The Second Generation Arrives: An Expert Guide to SS EN 1992-1-1:2024 and Its Key Updates for Concrete Design in Singapore

Part 1: The New Generation of Eurocode 2 and the Singapore Context

1.1 Introduction: A New Era for Concrete Design

The global landscape of structural engineering is undergoing its most significant transformation in over two decades. 

The “Second Generation” of Eurocodes, a comprehensive evolution of the first-generation standards published in the early 2000s, has arrived.1 

At the forefront of this change is the new standard for concrete design, EN 1992-1-1:2023.4

For the Singaporean construction industry, this European development translates into the forthcoming SS EN 1992-1-1:2024. 

This standard, which will be published by Enterprise Singapore following review by the Building and Construction Standards Committee 6, is not merely an update; it is a fundamental realignment of concrete design philosophy.

This new standard officially supersedes and consolidates three separate first-generation codes: EN 1992-1-1:2004 (General rules and rules for buildings), EN 1992-2:2005 (Concrete bridges), and EN 1992-3:2006 (Liquid retaining and containment structures).1 

The key aims of this major Eurocode 2 update are: simplifying use, boosting European harmonisation by cutting Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs), and incorporating new, more physically-based design models to cover new materials, sustainability, and existing structures assessment.1

This report provides an exhaustive technical analysis of SS EN 1992-1-1:2024, prepared specifically for Singapore’s Professional Engineers (PEs), Accredited Checkers (ACs), and industry leaders. 

We will dissect the critical changes, from the regulatory timeline set by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) to the paradigm-shifting new rules for shear, durability, and advanced analysis.

 

1.2 The Critical Question: BCA Adoption and the Transition Period

 

While the new European standard is published, the most immediate question for any practicing engineer in Singapore is: 

“When does this become mandatory for my BCA submission?” 

The answer is complex and reveals a critical implementation gap that all firms must navigate.

Currently, the mandatory, legally-enforceable standard for concrete design in Singapore remains SS EN 1992-1-1:2008 and its accompanying NA to SS EN 1992-1-1:2008.6 

This is the code of practice referenced in the BCA’s “Approved Document,” which serves as the primary instrument for regulatory compliance.11

The new EN 1992-1-1:2023 sets a European (CEN) withdrawal date for the old 2008-era standards of March 2028.4 

This dictates a multi-year co-existence period where both standards are technically available, creating a critical need for a clear local transition plan.

Recent regulatory movements illustrate this transition. 

A BCA circular dated October 1, 2025, which announced updates to the Approved Document (Version 7.08), still refers generically to “SS EN 1992” for the design of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures.16 

This circular does not yet formally introduce or mandate the new 2024 version, indicating that as of late 2025, the 2008 version remains the standard for compliance.

This delay is not merely administrative; it is a complex and necessary technical process. 

The new SS EN 1992-1-1:2024 standard is unusable for local design until its mandatory companion document—the new Singapore National Annex (NA) to SS EN 1992-1-1:2024—is developed, debated, and published.6

The Enterprise Singapore technical committee 8 is tasked with the high-stakes process of defining all Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) for the new code. 

This process involves critical decisions:

1. Durability: Will the new, complex performance-based durability rules (Exposure Resistance Classes, or ERC) be adopted? Or will the new NA, like the old one 18, direct PEs to continue using established local standards such as SS 544?
2. Shear: Will the new punching shear capacities derived from the Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT)—which technical papers suggest are lower than the 2008 code’s values 19—be adopted as-is?
3. Materials: What will be the maximum permissible concrete grade ($C_{max}$) for shear calculations? The 2008 NA famously imposed a more conservative limit of C50/60 for shear, even while allowing C90/105 for flexure.18

Singapore’s engineering community is therefore in a “limbo” period. The new code is being actively taught in professional courses by bodies like the IES and local universities 15, signalling industry preparation. 

However, PEs cannot use it for BCA submissions until the new NA is published and the BCA officially updates the Approved Document. 

The most critical document for all design firms to monitor is the publication of the draft NA for public comment, as this will define the future of concrete design in Singapore.

 

1.3 A New Structure: Consolidating Eurocode 2

 

One of the most fundamental changes in the 2024 version is its structure. The new standard is a single, consolidated document that merges three separate first-generation codes 1:

1. EN 1992-1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
2. EN 1992-2: Concrete bridges
3. EN 1992-3: Liquid retaining and containment structures

The new, expanded title, “Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, bridges and civil engineering structures,” explicitly reflects this new, unified scope.5

This consolidation has direct and mixed implications for Singaporean engineering firms.

• The Benefit (Consistency): For multidisciplinary firms working on both building projects (governed by BCA) and major infrastructure projects (governed by LTA, such as bridges or tunnels), this is a significant step forward. A single, unified document will govern all concrete structures, harmonising the rules for durability, shear, detailing, and materials.
• The Challenge (Complexity): For engineering firms that focus exclusively on buildings, the new code is now a larger, more complex, and more unwieldy document. Designers must exercise greater care to ensure they are applying the correct clauses and not, for example, using bridge-specific fatigue rules (now in Annex K) for a residential building.22
• The Software Impact: This structural change necessitates a major update from all structural design software vendors (such as CSI, Midas, Tekla, and Allplan).23 It is not a simple change of calculation kernels; the entire logical framework of the software must be re-architected to correctly manage the new consolidated structure, its annexes, and its interaction with different Nationally Determined Parameters.25

 

1.4 High-Level Comparison: 2008 vs. 2024

 

To provide a scannable, high-level overview for practicing professionals, the following table summarises the most critical differences between the current SS EN 1992-1-1:2008 and the new SS EN 1992-1-1:2024.

 

Provision	SS EN 1992-1-1:2008 (The “Old” Code)	SS EN 1992-1-1:2024 (The “New” Code)	Impact for Singaporean Engineers (The “So What?”)
Scope	Part 1-1 (Buildings) was a separate standard from Part 2 (Bridges) and Part 3 (Tanks).	Merges Parts 1-1, 2, and 3 into a single, consolidated document.[1, 9]	Medium. One code for all concrete structures. More consistency for multidisciplinary firms, but a more complex document for building-only engineers.
Punching Shear (ULS)	Empirical model. Based on checking shear stress at a defined control perimeter, typically at $2.0d$ from the column face.23	New mechanical model based on Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT).[20, 27] Control perimeter is redefined (e.g., at $0.5d_v$).26	HIGH. The old, familiar rules are gone. New model is more complex. Technical papers show it results in lower design capacities for most internal columns.19 Expect thicker slabs or more shear reinforcement.
Durability	Prescriptive. Based on selecting Exposure Classes (XC, XD, etc.).28 The Singapore NA 18 points to other standards (e.g., SS 544).	Introduces a new, optional performance-based path: Exposure Resistance Classes (ERC).[9, 22, 30]	HIGH. This is the “enabler” for sustainable concrete. It provides a formal path to approve “green” concrete mixes (recycled aggregates, low-clinker cement) based on tested performance, not just a recipe.[22, 31]
Materials	Concrete up to C90/105 (but limited to C50/60 for shear in SG NA 18). Reinforcement to 500 MPa.	Extended to concrete C100/115 and steel B700.9 Formal annexes/rules for Stainless Steel, SFRC, and FRP.[4, 9, 22]	Medium. Enables design with a wider, more modern palette of materials, crucial for high-strength, high-rise, and highly durable applications.
Advanced Analysis	No formal guidance within EC2 for Non-Linear FEM or Existing Structures. Relied on PE’s judgment and other standards.	New informative annexes for Assessment of Existing Structures (Annex I) [9, 32, 33] and Non-Linear FEM (Annex F).[4, 9, 34]	HIGH. The code is finally catching up to practice. This provides a formal framework and safety formats (PFM, GFM) [9, 34] for work PEs are already doing, standardising advanced analysis and reducing liability.
Flexural Design (ULS)	Provided three stress-block models, including the (rarely used) bilinear model. Had separate, complex rules for concrete >C50/60.	Removes the bilinear stress block.10 Unifies design rules for all concrete strengths up to C100/115.22	Low (Ease-of-Use). A positive change. Design is simplified, and the confusing “high-strength” rules are eliminated, making calculations more seamless.
Crack Control (SLS)	A familiar calculation for $w_k$ (crack width) based on mean strain and crack spacing.35	A reformulated, more complex crack control model. It now explicitly includes factors for casting position (bond), flexure vs. tension, and curvature.37	Medium. The calculation is more complex but more physically accurate, promising more reliable (and less scattered) predictions of crack width.
Deflection (SLS)	Two paths: a simple (and often unconservative) span-to-depth ratio method 38, and a “rigorous” calculation method.[35, 38]	Retains the “rigorous” general method. Introduces a new, simplified method that is fully consistent with the general method, using correction factors on a linear analysis.9	Low (Ease-of-Use). A major improvement. Provides a code-blessed, practical, and reliable simplified path that is safer than the old span/depth ratios.

Part 2: Deep Dive: Materials, Sustainability, and Durability

 

The second-generation Eurocode 2 marks a significant expansion in the palette of materials available to the structural engineer, moving beyond traditional concrete and steel to formally codify new and sustainable options.

 

2.1 Pushing Material Boundaries: High-Strength and New Materials

 

The 2024 code formally extends its scope to cover materials that reflect modern advancements in high-strength and high-performance applications.9

• Concrete: Provisions now cover concrete strength classes up to C100/115, a step up from the C90/105 limit in the 2008 code.
• Reinforcing Steel: The code is extended to cover steel grades up to B700.
• Prestressing Steel: The standard now includes prestressing steel strands up to Y2060.

Beyond just increasing strength grades, the new code formally integrates specialist materials that were previously governed by ad-hoc guidance or technical approvals. 

This is achieved through new, dedicated annexes 9:

• Stainless Steel Reinforcement: New annexes and provisions 4 provide formal rules for designing with stainless steel. This is particularly relevant as it allows for a reduction in minimum concrete cover under certain conditions, a significant change from the 2008 code.28
• Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement: The code introduces new annexes and symbols for FRP reinforcement 4, creating a standardised pathway for using non-metallic reinforcement in highly corrosive environments or for non-magnetic applications (e.g., MRI rooms).
• Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC): A new informative annex (Annex L) is included 9, providing design rules for using steel fibres to enhance ductility, crack control, and shear resistance.

 

2.2 The Sustainability Enabler: Recycled Aggregates and Green Mark

 

One of the most forward-looking aspects of the new SS EN 1992-1-1:2024 is its role as a technical enabler for Singapore’s national sustainability goals. 

This is achieved through a critical alignment of new code provisions with existing local standards and policy.

The new code introduces a new informative annex specifically for the design of recycled aggregate concrete structures.22 

This provision, on its own, is significant. However, its true impact is realised when combined with Singapore’s established sustainability framework.

The BCA has long promoted the use of sustainable materials, including “Eco-concrete,” through its Green Mark scheme and supplementary guides.31 

These guides actively encourage the use of recycled materials, such as Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA) from construction and demolition waste, to mitigate land scarcity (for-landfill) and reduce the consumption of natural resources.31 

This push is technically supported by SS EN 12620 (Specification for Aggregates for Concrete), which, unlike its predecessors, permits the use of aggregates from recycled sources.31

Herein lies the critical connection. The problem with the old SS EN 1992-1-1:2008 was its prescriptive durability model.29 

This model, based on a “recipe” of cement content, water-cement ratio, and concrete cover for a given Exposure Class, acted as a regulatory barrier to the widespread adoption of RCA. 

It was difficult for PEs to justify, within the code’s framework, that a novel mix with high RCA content met the durability requirements.

The 2024 code solves this problem. The combination of the new Recycled Aggregates annex 22 and the new performance-based durability model (discussed in the next section) provides the missing link. 

The new SS EN 1992-1-1:2024 is the technical key that unlocks the regulatory door for the BCA’s Green Mark ambitions. 

It provides PEs with a formal, code-backed framework to specify and justify the use of sustainable concrete mixes, connecting SS EN 12620 (materials) to SS EN 1992 (design) and the Green Mark (policy).

 

2.3 A New Philosophy: Performance-Based Durability and ERC

 

The most profound change in the durability section is the shift from a purely prescriptive philosophy to a dual-path system that includes a new, performance-based approach.9

The Old Way (2008): A “Recipe-Based” Model

The first-generation code’s durability design was entirely prescriptive.

1. The engineer would determine the environmental attack mechanisms (e.g., carbonation, chloride) and select the corresponding Exposure Class (e.g., XC1, XC3, XD1, etc.).28
2. The code (and its NA) would then prescribe a “recipe” to achieve durability. This recipe dictated the minimum concrete strength class 35, maximum water-cement ratio, minimum cement content, and, ultimately, the nominal concrete cover ($c_{nom}$).18
3. This approach worked well for standard Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete but was a major obstacle for innovation. A “green” concrete mix with low-clinker cement or high GGBS content might have excellent chloride resistance, but it could not be easily specified because it did not fit the prescriptive “recipe.”

The New Way (2024): A “Performance-Based” Path

The 2024 code introduces a new, optional, performance-based path known as the Exposure Resistance Class (ERC) system.30

This new philosophy fundamentally shifts the design question.

• Old Question: “What environment is the concrete in?” (e.g., Exposure Class XD1).
• New Question: “What resistance must the concrete have to survive its environment for its design life?” (e.g., Exposure Resistance Class ERC).

Instead of defining the environment, the ERC defines the concrete’s tested and certified ability to resist that environment.30 

A concrete supplier can now take a novel, sustainable mix (e.g., one with 50% RCA), subject it to accelerated laboratory testing (e.g., a rapid chloride migration test), and get it certified for a specific ERC (e.g., ERC 50-C1, signifying resistance to chloride attack for a 50-year design life).45

The engineer’s design process then becomes:

1. Determine the project’s design life (e.g., 50 years) and the environmental actions (e.g., chloride from sea-air).
2. Select the required ERC from the code (e.g., ERC 50-C1).
3. Specify the nominal cover based on this required ERC.42
4. Specify the concrete by its performance (e.g., “Concrete shall be C32/40 with a certified ERC of 50-C1”) rather than by its recipe (e.g., “min. cement 300 kg/m$^3$, max w/c 0.50”).

This is a revolutionary change for a high-humidity, coastal (chloride) environment like Singapore’s.29 

It empowers concrete suppliers to innovate and compete on performance. 

It allows PEs to confidently specify low-embodied-carbon concrete mixes, knowing they are backed by a certified performance rating and a formal code-based methodology. 

This is, without question, the future of sustainable concrete specification.

Part 3: ULS Deep Dive: The Paradigm Shift in Shear and Flexure

 

The most impactful changes within SS EN 1992-1-1:2024 are found in the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) verifications. 

The new code moves away from long-standing empirical-based formulas and adopts more complex, but more physically accurate, mechanical models. 

For shear design in particular, this is not an update; it is a replacement.

 

3.1 The “Shear Shock”: Punching Shear and the Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT)

 

For any PE in Singapore who designs flat slab structures—which includes the vast majority of residential and commercial office buildings—this is the single most important, and potentially disruptive, change in the new code.

The 2024 version completely removes the familiar, empirical punching shear model of the 2008 code.26 

That method, which involved checking a shear stress $v_{Ed}$ at a control perimeter located at a distance of $2.0d$ (two times the effective depth) from the column face, is now obsolete.23

In its place, the new code mandates a new, mechanically-based model: the Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT).20

What is the Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT)?

The CSCT is a physical model developed over decades of research.47 It models punching failure not as a simple stress-check at an arbitrary perimeter, but as a failure of the concrete’s ability to transfer shear forces (via aggregate interlock, dowel action of rebar, and the compression zone) across a “critical shear crack”.47

The theory’s most significant departure is that it links the slab’s shear strength directly to its flexural deformation, represented by the slab’s rotation ($\psi$).26 As the slab bends and rotates, the critical shear crack opens, reducing the effectiveness of aggregate interlock and leading to failure. This is a far more realistic and complex model than the simple stress check it replaces.

Key Calculation Changes from 2008 to 2024:

1. New Control Perimeter: The basic control perimeter is redefined and moved much closer to the column, now located at $0.5d_v$ (where $d_v$ is the effective shear depth).26
2. Aggregate Interlock: The model’s formulas explicitly consider the aggregate composition and particle size, as this directly affects the roughness of the crack and its capacity to transfer shear.26
3. Harmonisation: The same CSCT-based model is now used to check flat slabs, column bases, and members with or without shear reinforcement, unifying the entire shear-design approach.26

The Commercial Ripple Effect (The “Shear Shock”)

The transition to this new model will have profound commercial consequences. 

Punching shear is the governing ULS check for almost all flat slab structures in Singapore. 

 

Decades of design have seen engineers optimise these slabs to 99% capacity under the 2008 code.

 

Multiple independent technical papers comparing the old empirical model to the new CSCT model have reached a stark and consistent conclusion: in most cases, particularly for internal columns, the new 2024 code results in lower design load-bearing capacities.19 

The exception appears to be for corner columns, where capacities may be similar or slightly higher.20

This means a slab that was “safe” under the 2008 code may fail the check under the 2024 code. The commercial implications are unavoidable. To achieve compliance, PEs will be forced to specify:

1. Thicker Slabs: This reduces valuable floor-to-ceiling heights, increases the building’s total self-weight (requiring larger foundations), and increases material costs and embodied carbon.
2. More Shear Reinforcement: Increased use of shear studs or links, which adds cost and complexity to reinforcement.
3. Larger Columns or Drop-Heads: This impacts architectural layouts and reduces saleable floor area.

This “shear shock” is a critical change that PEs must re-learn and begin pricing into their feasibility studies and discussing with their developer clients immediately.

 

3.2 Revisions to 1D/2D Shear (Beams and Slabs)

 

The same CSCT philosophy has been applied to update the ULS design models for 1D/2D shear (beams and one-way slabs).49 

The new models are updated to be more physically accurate, now considering factors such as size effect (a known issue where the shear strength of large-depth beams was over-estimated by the old code) and providing more consistent strut-and-tie modelling.9

The provisions for members without shear reinforcement—a critical, brittle, and often-governing failure mode—are significantly revised from the 2008 code’s formulas.35 

Engineers will need to discard their old beam shear spreadsheets and adopt the new, more complex formulations.

 

3.3 Flexure and Axial Design: Simplification and Unification

 

In contrast to the added complexity in shear, the ULS design for flexure and axial load has been simplified and improved.

• Removal of Bilinear Stress Block: A key simplification is the removal of the bilinear stress-strain diagram for concrete.10 Designers are now left with the more familiar and practical rectangular stress block (which is similar to the BS 8110 block) 10 and the more complex parabola-rectangle diagram. The bilinear option, which was confusing and often gave the most conservative (lowest) resistance, is now gone.10
• Unification for High-Strength Concrete: A major “ease-of-use” improvement is the unification of design rules across all concrete strengths. The 2008 code contained separate, clunky rules for concrete with strength $f_{ck} > 50$ MPa. The 2024 code revises the stress-strain models to apply seamlessly from normal-strength concrete up to C100/115.22 This eliminates a significant source of calculation error and complexity.
• Confined Concrete: Reflecting the needs of high-rise and seismic design, the new code introduces updated and more formalised ULS design models for confined concrete.9 This is critical for assessing the capacity of columns in Singapore’s tall buildings, especially for load-bearing columns under high axial load.

Part 4: SLS Deep Dive: A New Take on Cracking and Deflection

 

The Serviceability Limit State (SLS) provisions, often the governing design case for slabs and beams, have been completely reformulated to be more physically accurate, addressing known shortcomings in the 2008 code.

 

4.1 More Complex, More Accurate Crack Control

 

The 2008 code’s formula for calculating crack width ($w_k$) 35 was relatively simple but was known by researchers and academics to have a high degree of scatter when compared to experimental data. It ignored several key physical factors.

The 2024 code introduces a substantially reformulated model for crack control.37 

While the calculations are more complex, they are based on a more rigorous physical model. 

The new formulation for crack spacing and width now explicitly accounts for several new factors 37:

1. Casting Position / Bond: A new factor ($k_b$) is introduced to account for the bond conditions (e.g., “good” bond for a slab soffit vs. “poor” bond for top-bars in a deep beam).
2. Flexure vs. Tension: A new factor ($k_{fl}$) differentiates the stress distribution in a member under pure tension from a member in flexure, which significantly affects cracking.
3. Curvature: A new factor ($k_{1/r}$) accounts for the influence of curvature (bending) on the surface crack width.
4. Cover: The new formulation explicitly includes the concrete cover dimension as a term in the crack spacing calculation.37

While this change will require new spreadsheets and design aids, it is expected to provide more reliable and accurate predictions of crack widths, reducing the scatter seen in the old model and leading to more efficient and safe serviceability design.37 

The rules for minimum reinforcement areas for crack control have also been updated accordingly.4

 

4.2 Deflection Control: A New Simplified Path

 

The 2008 code’s approach to deflection control 35 presented engineers with two problematic choices:

1. The “Deemed-to-Satisfy” Path: Use a simple limiting span-to-effective-depth ($L/d$) ratio.38 This was fast, but known to be non-conservative in many common situations, particularly for lightly reinforced slabs.
2. The “Rigorous” Path: Perform a full, “rigorous” calculation of deflection, accounting for cracking, creep, and tension stiffening.38 This method was accurate but extremely time-consuming and complex for daily design.

The 2024 code provides a much-needed practical solution. It retains the “rigorous” general method (often called the $\zeta$-method, based on an interpolated “distribution coefficient” $\zeta$) for complex cases.37

However, it introduces a new simplified method that is fully consistent with the general $\zeta$-method.9 

This new method allows the engineer to start with a simple linear-elastic calculation (the kind every PE runs in their standard FEM software) and then apply a set of correction factors to account for the non-linear effects of cracking and tension stiffening.37

This is one of the most significant “ease-of-use” improvements in the new code.1 

It gives PEs a code-blessed, practical, and reliable simplified path for deflection checks. It is far safer than the old $L/d$ ratios but avoids the full complexity of the “rigorous” calculation, streamlining the design of slabs and beams.

Part 5: New Frontiers: Formalising Advanced Engineering

 

A key theme of the second-generation Eurocode is “the code catching up with practice.” For decades, advanced engineering firms have used analytical methods that were far beyond the scope of the 2008 code. 

The 2024 version finally provides a formal, code-based framework for this advanced work.

 

5.1 Insight 4: “Code Catches Up” – Annex I for Existing Structures

 

The 2024 code introduces a new, highly significant informative annex: Annex I: Assessment of Existing Structures.1

This is of immense importance to Singapore. With a large and maturing stock of buildings from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the assessment, retrofitting, and strengthening of existing structures is a substantial part of a modern C&S engineer’s work.

The old SS EN 1992-1-1:2008 was a code for new design. It was completely silent on the principles of assessment.35 

When faced with an existing building, PEs and ACs had to rely on “expert judgment,” non-Eurocode standards (like IStructE guidance), or technical reports, all of which existed in a regulatory “grey area” regarding BCA approval and professional liability.14

The new Annex I solves this problem by providing a formal Eurocode-based framework for:

• The Basis of Assessment, including principles for setting a target reliability for a remaining service life.33
• Methodologies for determining in-situ material properties from testing, and how to derive characteristic strengths from them.4
• Provisions for modifying partial safety factors ($\gamma$) for a reduced design life or when more is known about the as-built geometry and material properties.32
• Guidance on assessing the durability and reliability of an existing structure.33

This annex is a massive step forward for the profession in Singapore. It provides a common, code-based language for PEs and ACs to discuss and approve retrofitting and strengthening projects. It de-risks this complex work by moving it from the realm of pure “judgment” to a “code-guided” procedure.

 

5.2 Embracing Computational Design: The New Annex for Non-Linear FEM

 

In modern Singaporean design offices, Non-Linear Finite Element Methods (NL-FEM) are standard practice. 

No one designs a high-rise core, a long-span transfer structure, or a complex performance-based design using hand calculations.24

Yet, the 2008 code was almost entirely based on member-by-member calculations and linear-elastic analysis assumptions.35 

It offered almost no guidance on how to use these powerful (but complex and “black box”) software tools safely. The PE was on their own to validate the model, its assumptions, and its safety factors.

The 2024 code finally addresses this gap by introducing a new informative annex (Annex F) providing requirements and guidance for the use of NL-FEM.4

This new annex provides formal Safety Formats for use in NL-FEM 9, including:

• Partial Factor Method (PFM): The familiar method of applying partial factors to the material properties ($\gamma_c$ and $\gamma_s$) at the start of the analysis.
• Global Factor Method (GFM): An alternative method where the analysis is run with mean material properties, and a global resistance factor ($\gamma_R$) is applied to the final calculated capacity.

This is the code finally catching up with the computational tools the profession has been using for years. 

It provides a formal framework for PEs to validate their advanced computational models and for ACs to check them. 

This will lead to more consistent, reliable, and transparent use of NL-FEM in Singapore’s design offices, enhancing both safety and innovation.

Part 6: Conclusion: Navigating the Transition to SS EN 1992-1-1:2024

 

The adoption of SS EN 1992-1-1:2024 is not a simple update; it is a fundamental transition. 

It introduces new physical models, new materials, and new philosophies that will require every structural engineering firm in Singapore to re-evaluate its designs, workflows, and commercial assumptions.

 

6.1 Key Takeaways for Singaporean Professional Engineers

 

1. Watch the BCA and the NA: The new code is coming, but the real start date is not today. The single most important document to watch for is the Singapore National Annex (NA) to SS EN 1992-1-1:2024. Do not use the new code for BCA submissions until the NA is published and the BCA officially updates the Approved Document.
2. Beware the “Shear Shock”: The new CSCT rules for punching shear are a complete paradigm shift. They are more complex and, according to all available research, will lead to lower design capacities for most flat slab designs. PEs must re-learn shear design and immediately begin factoring the commercial impact (i.e., thicker slabs or more shear reinforcement) into future project feasibility studies.
3. Embrace the “Green Enabler”: The new performance-based durability rules (ERC) are the key to unlocking sustainable concrete in Singapore. This is the mechanism that allows PEs to specify recycled aggregates and low-clinker cements with confidence. Start discussions with your concrete suppliers about their ERC certification plans now to meet future Green Mark goals.
4. Standardise Your Advanced Work: The new annexes for Existing Structures (Annex I) and Non-Linear FEM (Annex F) are a major benefit. They formalise and de-risk the complex, high-value analysis that advanced firms are already performing. This is a chance to standardise your internal processes and reduce your professional liability.

 

6.2 Preparing Your Firm for the Change

 

The transition to the 2024 code requires a strategic, firm-wide response.

• Training: This is not a minor update that can be learned from a memo. Firms must invest in comprehensive, in-depth training for all C&S engineers, from graduates to directors. Look for professional courses from the IES, ACES, and local universities, which are already in progress.15
• Software: Your design software is a critical link. You must contact your vendors (CSI, Midas, Tekla, etc.) and ask for their development roadmap. When will their software be updated to include SS EN 1992-1-1:2024, and, crucially, when will it incorporate the new Singapore National Annex?.24
• Workflow: All internal design guides, calculation spreadsheets, and standard details for shear, deflection, and crack control are now obsolete. A full-scale internal review and update of all quality management documents and standard operating procedures is required.
• Client Communication: The time to start talking to clients is now. Developers, architects, and quantity surveyors must be educated on the commercial implications of the new code, particularly the new punching shear rules. Managing their expectations regarding slab thicknesses, costs, and floor-to-ceiling heights will be essential for project success in the coming years.

Works cited

1. Second Generation of Eurocodes is approaching – ALLPLAN, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.allplan.com/blog/second-generation-of-eurocodes-is-approaching/
2. Next Generation Eurocode 2: What’s Coming and Why It Matters, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.peikko.com/blog/next-generation-eurocode-2/
3. Second generation of the Eurocodes: what is new? – European Union, accessed November 6, 2025, https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/2nd-generation/second-generation-eurocodes-what-new
4. BS en 1992-1-1-2023 – (2024-05-03 – 01-53-22 PM) | PDF | Prestressed Concrete – Scribd, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/823683610/BS-EN-1992-1-1-2023-2024-05-03-01-53-22-PM
5. New and revised codes and standards: From BSI Updates January 2024, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.newsteelconstruction.com/wp/new-and-revised-codes-and-standards-from-bsi-updates-january-2024/
6. SS EN 1992-1-1:2008 (2015) – Singapore Standards, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.singaporestandardseshop.sg/Product/SSPdtDetail/d81678bd-dfed-4292-9e7c-434fb0b3268d
7. NA to SS EN 1992-1-1:2008 Singapore National Annex to Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.singaporestandardseshop.sg/Product/SSPdtDetail/90a81f90-f2fe-4ae9-a8b5-50c1ae5b89dd
8. NA To SS EN 1992-1-1-2008 (Plus) Amd1 – Preview | PDF – Scribd, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/743444945/NA-to-SS-EN-1992-1-1-2008-plus-Amd1-Preview
9. SIST EN 1992-1-1:2024 – iTeh Standards, accessed November 6, 2025, https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/73026/dc1e8bc2be6b4f9e945c8d6d87ee5cf0/SIST-EN-1992-1-1-2024.pdf
10. Technical improvements in the second-generation Eurocodes for steel and concrete bridge design | Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Emerald Publishing, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.emerald.com/jbren/article/doi/10.1680/jbren.24.00055/1270116/Technical-improvements-in-the-second-generation
11. BCA Structural Design Approvals in Singapore (2025 Edition), accessed November 6, 2025, https://structures.com.sg/bca-structural-design-approvals-singapore-2025/
12. Issued by the Commissioner of Building Control under Regulation 27 of the Building Control Regulations Version 7.08 October 2025 – BCA, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-regulatory/approved-document-v7-08.pdf
13. SIST EN 1992-1-1:2024 – Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures – iTeh Standards, accessed November 6, 2025, https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/sist/ce4a5428-eefc-47fa-b241-6d4ba7b81727/sist-en-1992-1-1-2024
14. AD 516 Publication of Second-Generation Eurocodes | PDF – Scribd, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/917924021/AD-516-Publication-of-Second-Generation-Eurocodes
15. A One-day Short Course on Second-Generation Eurocode … – IStructE, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.istructe.org/istructe/media/istructemail-content/Singapore_Imported/2024/03/SG_AOne-dayShortCourseonSecond-GenerationEurocode2-DesignofConcreteStructures_6614/2ndgenec2_1.pdf
16. Dear Sir/Madam UPDATES TO THE APPROVED DOCUMENT (1 OCTOBER 2025) This circular is to inform the industry on the updates to the A – BCA, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-news-and-publications/circulars/bca-circular-on-updates-to-the-approved-document.pdf
17. NA To SS EN 1992-2-2012 | PDF | Prestressed Concrete | Beam (Structure) – Scribd, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/515569179/NA-to-SS-EN-1992-2-2012
18. Singapore – Help SCIA Engineer, accessed November 6, 2025, https://help.scia.net/26.0/en/national_annexes/en1992/singapore.htm?TocPath=Design%20and%20check|Concrete|EC-EN|National%20Annexes|National%20Annexes%20to%20EN%201992|National%20Annexes|EN%201992-1-1|_____19
19. Punching shear in reinforced concrete according to the new standard EN 1992-1-1:2023 in the light of the withdrawn standard PN-EN 1992-1-1:2008 – Inżynieria i Budownictwo, accessed November 6, 2025, https://science.inzynieriaibudownictwo.pl/article/01.3001.0054.8828/en
20. Punching shear in reinforced concrete according to the new …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389619690_Punching_shear_in_reinforced_concrete_according_to_the_new_standard_EN_1992-1-12023_in_the_light_of_the_withdrawn_standard_PN-EN_1992-1-12008
21. The Spine of the Lion City: Prestressed Concrete Design and Application in Singapore, accessed November 6, 2025, https://structures.com.sg/prestressed-concrete-design-and-application-singapore/
22. Overview of the Evolution of EN1992: Design of concrete structures – Eurocodes, accessed November 6, 2025, https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-04/Overview%20of%20the%20evolution%20EN%201992%20-%20Design%20of%20concrete%20structures.pdf
23. tekla-structural-designer-2024-eurocodes-reference.pdf, accessed November 6, 2025, https://support.tekla.com/dist/sxf/document/tekla-structural-designer-2024-eurocodes-reference.pdf
24. ETABS Enhancements | BUILDING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN – Computers and Structures, Inc., accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs/enhancements
25. Complete Analysis and Design of G+2 RC Building Using Euro Code 2–2004 for Beginners, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.eit.edu.au/event/complete-analysis-and-design-of-g2-rc-building-using-euro-code-2-2004-for-beginners/
26. EN 1992-1-1:2023 – a new look at the issue of punching shear design, accessed November 6, 2025, https://journals.pan.pl/Content/136463/PDF/13_REV.pdf?handler=pdf
27. EN 1992-1-1:2023 – a new look at the issue of punching shear design, accessed November 6, 2025, https://ace.il.pw.edu.pl/EN-1992-1-1-2023-a-new-look-at-the-issue-of-punching-shear-design,207106,0,2.html
28. Design of concrete structures EN1992-1-1 – Eurocode 2, accessed November 6, 2025, https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/WS2008/EN1992_1_Walraven.pdf
29. Guide to SS EN 1990: SG’s Foundation for … – Stellar Structures, accessed November 6, 2025, https://structures.com.sg/guide-ss-en-1990-sg-foundation-structual-design/
30. 2nd generation Eurocode 2 – The Concrete Centre, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.concretecentre.com/Structural-design/Eurocode-2-concrete/2nd-Generation-Eurocode-2.aspx
31. SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION – A Guide on the Use of … – BCA, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-buildsg/sustainability/sc_recycle_final.pdf
32. New technical rules on existing structures | Eurocodes: Building the future – European Union, accessed November 6, 2025, https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/2nd-generation-evolution/new-technical-rules-existing-structures
33. Contributions of the Future Eurocode 2 for Assessment of Existing Concrete Structures | Hormigón y Acero, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.hormigonyacero.com/index.php/ache/article/download/3103/283/
34. Reliability background of the Eurocodes, accessed November 6, 2025, https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-11/JRC_Reliability_report_final_23Oct2024_with%20identifiers.pdf
35. EN 1992-1-1 (2004) (English): Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.phd.eng.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/en.1992.1.1.2004.pdf
36. SLS design (crack control) of circular reinforced concrete cross-section – Eurocode 2, accessed November 6, 2025, https://eurocodeapplied.com/design/en1992/sls-crack-control-circular-section
37. (PDF) Serviceability Limit States according to the new Eurocode 2 …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368776905_Serviceability_Limit_States_according_to_the_new_Eurocode_2_proposal_Description_and_justifications_of_the_proposed_changes
38. Deflection – The Concrete Centre, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.concretecentre.com/Codes/Eurocode-2/Deflection.aspx
39. Eurocode 2 – Annex L – European Harmonized Standard for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354375472_Eurocode_2_-_Annex_L_-_European_Harmonized_Standard_for_Steel_Fibre_Reinforced_Concrete
40. Some-Highlights-on-the-New-Version-of-EN-1992-1-2.pdf – Cerib, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.cerib.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Some-Highlights-on-the-New-Version-of-EN-1992-1-2.pdf
41. Recycled Aggregate: A Solution to Sustainable Concrete – MDPI, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/18/12/2706
42. Nominal Concrete Cover Based on Exposure Resistance Classes …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://tools.midasuser.com/en/design-guide/moapy-designers_guide-func_execute-calc_content_40
43. NEXT GENERATION ‘”ƒg g#’ ̪ – The Concrete Centre, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.concretecentre.com/TCC/media/TCCMediaLibrary/News/2022/06_Concrete-Magazine_Next-Generation-Eurocode-2-(TJ).pdf
44. Durability of concrete structures based on the Exposure Resistance Class System, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.bft-international.com/en/artikel/durability-of-concrete-structures-based-on-the-exposure-resistance-class-system-4095365.html
45. Developments in defining exposure classes for durability design and specification, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351111274_Developments_in_defining_exposure_classes_for_durability_design_and_specification
46. EN 1992-1-1:2023 – a new look at the issue of punching shear design – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395695014_EN_1992-1-12023_-_a_new_look_at_the_issue_of_punching_shear_design
47. (PDF) Shear and punching shear according to the Critical Shear Crack Theory: background, recent developments and integration in codes – ResearchGate, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371155630_Shear_and_punching_shear_according_to_the_Critical_Shear_Crack_Theory_background_recent_developments_and_integration_in_codes
48. Recent improvements of the Critical Shear Crack Theory for punching shear design and its simplification for code provisions – Infoscience, accessed November 6, 2025, https://infoscience.epfl.ch/bitstreams/ca068b90-7ab9-4ae7-bfde-5192c86d1e2a/download
49. The revision of Eurocode 2 – The Concrete Centre, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.concretecentre.com/News/2020/The-Revision-of-Eurocode-2.aspx
50. Shear and punching shear according to the Critical Shear Crack Theory: background, recent developments and integration in codes – SciELO, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.scielo.br/j/riem/a/xrNYfbR3xrTZWrkGCjcc8hp/?format=pdf&lang=en
51. Applications of Critical Shear Crack Theory to Punching of Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Transverse Reinforcement – SciSpace, accessed November 6, 2025, https://scispace.com/pdf/applications-of-critical-shear-crack-theory-to-punching-of-3mcw3y3yuf.pdf
52. EN 1992-1-1 (2004) (English): Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures, accessed November 6, 2025, https://gaprojekt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Eurocode-2-Design-of-concrete-structures.pdf
53. Flexure – The Concrete Centre, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.concretecentre.com/Codes/Eurocode-2/Flexure.aspx
54. Deflection check according to EN 1992-1-1 – IDEA StatiCa, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.ideastatica.com/support-center/deflection-check-according-to-en-1992-1-1
55. Robot Structural Analysis 2024 Help | EN 1992-1-1:2004/A1:2014 and National Annexes – Use Limitations | Autodesk, accessed November 6, 2025, https://help.autodesk.com/view/RSAPRO/2024/ENU/?guid=GUID-4E5753BC-34FA-41F2-9A80-C54EB716EBE1
56. Assessment of existing PC structures according to EN 1992-1-1:2023, accessed November 6, 2025, https://science.inzynieriaibudownictwo.pl/article/547107/en
57. Eurocode concrete design with Singapore’s NA – YouTube, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRWTtlqVgkc

Eurocode concrete design with Singapore’s NA – YouTube, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-bHNqbaWg