.0030 12

0.0025 10

min,SLS
0.0020 8

0.0015 6

0.0010 Bending 4
c=40 mm =16 mm
0.0005 C30 2
s,lim=200 MPa
0.0000 0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Section height h [m]

rho,min As,min [cm2/m]

Fig. 8 Minimum reinforcement ratio and minimum reinforcement for pure bending as a function of the cross-
section height
In Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden., the change in slope at the beginning of the curve
representing the reinforcement ratio is explained by the fact that the (h-hc,eff)/h ratio is growing while the hc,ef/d
ratio is decreasing at different speeds. In terms of reinforcement, however the influence of the second term
is cancelled (by multiplication by d), and the result is a monotonously growing curve. Note that with the old
definition of the effective area in EN 1992-1-1:2004 (which for flexure was dependent on (h-x)/3, which is,
itself, dependent on the reinforcement) this problem would be non-linear and would have to be solved by
iterations. The new definition of the effective area removes this difficulty as it does not depend on the value
of x.

0.0120 Tension (each face) 35

c=40 mm =16 mm

Minimum reinforcement area As,min,SLS [cm2/m]

0.0100
C30 30
s,lim=200 MPa
25
0.0080

20
min,SLS

0.0060
15

0.0040
10

0.0020
5

0.0000 0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Section height h [m]

rho,min As,min [cm2/m]

Fig. 9 Minimum reinforcement ratio and minimum reinforcement for tension as a function of the cross-section
height
In Fig. 9, the minimum reinforcement in terms of area is constant for a wide range of heights because the
effective area becomes constant for a height of about 0.3 m. After a depth of about 1.25 m, the minimum
reinforcement increases again because the condition that governs is avoidance of crack localisation which
involves the full concrete area.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 862
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

S.3 Limits to the steel stress in SLS for the determination of minimum reinforcement
The limit to the steel stress in SLS (s,lim) needed to respect a given crack width opening when minimum
Expression (S.4)
reinforcement is governing can be derived directly from the crack width formulation, as a function of the
admissible crack opening and the bar diameter to be used. The crack opening is given by Eq. Fehler!
Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden..

wk ,cal  kw k 1 srm,cal   sm   cm  
r 
 sr 
 s,lim  kt 
 s,lim 
 sm   cm  
Es 
1 
srm,cal  1,5c  k fl kb /  p ,eff  (24)
7, 2 

 
 1   s,lim   sr 
wk ,cal  kw k 1 1,5c  k fl kb /  p ,eff  E  1  kt 
r  7, 2  s   s,lim 

 1 
where:
wk,cal is the calculated maximum crack width,
sr,max,cal is the calculated maximum crack spacing,
s,lim is the limiting stress in the tensile reinforcement,
sr is the stress in the reinforcement, determined based on a fully cracked section, due to the forces
producing cracking of the section,
sm-cm is the difference between the mean strain of steel and the mean strain of concrete,
c is the clear cover of the tension reinforcement,
kt is a factor accounting for tension stiffening effects and includes the influence creep and cyclic
loading,
kb is a factor accounting for the bond properties of the reinforcement,
 is the diameter of the rebars forming the tension reinforcement, and,
eff is the effective reinforcement ratio.
For minimum reinforcement, by definition, s=sr, so that it is easy to derive an expression for the maximum
stress based upon the admissible crack width. The effective reinforcement ratio is derived from the minimum
reinforcement and is given by Eq. Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.. Here, it is
assumed that the crack localization condition is not governing since otherwise it would not make any sense
determine s,lim.

  k 1
 
  h  hc ,eff  k 2 
  0,5  0, 4  
 N Ed ,i
As ,min 1   h  h  hc ,eff 
 p ,eff   p ,eff,min     0,8 f ct ,eff  (25)
Ac ,eff σ s,lim  Ac ,eff h 
 
 
 
A second-degree equation can be established to determine the limiting reinforcement stress needed to fulfil
a given crack width limitation, as shown in Eq.Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.:

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 863
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

 
 1   s,lim   sr 
wk ,cal   w k 1 1,5c  k fl kb /  p ,eff   1  kt 
r  7, 2  Es   s,lim 

 1 

 
 
1    s,lim 1  k  
wk ,cal   w k 1 1,5c  k fl kb s,lim
 7, 2 k N  E t
r
   1 Ed ,i  k  2 f ct ,eff  s
Ac ,eff 
 
k 1 N Ed ,i k 1 N Ed ,i
  k  2 f ct ,eff   k  2 f ct ,eff (26)
Ac ,eff wk ,cal Ac ,eff
 s,lim  1,5c
2
 s,lim  E 0
1  w k1 s 1 k k  1  k
k fl kb fl b  t 
7, 2 r 7, 2
 w 1 
k  1 N Ed ,i  Es k ,cal k k 
  k  2 f ct ,eff   w k 1 7, 2 fl b 
Ac ,eff  0, 75c  0.56c 2  
 s,lim  
r
1
k fl kb  k  1 N Ed ,i 
7, 2
 1  kt     k  2 f ct ,eff  
  Ac ,eff  

 
For bending without axial force and a rectangular cross section, assuming reduced tension stiffening effects
(i.e. kt=0,4) and kb=0.9 (i.e. good bond conditions)4, the above expression simplifies to:

 w 
 Es k , cal  
  w k1 
4,8 f ct , ef  c  c 2  0, 46 
 s,lim  
r
 (27)
 f ct , ef
 
 
 
 
k1/r is given by the following simplified formulation, valid for pure bending:

h  h
k 1  25   1   1,15  0,15 (28)
r d  d
This expression has been obtained by first calculating k1/r as a function of the steel ratio and fitting a straight
line to the curve for different values if h/d, as shown in Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden
werden.. Then, an expression for the coefficients of the line was determined as a function of h/d (see Fehler!
Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.). Eq. Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden
werden. is obtained by operation and rounding of the coefficients.

4
This is justified since it is likely that the acting forces will be smaller than those requiring minimum reinforcement or, otherwise,
that the bond conditions of the element are good ( such as is the case for walls).

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 864
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

1.500

y = 6.3726x + 1.2891
1.400 R² = 0.9907

y = 4.6024x + 1.2088
1.300 R² = 0.9907

1.200

(h‐x/d‐x)
y = 2.8323x + 1.1285
R² = 0.9907

1.100

1.000

0.900

0.800
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

h/d=1.25 h/d=1.18 h/d=1.11 Linear (h/d=1.25) Linear (h/d=1.18) Linear (h/d=1.11)

Fig. 10 – k1/r as a function of the reinforcement ratio

6.8
y = 25.515x ‐ 25.518
R² = 1

5.8
Line slope, m and ordinate at the origine, b

4.8

3.8

2.8

1.8
y = 1.1563x ‐ 0.1563
R² = 1
0.8
1.1 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.2 1.22 1.24 1.26
h/d
Slope, m Ordinate at origin, b Linear (m) Linear (b)

Fig. 11 – coefficients to adjust k1/r as a function of h/d

In this case the reinforcement corresponds to a low reinforcement ratio. Introducing =0,002 in the above
expression, a simplified value of coefficient k1/r is obtained:

h  h h  h
k 1  25   1   1,15  0,15  25   1 0, 002  1,15  0,15 
r d  d d  d
(29)
h
 1, 2  0,1
d

Regarding parameter kb, it is proposed to adopt a value of 0,9, since it is likely that the acting forces will be
smaller than those requiring minimum reinforcement or, otherwise, that the bond conditions of the element
are good ( such as is the case for walls).
Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. represents the limiting stress and minimum
reinforcement ratio necessary for pure bending as a function of the limiting crack width for an example with
50 cm of height and a class C30 concrete for two different values of the cover (c=25 mm and c=70 mm). The

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 865
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

diameter is taken as 12 mm since it is logical that for minimum reinforcement small bar diameters are used.
For a normal crack width (wk,lim=0,3 mm) verification of secondary cracking is governing. Although the stress
values obtained are rather low, the minimum reinforcement ratio, around 0,2%, is reasonable.

350 h=0,5 m (kh=0,68) 0.010

C30
300 NEd,i=0 kN
0.008

250

0.006
s,lim= [MPa] 200

min
150
0.004

100

0.002
50

0 0.000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
wk,lim [mm]

sigmas,lim for c=25mm and phi=12mm sigmas,lim for c=70mm and phi=12 mm
rho,min for c=25 mm and phi=12 mm rho,min for c=70 mm and phi=12 mm

Fig. 12 Limiting stress and resulting minimum reinforcement as a function of the limiting crack width for pure
bending
Following the same development for a member subjected to pure tension, Eq. (30) can be derived.

6 f ct ,ef  w 
 s,lim   c  c 2  0,37 Es k , cal   (30)
   w f ct ,ef 
 

Fig. 13 shows the maximum steel stress and the reinforcement ratio needed for a member subjected to pure
tension as a function of the limiting crack width and for 25 mm and 70 mm covers. By comparing this figure
with Fig. 12 it can be observed that, as expected, a tension member is somewhat more unfavourable than a
member in bending (see also Fig. 14).

500 0.010
h=0,5 m (kh=0,68)
450 C30
Tension member
400 0.008

350

300 0.006
s,lim= [MPa]

min

250

200 0.004

150

100 0.002

50

0 0.000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
wk,lim [mm]
sigmas,lim for c=25mm and phi=12mm sigmas,lim for c=70mm and phi=12 mm
rho,min for c=25 mm and phi=12 mm rho,min for c=70 mm and phi=12 mm

Fig. 13 Limiting stress and resulting minimum reinforcement as a function of the limiting crack width for pure
tension

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 866
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.3 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

400 Limiting stress: Comparison between pure bending and pure tension
h=0,5 m (kh=0,68)
350 C30

300

250

s,lim= [MPa]
200

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
wk,lim [mm]
sigmas,lim for c=25mm and phi=12mm sigmas,lim for c=70mm and phi=12 mm
sigmas,lim Tension for c=25 mm and phi=12 mm sigmas,lim Tension for c=70 mm and phi=12 mm

Fig. 14 Limiting stress: comparison between pure bending and pure tension
A formulation valid for both pure bending and pure tension would be as follows:

 w 
 Es k , cal  
 w k1 
k 1 f ct , ef  
 s,lim  c  c  k 2
2 r

  f ct , ef 
 
 
 
 
 1, 00 for pure bending (1)

k1   h
r 1, 2 d  0,1 for pure tension
4,8 for pure bending
k 1  
6, 0 for pure tension
0,46 for pure bending
k 2  
0,37 for pure tension
For intermediate cases it will be conservative to use the values for pure tension.

[C09-1] Helmus, M. Mindestbewehrung zwangbeanspruchter dicker Stahlbetonbauteile. DAfStb Heft 412,

References
1990.
[C09-2] Leonhardt, F. Rissbeschränkung. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 1/1976.
[C09-3] Maurer, R. Stuppak, E. Minimum reinforcement for crack control in thick concrete members.
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 352, 2016.
[C09-4] DIN. EN 1992-1-1/NA:2013-04. German National Annex to EN 1992-1-1. 2013.

List of versions of this document

28.11.2017, APC 1st draft – Submitted to SC2/WG1, 30.11.2017
02.05.2020, APC 2nd Draft – Introducing modifications derived from the updated cracking model
19.09.2020 APC 3rd Draft – Refinement of Eq (9.5) of D5
02.03.2020 APC 4th draft – Corrected expression for minimum reinforcement for effective area, also considering updated kh parameter
01.01.2023 APC 5th draft – Adapted to final version of FprEN 1992-2-2:2022

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 01.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 867
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause S.4

Simplified control of cracking

Alejandro Pérez Caldentey FHECOR, Spain

02.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 868
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document provides the background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023, clause S.4 (Simplified control of
cracking).

S.4 Reasons for change

Simplified control of The formulations in EN 1992-1-1:2004 regarding the indirect verification of cracking by limiting either the bar
cracking diameter or the bar spacing are based on the safe-sided assumption that the reinforcement provided is
equal to the minimum reinforcement (see ref. [C09-5]). The introduction of the difference between primary
cracking and secondary cracking in the new formulations of FprEN 1992-1-1:2023 can lead to very low
reinforcement ratios for which the above assumption results in values of bar diameter and bar spacing
which are of no practical use. Furthermore, current Tables 7.2N and 7.3N in EN 1992-1-1:2004 assume a
fixed value for d/h equal to 0.9. This is a problem because, in fact, this parameter has a very significant
influence on the results and needs to be explicitly considered.
To address the first issue, the proposed formulation considers the reinforcement ratio explicitly. This is
logical since crack verifications are made after dimensioning of reinforcement for ULS, so that the provided
reinforcement ratio is known at this stage. In fact, it is currently needed to determine the working stress s.

Enhancement of ease of use

The tables in EN 1992-1-1:2004, which have been criticized by the NSBs due to the limits established for
their application, are substituted by explicit formulations, which can be easily applied and introduced into
spreadsheets or computer programs. The results will be close (except for elements with large covers or
elements with very low reinforcement ratios) to the values obtained by application of 9.2.4 Refined control of
cracking, since the only simplifications introduced, apart from a simplified assessment of the effect of
casting position, are that height of the effective section is taken equal to 3,5ry and that tension stiffening
effects are assumed to provide a mean stress of steel that is 10% lower than the stress at the crack.

S.4 Derivation of the formulation for maximum bar diameter

Expression (S.6) The crack width formulation included in 9.2.3 is given in a slightly different but equivalent form in Eq. (1):

 1  s   sr 
wlim,cal  k w k 1  1.5c  k fl kb /  p , eff   E 1    (1)
r 
7, 2  s  s 
where:
wk,cal is the calculated maximum crack width,
kw is a factor converting the mean crack width into the calculated crack width,
k1/r is a factor accounting for the increase of crack width due to curvature,
s is the stress in the tensile reinforcement,
sr is the stress in the tensile reinforcement, determined based on a fully cracked section, due to the
forces producing cracking of the section,
c is the maximum clear cover of the tension reinforcement,
kfl is a factor accounting for the distribution of stresses prior to cracking,
kb is a factor accounting for the casting position of the reinforcement,
 is the diameter of the tensioned rebars,
p,eff is the effective reinforcement ratio.
Assuming that the effective area, Ac,eff=bhc,eff can be approximated by b3,5r, that tension stiffening effects
can be estimated as 10%, and the simplified expression for k1/r documented in the background document for
section S.3, a direct formulation for the maximum bar diameter can easily be derived, as shown in Eq. (2):

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 02.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 869
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

As As A d d
 p ,eff    s 
b  hc ,eff b  3,5a bd 3,5a 3,5a
  sr 
1    0,9
 s 
 1  3,5r    s 
wlim,cal  kw k 1 1,5c  k fl kb   0,9 
r 
7, 2  d  Es 
   
 w   w 
2.1 d  2.1
  lim,cal
 1,5c   lim,cal
 1,5c 
 s  ak fl kb  s a
 kw k 1 0,9 E    w k 1 0,9 E  d k fl kb
 r s   r s 
 h  hc ,eff h  3,5a  a
    1  3,5  if one face is in compression (2)
k fl   h h  h
1, 00 if both faces are in tension

0,9  for good bond conditions
kb  
1, 2  for poor bond conditions
 
 w 
2,1
  lim,cal
 1,5c 
   a a
 d 1  3,5 h  kb
s
 k w k 1 0,9 E
 r s   
 h  h
25   1   1,15  0,15 for flexure
k1    d  d
r 1, 00 for tension

where:
a is the distance, measured perpendicularly to the axis of flexure from the concrete surface to the
centre of the first layer of reinforcement,
b is the width of the section,
d is the effective height of the section, and
h is the total height of the section.
To evaluate the previous formulation a couple of practical examples will now be presented.
For typical slab or beam values: wlim,cal=0,4 mm, fct,eff=2.89 MPa (C30), kt=0.4, s=250 MPa, c=35 mm.
For a typical floor slab, 300 mm deep with =0,005:

h  h  300  300
k 1  25   1   1,15  0,15  25   1 0, 005  1,15  0,15  1, 26
r d  d  250  250
 
 0, 4  2.1 0, 005 14,3
   1.5  35   mm
 1, 7  1, 26  0,9 250  50  50  kb
 1  3,5 k
 b
 200000  
250   300  
113.49 0.126
kb

15,89 mm good bond conditions


11,92 mm poor bond conditions

For a typical beam, 600 mm deep, with =0,015:

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 02.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 870
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

h  h  600  600
k 1  25   1   1,15  0,15  25   1 0, 015  1,15  0,15  1,14
r d  d  550  550
 
 0, 4  2.1 0, 015 64,1
   1.5  35   mm
 1, 7  1,14  0,9 250  50  50  kb
 1  3,5  kb
 200000  
550   600 
130,97 0,489
kb

71,19 mm good bond


53,39 mm poor bond
A more general view is shown in Fig. 1 in which the maximum bar diameter is plotted as a function of the
SLS steel stress for crack width openings of 0,1 mm, 0,2 mm, 0,3 mm, and 0,4 mm and reinforcement ratios
of 0,5% (slabs) and 1,5% (beams). The values are given for a clear cover of 35 mm and a d/h ratio of 0,9.
The results are reasonable.
It should be noted that the value of a/h has a considerable influence on the value of max. The example of
the slab, above, with a value of a/h=0,167 resulted in a maximum diameter of 14,3/kb mm, while this value
would be 19,0/kb mmm for a/h=0,10. The fixing of this parameter is a significant flaw in tables 7.2N and
7.3N of EN 1992-1-1:2004, as illustrated by this simple example.

40
d/h=0,9
35 c=35 mm
good bond conditions
30

25
max[mm]

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
s [MPa]

rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.1 rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.2 rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.3 rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.4

rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.1 rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.2 rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.3 rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.4

Fig. 1 Maximum diameter as a function of the serviceability stress for different limiting crack widths and
reinforcement ratios of 0,5% and 1,5%.

S.4 Derivation of the formulation for maximum bar spacing

Expression (S.7) The maximum spacing can be determined from the maximum diameter since both values are related by the
reinforcement ratio, as follows (see Eq. (3):

max
2
b
π
4 smax π 2
  smax  max
bd 4 d
2
  (3)
 w 
3, 45  
s 2 lim,cal
 1,5c
a  2  k k 0,9  s 
2
a 
 1  3,5  kb  w 1 E 
d  h  r s 
Again, for the same examples studied before, the values of the maximum bar spacing can be determined to
verify that the results are in line with practice:

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 02.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 871
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

For typical slab values: wlim,cal=0,4 mm, fct,ef=2.89 MPa (C30), kt=0.4, s=250 MPa, c=35 mm.
For a typical floor slab, 300 mm deep, with =0,005:
2
 
3,45  0,005  0,4  128
s   1,5  35   2 mm
50  2  1,7  1,26  0,9 250
2
2
50   kb
 1  3,5  kb
250  300   200000 
    
113.492

9.94103
kb2

158 mm good bond


89 mm poor bond

For a typical beam, 600 mm deep with =0,015:

2
 
3,45  0,015  0,4  389
s   1,5  35   2 mm
50  2  1,7  1,14  0,9 250
2
2
50   kb
 1  3,5  kb
550  600   200000 
    
130.972

2.27102
kb2

480 mm good bond


270 mm poor bond
A more general view is shown in Fig. 2, which plots the maximum bar spacing as a function of the SLS steel
stress for crack width openings of 0,1 mm, 0,2 mm, 0,3 mm, and 0,4 mm and reinforcement ratios of 0,5%
(slabs) and 1,5% (beams). The values are given for a clear cover of 35 mm, a d/h ratio of 0,9 (a/h=0,1) and
good bond conditions. It can be seen, once again, that results are reasonable.
Again, it is noted that the value of a/h has a considerable influence on the value of smax. The example of the
slab, with a value of a/h=0,167 resulted in a maximum bar spacing of 128/kb2 mm while this value would be
209/kb2 for a/h=0,10.

300
d=450 mm
d/h=0,9
250 c=35 mm
good bond conditions
200
smax[mm]

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
s [MPa]

rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.1 rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.2 rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.3 rho=0.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.4

rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.1 rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.2 rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.3 rho=1.5% ‐ wlim,cal=0.4

Fig. 2 Maximum bar spacing as a function of the serviceability stress for different limiting crack widths and
reinforcement ratios of 0,5% and 1,5%.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 02.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 872
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.4 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

[C09-5] Corres Peiretti, H., Pérez Caldentey, A., Petschke, T. PrEN Chapter 7 – Serviceability Limit
References
State. Cracking. Supporting Document. May 2003.

List of versions of this document

28.11.2017, APC 1st draft (submitted to SC2/WG1, 30.11.2017)
02.05.2020, APC 2nd draft Introducing modifications derived from the updated cracking model
01.03.2021, APC 3rd draft – Review and formal changes
02.01.2023, APC – 4th draft – Adapted to final version of FprEN 1992-2-2:2022

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 02.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 873
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314

CEN/TC250/SC2/WG1 FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Background document to clause S.5

Surface reinforcement for large bar
diameters

Alejandro Pérez Caldentey FHECOR, Spain

05.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 874
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.5 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Introduction
This document provides background to clause S.5 Surface reinforcement for large bar diameters.

S.5 Reasons for change

Surface reinforcement for The content of this Clause comes from Annex J, section J.1 of EN 1992-1-1:2004. Its origins are mainly
large bar diameters empirical. This section was necessary because the cracking model of EN 1992-1-1:2004 did not account for
the increase in crack width due to curvature, which is now correctly accounted for in FprEN 1992-1-1:2023
by factor k1/r.
The reason why large bar diameters are problematic from the point of view of cracking is because they are
normally associated with large covers (and therefore, large crack spacings) and large depths of the neutral
axis, which leads to large values of k1/r. The provision of surface reinforcement has the following effects on
cracking:
 It reduces the equivalent bar diameter and reduces the cover needed for reasons of bond when
large bars are used, thereby effectively reducing the crack spacing
 It reduces factor k1/r, due to the reduction of the cover needed for bond
 It increases the effective reinforcement ratio because it reduces the effective height
 It reduces the equivalent bar diameter as the surface reinforcement bars will have small diameters
All of the above effects contribute to decrease crack spacing and decrease crack widths at the surface of the
members.
The additional transversal surface reinforcement allows to control longitudinal cracking due to splitting forces
in anchorage and lap zones.

Enhancement of ease of use

While the general method for verification of cracks can adequately model the cracking of members with large
bar diameters and the beneficial effects of the longitudinal surface reinforcement, clause S.5 is easier to
apply. In this background document a comparison between the general method and the simple empirical rule
is presented using a specific experimental campaign. A comparison between predicted and experimental
values is also given.

Comparison of provisions of clause S.5 with clause 9.2.3

The tests by Hegger et al. ([C12-1], [C12-2]) will be used here to compare the provisions of clause S.5 to the
results which would be obtained by direct calculation of the crack width using clause 9.2.3. It will be shown
that both clauses are compatible and that the practical rules of S.5 provide reasonable results. The tests will
also be used to compare experimental values of crack spacing and crack widths with the results provided by
clause 9.2.3 to obtain further experimental evidence of the good behaviour of the crack width model.
The tests performed by Hegger et al. [C12-1] deal with laps of members reinforced with large bar diameters
(40mm and 50 mm bars). Fig. 1 shows the test setup. It is a 4-point bending test, in which there is a lap in
the middle of the constant bending zone. As clause S.5 deals only with members which are reinforced with
large bar diameters (in absence of a specific crack with calculation), and not necessarily with members with
lapped bars the comparison will refer to the zone of constant moment outside the lap length. Of course, within
the lap length transversal reinforcement is needed to control the width of longitudinal bond cracks. Also, within
the lap length the reinforcement is, in fact doubled due to the lap. The sudden change in reinforcement ratio
at the lap end generally leads the systematic formation of a larger crack at that specific section. In this
document, however, the emphasis will be on the zone outside the lap length.

Fig. 1 Test set-up (figure taken from [C12-1])

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the specimens tested. The tests which are marked in orange (T2, T4 and
T5) are specimens with a cover that is too low for bond (as there should be, at least one bar diameter of clear
cover). In these cases, there is not enough space below the main longitudinal reinforcement to place a surface
reinforcement with enough cover, so these elements will not be considered when evaluating the effect of
placing surface reinforcement. Test T7 is the only specimen in which surface reinforcement has been
provided. This is a good specimen to verify experimentally the effectiveness of surface reinforcement.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 05.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 875
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.5 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

All specimens are reinforced with 3 longitudinal bars and 14 mm stirrups. In the case of T7, the surface
reinforcement is constituted by 10 mm diameter bars spaced 100 mm apart (see Fig. 2 which shows a section
within the lap length).
Table 2 shows the theoretical crack width calculation according to clause 9.2.3,without considering surface
reinforcement. For this calculation, tension stiffening is determined assuming that kt=0,4 (long term loads or
repeated loading) as this calculation is aimed at representing practical applications of the code. The results
show large crack widths, even for a stress of 250 MPa, with crack widths ranging between 0,4 mm and 0,48
mm. This calculation confirms that when using large bar diameters large cracks should be expected unless
specific measures are taken.
Table 1 – Definition of tested specimens
Test ID mm t[mm # bars As [mm2] c [mm] b [mm] h [mm] ry [mm] fcm [MPa]
T1 40 14 3 3770 60 520 600 80 40.2
T2 (*) 40 14 3 3770 40 500 600 60 32.5
T3 40 14 3 3770 60 520 600 80 33.0
T4 (*) 40 14 3 3770 40 500 350 60 54.8
T5 (*) 40 14 3 3770 40 500 660 60 34.6
T6 40 14 3 3770 60 520 600 80 39.2
T7 (**) 40 14 3 3770 60 540 600 80 34.5
T8 50 14 3 5890 75 650 600 100 36.8

(*) Tests T2, T4 and T5 have insufficient cover for bond and insufficient cover to place surface reinforcement
(**) T7 is the only specimen that was tested with surface reinforcement

Fig. 2 Cross sections of tests

Table 2 – Results of theoretical crack width calculations without considering surface reinforcement according
to clause 9.2.3 (T2, T4 and T5 omitted)
 s m‐ s m (kt=0.4) wk,ca l [mm]
c hc,eff
Test ID p,eff kfl srm [mm] k1/r 250 MPa 320 MPa 250 MPa 320 MPa
[mm] [mm]
T1 60 280 2.59% 0.53 193 1.23 0.121% 0.164% 0.40 0.54
T3 60 280 2.59% 0.53 193 1.24 0.126% 0.169% 0.41 0.55
T6 60 280 2.59% 0.53 193 1.23 0.121% 0.164% 0.40 0.54
T7 60 280 2.49% 0.53 197 1.23 0.123% 0.167% 0.41 0.56
T8 75 350 2.59% 0.42 213 1.32 0.132% 0.178% 0.48 0.64

Table 3 shows the surface reinforcement that should be added according to the provisions of clause S.5. The
transversal surface reinforcement is assumed to be placed in contact with the 14 mm stirrups, while the
longitudinal surface reinforcement is placed immediately below and in contact with the transversal surface
reinforcement. 10 mm bars are used for the surface reinforcement.
Table 3 – Definition of longitudinal surface reinforcement

Ac,ext As ,surf,i nf no. 10 mm As +As ,s urf, i nf

Test ID eq [mm]
[mm2/m] [mm2/m] bars [mm2]
T1 23920 239.2 4 4084.1 32.5
T3 23920 239.2 4 4084.1 32.5
T6 23920 239.2 4 4084.1 32.5
T7 24840 248.4 4 4084.1 32.5
T8 39650 396.5 6 6361.7 38.6
Table 4 shows the crack width openings determined according to clause 9.2.3 when the surface reinforcement
is considered. The improvement is significant. The crack width for a stress of 250 MPa (which corresponds
to about 270 MPa at the level of the surface reinforcement) now ranges between 0.23 and 0.32 mm. The
main reasons for the improvement are the reduction of cover, the increase in the effective reinforcement ratio,
and, to a lesser extent the reduction in the equivalent bar diameter and the increase in total reinforcement,
this last factor having a very minor effect. Also note that kfl increases because hc,eff decreases.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 05.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 876
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.5 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Table 4 – Results of theoretical crack width calculations considering surface reinforcement according to
clause 9.2.3 (T2, T4 and T5 omitted)
 s m‐ s m (kt=0.4) wk,ca l [mm]
cs urf hc,eff
Test ID p,eff kfl srm [mm] k1/r 250 MPa 320 MPa 250 MPa 320 MPa
[mm] [mm]
T1 26 158 4.99% 0.74 99 1.08 0.118% 0.155% 0.20 0.26
T3 26 158 4.99% 0.74 99 1.08 0.120% 0.155% 0.20 0.27
T6 26 158 4.99% 0.74 99 1.08 0.118% 0.158% 0.20 0.26
T7 26 158 4.80% 0.74 101 1.08 0.119% 0.154% 0.21 0.27
T8 41 215 4.55% 0.64 129 1.13 0.123% 0.154% 0.27 0.36

Experimental validation
The experimental results of Schoening and Hegger will now be used to compare theoretical and
experimental results. For this, the crack spacing, and crack width obtained in the constant bending
zone outside the lap length will be considered as the formulation applies to this area, where there is
no duplicity of the longitudinal reinforcement. In this comparison all tests are considered and a kt
factor of 0,6 is applied as this is a first-time loading situation. As stated above, only specimen T7
has surface reinforcement. Fig. 3 shows the comparison in terms of mean crack spacing. The figure
shows good agreement between experimental and theoretical values with the slope of the
correlation line having a value close to 1,00. In this case the model provides slightly conservative
results overall.

Comparison of mean crack spacing

200 T6T1 T3

180

T5
acc. to pr EN 1992‐1‐1:2020 [mm]

160 T2
y = 1.132x
140 R² = 0.992
Mean crack spacing

T4
120
T7
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Mean measured crack spacing within bending zone [mm]
Tests by Schoening & Hegger Correlation line

Fig. 3 Comparison of the experimental and calculated mean crack spacing

.
Fig. 4 shows the comparison in terms of mean crack widths. Again, the scatter is low, and the correlation line
has a slope which is close to 1.00.

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 05.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 877
 CEN/TC 250/SC 2 N2087
CEN/TC 250/SC 2/WG 1 N 1314
S.5 Background to FprEN 1992-1-1:2023

Comparison of mean crack widths

0.40

Mean crack width acc. to pr EN 1992‐1‐1:2020 [mm]

T8
0.35

T3
0.30 T6 T1
y = 0.992x
R² = 0.985
0.25 T2 T5

T4
0.20 T7

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Mean measured crack width within bending zone [mm]
Tests by Schoening & Hegger Correlation line

Fig. 4 Comparison of the experimental and calculated mean crack widths

Conclusion
From the above considerations it can be concluded that clause S.5 is consistent with the crack width
calculation model included in 9.2.3 and can be successfully used to control crack width spacing in members
reinforced with large bar diameters. Also, the comparison with experimental data shows that the general
model for crack width calculation can successfully predict the behaviour of members with large bar diameters.

[C12-1] Hegger, H., Empelmann, M., Schnell J. (2015.). Weiterentwicklung von Bemessungsund
References
Konstruktionsregeln bei großen Stabdurchmessern (d>32 mm, B500). Verbundfestigkeit und
Übergreifungsstöße. Institutsbericht-Nr.: 341/2015. Instituts für Massivbau der RWTH Aachen.
[C12-2] Schoening, J., Hegger, H. (2015). Concrete elements reinforced with large diameters. Bond
behaviour and lapped joints. fib Symposium 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark.

List of versions of this document

28.02.2021, APC Initial submission
25.08.2022, APC Correction of steel stress for comparison. The 250 MPa and 320 MPa should be at the level of the main reinforcement, meaning
that the stress in the surface reinforcement is slightly larger. Corrections in references
05.01.2022, APC – Adapted to final version of FprEN 1992-1-1:2022

A. Pérez Caldentey, FHECOR 05.01.2023

For citations, copying and referencing see Note on Front page! page 878