Skip to main content
Log in

Cyclic shear resistance model for Eurocode 8 consistent with the second-generation Eurocode 2

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The 1994 pre-standard ENV-Eurocode 8 followed the 1985 “Seismic Annex” of the CEB/FIP Model Code 1978 in reducing or eliminating the contribution of concrete to the shear resistance of higher ductility concrete members with axial compression less than 10% of the axial force resistance. The first-generation EN-Eurocode 8 tried to achieve the same end result for high ductility beams, within the constraints set by the elimination of the contribution of concrete to shear resistance in the first-generation EN-Eurocode 2. Comparison with over 1100 cyclic tests of shear-critical RC members shows that these code rules give on average a serious safety deficit, especially in members designed for ductility. The deficit is reduced in members designed for ductility using the first-generation EN-Eurocode 8 and turns into surplus for those designed for shear strength alone, but at the price of very high scatter. The strain-dependent monotonic shear resistance model in the 2018 draft of the second generation EN-Eurocode 2 agrees on average well with over 500 cyclic tests of RC members which failed in shear without yielding in flexure, but with lack-of-fit with respect to most variables affecting shear resistance. More important is its bias in the unsafe direction for almost 600 cyclic tests which led to shear failure after flexural yielding. The following modifications to this monotonic shear model give good average agreement with cyclic tests that led to shear failure before or after flexural yielding: (a) inelastic longitudinal strains at section mid-depth in plastic hinges are estimated using the “equal displacement rule”; (b) the transverse component of the strut force transferring a column’s axial compression from the compression zone of one end section to the diagonally opposite compression zone at the other end is added to the shear resistance; (c) the special model in Eurocode 2 for resistance to shear due to point loads near supports is used in squat walls or columns; (d) the concrete strength along the compression field is reduced by 37.5%, and (e) upper limits are set to the strength values of transverse reinforcement and concrete. In addition to filling a gap in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 concerning design of new concrete structures, the proposed approach can replace the current portfolio of (semi-)empirical models in Part 3 of the first-generation Eurocode 8 and in the draft of the second-generation one, which give the cyclic shear resistance before and after flexural yielding for four different combinations of failure mode and member type, without bias and with less scatter than the new, holistic approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2020) Cyclic shear resistance for seismic design, based on monotonic shear models in fib Model Code 2010 and in the 2018 draft of Eurocode 2. Struct Concr 21:43. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biskinis D, Roupakias GK, Fardis MN (2004) Degradation of shear strength of RC members with inelastic cyclic displacements. ACI Struct J 101(6):773–783

    Google Scholar 

  • CEB (1978) International system for unified standard codes of practice for structures. Vol. I: common unified rules for different types of construction and material; vol. II: CEB-FIP Model Code for concrete structures. Bulletins No. 124/125. Comite Euro-international du Beton, Paris

  • CEB (1985) CEB Model Code for seismic design of concrete structures. Bulletin No. 165. Comite Euro-international du Beton. Lausanne

  • CEB (1991) CEB-FIP Model Code 1990—final draft. Bulletins No. 203/204/205. Comite Euro-international du Beton, Lausanne

  • CEN (1991) European prestandard ENV 1992-1: Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—part 1: general rules and rules for buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN (1994) European prestandard ENV 1998-1-3:1994: Eurocode 8: design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part 1–3: general rules—specific rules for various materials and elements. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2004a) European Standard EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—part 1: general rules and rules for buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2004b) European Standard EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2005) European Standard EN 1998-3:2005: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN/TC250/SC2 (2019) prEN 1992-1-1:2018 Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—part 1–1: general rules, rules for buildings, bridges and civil engineering structures. Working File by SC2/WG1/CDG (Rev. 0) 2019-11-11, CEN/TC 250 work programme under Mandate M/515. Comité Européenne de Normalisation, Brussels

  • CEN/TC250/SC8 (2018) prEN 1998-3:2018 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of existing structures Final draft by Project Team SC8.T3 working on phase 1 of the CEN/TC 250 work programme under Mandate M/515. Comité Européenne de Normalisation, Brussels

  • Fardis MN (2018) Capacity design: early history. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(14):2887–2896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • fib (2012) Model Code 2010. Bulletin 65/66, Federation Internationale du Beton, Lausanne

  • Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2015) Strength, deformation capacity and failure modes of RC walls under cyclic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3277–3300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammatikou S, Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2018a) Flexural rotation capacity models fitted to test results using different statistical approaches. Struct Concr 19(2):608–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grammatikou S, Biskinis DE, Fardis MN (2018b) Effects of load cycling, FRP jackets and lap-splicing of longitudinal bars on effective stiffness and ultimate deformation of flexure-controlled RC members. ASCE J Struct Eng 144(6):04017195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews S, Bigaj A, Walraven J, Mancini G, Dieteren G (2018) fib Model Code 2020: towards a general code for both new and existing concrete structures. Struct Concr 19(4):959–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muttoni A (2018) Shear design and assessment: the coming steps forward for fib Model Code 2020. Struct Concr 19(1):3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEAOC (1973) Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California, San Francisco, p 146

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael N. Fardis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Biskinis, D., Fardis, M.N. Cyclic shear resistance model for Eurocode 8 consistent with the second-generation Eurocode 2. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 2891–2915 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00807-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00807-1

Keywords

Navigation