Load Combinations Book

Eurocode Load
Com binations
for Ste el S truct ure s
B C S A P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 5 3/ 10
Euro code Loa d

Comb inations
for S te el S tructure s
B C S A P u b l i c a t i on N o . 5 3 / 1 0
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
T h e B r it is h Co n s t r u ct i o n a l
Ste e l wo rk Asso c i ati o n L i mi te d
Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private
study or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright
Design and Patents Act 1988, this publication may not be
reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form by any means
without the prior permission of the publishers or in the case of
reprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms of the
licences issued by the UK Copyright Licensing Agency, or in
accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate
Reproduction Rights Organisation outside the UK.
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here
should be sent to the publishers, The British Constructional
Steelwork Association Ltd. at the address given below.
Although care has been taken to ensure, to the best of our
knowledge, that all data and information contained herein are
accurate to the extent that they relate to either matters of fact or
accepted practice or matters of opinion at the time of publication,
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited, the
authors and the reviewers assume no responsibility for any errors
in or misinterpretations of such data and/or information of any loss
or damages arising or related to their use.
Publications supplied to members of the BCSA at a discount are
not for resale by them.
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd.
4, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London SW1A 2ES
Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
Email: postroom@steelconstruction.org
Website: www.steelconstruction.org
Publication Number
First Edition
53/10
December 2010
ISBN-10 1-85073-063-6
ISBN-13 978-1-85073-063-7
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited (BCSA)

is the national organisation for the steel construction industry: its
Member companies undertake the design, fabrication and erection
of steelwork for all forms of construction in building and civil
engineering. Associate Members are those principal companies
involved in the direct supply to all or some Members of
components, materials or products. Corporate Members are
clients, professional offices, educational establishments etc.,
which support the development of national specifications, quality,
fabrication and erection techniques, overall industry efficiency and
good practice.
The principal objectives of the Association are to promote the use
of structural steelwork; to assist specifiers and clients; to ensure
that the capabilities and activities of the industry are widely
understood and to provide members with professional services in
technical, commercial, contractual, quality assurance and health
and safety matters. The Associations aim is to influence the
trading environment in which member companies have to operate
in order to improve their profitability.
A current list of members and a list of current publications and
further membership details can be obtained from:
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited
Tel: +44(0)20 7839 8566, Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
F or e wo r d
One of the most challenging aspects of the Eurocodes is gaining a
thorough understanding of the loading and load combination for
practical buildings. This challenge is not technical but primarily one
related to the way the information is presented and the terminology
used in the Eurocodes. The presentation and terminology used in
the Eurocodes are very different to that found in British Standards
such as BS 5950. The Eurocodes have a preference for
mathematical formulae over tables and graphs and some of the
explanations are brief.
The principal aim of this publication is to provide the reader with
straightforward guidance on the loading and load combinations for
both the serviceability and ultimate limit states for the following
building types:
Multi-storey buildings Simple construction

Multi-storey buildings Continuous construction
Portal frames without cranes
Portal frames with cranes
Chapter 6 is a list of references where further guidance on

applying the Eurocodes to steel and composite structures is given.
It is intended to update this publication and BCSA would
appreciate any observations, particularly on inaccuracies and
ambiguities, or proposals on alternative approaches or on any
other matters which should be included in future editions.
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd.
Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
This publication was prepared by:
Dr L. Gardner
Imperial College
Mr. P. J. Grubb
Consultant
Chapter 1 gives a brief introduction to EN 1990 Basis of design

and EN 1991 Actions on structures together with simple
explanations of the design situations presented in EN 1990.
Chapter 2 is a list of abbreviations, definitions and symbols and
again simple, easy to understand explanations are given. Chapter
3 gives a comprehensive description of the load combinations for
both the Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States, together with a
list of the load combination factors which are used to account for
the reduced probability of the simultaneous occurrence of two or
more variable loads. These values are based on the
recommendations given in the UK National Annex for EN 1990.
Chapter 4 sets out the load combinations for both simple and
moment resisting frames. Information is given on frame
classification (i.e. braced or unbraced), frame imperfections and
the use of the equivalent horizontal force (EHF) (a general
approach that replaces imperfections with a system of notional
horizontal forces). Reduction factors for the number of storeys and
floor area are also described together with pattern loading and
overturning. Section 4.2 concentrates on the load combinations for
simple construction while section 4.3 identifies the differences
between simple and continuous construction. Chapter 4 concludes
with a worked example that illustrates the application of the load
combinations equations given in EN 1990 for a three storey high,
simple braced frame.
Chapter 5 sets out the application of EN 1990 to industrial
buildings with and without crane loads and illustrates the approach
with the following examples:
Serviceability Limit State Single span portal frame

Ultimate Limit State Single span portal frame
Serviceability Limit State Single span portal frame with
overhead crane
Ultimate Limit State Single span portal frame with
overhead crane
C on t e n t s
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Introduction to EN 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Introduction to EN 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. ABBREVIATIONS, DEFINITIONS AND SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Symbols (Greek letters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Ultimate limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Serviceability limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1 Classification of frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal forces (EHF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3 Second order (P-) effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (n) and floor area (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.5 Pattern loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.6 Dead loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.7 Overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 Braced frames (simple construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with cr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with cr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a and 6.10b with cr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.4 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a and 6.10b with cr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.5 SLS load combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Moment resisting frames (continuous construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 - Snow loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P- effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2 Portal frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2 SLS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3 Portal frames with cranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3.4 ULS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1 . I n t ro d u ct i o n
1.1 Background
Implementation of the structural Eurocodes is underway. The

primary challenges are perceived to be related not to the technical
content, but rather to the presentation and terminology of the
documents, since this is very different to that found in existing UK
structural design codes. Immediate differences may be observed
in the preference for mathematical formulae over tables and
graphs, brevity of explanations and axis conventions. The
intention of this guide is to provide straightforward guidance on
combinations of actions (load combinations) for the two principal
types of steel structure multi-storey buildings and industrial
buildings. Further guidance on applying the Eurocodes to steel
and composite structures is given in [1], [2], [3].
Each Eurocode document is accompanied by a National Annex.
The National Annex contains nationally determined parameters
(NDPs), which are values left open by the Eurocode for definition
by the country in which the building is to be constructed.
Equation numbers employed in this guide, unless prefixed by the
letter D, follow the equation numbering of EN 1990.
1.2 Introduction to EN 1990
EN 1990: Eurocode Basis of structural design is the primary

Eurocode document in that it establishes the common principles
and requirements that apply to all aspects of structural design to the
Eurocodes. Combinations of actions for all structures are set out in
EN 1990. This section provides a brief introduction to the code.
EN 1990 considers ultimate and serviceability limit states, the
former being associated with the safety of people and the
structure, while the latter concerns the functioning and appearance
of the structure and the comfort of people. For ultimate limit states,
checks should be carried out for the following, as relevant:
EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of the
structure.
STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or
structural members.
GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground.
FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members.
In the context of structural steelwork in buildings, EQU (to assess
overturning and sliding as a rigid body) and STR (to determine
forces and moments in structural members under various load
combinations) are of primary concern.
EN 1990 also emphasises, in Section 3, that all relevant design
situations must be examined. Design situations are classified as
follows, the first two being the fundamental ones:
Persistent design situations, which refer to conditions of normal
use.
Transient design situations, which refer to temporary conditions,
such as during execution (construction) or repair.
Accidental design situations, which refer to exceptional
conditions such as fire, explosion or impact.
Seismic design situations, which refer to conditions where the

structure is subjected to seismic events.
In Clause 4.1.1(1) of EN 1990, actions (imposed loads and
deformations) are classified by their variation with time, as
permanent, variable or accidental. Permanent actions (G) are
those that essentially do not vary with time, such as the self-weight
of a structure and fixed equipment; these have generally been
referred to as dead loads in previous British Standards. Variable
actions (Q) are those that can vary with time, such as imposed
loads, wind loads and snow loads; these have generally been
referred to as live loads in previous British Standards. Accidental
actions (A) are usually of short duration, but high magnitude, such
as explosions and impacts. Classification by variation with time is
important for the establishment of combinations of actions.
1.3 Introduction to EN 1991
EN 1991 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures comprises four parts,

as given in Table 1.1. EN 1991-2 and EN 1991-4 are not relevant
to this publication.
Table 1.1: Parts of EN 1991
EN 1991 Part
EN
EN
EN
EN
1991-1
1991-2
1991-3
1991-4
Action type
General actions
Traffic loads on bridges
Actions induced by cranes and machinery
Silos and tanks
EN 1991-1 is sub-divided into seven sub-parts, which provide

designers with most of the information required to determine each
individual action on a structure. The seven sub-parts are given in
Table 1.2, with EN 1991-1-1, EN 1991-1-3, EN 1991-1-4 and EN
1991-1-7 being of particular relevance to this publication.
Table 1.2: Sub-parts of EN 1991-1
EN 1991-1 Part
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
1991-1-1
1991-1-2
1991-1-3
1991-1-4
1991-1-5
1991-1-6
1991-1-7
Action type
Densities, self weight and imposed loads

Actions on structures exposed to fire
Snow loads
Wind actions
Thermal actions
Actions during execution (construction)
Accidental actions (impact and explosions)
EN 1991-1-1 is similar to BS 6399-1 and, since most structural

designers are familiar with this document, the change to EN 19911-1 will be relatively straightforward.
EN 1991-1-3 is used to determine snow loads and, although some
of the terminology is unfamiliar, when read with the UK National
Annex to EN 1991-1-3, is very similar to BS 6399-3. The snow map
in the UK National Annex is zoned with altitude adjustments, as
opposed to that in BS 6399-3, which had isopleths, and it benefits
from better analysis of the latest data from the metrological office [4].
EN 1991-1-4, covering wind loading, is different to previous UK

codes in that the basic wind velocity is based on a 10-minute mean
wind speed, as opposed to the hourly mean wind speed in BS
6399-2 and the 3-second gust of CP3-V-2. The term topography
has been replaced by orography, but most designers will adapt
quickly to the changes. There are a number of perceived
omissions [5] from the Eurocode when compared to BS 6399-2,
but it is anticipated that the British Standard, or maybe a stripped
down version, may be used as a source of non-conflicting,
complementary information [5]. EN 1991-1-4 requires that elective
dominant openings are considered to be closed for the persistent
design situation (i.e. normal use), but open during severe wind
storms as an accidental design situation; this is consistent with the
guidance given in BRE Digest 436 [6].
2 . A b b re v i at i o n s , de f i n i t io n s a n d s ym b o l s
The terminology adopted in the Eurocodes will be unfamiliar to the
majority of designers and may prove an obstacle to the rapid
uptake of the Eurocodes. Most of the definitions given in the
Eurocodes derive from:
Characteristic:
The typical value of a parameter to be used in design.
ISO 2394 (1998) General principles on reliability for structures

ISO 3898 (1997) Basis for design of structures Notations
General symbols
ISO 8930 (1987) General principles on reliability for structures
List of equivalent terms
Combinations of actions:
The combination of different sources of load acting
simultaneously for the verification of structural reliability for a
given limit state.
EN 1990 provides a basic list of terms and definitions which are

applicable to all the other Eurocode parts, thus ensuring a
common basis for the structural Eurocodes. This section has been
provided to help to explain some of the key abbreviations,
definitions and symbols used in the structural Eurocodes.
2.1 Abbreviations
B
EHF
EN
EQU
FAT
GEO
I
N
NA
NCCI
P
STR
Rules applicable only to buildings

Equivalent Horizontal Force
European Standard
Associated with the loss of static equilibrium
Associated with fatigue failure of the structure or
structural members
Associated with failure or excessive deformation of the
ground
Informative
Normative
National Annex
Non-Conflicting Complementary Information
Principles
Associated with internal failure or excessive deformation
of the structure or structural members
2.2 Definitions
Attention is drawn to the following key definitions, which may be

different from current national practice:
Accidental action:
An exceptional loading condition usually of high magnitude but
short duration such as an explosion or impact.
Action:
A load, or imposed deformation to which a structure is subjected
(e.g. temperature effects or settlement).
Application rules:
Clauses marked P in the Eurocodes are principles, which must
be followed. Clauses not marked P are application rules which,
when followed, satisfy the principles. Alternative design rules
may be adopted. Application rules make up the bulk of the
codes and give the values and formulae to be used in the design.
Capacity:
The ability to conform to a limit state, e.g. bearing capacity.
Co-existence:
Eurocodes being in force in parallel with national codes.
Conformity:
Compliance with standards.
Design resistance:
The capacity of the structure or element to resist the design load.
Effects of actions:
Internal moments and forces, bending moments, shear forces
and deformations caused by actions.
Execution:
All activities carried out for the physical completion of the work
including procurement, the inspection and documentation thereof.
The term covers work on site; it may also signify the fabrication
of components off site and their subsequent erection on site.
Fatigue:
A mode of failure in which a member ruptures after many
applications of load.
Fundamental combinations:
Combinations of actions for the persistent or transient design
situations.
Frequent:
Likely to occur often, but for a short duration on each occasion.
Informative:
For information, not a mandatory requirement see normative.
Load arrangement:
Identification of the position, magnitude and direction of the loads
(loading pattern).
Load case:
Compatible loading arrangements considered simultaneously
Load combination:
See Combinations of actions.
National Annex:
The document containing nationally determined parameters
(NDPs). This is an essential supplement without which the
Eurocode cannot be used.
NDPs:
Values left open in a Eurocode for definition in the country
concerned.
Non-Contradictory Complementary Information:
Permitted additional information and guidance.
Normative:
Mandatory, having the force of a Standard.
Persistent:
Likely to be present for most of the design life.
Principles:
Clauses marked P define structural performance that must be
achieved.
Quasi-:
Being partly or almost.
Quasi-permanent action:
An action that applies for a large fraction of the design life.
Quasi-static:
The static equivalent of a dynamic action.
Reference period:
Any chosen period, but generally the design life.
Reliability:
The mathematical probability of a structure fulfilling the design
requirements.
Transient:
Likely to be present for a period much shorter than the design life
but with a high probability of occurring.
Verify:
Check the design output to make sure it complies.
2.3 Symbols (Greek letters)
The following Greek letters are used in EN 1990 and this document:
(alpha)
A
n
cr
(gamma)
G
Q
(psi)
0
1
2
(xi)
(sigma)
Reduction factor for area

Reduction factor for number of storeys
Factor by which the design loads FEd would have
to be increased to cause global elastic instability at
the load Fcr (i.e. cr = Fcr/FEd)
Partial factor
Partial factor for permanent actions
Partial factor for variable actions
Factor for combination value of a variable action

Factor for frequent value of a variable action
Factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable
action
Reduction factor
Summation
3 . C om bi n at i o n s o f a ct i o n s
Combinations of actions, generally referred to as load
combinations, are set out for all structures in Clause 6.4.3.2 of EN
1990. They are presented not simply as a series of multiplication
factors to be applied to the various loading components, but
instead in an unfamiliar algebraic format, which requires
explanation. In Sections 4 and 5 of this guide, the provisions of the
code are explained and presented in a format that is more familiar
to UK engineers.
3.1 Ultimate limit states
Combinations of actions are defined in Clause 6.4.3 of EN 1990 for

the four design situations: persistent, transient, accidental and
seismic. Combinations of actions for the persistent (i.e. final usage
of complete structure) and transient (e.g. construction) design
situations are referred to as fundamental combinations. This guide
focuses on the fundamental combinations, though combinations of
actions for accidental design situations are also considered in
Section 5 for portal frames.
For each of the selected design situations, combinations of actions
for persistent or transient design situations (fundamental
combinations) at ultimate limit states (other than fatigue) may be
derived either from Equation 6.10 of EN 1990 or from Equations
6.10a and 6.10b. The UK National Annex has elected to allow the
use of either approach, though it should be noted that Equations
6.10a and 6.10b will provide more favourable combinations of
actions (i.e. lower load factors). Furthermore, unless there is an
unusually high ratio of dead load Gk to imposed load Qk (i.e. Gk >
4.5Qk), only Equation 6.10b need be considered for strength (STR)
verifications. For verifying equilibrium (e.g. assessing sliding or
overturning as a rigid body), only Equation 6.10 may be applied.
The load combination expressions, as they appear in Eurocode,
are provided below:
G,jGk,j + PP + Q,1Qk,1 + Q,i0,iQk,i
j1
i>1
G,jGk,j + PP + Q,1 0,1Qk,1 + Q,i0,iQk,i
j1
i>1
G,jGk,j + PP + Q,1Qk,1 + Q,i0,iQk,i
j1
i>1
where
G
P
Q
P
(6.10)
(6.10a)
(6.10b)
implies to be combined with

implies the combined effect of
is a combination factor, discussed below
is a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent
actions G, discussed below
is a partial factor for permanent actions
is a partial factor for prestressing actions
is a partial factor for variable actions
represents actions due to prestressing
Ignoring prestressing actions, which are generally absent in

conventional steel structures, each of the combination expressions
contains:
10
Permanent actions Gk,1, Gk,2,

A leading variable action Qk,1
Accompanying variable actions Qk,2, Qk,3,
The latter may be characterised as either main or other

accompanying variable actions; main accompanying variable
actions being factored by Q,1 and other accompanying variable
actions being factored by Q,i. However, since the recommended
value (Eurocode and UK National Annex) of both Q,1 and Q,i is
1.5, no distinction is needed in practice, and no further distinction
will be made in this guide.
In general, unless it is clearly not a critical combination, each
variable action should be considered as the leading variable
action, in turn. Clause 6.1 (2) of EN 1990 states that actions that
cannot occur simultaneously, for example due to physical reasons,
should not be considered together in combination.
Tables 3.1 to 3.3 set out values for the partial factors (G and Q)
for permanent and variable actions. These tables are based on
Tables NA.A1.2(A) and (B) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990.
Note that Table NA.A1.2(A) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990
applies to verification of static equilibrium (EQU) of building
structures, Table NA.A1.2(B) applies to the verification of structural
members (STR) in buildings, and Table NA.A1.2(C) relates to any
verifications involving geotechnical actions, such as piles and
footings (which are not considered in this guide).
In clause 6.4.3.1(4) of EN 1990 a distinction is made between
favourable and unfavourable actions. For permanent actions, the
upper characteristic (superior) value Gkj,sup should be used when
that action is unfavourable, and the lower characteristic (inferior)
value Gkj,inf should be used when that action is favourable. This
clause allows the designer to consider a permanent action as
either favourable or unfavourable, in separate load combinations.
As stated in EN 1990, this approach is only necessary where the
results of verification are sensitive to variations in the magnitude of
a permanent action from place to place in a structure. This idea is
considered in more detail in Reference [7] with a continuous beam
example. All variable actions should generally be present within a
load combination unless they have a favourable influence, in which
case they are assigned a partial factor Q of zero, effectively
excluding them.
Table 3.1: Design values of actions for equilibrium (EQU)
Persistent and Permanent actions

Leading Accompanying
transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable
situations
action
actions
Eq. 6.10
1.10 Gkj,sup
0.9 Gkj,inf
1.5 Qk,1 1.50,i Qk,i

(0 when favourable)
Table 3.2: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using

Equation 6.10

situations
action
actions
Eq. 6.10
1.35 Gkj,sup
1.0 Gkj,inf
1.5 Qk,1
1.50,i Qk,i
Table 3.3: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using

Equations 6.10a and 6.10b
situations
action
actions
Eq. 6.10a
Eq. 6.10b
1.35 Gkj,sup
1.0 Gkj,inf
1.35Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf
1.50,i Qk,i
1.5 Qk,1 1.50,i Qk,i
The factor that appears in Equation 6.10b of EN 1990 is a

reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G. The UK
National Annex sets the factor equal to 0.925. When combined
with G in Equation 6.10b the effect is to reduce the overall factor
from 1.35 to 1.25. In applying Equation 6.10a all vaiable actions
are termed accompanying (the largest of which is the main
accompanying action), whereas in applying Equation 6.10b the
most significant variable action is termed the leading variable
action, and all others (i>1) are simply accompanying.
The combination factor 0 that appears in each of Equations 6.10,
6.10a and 6.10b is one of three factors (0, 1 and 2) used in
EN 1990. The purpose of 0 is to take account of the reduced
probability of the simultaneous occurrence of two or more variable
actions. factors are discussed in Section 4.1.3 of EN 1990.
Values for factors for buildings in the UK are given in Table
NA.A1.1 of BS EN 1990. In general, these factors are the same
as those recommended in Table A1.1 of EN 1990, but with some
exceptions. For example, 0 is 0 for imposed loading on roofs and
0.6 for wind loading on buildings in EN 1990, whereas the UK
National Annex gives values of 0.7 for imposed loading on roofs
and 0.5 for wind loading. Selected values of 0 from the UK
National Annex are given in Table 3.4. Values of 1 and 2 from
the UK National Annex are also provided in Table 3.4, but only
feature in serviceability or accidental combinations.
Table 3.4: Values of factors for buildings
Action
Imposed loads in buildings, category

(see EN 1991-1-1)
Category A: domestic, residential areas
0
0.7
1
0.5
2
0.3
Category B: office areas
0.7
0.5
0.3
Category D: shopping areas
0.7
0.7
0.6
Category C: congregation areas

Category E: storage areas
0.7
1.0
Category F: traffic area, vehicle weight 30 kN 0.7
Category G: traffic area,

30 kN < vehicle weight 160 kN
0.7
0.9
0.7
for sites located at altitude H > 1000 m

above sea level
0.7
0.5
0.2
Wind loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-4)
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.5
for sites located at altitude H 1000 m

above sea level
Temperature (non fire) in buildings

(see EN 1991-1-5)
0.5
0.2
Gk, j + P + Qk,1 + 0,iQk,i
i>1
j1
(6.14b)
The frequent combination is given by Equation 6.15b of EN 1990

and is normally used for reversible limit states including excessive
temporary (elastic) deformations or vibrations.
Gk, j + P + 1,1Qk,1 + 2,iQk,i
j1
i>1
(6.15b)
The quasi-permanent combination is given by Equation 6.16b of

EN 1990 and is normally used for reversible limit states where long
term effects are important (e.g. shrinkage, relaxation or creep).
This is rarely applicable for steel structures.
Gk, j + P + 2,iQk,i
j1
i>1
(6.16b)
The UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 (Clauses NA.2.23 and

NA.2.24) states that vertical and horizontal deflections may be
checked using the characteristic combination with variable loads
only (i.e. permanent loads should not be included). Deflection
limits are also provided, which are similar to those given in BS
5950. The basis for employing the characteristic combination is
that excessive deflections may cause permanent local damage to
connected parts or finishes (i.e. irreversible limit states), even
though the steel members themselves will generally remain
elastic. The designer may also wish to check total deflections, and
may also wish to consider whether the frequent combination is
applicable.
0.6
0.3
0.7
The characteristic combination is given by Equation 6.14b of EN

1990 and is normally used for irreversible limit states, such as
permanent local damage or permanent unacceptable
deformations.
0.8
0.5
Snow loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-3)
For serviceability limit states, guidance on combinations of actions

is given in Clauses 6.5.3 and A1.4 of EN 1990. Three groups of
combinations are identified: characteristic, frequent and quasipermanent.
0.6
0.7
Category H: roofs
3.2 Serviceability limit states
11
4 . M u l t i - s t or e y b u i l di n g s
In this section, Eurocode load combinations for multi-storey
buildings are set out. General guidance for both simple and
moment resisting frames is given in Section 4.1, since, in principle,
load combinations are the same for both types of structure.
However, differences in treatment often arise due to differences in
sway stiffness, member interaction etc. and hence, specific
guidance and examples for simple and moment resisting frames is
provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively.
4.1 General
4.1.1
Classification of frames
Structural frames may be classified with regards to their lateral
load resisting system and sway stiffness. Concerning the lateral
load resisting system, a frame may be regarded as either braced
or unbraced. As a guide, for a frame to be classified as braced,
it should contain a bracing system with lateral stiffness of at least
five times that of the unbraced frame [8], which will be the case in
braced simple construction. Bracing systems using wire ties (as
opposed to open or hollow sections) may result in the frame being
classified as unbraced.
Sway stiffness is commonly achieved through the provision of a
suitable bracing system or by utilising the inherent bending
resistance of a rigid frame. Adequate sway stiffness is important
because it limits the lateral deflections of the frame and hence
controls second order (P-) effects. Sway stiffness is assessed in
EN 1993-1-1 in a similar way as it is in BS 5950, through the cr
parameter (equivalent to cr in BS 5950), which represents the
factor by which the vertical design loading would have to be
increased to cause overall elastic buckling of the frame (Clause
5.2.1(3) of EN 1993-1-1). A simplified means of determining cr for
regular frames is also given in Equation 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1.
Regardless of the frame type, if cr is greater than 10, the sway
stiffness is deemed sufficiently large for second order effects to be
ignored. Conversely, if cr is less than 10, second order effects
may no longer be ignored. Second order effects are discussed
further in Section 4.1.3.
4.1.2
Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal

forces (EHF)
Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the
structural analysis by defining an initial sway for the frame.
However, the more general approach is to replace this geometric
imperfection with a system of equivalent horizontal forces (EHF),
referred to as notional horizontal loads in BS 5950. Whereas in BS
5950, equivalent horizontal forces were only required in the
vertical load case, in the Eurocodes it is deemed that since frame
imperfections are inherently present, they should be included in all
ULS load combinations. This appears entirely rational. EHF are
not required in SLS load combinations. The EHF should be
determined separately for each load combination since they
depend on the level of design vertical loads. For each storey, the
EHF may be calculated as the design vertical load for that storey
(not the cumulative vertical load) multiplied by 1/200 (i.e. 0.5%).
Depending on the height of the structure and the number of
columns in a row, reductions to this basic value of 1/200 are
possible, as detailed in Clause 5.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-1. If
horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads (VEd) these
12
sway imperfections may be disregarded, and EHF ignored this

would more oftern apply to low rise buildings.
4.1.3
Second order (P-) effects
Second order effects relate to the increase in member forces and
moments that occur as a result of deformation of the structure
under load. As outlined in Section 4.1.1, second order (P-)
effects need not be considered provided the frame is sufficiently
stiff (i.e. sway deformation under the design loading is relatively
small) this is deemed to be the case for elastic analysis when cr
> 10, and similarly, according to the UK National Annex, for plastic
analysis of clad frames when the additional stiffening effect of the
cladding has been neglected. In cases where cr is less than 10,
the designer is presented with a number of options. These include
enhancement of the stability system such that cr is raised above
10 and hence second order effects may be ignored, making
allowance for second order effects by approximate means
(amplified sway method or effective length method, both of which
were allowed in BS 5950), or making allowance for second order
effects by performing a second order structural analysis enabling
and accounting for deformation of the structure under load. It
should be noted that if cr is less than 3, then an accurate second
order analysis must be performed (Clause 5.2.2(5) of EN 1993-11). The aforementioned is summarised in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Summary of analysis methods and treatment of
second order effects
Limits on cr Analysis method

cr > 10
10 > cr > 3
cr < 3
First order analysis
Result
Second order
effects ignored
First order analysis plus Second order effects

amplified sway method or allowed for by
effective length method
approximate means
Second order analysis
Second order effects

allowed for more
accurately
The most common approximate treatment of second order effects

in multi-storey buildings, which may be applied provided that cr
>3, is the so called amplified sway method. In this method,
account for second order effects is made by amplifying all lateral
loading on the structure (typically wind loads and EHF) by a factor,
referred to in the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 as kr, which
is related to the sway stiffness of the structure through Equation
D4.1 (Equation 5.4 of EN 1993-1-1).
kr =
4.1.4
1
1-1/cr
(D4.1)
Reduction factors for number of storeys (n) and

floor area (A)
As the number of storeys in a building increase, the likelihood that
all floors will be loaded to the full design level decreases. Similarly,
large floor areas will seldom be subjected to the full design loading
uniformly. To reflect this, reduction factors for imposed loads may
be applied for the design of floors, beams and roofs and for the
design of columns and walls. For the design of individual floors,
beams and roofs, the area reduction factor A may be applied. For
the design of columns and walls, the reduction factor n for the
number of storeys may be applied. The reduction factor n relates
to the number of floors supported by the column section under
consideration, and may be applied to the total imposed load being
carried. If, for a given column or wall, A < n, then A may be
used in place of n, but A and n may not be used together
(Clause NA.2.6).
Reduction factors A for imposed loads on floors and accessible
roofs are provided in Clause NA.2.5 of the UK National Annex to
EN 1991-1-1 (see Equation D4.2), and replace those given in
Clause 6.3.1.2(10) of EN 1991-1-1.
A = 1.0 A/1000 0.75
(D4.2)
Figure 4.1: Pattern loading for continuous floor beams
GGk
GGk + QQk
Storey under consideration
(a) Applies to span (sagging) moments
where A is the area (m2) supported.
Reduction factors n for imposed loads from several storeys used

for calculating column forces are defined in Clause 6.3.1.2(11) and
by Equation 6.2 of EN 1991-1-1. Revised expressions are
provided in the UK National Annex (Clause NA.2.6 and Equation
NA.2), as given by Equations D4.3 to D4.5 below. These reduction
factors may be applied to the total imposed load experienced by a
given column, but may only be employed when the imposed load
is the leading variable action in a load combination. When the
imposed load is an accompanying action, either 0 or n may be
applied, but not both.
n = 1.1 n/10 for 1 n 5
(D4.3)
n = 0.5
for 5 < n 10
(D4.4)
for n > 10
(D4.5)
n = 0.6
4.1.5
Pattern loading
For the design of floors within one storey and for the design of
roofs, EN 1991-1-1 Clause 6.2.1(1) states that pattern loading
should be considered for continuous construction, though the
storeys other than the one under consideration may be assumed
to be uniformly loaded (Clause 6.2.1 of EN 1991-1-1). Pattern
loading need not be considered for simple construction. The two
loading patterns indentified in Clause AB.2 of EN 1993-1-1 for
continuous floor beams to assess (a) the span moments and (b)
support moments for the storey under consideration are shown in
Figures 4.1(a) and (b), respectively. In Figure 4.1(a), alternative
spans carry the design permanent and variable load (GGk + QQk)
while other spans carry only the design permanent load ( GGk). In
Figure 4.1(b), two adjacent spans carry the design permanent and
variable load (GGk + QQk) while all other spans carry only the
design permanent load ( GGk).
GGk
GGk + QQk
Storey under consideration
(b) Applies to support (hogging) moments
For the design of columns or walls loaded from several storeys (2 or

more) the total imposed floor load on each storey should be assumed
to be uniformly distributed (Clause 6.2.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1).
4.1.6
Dead loads
In load combinations, the total self-weight of the structure and nonstructural components should be taken as a single action (Clause
3.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1). Permanent roof loads and floor loads may
therefore be treated as a single action Gk in load combinations.
4.1.7
Overturning
Overturning of a structure as a rigid body is independent of its
lateral load resisting system and sway stiffness. It is solely a
matter of equilibrium (EQU), for which only Equation 6.10 of EN
1990 should be applied. The critical load combination for general
multi-storey buildings emerges on the basis of maximising the
overturning moment due to the horizontal loading (wind and EHF)
and minimising the restoring moment due to the vertical loading. It
is generally appropriate to consider only a single value for dead
loading, but the concept of upper (superior) Gk,sup and lower
(inferior) Gk,inf characteristic values should be considered where
sensitivity to variability in dead loads is very high (Clause A1.3.1 of
EN 1990). For the overturning load case, a factor of 0.9 is applied
to the dead load (where it is contributing to the restoring moment)
and factor of 1.5 is applied to the wind load, as the leading variable
action. The wind load has been denoted Wk in this document.
Equivalent horizontal forces are included, as in all ULS
combinations, but these are not factored (again) since they are
already based on factored loading. Thus, the overturning load
combination is given by Equation D4.6.
13
0.9Gk + 1.5Wk + EHF
(D4.6)
As noted in Section 4.1.2, the EHF may be calculated as 0.5%

(with some scope for reduction) of the load on each storey, and are
thus dependant upon the load combination being considered.
4.2 Braced frames (simple construction)
In terms of ease of analysis and design, there are a number of

advantages associated with simple construction. The structural
members can, largely, be designed in isolation, with the beams
considered as simply-supported members carrying the vertical
loading and the columns as pin ended compression members with
a nominal moment arising from the eccentric beam reactions. A
bracing system will typically be employed to resist the horizontal
loading, though note that columns forming part of the bracing
system will also attract axial forces arising from the horizontal
loading (wind loads and EHF), as described in Reference [5].
4.2.1
ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with

cr > 10
For frames with cr > 10, second order effects need not be
considered. Assuming all loads to be always unfavourable (i.e.
causing an increase in member forces or moments), two basic
load combinations, given by Equations D4.7 and D4.8, arise from
Equation 6.10. In Equation D4.7, imposed load is assumed to be
the leading variable action and hence attracts a load factor of 1.5,
whilst the wind load is reduced by a combination factor 0 of 0.5
(to give a load factor = 0.5 1.5 = 0.75). In Equation D4.8, wind
load is considered as the leading variable action with a load factor
of 1.5, thus the imposed load is reduced by a combination factor
0 of 0.7 (applicable in all cases except for storage areas), to give
a load factor = 0.7 1.5 = 1.05). It is assumed throughout this
section that imposed loading on the roofs of multi-storey buildings
will be greater than the snow loading, thus attracting a combination
factor 0 = 0.7, rather than 0 = 0.5, which applies to snow loading
(at altitudes of less than 1000 m). Note, as discussed in Section
4.1.2 of this guide, that the EHF should be determined separately
for each load combination.
1.35Gk + 1.5Qk + 0.75Wk + EHF
1.35Gk + 1.05Qk + 1.5Wk + EHF
(D4.7)
(D4.8)
Equation D4.7 would generally govern the design of the beams

and columns, whilst Equation D4.8 would be expected to be more
critical for the bracing members. The imposed load in Equation
D4.7 may be reduced by the area reduction factor A, given by
Equation D4.2, for the design of the beams. For column design,
the imposed load may be reduced by the reduction factor for
number of storeys n (that the column under consideration is
supporting) or the reduction factor for area A, whichever is the
more beneficial. Note that the imposed load reduction factors may
only be applied in combinations where the imposed loading is the
leading variable action (Equation D4.7). Pattern loading need not
be considered for column design (see Section 4.1.5).
Other load combinations arise by considering that the variable
actions may be favourable (i.e. causing a reduction in member
14
forces or moments). A good example of this is the uplift case,

where imposed load is clearly favourable since it opposes the
uplift. The imposed load therefore has a load factor of zero for the
uplift case, whilst the dead load has a load factor of 1.0. This
results in Equation D4.9.
1.00Gk + 1.5Wk + EHF
(D4.9)
1.35Gk + 1.5Qk + EHF
(D4.10)
The wind load itself may also be favourable, for example where
uplift results in reduced columns loads. Assuming wind load to be
favourable leads to the load combination given by Equation D4.10.
4.2.2
ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with

cr < 10
For frames with cr < 10, second order effects must be considered.
This may be avoided by appropriate reconfiguration of the bracing
system in order to increase the sway stiffness of the structure and
hence ensure cr 10, though this may be uneconomical.
Otherwise, account must be made of second order effects. For
cr < 3, an accurate second order analysis is required, whilst for
regular frames with cr 3 approximate methods to allow for
second order effects may be employed, the most common of
which is the amplified sway method. In this case, load
combinations will be the same as those defined in Section 4.2.1,
except that all horizontal loads (Wk + EHF) and other possible sway
effects (e.g. arising from asymmetric loading) will be multiplied by
kr (Equation D4.1). Note that kr is derived from cr, which is in turn
dependant on the loading FEd on the structure, so, as for EHF, kr
should be determined separately for each load combination.
4.2.3
ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10a and

6.10b with cr > 10
Employing Equations 6.10a and 6.10b of EN 1990, and adopting
the same approach as described in Section 4.1.1, three load
combinations arise when all loads are assumed to be
unfavourable, as given by Equations D4.11 to D4.13. Note that
Equation D4.11 arises from Equation 6.10a where all variable
actions are reduced by the combination factor 0, while Equations
D4.12 and D4.13 emerge from Equation 6.10b, and have a lower
dead load factor of 1.25 due to the introduction of the factor (see
Section 3.1).
1.35Gk + 1.05Qk + 0.75Wk + EHF
1.25Gk + 1.5Qk + 0.75Wk + EHF
1.25Gk + 1.05Qk + 1.5Wk + EHF
(D4.11)
(D4.12)
(D4.13)
Of the above three combinations, Equation D4.11 will only govern

on the rare occasions where the dead load is significantly larger
than the imposed load. For the uplift combination, given by
Equation D4.14, the wind load is the leading variable action,
attracting a load factor of 1.5, and the imposed load is absent since
it is favourable. Note that Equation D4.14 is the same as D4.9,
showing that the uplift load combination is the same whether
derived from Equation 6.10 or Equations 6.10a and 6.10b.
1.00Gk + 1.5 Wk + EHF
(D4.14)
1.25Gk + 1.5Qk + EHF
(D4.15)
Similarly, the wind favourable case results in Equation D4.15.
Equations D4.12 to D4.15 represent the four basic load

combinations for multi-storey frames. For economy, it is
recommended that these load combinations (Equations D4.11 to
D4.15 all emerging from Equation 6.10b) be used in preference to
those arising from Equation 6.10 (Equations D4.7 to D4.10).
4.2.4
ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a

and 6.10b with cr < 10
As described in Section 4.2.2, when cr < 10, second order effects
must be considered. If the amplified sway method is employed,
load combinations will be the same as those given in Equations
D4.11 to D4.15, except that all horizontal loads (wind and
equivalent horizontal forces) and other sway effects are multiplied
by the factor kr, which, as noted in Section 4.2.2 is load
combination dependant.
4.2.5
SLS load combinations
As outlined in Section 3.2, the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1
states that vertical and horizontal deflections may be checked
using the characteristic combination with variable loads only (i.e.
permanent loads should not be included). The characteristic
combination is defined by Equation 6.14b of EN 1990, where the
leading variable action is unfactored (i.e. taken as its characteristic
value) and all accompanying variable actions are reduced by the
combination factor 0.
Assuming all loads to be unfavourable, the resulting SLS

combinations are given by Equations D4.16 (where imposed load
is taken as the leading variable action) and D4.17 (where wind
load is taken as the leading variable action).
1.00Qk + 0.50Wk
1.00Wk + 0.70Qk
(D4.16)
(D4.17)
For cases where the influence of horizontal loading on vertical

deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where wind load is
favourable (e.g. suction on a roof may reduce deflections),
Equation D4.16 reduces simply to Equation D4.18 (i.e. checking
vertical deflections under unfactored imposed loading only).
1.00Qk
(D4.18)
1.00Wk
(D4.19)
For cases where the influence of vertical loading on horizontal

deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where vertical
loading is favourable, Equation D4.17 reduces to Equation D4.19
(i.e. checking horizontal deflections under unfactored wind loading
only).
Deflection limits are also provided in the National Annex to EN

1993-1-1 in Clauses NA.2.23 and NA.2.24. The deflection limits of
relevance to multi-storey buildings, which are the same as those

given in BS 5950, are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Table 4.2: Vertical deflection limits
Vertical deflection
Limit
Beam carrying plaster or other brittle finish
Span/360
Cantilevers
Other beams (except purlins and sheeting rails)

Table 4.3: Horizontal deflection limits
Horizontal deflection
In each storey of a building with more

than one storey
Length/180
Span/200
Limit
Height of
that storey/300
As 4.1.2 if horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads

(VEd) the EHF can be ignored. This is most likely to be the case in
Equations D4.17 and D4.19.
4.3 Moment resisting frames (continuous

construction)
For the case of simple braced frames, the members can

essentially be designed in isolation. For moment resisting frames,
the structure is not statically determinate, there is interaction
between the members and this simplification may not generally be
made. Unbraced (moment resisting) frames are also generally less
stiff laterally than braced frames, and are therefore more likely to
require consideration of second order effects. However, the basic
load combinations derived for simple frames in Section 4.2 are
equally applicable to moment resisting frames.
It is therefore recommended that, as for simple frames, the ULS
load combinations for moment resisting frames be based on
Equations 6.10a and 6.10b. This results in five load combinations
given by Equations D4.11 to D4.15, of which D4.11 is unlikely to
govern except in cases of an unusually high ratio of dead to
imposed loading. SLS load combinations are given by Equations
D4.16 to D4.19.
4.4 Example
The following example illustrates application of the above load

combinations (from Equations 6.10a and 6.10b) to a simple braced
frame. The general case considered is set out in Figure 4.2, where
the loads shown are unfactored (characteristic values). The
following notation is used: Gkr = permanent actions on roof; Gkf =
permanent actions on floors; Qkr = imposed load on roof; Qkf =
imposed load on floors; Wk = wind loads. Frames are spaced at 6
m centres and every third frame is braced (in the configuration
shown in Figure 4.2). For the equilibrium check only, lateral forces,
together with overturning and restoring moments, are shown per
frame. Throughout the remainder of the example, lateral forces are
shown per braced frame. It is assumed that cr > 10, so second
order effects are neglected. Imposed load reduction factors have
not been considered. EHF have been calculated on the basis of
1/200 of the total vertical load for each storey.
15
Figure 4.2: Unfactored loading on example frame

Wk = 0.63 kN/m2
Gkr = 3.5 kN/m2

Qkr = 1.5 kN/m2
3.6 m
kN/m2
Gkf = 3.5
Qkf = 5 kN/m2
3.6 m
Gkf = 3.5 kN/m2

Qkf = 5 kN/m2
6m
3.6 m
6m
6m
EHF = 10.0 kN
Wind = 21.9 kN
EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
Wk = 0.2 kN/m2
Wk = 0.7 kN/m2
Gkf = 3.5 kN/m2

Qkf = 5 kN/m2
Figure 4.4: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation

D4.12
3.6 m
Figures 4.3 to 4.7 present the total factored design loading on the
structure arising from the five load combinations defined by
Equations D4.11 to D4.15, respectively.
EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
qEd = 36.9 kN/m
qEd = 71.3 kN/m

qEd = 71.3 kN/m
qEd = 71.3 kN/m
Bracing FEd
External
column FEd
Internal
column FEd
Design loading in key members:
1.25Gk + 1.5Qk + 0.75Wk + EHF
qEd = 36.9 kN/m
Roof design UDL
qEd = 71.3 kN/m
Floor design UDL
FEd = 752.0 kN
External column
Bracing
Internal column (unbraced frame)

Internal column (braced frame)
D4.11
EHF = 9.4 kN
Wind = 21.9 kN
EHF = 16.2 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
EHF = 16.2 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
EHF = 16.2 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
qEd = 35.0 kN/m
qEd = 59.9 kN/m
qEd = 59.9 kN/m
Bracing FEd
External
column FEd
Internal
column FEd
1.35Gk + 1.05Qk + 0.75Wk + EHF

Roof design UDL
Floor design UDL

External column
Bracing

16
qEd = 35.0 kN/m

qEd = 59.9 kN/m
FEd = 643.5 kN
FEd = 246.1 kN (tension)

FEd = 1287.1 kN
FEd = 1577.9 kN
FEd = 1504.0 kN
FEd = 1807.1 kN

D4.13
EHF = 8.1 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
EHF = 15.6 kN
Wind = 87.5 kN
qEd = 59.9 kN/m
EHF = 15.6 kN
Wind = 87.5 kN
EHF = 15.6 kN
Wind = 87.5 kN
qEd = 30.0 kN/m
qEd = 57.8 kN/m

qEd = 57.8 kN/m
qEd = 57.8 kN/m
Bracing FEd
External
column FEd
Internal
column FEd
1.25Gk + 1.05Qk + 1.5Wk + EHF

Roof design UDL
Floor design UDL

External column
Bracing

qEd = 30.0 kN/m

qEd = 57.8 kN/m
FEd = 609.8 kN

FEd = 1219.7 kN
FEd = 1715.2 kN

D4.14
EHF = 4.1 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN
EHF = 5.7 kN
Wind = 87.5 kN
EHF = 5.7 kN
Wind = 87.5 kN
EHF = 5.7 kN
Wind = 87.5 kN
qEd = 15.3 kN/m
qEd = 21.0 kN/m

qEd = 21.0 kN/m
qEd = 21.0 kN/m
Bracing FEd
External
column FEd
Internal
column FEd

1.00Gk + 1.5Qk + EHF
Roof design UDL
Bracing

EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
Wind = 14.6 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN
FEd = 470.0 kN
FEd = 920.2 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN

D4.15
EHF = 10.7 kN
qEd = 39.8 kN/m
Wind = 0.0 kN
EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
Figure 4.8: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.16
Wind = 29.2 kN
FEd = 235.0 kN
External column
Serviceability load combinations, as defined by Equations D4.16 to

D4.19, are shown in Figures 4.8 to 4.11, respectively.
qEd = 15.3 kN/m

qEd = 21.0 kN/m
Floor design UDL
From Figures 4.3 to 4.7, it may be seen that the maximum loadings
in different members often arise from different load combinations.
For the case considered (Figure 4.2), the maximum design UDL on
the roof and floors arise from Equation D4.15 (1.25Gk + 1.5Qk +
EHF), as does the maximum external column load and the
maximum internal column load (for the unbraced frames in the
structure). The maximum force in the bracing members results
from Equation D4.13 (1.25Gk+ 1.05Qk + 1.5Wk + EHF), while
the maximum internal column load (for the braced frames in the
structure) arises from Equation D4.12 (1.25Gk + 1.5Qk +
0.75Wk + EHF).
qEd = 71.3 kN/m
qEd = 7.1 kN/m
qEd = 30.0 kN/m

qEd = 30.0 kN/m
qEd = 30.0 kN/m
Summary of SLS loading:

1.00Qk + 0.5Wk
Roof SLS UDL
Floor SLS UDL
qEd = 71.3 kN/m
Lateral SLS load at roof level
Lateral SLS load at levels 1, 2 and 3
qEd = 71.3 kN/m
Bracing FEd
External
column FEd
Internal
column FEd
qEd = 7.1 kN/m
qEd = 30.0 kN/m

HEd = 14.6 kN
HEd = 29.2 kN

1.25Gk + 1.5Qk + EHF
Roof design UDL
Floor design UDL

External column
Bracing

qEd = 39.8 kN/m

qEd = 71.3 kN/m
FEd = 760.5 kN

FEd = 1521.0 kN
FEd = 1616.0 kN
17

Wind = 29.2 kN
Wind = 58.3 kN
Wind = 58.3 kN
Wind = 58.3 kN
qEd = 2.5 kN/m
qEd = 21.0 kN/m

qEd = 21.0 kN/m
Wind = 58.3 kN
qEd = 21.0 kN/m
Wind = 58.3 kN
qEd = 2.5 kN/m
Roof SLS UDL
qEd = 21.0 kN/m
Floor SLS UDL
HEd = 29.2 kN
HEd = 58.3 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
qEd = 9.0 kN/m
qEd = 30.0 kN/m
qEd = 0.0 kN/m

qEd = 0.0 kN/m
qEd = 0.0 kN/m
Floor SLS UDL
qEd = 0.0 kN/m
Floor SLS UDL
HEd = 29.2 kN
HEd = 58.3 kN
From Figures 4.8 to 4.11 it may be observed that Equation D4.18

(1.00Qk + EHF) is critical for vertical deflections of the beams,
and Equation D4.17 (1.00Wk + 0.7Qk + EHF) governs for
horizontal deflections of the frame at levels 1, 2 and 3 but at roof
level Equation D4.19 (1.00Wk + EHF) governs.
EHF = 1.2 kN
Wind = 14.6 kN
EHF = 1.7 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN

Roof SLS UDL
qEd = -3.8 kN/m
Roof SLS UDL
Figure 4.12: Loading per frame for EQU overturning check
qEd = 30.0 kN/m
1.00Qk
1.00Wk
For checking against overturning (EQU), only Equation 6.10 may

be applied, resulting in the load combination given by Equation
D4.6, illustrated for the example frame in Figure 4.12. Note that
loads, together with the overturning and restoring moments, are
shown per frame in Figure 4.12.
qEd = 30.0 kN/m
qEd = -3.8 kN/m
1.00Qk + 0.7Qk
Wind = 0.0 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN
Wind = 58.3 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
qEd = 9.0 kN/m
qEd = 30.0 kN/m

HEd = 0.0 kN
HEd = 0.0 kN
EHF = 1.7 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN
EHF = 1.7 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN
qEd = 13.2 kN/m
qEd = 18.9 kN/m

qEd = 18.9 kN/m
qEd = 18.9 kN/m
Equilibrium assessment:
0.9Gk + 1.5Wk + EHF
Overturning moment per frame

Restoring moment per frame
18
M = 893.7 kNm
M = 11330 kNm
5 . In d u s t r i al bu i l d i n gs
5.1 General
Although industrial buildings can be designed to support

mezzanine floors and cranes, they are primarily loaded by their
self weight, service loads, imposed loads or snow loads and wind
loads. Service loads tend to be project specific but a nominal
value of around 0.05 kN/m2 should always be considered in
structural design to allow for loads from nominal lighting. This
value will increase if more substantial services such as sprinkler
systems or air-conditioning are incorporated. The self weights of
false ceilings over intermediate floors are often also treated as
service loads. Snow loads and wind loads are site specific and are
influenced by the geometry of the structure and its orientation.
Snow loads are determined by reference to EN 1991-1-3 and its
UK National Annex. Wind loads are determined by reference to
EN 1991-1-4 and its UK National Annex, but designers might also
like to refer to Reference [5].
Clause 3.3.2 (1) of EN 1991-1-1 states that on roofs, imposed
loads and snow loads or wind loads should not be applied together
simultaneously. This implies (1) that snow load and imposed load
should not appear together in any given load combination, and (2)
that imposed load and wind load should not appear together in any
given load combination. The basis for this clause is that it would be
unreasonable to consider that maintenance would be undertaken
in severe weather conditions. The first implication is in line with
current practice in the UK, where, for roofs that are not accessible
except for normal maintenance and repair, the loading would
typically be taken as the larger of an imposed load of 0.6 kN/m2 or
the snow load (i.e. the imposed loads and snow loads are not
applied simultaneously). The same value of 0.6 kN/m2 is also
recommended for roof slopes less than 30 in Table NA.7 of the UK
National Annex to EN 1991-1-1. The second implication is that for
cases where the snow load is less than 0.6 kN/m2, then it is only
this lesser value that would be applied in combination with the wind
load, which, coupled with the fact that the combination factor for
snow loading (0 = 0.5) is lower than that for imposed loading (0
= 0.7), may result in significantly lower roof loading (in combination
with wind) than is used in current UK practice. It is recommended
in this guide that imposed loads and wind loads continue to be
considered in combination for the design of portal frames in the
UK. Given the different combination factors for snow and imposed
loading, the snow load would have to be greater than 1.4 times the
imposed load (i.e. greater than 0.84 kN/m2) to be critical in the
wind (leading) plus imposed or snow load combination. Where the
imposed load or snow load is the leading variable action, the snow
load simply needs to exceed the imposed load to become critical.
The concept of factors was introduced in Section 3 and Table 5.1

presents the factors that are relevant to portal frame design. In
Table 5.1, Gkc = permanent crane action and Gkc + Qkc = total crane
action (from Clause A.2.3 of EN 1991-3 Annex A).
Table 5.1: factors relevant to portal frame structures

Imposed loads on roofs
Snow loads at altitude less than

or equal to 1000 m
Wind loads
Crane loads
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.9
Gkc/(Gkc+Qkc)
0.5
0.2
0.0
5.1.1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 - Snow loading

In Section 2 of EN 1991-1-3, Classification of actions, snow loads
are classified as variable fixed actions unless otherwise specified in
the code. In this section it also states that exceptional snow loads
and exceptional snow drifts may be treated as accidental actions,
depending on geographical locations. The UK National Annex
confirms this in clauses NA.2.4 and NA.2.5 and also states that
Annex B should be used to determine the drifted snow load case.
This approach is consistent with current UK practice for designers
using BS 6399-3 and BRE Digest 439 [9] to determine uniform
snow loads and the loads caused by the build up of drifted snow.
5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading
Wind actions are defined as variable fixed actions. The process
for determining wind pressures is based on a 10-minute mean
wind velocity and a new map has been provided in the UK National
Annex. Designers who have been working with BS 6399-2 will find
the approach for determining wind pressures very similar although
some terminology has changed. The publication Designers
Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, general
actions part 1-4. Wind actions [2] is very important in explaining
the limitations of the new European Standard.
Although wind pressures vary depending on site location, altitude,
orientation etc, the pressure and force coefficients depend only on
the external shape of the structure. By looking at the overall
pressure coefficients, irrespective of the actual site wind
pressures, it is possible to determine the critical load cases. The
majority of portal frames have roof pitches of 5, 6 or 10. Figures
5.1c, 5.1d and 5.1e have been produced for portal frames with
these roof pitches and present overall pressure coefficients.
Figures 5.1a and 5.1b have been included to show the
intermediate steps required to arrive at the figures in 5.1c. Similar
intermediate steps have not been included for Figures 5.1d and
5.1e, although some extended expressions have been shown.
External pressure coefficients for the walls have been extracted
from Table 7.1 of EN 1991-1-4 assuming an h/d ratio 0.25. Table
7.4a of EN 1991-1-4 cannot be used for roof coefficients; instead,
the UK National Annex directs us to use Table 10 of BS 6399-2.
Once the basic external coefficients have been established, to
comply with the requirements of Clauses 5.3 and 7.2.2 of EN
1991-1-4 two addition factors must be applied to the external force
coefficients:
1. The structural factor cscd for the majority of portal frames the
height will be less than 15 m and the value of cscd is taken as 1.
2. For buildings with h/d 1, most portal frames, the external wind
forces on the windward and leeward faces are multiplied by 0.85.
19
In recent years internal pressures of -0.3 / +0.0 have been adopted

by many portal frame designers. This may still be appropriate for
large storage buildings with no windows and doors primarily in one
face. However, the internal pressure coefficients are now derived
from Figure 7.13 of EN 1991-1-4 and are based on relative wall
porosity. Within the range of coefficients are the values -0.3 / +0.2
used traditionally by UK engineers. These values have been used
in the derivation of the overall force coefficients.
The resulting diagrams show that, for the range of roof pitches
considered, the primary condition for wind loading on the roof is
suction. If dominant openings are regarded as closed in a storm
(elective dominant openings) the maximum uplift for ULS design is
always for longitudinal wind (wind blowing directly onto the gable
causing suction on all external faces of the portal) with internal
pressure as is common with current practice.
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
Longitudinal Wind 1
-1.2
-0.6
0.3
Longitudinal Wind 1
-0.4
-1.02
-0.3
0.7
0.3
0.595
-0.255
-0.4
-0.255
0.0
0.595
-0.34
-0.255
Transverse Wind 2
Transverse Wind 2
Figure 5.1a: External Pressure Coefficients Portal frame

with 5 roof pitch
The above coefficients are now modified by the 0.85 and cscd
factors to give:
Figure 5.1b: Modified External Pressure Coefficients Portal

frame with 5 roof pitch
Key
Overall coefficients shown thus:
Pressure shown as positive values
Suction shown as negative values
20
-0.34
Transverse Wind 1
-0.3
0.7
-0.255
-0.51
Transverse Wind 1
0.0
-0.6
-0.6
The same process can be applied to a portal with 6 roof pitch to give:
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.8
-0.8
Internal
pressure 0.2
-1.0
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-1.0
Longitudinal Wind 1
0.595
0.255
-0.51
-1.02
-0.71
-1.22
0.395
-0.455
Internal
pressure 0.2
-0.54
-0.255
0.7 x 0.85
0.595
-0.21
-0.72
0.895
Internal
suction -0.3
0.045
-0.693
-1.186
0.595
0.395
0.2
-0.055
Internal
pressure 0.2
0.395
-0.34
-0.04
0.595
0.895
0.3
Internal
suction -0.3
0.045
-0.455
-0.3 x 0.85
-0.3
0.595
-0.193
-0.686
0.895
-0.006
Internal
suction -0.3
-0.389
-0.089
0.045
-0.255
Transverse Wind 1a
0.02 x 0.85
-0.34
-0.14
-0.5
-0.255
-0.41 x 0.85
-0.589
-0.306
-0.493
-0.986
-0.3
0.595
0.395
-0.183
Transverse Wind 2
0.0
-0.8
Transverse Wind 1
0.0
-0.255
-0.506
Internal
pressure 0.2
Transverse Wind 1a
0.0
-0.36 x 0.85
-0.58 x 0.85
-1.16 x 0.85
-0.34
-0.455
0.255
-0.51
-1.0
Longitudinal Wind 1
Transverse Wind 1
-1.02
-0.8
Internal
pressure 0.2
-0.36 x 0.85
-0.506
Internal
pressure 0.2
-0.41 x 0.85
-0.489
-0.455
-0.255
Transverse Wind 2
0.017
-0.34
-0.04
0.0
-0.3
0.595
0.895
0.317
-0.306
-0.006
Internal
suction -0.3
-0.389
-0.089
0.045
-0.255
Transverse Wind 2a
Transverse Wind 2a
Figure 5.1c: Wind Pressure Coefficients Portal frame with 5

roof pitch
Figure 5.1d: Wind Pressure Coefficients Portal frame with 6

roof pitch
Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof.
Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction. Transverse wind 2a
causes maximum sidesway.
The above coefficients are typical for internal transverse portal

frames in a building. Towards the ends of the structure more
onerous coefficients are applicable. However, the intention of
these diagrams is purely to eliminate less onerous combinations
for later analysis and the overall pattern is similar for the areas with
higher coefficients. For final design, local effects must be included,
not only for the design of frames, but also for the design of
secondary components such as purlins, side rails and claddings.
Key
Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.3
21
-0.65
-0.65
-0.8
-0.85
-1.0
-0.85
Internal
pressure 0.2
-1.0
-0.8
Longitudinal Wind 1
0.7 x 0.85
-0.6 x 0.85
-0.5 x 0.85
-1.00 x 0.85
-0.625
-1.05
-0.71
Internal
pressure 0.2
0.395
-0.45 x 0.85
-0.583
-0.455
-0.3 x 0.85
Transverse Wind 1
0.595
-0.51
-0.425
-0.85
-0.125
-0.55
0.895
Internal
suction -0.3
-0.21
-0.383
-0.083
0.045
-0.255
Transverse Wind 1a
-0.51
0.1 x 0.85
0.595
0.395
-0.115
Internal
pressure 0.2
-0.71
-0.455
-0.255
-0.51
0.595
0.895
0.385
Internal
suction -0.3
-0.21
Combinations of actions for portal frames are considered in this

Section. Additional considerations for cranes are introduced in
Section 5.3. The serviceability limit state is treated first since this
is likely to govern the design of this form of construction.
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design
For the serviceability limit state, the UK National Annex to EN
1993-1-1 states that deflections may be checked using the
characteristic combination of loading and considering variable
loads only, as discussed in Section 3.2.
Assuming that for steel portal frame structures the dead load can
be accurately determined and that the combined dead and service
loads can be treated as one dead load:
Wk
Ad
6.14b
Transverse Wind 2
0.085
5.2 Portal frames
Gksup
Gkinf
Qk
-0.383
-0.583
more general approach is to apply equivalent horizontal forces

(EHF). For more information on this and P- effects refer to
Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of this publication. Subject to a number of
geometrical restraints, the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1
(Clause NA.2.9) allows that second order effects may be ignored
in the plastic design of portal frames under gravity loading only
provided cr 5.
-0.383
-0.083
0.045
-0.255
Transverse Wind 2a
=
=
=
=
=
Dead load + Service load

Dead load
Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than
0.6 kN/m2)
Wind load - three load cases as identified earlier
Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load
condition)
1.00Qk + 0.50Wk (pressure) + EHF

0.70Qk + 1.00Wk (pressure) + EHF
0.00Qk + 1.00Wk (suction) + EHF
5.2.2 SLS design example for a single span portal

Consider a 25 m span portal frame, 6 m to eaves and in 6 m bays
with a 6 roof pitch. The structure is assumed to be clad with
composite sheeting supported by purlins and side rails at 1.8 m
maximum centres.
Key
Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.15
Figure 5.1e: Wind Pressure Coefficients Portal frame with
10 roof pitch
22
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P- effects

Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the
structural analysis by defining an initial sway for the frame. The
Figure 5.2: Typical clear span portal frame

Dead load: Cladding
Purlins (0.046 1.25/1.8)
(1.25 factor to allow for purlin sleeves)
Rafter (0.54 1.1 / 6.0)
(1.10 factor to allow for rafter haunches)
Dead load on slope

Slope factor (6 slope)
Dead load on plan
0.150 kN/m2
0.032 kN/m2
0.099 kN/m2
0.281 kN/m2
1.0055
0.283 kN/m2
Gksup = Dead + Service load

= 0.283 + 0.150
= 0.433 kN/m2
3. Identify the wind case that results in the maximum eaves

displacement (side sway). This is likely to be transverse wind
with pressure on the windward slope and suction on the
leeward slope.
4. Use the wind load cases identified in steps 2 and 3 of this
procedure in equation 6.14b to identify maximum
displacements.
5. If frame is unsymmetrical in any way the designer should apply
the wind load in the direction to maximise the sway effect.
Gkinf = Dead
= 0.283 kN/m2
Qk
Wk
Ad
= Imposed load
= 0.600 kN/m2
= Wind load:
Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2;
Wind suction = -0.800 kN/m2
5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR)

For the ultimate limit state, Equations 6.10 or 6.10a and 6.10b from
EN 1990 are to be considered, as introduced in Section 3.1.
= Load from snow build-up or drift

= 0.550 kN/m2
Applying the loads for the example to the set of serviceability

equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.2. The
values of the EHF will vary with the load combination and may,
when HEd 0.15 VEd, be ignored. The bold figures identify the
critical load combinations.
Table 5.2: Load combinations for the serviceability limit state
Load (kN/m2)
Equation 6.14b
Qk =
0.600
0.600
0.420
0.000
Wk (pressure)
= +0.500
Wk (suction)
= -0.800
0.250
0.500
-0.800
Ad =
0.550
Design load
(kN/m2)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.850
0.920
-0.800
The normal roof pitch for portal frame structures in the UK is in the
range 5-15. In this range it is unlikely that the roof will be
subjected to wind pressure throughout the span. Hence, all three
combinations to Equation 6.14b must be considered.
Now consider the same example, but removing the load condition
of pressure on the roof the load combinations of Table 5.2a
emerge.
Table 5.2a: Load combinations for the serviceability limit
state (no uniform roof pressure)
Load (kN/m2)
Equation 6.14b
Qk =
0.600
0.600
0.000
Wk (suction)
= -0.800
0.000
-0.800
Ad =
0.550
0.000
0.000
Design load
(kN/m2)
0.600
-0.800
The designer must be aware of the possible number of wind load

cases to be considered, the above matrix simply presents these as
uniform suction or pressure on the roof. In reality the loading
pattern is more complex than this and the following procedure may
be of use.
Suggested procedure:
1. Carry out an elastic analysis for each individual serviceability
load case.
2. Identify the wind case for maximum suction on the rafter. (This
is generally longitudinal wind with internal pressure)
The relevant factors are given in Table 5.1 above.

With the following loading,
Gksup = Dead load + Service load
Gkinf = Dead load

Qk
Wk
Ad
= Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.6

kN/m2)
= Wind load 5 load cases, 2 of which can be discarded

after SLS analysis
= Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition)
if the typical load cases that were considered for the serviceability
limit state are now considered for ultimate limit state with the
following possible load combinations result:
6.10
6.10a
6.10b
1.35Gksup + 1.50Qk + 0.00Qk

+ EHF
1.35Gksup + 1.50Qk + 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
1.00Gkinf + 0.00Qk + 1.50Wk (suction) + EHF
1.35Gksup + 1.05Qk + 0.00Wk
+ EHF
1.00Gkinf + 0.00Qk + 0.75Wk (suction) + EHF
1.25Gksup
1.25Gksup
1.25Gksup
1.00Gkinf
+ 1.50Qk + 0.00Wk
+ 1.50Qk + 0.75Wk (pressure)
+ 1.05Qk + 1.50Wk (pressure)
+ 0.00Qk + 1.50Wk (suction)
+
+
+
+
EHF
EHF
EHF
EHF
Accidental
6.11b 1.00Gksup + 0.00Qk + 0.00Wk + 1.00Ad + EHF
Note that, as recommended in Section 5.1 of this guide, imposed load is

being considered in combination with wind, and that if the snow load were
to exceed 1.4 times the imposed loading, then the factor of 1.05 (with 0 =
0.7) currently applying to the imposed loading would become 0.75 (with 0
= 0.5) applying to the snow loading. Each of the above load combinations
should be analysed with the relevant equivalent horizontal force, noting that
the equivalent horizontal force is 0.5% of the vertical reaction at the column
base and therefore includes the self weight of any cladding carried by the
column, as well as the effects of the wind. The above ultimate limit state
load combinations are implemented in the design example started earlier for
the serviceability limit state. Substituting the loadings for the example into
these equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.3. The
bold figures identify the critical load combinations, assuming that the
designer will opt for Equations 6.10a and 6.10b at ULS.
23
Table 5.3a: Simplified ULS load combinations (no uniform

roof pressure)
5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal

Gksup = Dead + Service load = 0.283 + 0.150
= 0.433 kN/m2
Gkinf = Dead
= 0.283 kN/m2
Qk
Wk
Ad
= Imposed
= 0.600 kN/m2
Equation 6.10b 0.541

0.283
= Wind load:
Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2;
Wind suction = -0.800 kN/m2

= 0.550 kN/m2
Table 5.3: ULS load combinations

Load
(kN/m2)
Equation 6.10
Gksup =
0.433
Gkinf =
0.283
Qk = Wk (pressure)
0.600
= +0.500
Wk (suction)
= -0.800
Ad =
0.550
0.630
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Design
load
(kN/m2)
0.900
0.900
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.375
0.750
-1.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.485
1.860
1.965
-0.917

0.541
0.541
0.283
0.900
0.900
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.375
0.750
-1.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.441
1.816
1.921
-0.917
BS5950-1:
0.000
0.000
0.375
-0.600
0.100
0.550
1.40 Gk + 1.60 Qk = 1.566 kN/m2

1.00 Gk - 1.40 Wk = -0.837 kN/m2
1.20 (Gk + Qk + Wk) = 1.840 kN/m2
1.215
1.590
-0.317
1.083
Notes:
1. No reduction in loading can be applied on the basis of area since such
reduction only applies to roofs with access.
2. For shallow pitched portals there is no pressure on the whole rafter and
since suction will reduce the total load it must not be included if the most
onerous design combination is to be considered.
Portal frame designers will generally set out to provide the most
economic frame solution and, given the choice of 6.10 or 6.10a
and 6.10b the design loads to be considered in 6.10 are more
onerous and therefore are likely to be ignored. It would appear
that there are more combinations to consider if we apply 6.10a and
6.10b but, by observation, 6.10b combinations are more onerous
than those of 6.10a, other than for a high ratio of dead to imposed
load (see Section 3.1) which is particularly unlikely for this form of
construction.
As shown in Figures 5.1, positive pressure on the whole roof does
not occur for normal portal frame roof pitches. If this pressure is
removed from the example, the design loads in Table 5.3a result.
24
Qk =
0.600
Wk (suction)
= - 0.800
Ad =
0.55
0.630
0.000
0.750
-1.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.550
Design
load
(kN/m2)
1.921
-0.917
0.983
5.3 Portal frames with cranes
0.585
0.585
0.585
0.283
Equation 6.10a 0.585

0.585
0.283
Gksup =
0.433
Gkinf =
0.283
Load
(kN/m2)
The inclusion of one additional imposed load type increases the

number of possible load combinations since each imposed load
type has to be considered as the leading or main accompanying
variable action in turn. The introduction of a crane also increases
the horizontal loads (both transverse and longitudinally) to be
carried by the structure as the crane will generate horizontal surge
loads as it lifts and moves loads around. The cranes load Qkc
considered below may therefore have both vertical and horizontal
components. The vertical loads are modified by dynamic factors
taken from Table 2.2 of EN 1991-3:2006.
5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design
Gkinf = Dead load
Qk
Qkc
Wk
Ad
= Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than

0.6 kN/m2)
= Crane load (vertical load (including crane self weight)

and horizontal surge load)
= Wind load (generally suction) - three load cases
(accidental load condition)
Other combinations are possible, but those that are most likely to
provide the critical design condition are as follows:
6.14b
1.00Qk
0.70Qk
0.70Qk
0.00Qk
+
+
+
+
1.00Qkc
1.00Qkc
1.00Qkc
0.00Qkc
+
+
+
+
0.50Wk
0.50Wk
1.00Wk
1.00Wk
(pressure)
(pressure)
(pressure)
(suction)
5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with

overhead crane
Consider the 25 m span portal frame of the previous example with
a 24 m span, 5 tonne electric overhead crane. Maximum wheel
loads = 40 kN, minimum wheel loads = 12.5 kN. The derivation of
the maximum and minimum reactions is shown for vertical loads,
but is also applicable to the horizontal loads. How the horizontal
loads are transferred to the main structure is dependent on the
number of flanges to the wheels supported by the crane rail. If the
wheels are double flanged, the horizontal load may be shared
between the two crane rails; if the wheels are single flanged, then
the horizontal loads are applied to just a single crane beam. The
TYPICAL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
magnitude of the horizontal load is dependent on factors particular

to each project.
Assume that the crane is supported centrally on bogies with a
3.6m wheel base. If one wheel is positioned directly on the line
of the portal, the second wheel is 3.6m into the span and hence
the maximum reaction to the portal is 1+2.4/6.0 = 1.4 times the
wheel load.
Maximum reaction to portal from simply supported crane beams =
1.4 x 40 = 56 kN,
Minimum coincident reaction = 1.4 x 12.5 = 17.5 kN.
5.3.3 Ultimate limit state (STR)

The number of load combinations again increases because of the
addition of the load from the crane. The individual load cases are
as follows:
Gkinf = Dead load

Qk
Qkc
Wk
Ad
Figure 5.3: Typical clear span portal frame with travelling

overhead crane
Gksup = Dead + Service load
= 0.283 + 0.150
= 0.433 kN/m2
Gkinf = Dead
= 0.283 kN/m2
Qk
Qkc
Wk
Ad
= Imposed load
= 0.600 kN/m2
= Max / min crane wheel loads

= 56.0 / 17.5 kN
= Wind load: Wind pressure
Wind suction

= 0.550 kN/m2
= 0.500 kN/m2;
= -0.800 kN/m2
Substituting the loadings for the example into these equations

yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.4. The bold and
shaded figures identify the critical load combinations.
Table 5.4: SLS load combinations
Load
(kN/m2)
Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design
Qkc =
0.600
= +0.500
0.550 load
56.0/
Wk (suction)
(kN/m2) 17.5kN
= -0.800

0.420
0.420
0.000
0.250
0.250
0.500
-0.800
0.000 0.850 56.0 / 17.5

0.000 0.670 56.0 / 17.5
0.000 0.920 56.0 / 17.5
0.000 -0.800
0.000
= Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.6

kN/m2)
= Crane load (vertical load on columns with horizontal
surge loads)
= Wind load (generally suction) three load cases, at least

one of which can be discarded after SLS design
= Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition)
When each load combination is considered with respect to

Equations 6.10, 6.10a, 6.10b and the accidental condition the
following combinations result:
[For the accidental combinations, 2 = ratio of the permanent
crane action and the total crane action = 50/125 = 0.40 (Clause
A.2.3 from EN 1991-3 Annex A)].
6.10
1.35Gksup
1.35Gksup
1.35Gksup
1.35Gksup
1.00Gkinf
+
+
+
+
+
6.10b
1.25Gksup
1.25Gksup
1.25Gksup
1.00Gkinf
+
+
+
+
1.50Qk + 1.50Qkc + 0.00Wk (suction) + EHF

1.50Qk + 1.50Qkc + 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
0.00Qk + 0.00Qkc + 1.50Wk (suction) + EHF
6.10a
1.35Gksup + 1.05Qk + 1.50Qkc + 0.00Wk (suction) + EHF
1.35Gksup + 1.05Qk + 1.50Qkc + 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
1.00Gkinf + 0.00Qk + 0.00Qkc + 0.75Wk (suction) + EHF
1.50Qk
1.05Qk
1.05Qk
0.00Qk
+
+
+
+
1.50Qkc
1.50Qkc
1.50Qkc
0.00Qkc
+
+
+
+
0.00Wk
0.75Wk
1.50Wk
1.50Wk
(suction) + EHF
(pressure) + EHF
(pressure) + EHF
(suction) + EHF
Accidental 6.11b
Gksup + 1.00Ad + 0.00Qk + 0.40Qkc + 0.00Wk (pressure) + EHF
5.3.4 ULS design example for a single span portal with
overhead crane
Substituting the loadings for the example into these equations
yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.5. The bold
figures identify the critical load combinations.
25
Table 5.5: ULS load combinations
Load
(kN/m2)
Equation 6.10
Gksup =
0.433
Gkinf =
0.283
Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design
0.600
= +0.500
0.550
load
Wk (suction)
(kN/m2)
= -0.800
Qkc =
56.0/
17.5kN
0.585
0.585
0.585
0.585
0.283
0.900
0.900
0.630
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.375
0.375
0.750
-1.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.485
1.860
1.590
1.965
-0.917
84.0 / 26.25
84.0 / 26.25
84.0 / 26.25
84.0 / 26.25
0.00

0.541
0.541
0.283
0.900
0.630
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.375
0.750
-1.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.441
1.546
1.921
-0.917
84.0 / 26.25
84.0 / 26.25
84.0 / 26.25
0.00
Equation 6.10a 0.585

0.585
0.283
Equation 6.11b
0.433
0.433
0.630
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.375
-0.600
0.000
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.550
0.550
1.215
1.590
-0.317
0.983
1.083
84.0 / 26.25
84.0 / 26.25
0.000
50.4 / 15.75
22.4 / 7.0
Notes:
1. Transverse wind load cases will cause suction on the roof but will also cause the portal
to sway. SLS will identify the load case for maximum sway.
2. EHF to be applied in the same direction as the horizontal surge.
3. Frame may naturally sway therefore important to ensure that the surge load is applied
in two alternative directions to find the natural sway and ensure that the EHF does not
prop the frame.
26
6 . Re fe r e n ce s
[1]
Steel Building Design: Introduction to the Eurocodes, SCI

Publication P361, The Steel Construction Institute, 2009.
[2]
Steel Building Design: Concise Eurocodes, SCI Publication

P362, The Steel Construction Institute, 2009.
[3]
Brown, D. G., King, C. M., Rackham, J. W. and Way, A.

(2004).Steel Building Design: Medium Rise Braced Frames.
SCI Publication P365. The Steel Construction Institute, 2004.
[4]
Brettle, M., Currie, D.M. (2002) Snow loading in the UK and

Eire: Ground snow load map. The Structural Engineer (Vol;
80, Issue: 12).
[5]
Cook, N. (2007). Designers Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode

1: Actions on structures, general actions - Part 1-4. Wind
actions. Thomas Telford Ltd.
[6]
Wind loading on buildings, BRE, Digest 436, The Building

Research Establishment, 1999.
[7]
Gulvanessian, H., Calgaro J.-A. and Holick, M. (2002).

Designers Guide to EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Structural
Design. Thomas Telford Publishing.
[8]
Boissonnade, N., Greiner, R., Jaspart, J. P. and Lindner, J.

(2006). Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1
Background documentation and design guidelines. ECCS
Publication No. 119. ECCS Technical Committee 8 Stability.
[9]
Roof loads due to local drifting of snow, BRE Digest 439, The
Building Research Establishment, 1999.
[10] Guide to evaluating design wind loads to BS 6399-2: 1997,

SCI Publication P286, The Steel Construction Institute, 2003.
27
Eurocode Load Combinations

for Steel Structures
B C S A P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 5 3 /1 0

Load Combinations Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Load Combinations Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocode Load

Euro code Loa d

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited (BCSA)

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Multi-storey buildings Simple construction

Chapter 6 is a list of references where further guidance on

Chapter 1 gives a brief introduction to EN 1990 Basis of design

Serviceability Limit State Single span portal frame

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Implementation of the structural Eurocodes is underway. The

1.2 Introduction to EN 1990

EN 1990: Eurocode Basis of structural design is the primary

Seismic design situations, which refer to conditions where the

1.3 Introduction to EN 1991

EN 1991 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures comprises four parts,

EN 1991-1 is sub-divided into seven sub-parts, which provide

Densities, self weight and imposed loads

EN 1991-1-1 is similar to BS 6399-1 and, since most structural

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

EN 1991-1-4, covering wind loading, is different to previous UK

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

ISO 2394 (1998) General principles on reliability for structures

EN 1990 provides a basic list of terms and definitions which are

Rules applicable only to buildings

Attention is drawn to the following key definitions, which may be

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

2.3 Symbols (Greek letters)

Reduction factor for area

Factor for combination value of a variable action

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

3.1 Ultimate limit states

Combinations of actions are defined in Clause 6.4.3 of EN 1990 for

G,jGk,j + PP + Q,1Qk,1 + Q,i0,iQk,i

G,jGk,j + PP + Q,1 0,1Qk,1 + Q,i0,iQk,i

implies to be combined with

Ignoring prestressing actions, which are generally absent in

Permanent actions Gk,1, Gk,2,

The latter may be characterised as either main or other

Persistent and Permanent actions

1.5 Qk,1 1.50,i Qk,i

Table 3.2: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using

Persistent and Permanent actions

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Table 3.3: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using

1.35Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf

1.5 Qk,1 1.50,i Qk,i

The factor that appears in Equation 6.10b of EN 1990 is a

Imposed loads in buildings, category

Category A: domestic, residential areas

Category B: office areas

Category D: shopping areas

Category C: congregation areas

Category F: traffic area, vehicle weight 30 kN 0.7

Category G: traffic area,

for sites located at altitude H > 1000 m

Wind loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-4)

for sites located at altitude H 1000 m

Temperature (non fire) in buildings

Gk, j + P + Qk,1 + 0,iQk,i

The frequent combination is given by Equation 6.15b of EN 1990

Gk, j + P + 1,1Qk,1 + 2,iQk,i