The partially fixed mast is a common configuration of reinforced concrete structures, which nevertheless remains poorly documented in the literature. Yet a partial fixity is a delicate assumption to handle.

This example offers a review of the data input process and the justification of such a calculation, according to the general EC2 method reduced to one critical section (MG1). It especially details various reminders and points of attention to monitor in order to successfully perform the design.

The end of the example shows the exact solution to the problem and the possible optimisation made possible by the integral general method (IGM).

When designing a beam or a two‑way slab, reinforcement is usually determined at the ULS after optionally applying a redistribution of bending moments between supports and spans, based on an assumed elastic model.

However, once the structure has been fully defined in terms of formwork and reinforcement, the actual distribution of bending moments is no longer a matter of choice: it is governed by deformation compatibility within the structure.

This “typical” exercise on a continuous slab supported on three spans aims to evaluate the actual redistribution of bending moments at both ULS and SLS, as well as crack width and deflection at SLS, depending on the different redistribution strategies initially considered.

[Article to be published soon]

Applying the Eurocode 2 General Method reduced to the analysis of a critical section (MG1) relies on modelling the element as having a constant stiffness, enabling a simplified evaluation of second‑order effects and the justification of formwork and reinforcement—an approach typically extended, by principle, over the full height of the member.

However, in the case of precast reinforced‑concrete industrial columns, potentially produced in large series, it can be worthwhile to investigate section optimisation and reinforcement cut‑offs in order to reduce weight, cost and carbon footprint.

Optimising these reinforcement cut‑offs may also be of interest for more conventional pinned‑pinned RC columns, for example to simplify bar intersections at node locations, or in rehabilitation works when strengthening is required only in selected regions.

This example applies the Integral General Method to the case of a precast reinforced‑concrete industrial column, in order to explore these optimisation possibilities while ensuring full verification of the member in accordance with Eurocode 2.

[Article to be published soon]

The design of tall reinforced‑concrete walls can be optimised in several ways: by taking advantage of continuity with adjacent storeys that are more favourable in terms of slenderness, by exploiting load asymmetry and adopting asymmetric reinforcement layouts, or by tailoring reinforcement cut‑offs when actions are locally concentrated (for example, earth pressure applied only to the lower portion of the wall).

Such optimisation requires a level of analytical detail beyond that of the standard Eurocode 2 General Method, together with engineering judgement to examine all governing load cases, choose the appropriate direction of geometric imperfections for each storey, and consider the various possible loading scenarios.

This article examines potential optimisation strategies for the design of a tall wall in continuity and subjected to asymmetric loading.

[Article to be published soon]

This article presents the benefits of the Integral General Method for justifying the design of specific architectural columns featuring curved profiles and/or non‑standard cross‑sections, with the sole requirement that the mechanical problem admits a plane of symmetry, allowing the analysis to be reduced to a 2D system in combined bending with second‑order effects.

The worked example demonstrates the calculation of stresses and deformations, as well as the verification of deformation compatibility at every section, and compliance with Eurocode 2 criteria for such a column.

[Article to be published soon]

This article addresses a common situation in infrastructure slabs that are sensitive to shrinkage and thermal strain effects.

The proposed calculation method incorporates shrinkage directly into the concrete constitutive laws and evaluates the resulting shortening, lengthening and bending effects, depending on the slab’s continuity conditions, restraints, self‑stress mechanisms and cracking behaviour.

A sensitivity study is also performed, showing how the structural response varies depending on the orientation of the beams with respect to the long dimension of the slab, and highlighting several good‑practice considerations that may be of interest for design.

[Article to be published soon]

The Eurocode 2 General Method reduced to the analysis of a critical section (MG1) relies on a strong assumption regarding the shape of the deformed configuration, which is often taken as sinusoidal. This sinusoidal form derives from the case of an elastic column subjected to a negligible first‑order effect, just sufficient to bring the column out of its unstable equilibrium state (y(x)=0) and generate an instability that leads to an increasing deformation until a stable equilibrium is reached.

In a case such as a pinned‑pinned column subjected to progressive axial loading and bending moments at different locations along its height, the sinusoidal model becomes very unrealistic. Using the General Method allows an exact global‑stability verification at ULS without any assumption on the shape of the deformation, and an SLS calculation of total and serviceability‑critical deformation, while satisfying all Eurocode 2 requirements.

This article also proposes an extrapolation of Eurocode 3 to define acceptable horizontal‑displacement criteria for this type of slender structure.

[Article to be published soon]

Eurocode 2 provides practical design and calculation methods applicable on the one hand to continuous and simply‑bent members such as beams and slabs, and on the other hand to axially‑compressed members supported at two ends, such as columns and walls. The points of attention differ and are specific to each case.

The case of an infrastructure slab acting as a strut lies at the intersection of these two canonical types of structural members: it is both slender and axially compressed with a significant first‑order moment, and at the same time continuous, sensitive to crack width and to deformation.

The Integral General Method can provide an appropriate framework for addressing these intermediate configurations and verifying all applicable Eurocode 2 criteria. This article presents the design of such a structure.

[Article to be published soon]