1

Briefing on
Concrete Code 2013

Mr. CW LAW (SSE/10)

Mr. CY WONG (PTOS/SD)
11 & 17 July 2013

SE Training Committee
 2

Rundown
PARTS
I. Background

II. Major Revisions in Concrete Code 2013 versus

2004

III. Progress Status of Structural Software to

Concrete Code 2013

IV. Q&A
 3

I. Background

• Code of Practice for Structural Use of

Concrete 2004 (the 2004 Code)
– Issued by the Buildings
Department (BD) in 3/2004;
– First local code based on Limit
State Design.
• Limit State Design provides,
– a more realistic assessment on
uncertainties associated with
different loading conditions,
material properties, workmanship,
etc.,
– a more cost effective design.
 4

I. Background

• In Jan 2008, BD
established a Technical
Committee (TC) to collect
views and feedbacks from
the construction industry;
• After a 5-year review
work, BD issued the Code of
Practice for Structural Use of
Concrete 2013 (the 2013
Code) in 2/2013.
 5

I. Background
The review has focused on 4 aspects

Other
events

Advancement
in design and
technology
Refinement based on
properties of local
materials, conditions
of local environment,
Other events
practices of local
Views and construction industry,
feedbacks etc.
from industry
CS2:2012

BD’s circular letter

Dated 29/4/2012
 6

I. Background

Implementation of 2013 Code

• May be used with immediate

effect.

• One year for the transition is

allowed from the 2004 Code.

• By 28 February 2014 onwards,

the 2013 Code shall be fully
implemented.
 7

I. Background

Implementation of 2013 Code

• For new and “alteration and
addition” proposals, if approval of
the structural plans or foundation
plans has been given before 28
February 2014, the subsequent
structural plan submissions may
continue to adopt the same code
of practice that has been used in
the original application.
 8

II. Major Revisions in Concrete Code

2013 versus 2004
1. Design for Fire Limit State (FLS) (NEW)
2. Average Elastic Modulus of Concrete for determination of
lateral deflection (NEW)
3. Design strength of ribbed steel reinforcing bars (previously
more commonly known as high yield steel bars) increased
from 460MPa to 500MPa
4. Mechanical Couplers
5. Use of Ground Granulated Blastfurnace Slag (GGBS) in
concrete (NEW)
6. New / Revised requirements in the Design and Detailing of
RC Structures
 9

1. Design for Fire Limit States (FLS)

• Cl.2.2.3 – a new clause adding definition and

requirement for FLS.
 10

1. Design for Fire Limit States (FLS)

• In 2004 Code, it was stated in Cl.4.3. that “For concrete compressive
strength greater than 60 MPa, the possible reduction of strength at elevated
temperatures and the associated risk of spalling should be
investigated…Specialist literature and testing should be referenced…”.
• In 2013 Code, it added several new clauses: -
– Cl.2.3.2.7 – Load Factors for FLS;
– Cl.2.4.3.2 – Partial Safety Factors for Material;
– Cl.3.6 – Design Strength at Elevated Temperatures;
– Cl.4.3.1 – Prevention of Spalling in high strength concrete…
• All aim at providing guidance for checking structural adequacy of RC
members at elevated temperatures.
• Design according to FLS is not compulsory at this stage.
• Using prevailing deem-to-satisfy provisions including minimum member
dimensions, covers to rebars, etc as stated in the Code of Practice for Fire
Safety in Buildings 2011 . is adequate at the moment.
An extract of Fire
Code 2011
 12

2. Average Elastic Modulus of Concrete

for determination of lateral deflection
• Table 3.2 – providing a new set of average values for
elastic modulus of concrete for checking overall building
deflection.
 13

2. Average Elastic Modulus of Concrete

for determination of lateral deflection
• The original set of E-values of concrete are
characteristic values based on characteristic
concrete strength while the new set of E-values
are average values.

• It is more rational to use the average concrete

properties to check the lateral deflection due
to wind load which is a serviceability state and
transient in nature.
 14

2. Average Elastic Modulus of Concrete

for determination of lateral deflection
 15

3. Design strength of ribbed steel reinforcing

bars increased from 460MPa to 500MPa

In Dec 2012, Standing Committee on Concrete

Technology (SCCT) issued the Construction
Standard CS2:2012.
The 2013 Code should be used with CS2:2012.
Major Changes
• Increases yield strength of ribbed steel
reinforcing bars from 460 MPa to 500 MPa;
• Deletes bend test and update rebend test;
• Deletes “Class 3” steel reinforcing bars; and
• Introduces requirements for handling
non-conforming steel reinforcing bars.
 16

3. Design strength of ribbed steel reinforcing

bars increased from 460MPa to 500MPa

• Cl.3.2 – Adding use of ribbed steel reinforcing

bars in grade 500B and 500C to CS2:2012.

• Design strength increased by about 9%.

• About 4 to 5% saving for heavy reinforcement.
• Anchorage length and lap length have to be
longer.
 17

3. Design strength of ribbed steel reinforcing

bars increased from 460MPa to 500MPa

Table 5 from CS2:2012

 18

(2013 Edition)

Standard General Details will be revised accordingly

 4. Mechanical Couplers

• More detailed requirements on mechanical

couplers than CoP2004
• Make distinction between Type 1 and Type 2
couplers which originate from ACI318
• Type 2 is a stronger coupler designed to resist
seismic cyclic loads
• Type 2 can be used anywhere but Type 1 is
restricted in the region of one beam effective
depth from support and can only be within middle
half of column, same as ordinary lap.
 20

4. Mechanical Couplers

• Cl.3.2.8.3 - Type 1 Mechanical Couplers

• Cl.3.2.8.4 - Type 2 Mechanical Couplers

115% yield strength

 21

4. Mechanical Couplers

Type 1 Mechanical Couplers

•Are non-ductility couplers;
•May be used as an alternative to tension or compression
laps; and
•Should be placed away from plastic hinges.
Type 2 Mechanical Couplers
•Are ductility couplers;
•May be used for tension, compression, and cyclic loadings;
and
•Generally can be placed anywhere along the members
though the 2013 Code imposes some restrictions.
 Structural Features

Semi-precast slab
connected to
adjacent slab
monolithically
VPB rest on
completed lower
floor slab
Semi-precast wall for
connection with
corridor wall

Non-structural
bottom slab with
GRP sunken shower
Structural wall tray
connected by
splice sleeve
 30

5. Use of GGBS in Concrete

• Cl.4.2.5.5 – including use of GGBS.

• GGBS is a by-product in the

blastfurnace of steel mill.
 32

5. Use of GGBS in Concrete

Benefits
• Higher long-term concrete strength;
• Lower risk of alkali-silica reaction;
• Higher fire resistance;
• Lower heat of hydration & reducing cracking; and
• Higher resistance against chloride ingress.
HA’s Consultancy Study
• Consultant appointed: Jacobs China Ltd. (Nov 2008).
• Pilot project: Shek Kip Mei Estate Ph 2 (Dec 2008)
using GGBS in Precast Facade for 10 storeys.
• Findings are promising and welcome by stakeholders.
6. Highlight of Major Revisions in Design and
Detailing to Concrete Code 2013 versus 2004

New / Revised Contents compared with CoP2004

Omit Discussion on detailed design familiar to
most of the colleagues

Stress more on detailings, especially ductility
and rationale behind
 6. Design and Detailing in Code of Practice
for Structural Use of Concrete 2013 versus
2004

Supersedes “Code of Practice for the Structural Use of

Concrete 2004”

Based on
BS8110 1997 – generally
Eurocode EC2 – general detailing (Section 8)
New Zealand Code – ductility (Section 9.9)
ACI318 – Some of the detailing
China Code GB50011 – Wall ductility
BSEN1536 – Detailing of LDBP
 Review of Ductility Requirements

• Ductility is the ability to undergo large

deformation prior to rupture.
• Give warning for repair and escape.
• The provision of ductility is to pave the way to
future seismic design
 Ductility Provisions in the Code

1. Stronger and closer transverse rebars;

2. Stronger anchorage of links
3. Longer and stronger bonding of rebars in concrete
4. Limit tension rebars and increase compression bar in
beam
5. More stringent control on use of high strength concrete
6. More stringent requirements on control of plastic hinge
formation
7. Limit deflections at transfer structure level
Quantification of Ductility
 1. Stronger and closer transverse rebars in critical
regions

axial compression
confinement by transverse re-
bars enhances concrete strength
and ductility of the concrete
core within the transverse re-
bars

Figure 2.3 – enhancement of ductility by transverse reinforcements

Stronger anchorage of links

(a) 180o hook (b) 135o hook (c) 90o hook

Anchorage of link in concrete : (a) better than (b); (b) better than (c)

Figure 2.4 – Anchorage to links in concrete by hooks

Stronger Anchorage of Link
Longer and Stronger Bonding of rebars in
concrete
 Radial force by bar
tending to cause
concrete spalling if
concrete is relatively
thin

Radial force by bar

inward on concrete
which is relatively
thick

Figure 2.6 – Bars bending inwards to avoid radial forces on thin concrete cover
 Limit tension rebars and increase
compression bar in beam
Variation of Moment of Resistance with Curvature for Varying Percentage of
Tension Steel - 400(D) × 400(W) Section Grade 35 - Singly Reinforced

0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%

500
450
Moment of Resistance (kNm)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
-3
Curvature (×10 /mm)

Ductility decreases with increase in tension bar percentage though

strength increases
 Limit tension rebars and increase
compression bar in beam
Variation of Moment of Resistance with Curvature for Varying Compression Steel
Percentage - 700(D) x 400(W) Section Grade 35 - Tension Steel Percentage = 4%

Pc=0% Pc=0.5% Pc=1.0% Pc=1.5% Pc=2.0% Pc=2.5% Pc=3.0% Pc=4.0%

3500
Moment of Resistance (kNm)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
-3
Curvature (1/mm x 10 )

Ductility increases with increase in compression bar percentage with

increases in strength
More Stringent Requirements on Design
using High Strength Concrete
• High strength concrete more brittle
More Stringent Requirements on Design
using High Strength Concrete

No moment redistribution for fcu > 70

More stringent requirements on control of
plastic hinge formation

Critical section with

plastic hinge formation

Pile cap / footing /

transfer structure

Strong column / weak beam

Figure 2.8 – locations of critical section with plastic hinge formation

More stringent requirements on control of
plastic hinge formation

Stress beyond yield

point, deformation
leading to rotation
increase without stress
increase
 Push Over Analysis to determine
locations of plastic hinge

An
increasing
lateral load

The section with

the first formation
of plastic hinge
joint is the critical
section
 More stringent requirements on control of
plastic hinge formation
• Structure is so designed that plastic hinge will not
form in critical locations leading to severe failure,
e.g. plastic hinge preferred to be formed in beam
than in column, leading to “strong column – weak
beam” design;
• The potential plastic hinge locations are to be
strengthened by (i) stronger confinement by
transverse rebars; (ii) restricting laps in the
locations ; (iii) limiting axial compression ratio;
(iv) limiting longitudinal steel contents
 Storey Drift beneath Transfer Structures

• Additional requirement to restrict storey drift

beneath Transfer Structures to 1:700, more
stringent to 1:500 generally for wind load
• To avoid “soft storey”, a phenomenon in seismic.
 Stiff transfer structures
sway under earthquake
with its comparatively
large inertial mass

Locations of potential
damage or failure

Comparatively flexible
columns displaced by
the sway action of the
transfer structures

Illustration of the phenomenon of “soft storey”

 Beam

Simply supported L/D >2

Continuous L/D > 2.5 Shallow
beam

Otherwise Deep Beam

Less 500/460 - 1 = 8.7% reinforcements by using grade

500 steel
 Beam

• Compared with CoP2004, introduction of “critical zone” at 2h from

each ends of the beam.
 Beam

• The compressive strength in beam is limited to

below 0.87fy for shallow beam and/or with large
cover. The maximum d’/x ratio for achieving
0.87fy changes from the constant of 0.38 to
variable due to upgrade of fy and reduction of
εcu at high concrete grades.
 Beam

In CoP2004, at 50% (instead of 85%) of top tensile steel in

flange
Beam Torsion

Added in
CoP2013
Beam Torsion
Beam Torsion
Beam Torsion
 Cantilever Beam

Incorporate the precise requirements of the previous PNAP173

(APP-68) including
• Minimum thickness (in accordance with span);
• Minimum steel percentage (0.25%)
• Minimum concrete cover
• Restriction on use of cantilever slabs (span ≤ 750mm)
• Minimum Bar Diameter
• Anchorage of tensile reinforcements etc.
 Cantilever Slab

• As a check for serviceability limit state, the

portion on checking cantilever slab for steel
stresses limited to 100MPa has been removed
as. Instead cantilever slabs subject to
weathering is to be checked against crack width
- ≤ 0.1mm, as different from the current PNAP
APP-068 (PNAP173) which allows both
approaches.
Cantilever Beam
 Beam-Column Joint

• Design the joint to be adequately strong to

withstand the applied shear due to external load
• As a ductility design, ensure that the joint will be
stronger than the adjoining beam so that failure
of the joint will not take priority to that of beam
Beam-Column Joint
 Beam-Column Joint

• First Review the phenomenon of beam-column

joint failure.
 Beam-Column Joint

• The Code has clarified that 3 scenarios would be

applicable for determination design force on
beam-column joints.
Under Gravity Load only with no Reverse in Moments
Under Gravity Load and Lateral Wind Load with no Reverse in
Moments
Under Gravity Load and Lateral Wind Load with Reverse in Moments
 Beam-Column Joint

There are some revisions in the design formulae

• 6.8.1.4 – A paragraph added saying that the
potential failure plane of a beam column joint be
considered as extending from one corner to the
diagonally opposite edge;
• 6.8.1.5 – Agfcu becomes 0.8Agfcu in Equation 6.72
(taken from New Zealand Code originally using fc
= 0.8fcu)
• 6.8.1.6 – clarifying that vertical bar can be used
for vertical shear reinforcements
 Beam-Column Joint

CoP2004

CoP2013
 Beam-Column Joint

Cj = Vjx (or Vjy) / (Vjx + Vjy) is used to distribute the effect of N*

on shear enhancement for the direction under consideration. It is
specified in the Code that Cj = 1 if N* is in tension, i.e. no
distribution and the enhancement is “negative”, increasing the
value of Ajh.
 Beam-Column Joint

• Transverse reinforcements in Beam-Column Joint be evenly

distributed and not adjacent to inner most bars
 Flanged Beam

beff
beff,1 beff,2

b1 b1 bw b2 b2

beff < bw +0.2bi + 0.07 L < bw + 0.14 L

Note 1 under 5.2.1.2, unless beff,1 and beff,2 is smaller than 0.1lp
(span), the shear stress between the flange and the web should be
checked and provide with transverse reinforcements
Flanged Beam

Extracted from
EC2
 Column

• Design enhanced due to fy increased from

460MPa to 500MPa
 Design Chart of Rectangular Column to Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013
Concrete Grade C45, Rebar Grade 500 and 460, 4-bar column, d/h = 0.75

55
0.4% steel - fy=500
50 0.4% steel - fy=460
3% steel - fy=500
45 3% steel - fy=460
5% steel - fy=500
40
5% steel - fy=460
35 8% steel - fy=500
2
N/bh N/mm

8% steel - fy=460
30

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
2 2
M/bh N/mm
 Column

• Divided into Critical zones and Non-critical zones

along column shaft – the critical zones are at the
portions where there will be high moments upon
the application of lateral load which are usually at
the column ends.
 Column

By Cl. 9.5.1 for stirrup spacing in “Non-critical”

zone (not near the ends of the column), in
addition to the original requirement of not less
than 12φ where φ is the diameter of the main bar,
two further requirements added :

• The lesser dimension of column;

• 400mm
 Column

• In addition, where direction of the column

longitudinal bar changes (e.g. at change in
column size), the spacing of reinforcement should
be calculated to cater for the lateral force
involved unless the change in direction is less
than 1 in 12
Column
 Column

• Some relaxations in the transverse

reinforcements by which 135o anchorage of links
can be exempted under some conditions –
restraints from “kick off”.
 Column

• Equation 9.7 in CoP2004 has been removed

removed
As a result, small bars have to be used which may result in
congestion. This is now considered unnecessary as Hong Kong is a
region of low to moderate seismicity where reversal of column axial
load is unlikely.
 Column
• “Middle Quarter Rule” is relaxed to “Middle Half Rule”
• Applied to Column with potential plastic hinge formation
• Check by Equation 9.6 of the Code
• If column moment capacity is high → formation of plastic hinge in column
unlikely → no need to comply middle half rule
 Column

To demonstrate that the summed beam bending capacity should arise from
both beams at the joint being either both clockwise or both anticlockwise
 Column

• In addition, the Code has specified in Cl.

9.9.2.1(d) that if gravity load dominates where
reversal of bending will not occur, i.e. the beam
will not suffer sagging moment at the application
of lateral load, then the moment capacity with
the bottom steel need not be considered. In the
above example, ΣMb will only contains the
hogging moment, i.e. the greater of 631.34kNm
and 771.28kNm. Ceqn 9.6 can of course be
satisfied.
 Column

• Critical Zones are defined (with one more

condition of not less than column clear height as
compared with CoP2004)
The condition Hc≥H/6 is new
requirement in CoP2013
 Column

• More stringent requirements on Transverse

Reinforcements in Critical Zone.
• However, the requirement that vertical spacing of
links be not greater than ¼ of column least
dimension has been removed.
 Wall

• Clarified in Cl. 9.6.2 that the maximum

percentage of 4% at lap in wall can be doubled to
8%
 Wall Ductility

• Critical zones and boundary elements defined.

They are based on the “structural boundary
element” and “confining boundary element”
defined in the China Code
• The boundary elements serve to increase the
strength of the walls at their zones which can
effectively increase their strengths and ductility
 Wall Ductility

Variation of Moment of Resistance with Curvature for 300x3000 Wall (Grade 45) with
T25@100 under Various Average Axial Stress with Confinement by T10@150 at ends

0fco 0.05fco 0.1fco 0.2fco 0.3fco 0.4fco 0.5fco 0.6fco 0.7fco 0.8fco

25000

20000
Moment of Resistance (kNm)

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
-3
Curvature x 10
 Bored Piles and Diaphragm Walls

• Added in Cl. 9.7.4

• Based on BSEN1536
• Mainly to stress that the minimum vertical steel
ratio is 0.25% (for cross sectional area > 1m2)
which is from BSEN1536
• Others include no. of bars and spacing
 General Detailing

• Largely same as CoP2004 based on EC2 (BSEB1992)

Section 8
• Some revisions :
1. Adding bend radius for φ ≤ 12mm in Table 8.2
2. Revision of anchorage length in Table 8.4 as fy increases
from 460 to 500MPa
3. Clarifying lapping is allowed for bars in one layer in Cl.
8.7.2
 General Detailing
• Bending radius for φ ≤ 12mm added in accordance with BS8666, allowing
smaller bend radii.

extra

CoP2013

CoP2004
Discrepancies – 8.4.8 and Figure 8.1 not revised to meet Table 8.1

Omitted for φ≤12

General Detailing

Formula based on
fbu = β√fcu remains
unchanged. But
longer length will
be required to fully
anchor the bar
stressed to 0.87fy
with fy increased
from 460 to 500
 General Detailing

• Clarification in Cl. 8.7.2

CoP2013

CoP2004

CoP2004 in fact requires alternate lapping for tension bars. The 100% lapping when
bars in one layer actually all the bars can be lapped but not in the same section. The
difficulty lies in the second sentence that only 50% can be lapped while the other 50%
is not allowed to lap at all.

CoP2013 clarifies 100% lapping in any section where the tension bars are in one layer.
 General Detailing

• Why transverse bars across lapping longitudinal bar in

concrete cover?
Higher tensile stress may develop at laps creating potential cracks
More transverse reinforcements are needed at the ends of the laps
because of higher bond stresses leading higher tensile stresses
 Shrinkage and Creep

• The provision for determine shrinkage and creep

is based on the Model Code MC70 (in the year
1970) which has been adopted in BS5400 and
the SDM of Hong Kong
• However the shrinkage is originally taken as 4
times (through a coefficient cs = 4.0) that of
MC70 in SDM and Hong Kong Concrete Code
1983
• The cs has been reduced to 3.0 in CoP2004
• The cs is further reduced to 2.5 in CoP2013
 Shrinkage and Creep

• Shrinkage is the contraction of the concrete

member by loss of water. It depends on time, the
materials and the environmental factors such as
humidity;
• Shrinkage will induce stresses (tensile) in the
concrete member if restrained from contraction;
• Creep is the deformation of the member under
“sustained” load and in the direction of the load.
It depends on the magnitude of the load and the
deformation is on-going deformation even the
load stays constant.
• The Code provides charts and formulae for the
estimation of shrinkage and creep.
 Shrinkage and Creep

• It would be easy to estimate shrinkage and creep

in vertical members as both are in the same
directions. They are independent and can be
added together.
• However in r.c. floor structures, shrinkage will
create contraction and the stresses in the floor
will be tensile and the creep will “relax” the
shrinkage stress.
A typical development of stresses due to shrinkage and creep in a r.c. floor
Lam & Law have
published a paper in
2011 on estimation of
shrinkage and creep
effects on r.c. floors to
CoP2004.

Revisions have to be
carried out as cs has
been reduced from 3.0
to 2.5. However, as it is
the shrinkage which
initiates the process, it
can simply be corrected
by reducing the stresses
by a factor of 2.5/3.0.
Design charts have been devised for general use. In the charts, Kb is
the stiffness of the floor structure, Ksup1 and Ksup2 are the restraints
to the floor by the support.
 The End
Thank you