A perspective from the Mandate M/515

Technical Reviewer on Ease of Use

Mariapia Angelino, Principal Engineer
12th November 2018 | BSI and The Institution of Structural Engineers
CEN/TC 250 Vision

Whilst respecting the achievements of the past,

our vision for the second generation of Structural
Eurocodes is to create a more user-orientated
suite of design standards that are recognised as
the most trusted and preferred in the world.
 Year of publication

“Too long and complex!” 1977

“Too much peripheral information!” 1982

“It’s OK for people who write these

codes but it is left to us poor designers 1997
to use them!”

“Ambiguous clauses”
“Difficult to find the relevant information” 2013
“Too complicated analysis!”
Agenda

― Context
― Implementation of the strategy
― Preliminary outcomes
― Next steps and conclusions
Agenda

― Context
― Implementation of the strategy
― Preliminary outcomes
― Next steps and conclusions
 First generation of Eurocodes

Three-way Countries
harmonisation

Structural
materials
Types of
structures
 Factors affecting usability of the Eurocodes
NAVIGATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TEXT COMPLEXITY
DOCUMENTS

Hard to find
information needed
Reference
Many to other EN
standards Failure to Failure to select the
Eurocodes Novelty of Less
documents Inconsistencies identify critical most appropriate design
Reference to other documents prescriptive
clauses methods approach
Eurocodes
Much content in standards Different
the main body of people draft
the text Reference to different parts
Narrow New More flexibility
National
References to clauses content in the choice
Application New style, Inconsistency in
Normative Annexes of design
language and terminology
Annexes options
terminology Unfriendly
Reference to Less expertise
other external style
of designers
References to technical New Ineffective
Informative principles language FACTORS
documents
Annexes AFFECTING
USABILITY OF
Users
Standards
EUROCODES
Economic knowledge
implications writers
Users experience about
knowledge
Political the specific standard Stakeholders
aspects Standards expectations
Different legal constraints
Users experience about writers and interests
in different countries
structural design (i.e. about experience
Cultural the domain in general)
Different design traditions aspects
Users experience about
in different countries the specific design to be
carried out (i.e. the task)

MACRO-ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PERSONAL ISSUES

Difficulty to navigate content
Inconsistencies in symbols
Incorrect verbal forms

1. “Laboratory tests to determine parameters for

geotechnical calculations are given in Table 2.3”

2. “NOTE The length of the cantilever, l3, should be

less than half the adjacent span and the ratio of
adjacent spans should lie between 2/3 and 1,5.”
Alternative application rules

1. As a simplification, λV may be calculated for the

concordant design values of the bending
moment and shear:
λV = MSd /(VSd d )

2. Verification of fire resistance should be

in the time domain:
tfi,d ≥ tfi,requ
or in the strength domain:
Rfi,d,t ≥ Efi,d,t
or in the temperature domain:
Θd ≥ Θcr,d
 Chairman’s Advisory Panel on EoU

Written
15 contributions
CAP
Members

Questionnaire

14
months of
work Discussions

Five pillars to enhance EoU

of the Eurocodes
Agenda

― Context
― Implementation of the strategy
― Preliminary outcomes
― Next steps and conclusions
ToR Technical Reviewer
Key responsibilities include:
• follow the CEN/TC 250’s strategy for enhancing the ease of
use of the Eurocodes;
• scrutinize reports and draft technical deliverables and make
recommendations to enhance consistency between different
Eurocode parts and improve ease of use;
• develop guidance materials and briefings to support the work
of CEN/TC 250 and the Project Teams in meeting the objectives
of mandate M/515;
• maintain an overall library of notation and terminology usage
and highlight areas where consistency could be enhanced.
Fundamental rules
Phase 1 drafts
38 documents
Over 2,200 pages

Prod uct ion

St art of final
PT 1st 2 nd 3 rd d eliverab le
w ork draft draft draft b y PT

Inform al
enquiry

Drafting
Phase 1 drafts
Over 9,500 comments from
informal enquiry in more
than 1,550 pages

Product ion
St art of final
PT 1st 2 nd 3 rd deliverable
w ork draft draft draft by PT

Inform al
enquiry

Drafting
Enhancing harmonisation
Updates to N1250
 Phase 1 drafts
Current stage (review of
Phase 1 deliverables)
• Engagement with SCs and
WGs to support finalisation
St art
Product ion
of final of drafts, particularly those
1st 2 nd 3 rd deliverable
PT
w ork draft draft draft by PT that are expected to be
submitted to CEN enquiry.
Inform al
enquiry

Review of the
Drafting standard by
SC/WG

Potential
Potential input
input from
from other
Potential
PTs in the input
same fromother
phase orother
inin PTs
PTs
in in the
the samesame phase
phase or or
in other
other
other phases
phases ofofthe
thework
work
phases of the work
programme
programme
programme
Agenda

― Context
― Implementation of the strategy
― Preliminary outcomes
― Next steps and conclusions
Enhancing accessibility of content
Current EN 1990 Draft prEN 1990

clear signposts
Enhancing accessibility of content
Method

Flowcharts to Flow chart &

Clause
Imperf.

help navigate M0
None
7.2.2(4)
clauses /

1st order analysis

M1
design 7.2.2(5)
None

methods
M2
SI
7.2.2(6)

M3
SI
7.2.2(7) a)

2nd order analysis

M4
SI+MBI
7.2.2(7) b)

M5
SI+MBIT
7.2.2(8)

Keys: LTB Lateral torsional buckling

SI Sway imperfection
MBI Member bow imperfection (in-plane)
MBIT Member bow imperfection including torsional effects (in-plane and out-of-plane)
 Enhancing consistencies of symbols

Glossary of
symbols

Over 2,700
symbols in
Phase 1 drafts
only
 Enhancing consistencies of terms
and definitions

Glossary of
terms and
definitions

Over 600
defined terms
in Phase 1
drafts only
 Appropriate use of verbal forms

 When examples have

been followed,
significant
improvements have
been seen in the
drafts
Agenda

― Context
― Implementation of the strategy
― Preliminary outcomes
― Next steps and conclusions
Next steps
• Continue to support SCs and WGs in finalising the
drafts from Phase 1.
• Start reviewing the preliminary material developed
by Phase 2 Project Teams to provide progressive
assurance of the work done.
• Liaison with CEN editorial team to support XML
conversion.
Conclusions
(1) Enhancing the ease of use of the
second generation of Eurocodes is a
huge challenge.
(2) We have implemented a rigorous
strategy to support this effort.
(3) And we will make it better.
Thank you for your attention