Eurocode Simplified?
A quick one for the civils (and maybe even the E&M’s if you ever get asked to look at a future civil problem…).
When working on my thesis I stumbled across this website: EurocodeApplied. Basically, it provides free online calculation tools for structural design to Eurocode. You select the relevant check, enter your input data and select any relevant National Annex limitations. It also summarises key data from the code without having to find every table or figure.
There are pages for EC1 – Actions (including wind actions), EC 2 – Concrete (creep, shrinkage, durability, axial and bending checks, shear design and detailing), EC3 Steel (steel properties like the blue book and section capacity checks) and EC8 Seismic (actions, fundamental periods, reductions of earthquake actions during construction and foundations/retaining structures).
Sadly I’m not doing any design to EC over here so I’ve not been able to validate their accuracy. If any of the Civil crew are doing wind loading or simple checks and want to try them out I’d love to know if they are a good source. If validated, it could be a really useful tool for future PET or Clk Wks students depending on how kind the PEW lecturing staff are feeling!
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
I’ve used the steel one a couple of times as a quick reference guide. I think I was checking bolts which were smaller than the normal diameters carried in the blue book. On that fairly simple question it seemed pretty accurate but, as with any programme of course, you have to check the inputs. It will be programmed to make an assumption about every variable in the code, some of which are irrelevant to your purpose, some will be vital. In the bolt check for example this included checking whether the shear plane passed through the threaded length of the bolt.
For anything more complicated the range of software available on Ph3 is much more useful but for Ph1 there’s no reason not to look at it as long as you don’t rely on it. I suppose, considering the array of learning styles, being able to play around with a range of variables and quickly see how it affects design might be a useful interactive learning approach?
Mark. For interest I just checked my most recent hoarding design against the online calculator. I got a lower value for the load when I did it by hand which I guess makes sense because I had more control over certain inputs which the software will take conservatively. I must say your link took me about 3 minutes and my own calcs took probably a few hours so… swings and roundabouts I suppose.
We’re they of the same magnitude? Would you recommend the online calculator seems accurate enough to be used as a quick sanity check tool?
You’re talking the difference between 3.2 and 2.4 so I would say it was good if the risk was more about design time than over design. Or as Tom did… validating another calc
Thanks Ash. Really useful!
Hi guys, Sorry to wade in so much after the event but I’ve only just secured access to the blogg again! I had a look at the website. Looks much more like someone that enjoys coding up process rather than an engineer is behined this one (I am narrow eyed about the meet the team statement). I suspect the results are reasonable but it isn’t helpful for learning as far as I can tell becuase there’s nothing that explains the ‘why’ to any changes in resuts arising from adjusting variables. Furthermore the results might be technically correct but not necesssarily a sensible practical solution. e.g. 6mm bars at 50mm spacing as an option (expressed as 6cm argh!!) this clearly uses a non standard bar size to build a sieve. You could use this as a steer to process if comletely lost, or, as Tom notes, to provide a sanity check in an unusual ciscumstance i.e. where you have a result but want to see if ther si some geeky code breach hidden in your workings. Othrwise I think you are better than this.