Name of File 6567-78-23.pdf cached at 15/12/2017 06:38:57 - with 2 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\ec\ec4c4b22-787d-4dda-86e8-8335a7cfdf2a.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\ec4c4b22-787d-4dda-86e8-8335a7cfdf2a_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: ec4c4b22-787d-4dda-86e8-8335a7cfdf2a_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Verulam

Eurocodes Roger Pope writes: Following Joe Locke’s letter published on 5 September 2000, you raised several questions about the impact of Eurocodes on design. My response to your queries based on my experience as an active player in the process concerning Eurocodes 0,1,3 and 4 is as follows: (1) Very few complete trial designs were ever undertaken using solely the ENV versions of the Eurocodes. Nearly all experience at ENV stage was with the NAD version in each country, often with pre-existing national loading codes not the actions specified in ENV 1991. As the NADs had been ‘calibrated’ to give the same design outcomes as pre-existing national codes it was hardly a surprise if trial designs undertaken with the ENV and NAD together resulted in design outcomes similar to that from pre-existing national codes! As an example, the UK NAD for ENV 1993-1-1 reduced the gamma factor for steel to 1.05 from a boxed value of 1.1 which eliminated 5% of the uncompetitiveness in the bare ENV.