## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

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

to the best of our knowledge. at the address given below. commercial. The principal objectives of the Association are to promote the use of structural steelwork. Associate Members are those principal companies involved in the direct supply to all or some Members of components. professional offices. The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited. materials or products. educational establishments etc.steelconstruction.steelconstruction. Whitehall Court.org Website: www. 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 Ltd. Westminster. Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634 Email: postroom@steelconstruction. to ensure that the capabilities and activities of the industry are widely understood and to provide members with professional services in technical. as permitted under the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988. contractual. this publication may not be reproduced. or in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate Reproduction Rights Organisation outside the UK. overall industry efficiency and good practice. London SW1A 2ES Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634 Email: postroom@steelconstruction. Publications supplied to members of the BCSA at a discount are not for resale by them. 4.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. fabrication and erection techniques. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publishers. Although care has been taken to ensure. 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. fabrication and erection of steelwork for all forms of construction in building and civil engineering. 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. The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd. which support the development of national specifications. Whitehall Court..org Website: www.org Publication Number First Edition 53/10 December 2010 The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited (BCSA) is the national organisation for the steel construction industry: its Member companies undertake the design. Corporate Members are clients.org 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 2 . 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 4. London SW1A 2ES Tel: +44(0)20 7839 8566. Westminster. The Association’s aim is to influence the trading environment in which member companies have to operate in order to improve their profitability. quality. quality assurance and health and safety matters. to assist specifiers and clients.

The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd. particularly on inaccuracies and ambiguities.2 concentrates on the load combinations for simple construction while section 4.steelconstruction.3 identifies the differences between simple and continuous construction. It is intended to update this publication and BCSA would appreciate any observations. 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.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 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. Reduction factors for the number of storeys and floor area are also described together with pattern loading and overturning. simple braced frame. P. These values are based on the recommendations given in the UK National Annex for EN 1990. easy to understand explanations are given.org This publication was prepared by: Dr L. or proposals on alternative approaches or on any other matters which should be included in future editions. 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. 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 3 . J. 4. The Eurocodes have a preference for mathematical formulae over tables and graphs and some of the explanations are brief. Chapter 3 gives a comprehensive description of the load combinations for both the Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States. Information is given on frame classification (i. frame imperfections and the use of the equivalent horizontal force (EHF) (a general approach that replaces imperfections with a system of notional horizontal forces).e. This challenge is not technical but primarily one related to the way the information is presented and the terminology used in the Eurocodes. braced or unbraced). Chapter 4 sets out the load combinations for both simple and moment resisting frames. 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. Section 4. Gardner Imperial College Mr. London SW1A 2ES Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634 Email: postroom@steelconstruction. Chapter 2 is a list of abbreviations.org Website: www. Westminster. Whitehall Court. 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. definitions and symbols and again simple. The presentation and terminology used in the Eurocodes are very different to that found in British Standards such as BS 5950.

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 4 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . 24 5. . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Serviceability limit states . . . . . . . . 19 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Dead loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. . . . . . 22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5. . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . .1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10b with αcr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 with αcr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. . .2 SLS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . .1 Classification of frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . 14 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Ultimate limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . 15 4. . . . . . . . . 10 3. . . . . . . . . . 14 4. . . . . . . . . . .2 SLS design example for a single span portal . . . .1. 8 2. . . . . . . . .Wind loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6. . . . . . . . . . 22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . 12 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . 24 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Braced frames (simple construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Symbols (Greek letters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . .EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES C on t e n t s 1. . . . . .4 ULS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. . . . . . . .10b with αcr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3. . . . . . . . . . .3 Frame imperfections and second order P-Δ effects . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. .2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.4 Example . . 8 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . .10 with αcr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. . . 27 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Introduction to EN 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.7 Overturning . . .3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . 19 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Snow loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10a and 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . 12 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Second order (P-∆) effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 SLS load combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal forces (EHF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . .4 ULS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . .4 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Moment resisting frames (continuous construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Portal frames with cranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFINITIONS AND SYMBOLS . . . . . .4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (αn) and floor area (αA) . . . . . . . . . .2 Introduction to EN 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 General . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . 22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .10a and 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . .5 Pattern loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Portal frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Combinations of actions for all structures are set out in EN 1990. EN 1991-1-3 is used to determine snow loads and. but high magnitude. Immediate differences may be observed in the preference for mathematical formulae over tables and graphs. these have generally been referred to as live loads in previous British Standards. which are values left open by the Eurocode for definition by the country in which the building is to be constructed. EN 1991-1-4 and EN 1991-1-7 being of particular relevance to this publication. that all relevant design situations must be examined. such as during execution (construction) or repair. and it benefits from better analysis of the latest data from the metrological office [4].1. while the latter concerns the functioning and appearance of the structure and the comfort of people. as permanent. which refer to conditions of normal use. Design situations are classified as follows. EN 1991-2 and EN 1991-4 are not relevant to this publication. such as explosions and impacts. explosion or impact. which refer to exceptional conditions such as fire. 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. such as imposed loads. is very similar to BS 6399-3. as given in Table 1. the former being associated with the safety of people and the structure. which had isopleths. The snow map in the UK National Annex is zoned with altitude adjustments. the first two being the ‘fundamental’ ones: • Persistent design situations.1(1) of EN 1990. • Transient design situations. which refer to temporary conditions. Further guidance on applying the Eurocodes to steel and composite structures is given in [1]. 6 . which provide designers with most of the information required to determine each individual action on a structure. • Seismic design situations. Classification by variation with time is important for the establishment of combinations of actions. This section provides a brief introduction to the code.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. the change to EN 19911-1 will be relatively straightforward. Variable actions (Q) are those that can vary with time.3 Introduction to EN 1991 EN 1991 Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures comprises four parts. when read with the UK National Annex to EN 1991-1-3. wind loads and snow loads. follow the equation numbering of EN 1990. 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. The primary challenges are perceived to be related not to the technical content. • GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground. EN 1990 considers ultimate and serviceability limit states. [2]. which refer to conditions where the structure is subjected to seismic events. • FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members. but rather to the presentation and terminology of the documents.2. checks should be carried out for the following. since most structural designers are familiar with this document. Table 1. these have generally been referred to as dead loads in previous British Standards. • Accidental design situations. although some of the terminology is unfamiliar.1: Parts of EN 1991 EN 1991 Part EN EN EN EN 1991-1 1991-2 1991-3 1991-4 1. In the context of structural steelwork in buildings. EN 1991-1-3. as opposed to that in BS 6399-3. 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. Equation numbers employed in this guide. Accidental actions (A) are usually of short duration. Each Eurocode document is accompanied by a National Annex. such as the self-weight of a structure and fixed equipment. since this is very different to that found in existing UK structural design codes. Table 1. • STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural members. in Section 3. I n t ro d u ct i o n 1. variable or accidental. In Clause 4. [3]. with EN 1991-1-1.1. brevity of explanations and axis conventions. For ultimate limit states. as relevant: • EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of the structure. The National Annex contains nationally determined parameters (NDPs). 1. actions (imposed loads and deformations) are classified by their variation with time. unless prefixed by the letter D.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 1 . The seven sub-parts are given in Table 1. 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.1 Background Implementation of the structural Eurocodes is underway.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. EN 1990 also emphasises. Permanent actions (G) are those that essentially do not vary with time.

or maybe a stripped down version. is different to previous UK codes in that the basic wind velocity is based on a 10-minute mean wind speed. but most designers will adapt quickly to the changes. as opposed to the hourly mean wind speed in BS 6399-2 and the 3-second gust of CP3-V-2. covering wind loading. may be used as a source of non-conflicting. but it is anticipated that the British Standard. 7 . normal use). The term topography has been replaced by orography. There are a number of perceived omissions [5] from the Eurocode when compared to BS 6399-2.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES EN 1991-1-4. this is consistent with the guidance given in BRE Digest 436 [6]. but open during severe wind storms as an accidental design situation.e. EN 1991-1-4 requires that elective dominant openings are considered to be closed for the persistent design situation (i. complementary information [5].

the inspection and documentation thereof. Co-existence: Eurocodes being in force in parallel with national codes. not a mandatory requirement – see normative. bearing capacity. Most of the definitions given in the Eurocodes derive from: • 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 EN 1990 provides a basic list of terms and definitions which are applicable to all the other Eurocode parts.2 Definitions Attention is drawn to the following key definitions. when followed. it may also signify the fabrication of components off site and their subsequent erection on site. Informative: For information. 8 . Alternative design rules may be adopted. or imposed deformation to which a structure is subjected (e. 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. satisfy the principles. Clauses not marked ‘P’ are application rules which. magnitude and direction of the loads (loading pattern). but for a short duration on each occasion. temperature effects or settlement). 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. shear forces and deformations caused by actions. A b b re v i at i o n s .g.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 2 . Frequent: Likely to occur often. Persistent: Likely to be present for most of the design life. Application rules: Clauses marked ‘P’ in the Eurocodes are principles. Action: A load. having the force of a Standard. Load arrangement: Identification of the position. which must be followed. The term covers work on site. Application rules make up the bulk of the codes and give the values and formulae to be used in the design. This section has been provided to help to explain some of the key abbreviations. This is an essential supplement without which the Eurocode cannot be used.g. 2. Design resistance: The capacity of the structure or element to resist the design load. Characteristic: The typical value of a parameter to be used in design. Capacity: The ability to conform to a limit state. National Annex: The document containing nationally determined parameters (NDPs). Combinations of actions: The combination of different sources of load acting simultaneously for the verification of structural reliability for a given limit state. Normative: Mandatory. NDPs: Values left open in a Eurocode for definition in the country concerned.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 Execution: All activities carried out for the physical completion of the work including procurement. bending moments. 2. Conformity: Compliance with standards. Effects of actions: Internal moments and forces. e. Non-Contradictory Complementary Information: Permitted additional information and guidance. Load case: Compatible loading arrangements considered simultaneously Load combination: See ‘Combinations of actions’. thus ensuring a common basis for the structural Eurocodes. definitions and symbols used in the structural Eurocodes. Fundamental combinations: Combinations of actions for the persistent or transient design situations. Fatigue: A mode of failure in which a member ruptures after many applications of load.

Quasi-permanent action: An action that applies for a large fraction of the design life. 2. Quasi-: Being partly or almost. αcr = Fcr/FEd) Partial factor Partial factor for permanent actions Partial factor for variable actions γ (gamma) γG γQ ψ (psi) ψ0 ψ1 ψ2 Σ (sigma) ξ (xi) 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 9 . Reference period: Any chosen period.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES Principles: Clauses marked ‘P’ define structural performance that must be achieved. Transient: Likely to be present for a period much shorter than the design life but with a high probability of occurring. Quasi-static: The static equivalent of a dynamic action. Verify: Check the design output to make sure it complies. Reliability: The mathematical probability of a structure fulfilling the design requirements.3 Symbols (Greek letters) α (alpha) αA αn αcr The following Greek letters are used in EN 1990 and this document: 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. but generally the design life.e.

6.10 Gkj. For each of the selected design situations. Table 3.9 Gkj. the provisions of the code are explained and presented in a format that is more familiar to UK engineers.1 ψ0. 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.10b need be considered for strength (STR) verifications. This guide focuses on the fundamental combinations.3 of EN 1990 for the four design situations: persistent.3. which requires explanation.1Qk.1Qk.inf 1.5ψ0. They are presented not simply as a series of multiplication factors to be applied to the various loading components. • Permanent actions Gk. Qk. The load combination expressions.1 (2) of EN 1990 states that actions that cannot occur simultaneously.10a) (6. unless it is clearly not a critical combination. In Sections 4 and 5 of this guide.10 1.1 “+” i>1 γQ.10 1.4. and no further distinction will be made in this guide.2: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using Equation 6.1 to 3. are provided below: Tables 3.sup 1.sup 0. accidental and seismic.2(A) and (B) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990.0 Gkj.g.inf 1.5 Qk. These tables are based on Tables NA. Gk. generally referred to as load combinations.iψ0. since the recommended value (Eurocode and UK National Annex) of both γQ.iψ0. such as piles and footings (which are not considered in this guide).e.g.j “+” γPP “+” γQ. are set out for all structures in Clause 6. in turn.2.10a and 6. 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. only Equation 6.1: Design values of actions for equilibrium (EQU) Σ γG.1(4) of EN 1990 a distinction is made between favourable and unfavourable actions.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 3 .A1.j “+” γPP “+” γQ. though it should be noted that Equations 6.5ψ0.1 1. Clause 6. Gk > 4. 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 Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable situations action actions Eq.j “+” γPP “+” γQ.jGk.1 “+” Σ γQ.10a and 6.1 and γQ. … The latter may be characterised as either ‘main’ or ‘other’ accompanying variable actions.2(C) relates to any verifications involving geotechnical actions. as they appear in Eurocode.10b) Σ γG. discussed below is a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G.1 1.i is 1.sup should be used when that action is unfavourable.10b will provide more favourable combinations of actions (i. should not be considered together in combination.2(A) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990 applies to verification of static equilibrium (EQU) of building structures.iQk.i j≥1 i>1 (6.2 of EN 1990.3 set out values for the partial factors (γG and γQ) for permanent and variable actions.5 Qk. Note that Table NA.35 Gkj. in which case they are assigned a partial factor γQ of zero.i Qk. Furthermore. though combinations of actions for accidental design situations are also considered in Section 5 for portal frames.4.10 10 .10 of EN 1990 or from Equations 6. Table NA.1 • Accompanying variable actions Qk.i (0 when favourable) Ignoring prestressing actions.A1. This idea is considered in more detail in Reference [7] with a continuous beam example.10 may be applied. However.5Qk). in separate load combinations.i Table 3. As stated in EN 1990.3.A1. assessing sliding or overturning as a rigid body). For verifying equilibrium (e.jGk. For permanent actions.iψ0.i Qk. transient. each variable action should be considered as the leading variable action.1.4. for example due to physical reasons.3. which are generally absent in conventional steel structures. no distinction is needed in practice. the upper characteristic (superior) value Gkj. only Equation 6.10) (6.e. but instead in an unfamiliar algebraic format.inf should be used when that action is favourable. unless there is an unusually high ratio of dead load Gk to imposed load Qk (i. final usage of complete structure) and transient (e.1 Ultimate limit states Combinations of actions are defined in Clause 6. 3.1Qk.10b. In general.1 “+” Σ γQ.iQk. This clause allows the designer to consider a permanent action as either favourable or unfavourable. each of the combination expressions contains: Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable situations action actions Eq. … • A leading variable action Qk. In clause 6.5. main accompanying variable actions being factored by γQ.iQk.2.e. The UK National Annex has elected to allow the use of either approach. construction) design situations are referred to as fundamental combinations. effectively excluding them.1 and other accompanying variable actions being factored by γQ. Combinations of actions for the persistent (i. and the lower characteristic (inferior) value Gkj.A1. and Table NA. lower load factors). All variable actions should generally be present within a load combination unless they have a favourable influence. C om bi n at i o n s o f a ct i o n s Combinations of actions.2(B) applies to the verification of structural members (STR) in buildings. 6.i j≥1 i>1 where “+” Σ ψ0 ξ γG γP γQ P implies ‘to be combined with’ implies ‘the combined effect of’ is a combination factor.i Σ j≥1 Σ ξγG.i.jGk.

1 1. and may also wish to consider whether the frequent combination is applicable.4: Values of ψ factors for buildings ψ0 0. 30 kN < vehicle weight ≤ 160 kN Category H: roofs Snow loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-3) – for sites located at altitude H ≤ 1000 m above sea level – for sites located at altitude H > 1000 m above sea level Category F: traffic area.5 0.4 of EN 1990. j “+” P “+” ψ1. Σ Gk. shrinkage.2 Serviceability limit states For serviceability limit states. these factors are the same as those recommended in Table A1. Table 3.5 for wind loading. Selected values of ψ0 from the UK National Annex are given in Table 3.7 ψ1 0.10a Eq.5 0 0.35Gkj.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES Table 3.7 0.14b of EN 1990 and is normally used for irreversible limit states. Σ Gk.14b) The frequent combination is given by Equation 6.4.iQk.1 of BS EN 1990.7 0.3 0. The ξ factor that appears in Equation 6. ψ0 is 0 for imposed loading on roofs and 0.6 for wind loading on buildings in EN 1990. j “+” P “+” i>1 ψ2. and all others (i>1) are simply ‘accompanying’. The basis for employing the characteristic combination is that excessive deflections may cause permanent local damage to connected parts or finishes (i. Values for ψ factors for buildings in the UK are given in Table NA.0 Gkj.3 and A1.2.6 0. which are similar to those given in BS 5950.4.i 1. 6. Three groups of combinations are identified: characteristic. frequent and quasipermanent. residential areas 0.16b of EN 1990 and is normally used for reversible limit states where long term effects are important (e.10b is one of three ψ factors (ψ0.5ψ0.7 0. guidance on combinations of actions is given in Clauses 6.0 Gkj.10a and 6. relaxation or creep).iQk.10b the most significant variable action is termed the ‘leading variable action’.10b Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable situations action actions Eq. ψ factors are discussed in Section 4.6 0.inf 1.e.1.8 0.iQk.1 “+” i>1 ψ2. category (see EN 1991-1-1) Category B: office areas Category C: congregation areas Category D: shopping areas Category E: storage areas Category A: domestic.0 0.i Qk. Category G: traffic area.1 “+” i>1 ψ0.7 0.5ψ0.23 and NA.15b of EN 1990 and is normally used for reversible limit states including excessive temporary (elastic) deformations or vibrations. ψ1 and ψ2) used in EN 1990.7 0.10b of EN 1990 is a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G.sup ξ×1.2.1Qk.5 0.5 Qk.5.i Σ j≥1 (6.7 for imposed loading on roofs and 0.7 0. 6. permanent loads should not be included).10b 1. In general.3: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using Equations 6.3 of EN 1990.35 to 1.3 0 0. but only feature in serviceability or accidental combinations. such as permanent local damage or permanent unacceptable deformations. even though the steel members themselves will generally remain elastic.10a and 6.5 0. The UK National Annex sets the ξ factor equal to 0.6 The UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 (Clauses NA.i 3.25.7 0. but with some exceptions.3 Σ Gk.i Qk.i Σ j≥1 (6. whereas in applying Equation 6.A1. The combination factor ψ0 that appears in each of Equations 6.7 0.10a all vaiable actions are termed ‘accompanying’ (the largest of which is the main ‘accompanying action’). Deflection limits are also provided.i Σ j≥1 (6.10.10b the effect is to reduce the overall factor from 1.7 0.925. This is rarely applicable for steel structures.16b) Action Imposed loads in buildings. The designer may also wish to check total deflections.inf 1. j “+” P “+” Qk. In applying Equation 6.g.sup 1. whereas the UK National Annex gives values of 0.1 of EN 1990.35 Gkj.5 0. vehicle weight ≤ 30 kN 0. irreversible limit states).e.5 ψ2 0. When combined with γG in Equation 6.24) states that vertical and horizontal deflections may be checked using the characteristic combination with variable loads only (i.5 0. For example.6 0.2 0. Values of ψ1 and ψ2 from the UK National Annex are also provided in Table 3.2 0 0 0 Temperature (non fire) in buildings (see EN 1991-1-5) Wind loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-4) 11 .7 1.15b) The quasi-permanent combination is given by Equation 6. 6.9 0. The purpose of ψ0 is to take account of the reduced probability of the simultaneous occurrence of two or more variable actions.2 0. The characteristic combination is given by Equation 6.

0.2. or making allowance for second order effects by performing a second order structural analysis enabling and accounting for deformation of the structure under load.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. beams and roofs and for the design of columns and walls. Eurocode load combinations for multi-storey buildings are set out. and EHF ignored – this would more oftern apply to low rise buildings. for a frame to be classified as ‘braced’. equivalent horizontal forces were only required in the vertical load case.s t or e y b u i l di n g s In this section. Concerning the lateral load resisting system. 12 . M u l t i . Conversely. it should contain a bracing system with lateral stiffness of at least five times that of the unbraced frame [8].1.1. specific guidance and examples for simple and moment resisting frames is provided in Sections 4. reduction factors for imposed loads may be applied for the design of floors. As a guide.1.1: Summary of analysis methods and treatment of second order effects αcr > 10 First order analysis Result Second order effects ignored 4. account for second order effects is made by amplifying all lateral loading on the structure (typically wind loads and EHF) by a factor. For the design of individual floors.2. For each storey. differences in treatment often arise due to differences in sway stiffness.2(5) of EN 1993-11).2 and 4. the designer is presented with a number of options. second order (P-Δ) effects need not be considered provided the frame is sufficiently stiff (i. 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. in the Eurocodes it is deemed that since frame imperfections are inherently present. load combinations are the same for both types of structure. they should be included in all ULS load combinations. if αcr is greater than 10. These include enhancement of the stability system such that αcr is raised above 10 and hence second order effects may be ignored. member interaction etc.e. However.1.1.1 General 4. A simplified means of determining αcr for regular frames is also given in Equation 5.4 of EN 1993-1-1).2 of EN 1993-1-1. If horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads (VEd) these Limits on αcr Analysis method 10 > αcr > 3 αcr < 3 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.3. kr = 1 1-1/αcr (D4. General guidance for both simple and moment resisting frames is given in Section 4.1 Classification of frames Structural frames may be classified with regards to their lateral load resisting system and sway stiffness.1. Adequate sway stiffness is important because it limits the lateral deflections of the frame and hence controls second order (P-Δ) effects. and similarly. respectively.e. Whereas in BS 5950. However. In cases where αcr is less than 10. referred to as notional horizontal loads in BS 5950. making allowance for second order effects by approximate means (amplified sway method or effective length method. is the so called ‘amplified sway method’. Second order effects are discussed further in Section 4.3 Second order (P-Δ) 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. Sway stiffness is assessed in EN 1993-1-1 in a similar way as it is in BS 5950.3. which may be applied provided that αcr >3. sway deformation under the design loading is relatively small) – this is deemed to be the case for elastic analysis when αcr > 10. Regardless of the frame type.4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (αn) and floor area (αA) As the number of storeys in a building increase.1.5%). As outlined in Section 4. 4. sway imperfections may be disregarded. the EHF may be calculated as the design vertical load for that storey (not the cumulative vertical load) multiplied by 1/200 (i.1 (Equation 5. It should be noted that if αcr is less than 3. a frame may be regarded as either braced or unbraced. for plastic analysis of clad frames when the additional stiffening effect of the cladding has been neglected. which will be the case in braced simple construction. In this method. the likelihood that all floors will be loaded to the full design level decreases. Bracing systems using wire ties (as opposed to open or hollow sections) may result in the frame being classified as ‘unbraced’. through the αcr parameter (equivalent to λcr in BS 5950). then an accurate second order analysis must be performed (Clause 5. To reflect this. second order effects may no longer be ignored. large floor areas will seldom be subjected to the full design loading uniformly. The EHF should be determined separately for each load combination since they depend on the level of design vertical loads. if αcr is less than 10. Depending on the height of the structure and the number of columns in a row. since.1) 4.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 4 . The aforementioned is summarised in Table 4. reductions to this basic value of 1/200 are possible. the more general approach is to replace this geometric imperfection with a system of equivalent horizontal forces (EHF). according to the UK National Annex.2(3) of EN 1993-1-1. and hence. Table 4.3. in principle. as detailed in Clause 5.1. Sway stiffness is commonly achieved through the provision of a suitable bracing system or by utilising the inherent bending resistance of a rigid frame.1. Similarly.1(3) of EN 1993-1-1). EHF are not required in SLS load combinations. the sway stiffness is deemed sufficiently large for second order effects to be ignored. This appears entirely rational. both of which were allowed in BS 5950). referred to in the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 as kr. 4. which is related to the sway stiffness of the structure through Equation D4.

Revised expressions are provided in the UK National Annex (Clause NA. as in all ULS combinations. two adjacent spans carry the design permanent and variable load (γGGk + γQQk) while all other spans carry only the design permanent load ( γGGk).1. Reduction factors αA for imposed loads on floors and accessible roofs are provided in Clause NA.1(b).1. the overturning load combination is given by Equation D4. the reduction factor αn for the number of storeys may be applied. 4.1 of EN 1991-1-1).3 to D4. When the imposed load is an accompanying action. If.6 Dead loads In load combinations.3) (D4. Thus.6 and Equation NA.1.2.2.2).1.5 Pattern loading For the design of floors within one storey and for the design of roofs.3. and may be applied to the total imposed load being carried. EN 1991-1-1 Clause 6.6.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1). These reduction factors may be applied to the total imposed load experienced by a given column.5 αn = 1.1. In Figure 4.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES beams and roofs. γGGk γGGk + γQQk Storey under consideration (b) Applies to support (hogging) moments for 5 < n ≤ 10 for n > 10 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. and replace those given in Clause 6.2) (a) Applies to span (sagging) moments Reduction factors αn for imposed loads from several storeys used for calculating column forces are defined in Clause 6.1 – n/10 for 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 (D4.5) where A is the area (m2) supported. though the storeys other than the one under consideration may be assumed to be uniformly loaded (Clause 6. alternative spans carry the design permanent and variable load (γGGk + γQQk) while other spans carry only the design permanent load ( γGGk).inf characteristic values should be considered where sensitivity to variability in dead loads is very high (Clause A1.0 – A/1000 ≥ 0. 4. the area reduction factor αA may be applied.9 is applied to the dead load (where it is contributing to the restoring moment) and factor of 1. The reduction factor αn relates to the number of floors supported by the column section under consideration.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 4.3.2. For the overturning load case. It is generally appropriate to consider only a single value for dead loading. but not both. as given by Equations D4.5 is applied to the wind load. but these are not factored (again) since they are already based on factored loading.1(a) and (b). a factor of 0.6). the total self-weight of the structure and nonstructural components should be taken as a single action (Clause 3.2 of EN 1991-1-1.2(10) of EN 1991-1-1. for a given column or wall. but may only be employed when the imposed load is the leading variable action in a load combination.5 of the UK National Annex to EN 1991-1-1 (see Equation D4.2. Permanent roof loads and floor loads may therefore be treated as a single action Gk in load combinations.10 of EN 1990 should be applied. αA < αn.4) (D4. 4.sup and lower (inferior) Gk.2. 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. In Figure 4. αA = 1. then αA may be used in place of αn.5 below.1(a). but the concept of upper (superior) Gk.2. The wind load has been denoted Wk in this document. The two loading patterns indentified in Clause AB. Equivalent horizontal forces are included. either ψ0 or αn may be applied.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1).75 Figure 4. αn = 0.7 Overturning Overturning of a structure as a rigid body is independent of its lateral load resisting system and sway stiffness.1: Pattern loading for continuous floor beams γGGk γGGk + γQQk Storey under consideration (D4.1(1) states that pattern loading should be considered for continuous construction.6 αn = 0.2(11) and by Equation 6.1 of EN 1990). respectively.2). It is solely a matter of equilibrium (EQU).3. as the leading variable action. for which only Equation 6. but αA and αn may not be used together (Clause NA. 13 . For the design of columns and walls. Pattern loading need not be considered for simple construction.

wind load is considered as the leading variable action with a load factor of 1. The imposed load therefore has a load factor of zero for the uplift case. For column design. given by Equation D4. as discussed in Section 4.5Wk “+” EHF (D4. there are a number of advantages associated with simple construction. which is in turn dependant on the loading FEd on the structure.2.5. Assuming wind load to be favourable leads to the load combination given by Equation D4. Note.1.13) 4. whilst the wind load is reduced by a combination factor ψ0 of 0.10.5Wk “+” EHF 1.1.35Gk “+” 1.10.5Qk “+” 0. Note that the imposed load reduction factors may only be applied in combinations where the imposed loading is the leading variable action (Equation D4.35Gk “+” 1.8) 4. attracting a load factor of 1.7) (D4. Otherwise.8. the wind load is the leading variable action.10 with αcr > 10 For frames with αcr > 10.1.35Gk “+” 1.14 is the same as D4.35Gk “+” 1. whilst Equation D4. thus attracting a combination factor ψ0 = 0.5. Assuming all loads to be always unfavourable (i. arising from asymmetric loading) will be multiplied by kr (Equation D4. for example where uplift results in reduced columns loads. 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.10b with αcr > 10 Employing Equations 6. three load combinations arise when all loads are assumed to be unfavourable. the EHF may be calculated as 0.5Qk “+” 0. so.13. 14 .11 will only govern on the rare occasions where the dead load is significantly larger than the imposed load.14. For the uplift combination.7 would generally govern the design of the beams and columns. load combinations will be the same as those defined in Section 4. whichever is the more beneficial.5. to give a load factor = 0.5% (with some scope for reduction) of the load on each storey. second order effects must be considered.5 = 0.5 × 1. arise from Equation 6. be designed in isolation.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES As noted in Section 4.75Wk “+” EHF 1.5 (to give a load factor = 0.1).10a and 6. This may be avoided by appropriate reconfiguration of the bracing system in order to increase the sway stiffness of the structure and hence ensure αcr ≥ 10. imposed load is assumed to be the leading variable action and hence attracts a load factor of 1. that the EHF should be determined separately for each load combination. A bracing system will typically be employed to resist the horizontal loading. given by Equations D4. In Equation D4.10 or Equations 6. though note that columns forming part of the bracing system will also attract axial forces arising from the horizontal loading (wind loads and EHF).1 The wind load itself may also be favourable.2 (D4.11 to D4.2 Braced frames (simple construction) forces or moments).25Gk “+” 1.11) (D4.1. Note that kr is derived from αcr. where imposed load is clearly favourable since it opposes the uplift. In Equation D4. for the design of the beams.9) In terms of ease of analysis and design. causing a reduction in member 1. The imposed load in Equation D4.7. though this may be uneconomical.2.10b.7 (applicable in all cases except for storage areas).7 may be reduced by the area reduction factor αA. 1.9Gk “+” 1.3 Equation D4.7 × 1.e.2. ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.12) (D4. For αcr < 3.1). 1.5).2. which applies to snow loading (at altitudes of less than 1000 m).75Wk “+” EHF (D4. Equation D4. showing that the uplift load combination is the same whether derived from Equation 6.8. Pattern loading need not be considered for column design (see Section 4.2 of this guide.5 = 1.11 arises from Equation 6. largely. kr should be determined separately for each load combination. and adopting the same approach as described in Section 4.7).10 with αcr < 10 For frames with αcr < 10. whilst the dead load has a load factor of 1.05Qk “+” 1. 0. as described in Reference [5].10b of EN 1990. given by Equation D4. In this case.25Gk “+” 1. two basic load combinations. The structural members can. as given by Equations D4. 1. account must be made of second order effects. the most common of which is the amplified sway method.5Wk “+” EHF Of the above three combinations. It is assumed throughout this section that imposed loading on the roofs of multi-storey buildings will be greater than the snow loading.75Wk “+” EHF (D4. A good example of this is the uplift case.0.10a and 6.12 and D4.6) 4. as for EHF. an accurate second order analysis is required. rather than ψ0 = 0.g.9.10b. Note that Equation D4.e. the imposed load may be reduced by the reduction factor for number of storeys αn (that the column under consideration is supporting) or the reduction factor for area αA.10a where all variable actions are reduced by the combination factor ψ0.2. and have a lower dead load factor of 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4. and are thus dependant upon the load combination being considered.00Gk “+” 1.8 would be expected to be more critical for the bracing members. while Equations D4.7 and D4.75). ULS load combinations based on Equation 6. Other load combinations arise by considering that the variable actions may be favourable (i.5Qk “+” EHF 4.10) ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.5.25 due to the introduction of the ξ factor (see Section 3. except that all horizontal loads (Wk + EHF) and other possible sway effects (e. This results in Equation D4.13 emerge from Equation 6.05).1. Note that Equation D4.9. causing an increase in member forces or moments).1. 1. whilst for regular frames with αcr ≥ 3 approximate methods to allow for second order effects may be employed.05Qk “+” 0.10a and 6.7.05Qk “+” 1. thus the imposed load is reduced by a combination factor ψ0 of 0. and the imposed load is absent since it is favourable.2. second order effects need not be considered.

The deflection limits of The following example illustrates application of the above load combinations (from Equations 6. Qkf = imposed load on floors. If the amplified sway method is employed.10a and 6.16 reduces simply to Equation D4. lateral forces are shown per braced frame.e. Equation D4. SLS load combinations are given by Equations D4.e.00Qk “+” 0. 1.e.16) (D4. Frames are spaced at 6 m centres and every third frame is braced (in the configuration shown in Figure 4.15. For moment resisting frames. 4.11 is unlikely to govern except in cases of an unusually high ratio of dead to imposed loading. except that all horizontal loads (wind and equivalent horizontal forces) and other sway effects are multiplied by the factor kr. it is recommended that these load combinations (Equations D4. when αcr < 10.15.4 Vertical deflection Cantilevers Limit Beam carrying plaster or other brittle finish Table 4.2: Vertical deflection limits Equations D4. or for cases where wind load is favourable (e. (D4.15 all emerging from Equation 6.11 to D4.2.3. there is interaction between the members and this simplification may not generally be made. the wind favourable case results in Equation D4. The characteristic combination is defined by Equation 6.00Qk (D4.00Gk “+” 1. Unbraced (moment resisting) frames are also generally less stiff laterally than braced frames. However. This results in five load combinations given by Equations D4.16 (where imposed load is taken as the leading variable action) and D4.1.14b of EN 1990.7 to D4.19.e. suction on a roof may reduce deflections). as for simple frames. For the equilibrium check only. which.15 represent the four basic load combinations for multi-storey frames.10b) to a simple braced frame.00Wk (D4.11 to D4. The general case considered is set out in Figure 4.2.2.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 1.12 to D4. It is assumed that αcr > 10. 4. where the loads shown are unfactored (characteristic values). permanent loads should not be included).2 and 4. checking vertical deflections under unfactored imposed loading only). Throughout the remainder of the example.5Qk “+” EHF (D4. which are the same as those given in BS 5950. Gkf = permanent actions on floors.10 (Equations D4. where the leading variable action is unfactored (i.2.2. checking horizontal deflections under unfactored wind loading only).10a and 6. EHF have been calculated on the basis of 1/200 of the total vertical load for each storey.2). the members can essentially be designed in isolation. Wk = wind loads.11 to D4.5 Wk “+” EHF 1. Equation D4.10b with αcr < 10 As described in Section 4.19) Deflection limits are also provided in the National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 in Clauses NA.17 and D4.2. together with overturning and restoring moments.3: Horizontal deflection limits Horizontal deflection In each storey of a building with more than one storey Length/180 Span/360 Span/200 Other beams (except purlins and sheeting rails) ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.19. so second order effects are neglected.19 (i.16 to D4. It is therefore recommended that. taken as its characteristic value) and all accompanying variable actions are reduced by the combination factor ψ0. second order effects must be considered.3 Moment resisting frames (continuous construction) Assuming all loads to be unfavourable.10b. as noted in Section 4. 4.2.4 Example 15 .10b) be used in preference to those arising from Equation 6.25Gk “+” 1. 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.18 (i. For economy.2.2 is load combination dependant.50Wk (D4.18) For cases where the influence of vertical loading on horizontal deflections is deemed insignificant.g. Table 4.5 SLS load combinations As outlined in Section 3. are shown per frame.00Wk “+” 0. the structure is not statically determinate.70Qk For cases where the influence of horizontal loading on vertical deflections is deemed insignificant.10a and 6. This is most likely to be the case in Equations D4. 1. lateral forces. Limit Height of that storey/300 As 4.14) Similarly. and are therefore more likely to require consideration of second order effects.2.17) For the case of simple braced frames.15. the ULS load combinations for moment resisting frames be based on Equations 6. Imposed load reduction factors have not been considered.2 are equally applicable to moment resisting frames. 1. 4.23 and NA. the basic load combinations derived for simple frames in Section 4. are presented in Tables 4.17 (where wind load is taken as the leading variable action).17 reduces to Equation D4.2 if horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads (VEd) the EHF can be ignored. of which D4. 1.24. Qkr = imposed load on roof. The following notation is used: Gkr = permanent actions on roof. the resulting SLS combinations are given by Equations D4. or for cases where vertical loading is favourable. load combinations will be the same as those given in Equations D4.15) relevance to multi-storey buildings.10).

0 kN/m qEd = 59.2 kN Wind = 43.75Wk “+” EHF qEd = 35.7 kN FEd = 1715.13 qEd = 30.5: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation D4.2: Unfactored loading on example frame Wk = 0.1 kN FEd = 1577.3: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation D4.05Qk “+” 1.6 kN Wind = 87.9 kN/m qEd = 71.7 kN EHF = 16.7 kN EHF = 19.6 m 6m 6m 6m 3.3 kN/m qEd = 71.1 kN FEd = 257.9 kN EHF = 19.4 kN Wind = 21. 1.5 Qkf = 5 kN/m2 kN/m2 Gkr = 3.5 kN Figure 4.5 kN EHF = 15.7 kN EHF = 15.75Wk “+” EHF qEd = 36.3 kN/m qEd = 71.7 present the total factored design loading on the structure arising from the five load combinations defined by Equations D4.0 kN FEd = 1807.2 kN Wind = 43.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES Figure 4.7 kN Figure 4.11 EHF = 9.05Qk “+” 0.5Wk “+” EHF qEd = 30.0 kN/m qEd = 59.5 kN (tension) Figure 4.1 kN Wind = 43.63 kN/m2 Gkf = 3.4: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation D4.8 kN/m qEd = 57.7 kN/m2 Gkf = 3.9 kN/m qEd = 59.2 kN/m2 Design loading in key members: Roof design UDL External column Bracing Floor design UDL Internal column (unbraced frame) Internal column (braced frame) Figures 4.0 kN/m qEd = 57.6 m 3.5 kN FEd = 1287.25Gk “+” 1.3 kN/m FEd = 752.7 kN EHF = 19.9 kN FEd = 246.9 kN/m qEd = 59.6 m Gkf = 3.35Gk “+” 1.7 kN EHF = 16.5 kN/m2 EHF = 10.5 kN/m2 Qkf = 5 kN/m2 Wk = 0.5Qk “+” 0.9 kN/m External column FEd Bracing FEd Internal column FEd EHF = 8.2 kN Wind = 43.0 kN/m qEd = 57.2 kN Wind = 43.1 kN (tension) 16 .5 kN EHF = 15.8 kN/m FEd = 609.9 kN/m qEd = 71.1 kN (tension) Design loading in key members: Roof design UDL External column Bracing Floor design UDL Internal column (unbraced frame) Internal column (braced frame) 1.12 qEd = 36.25Gk “+” 1.5 kN/m2 Qkf = 5 kN/m2 3.9 kN/m FEd = 643.6 kN Wind = 87. respectively.0 kN Wind = 21.15.2 kN Wind = 43.9 kN EHF = 16.5 kN/m2 Qkr = 1.8 kN/m qEd = 57.6 kN Wind = 87.8 kN/m External column FEd Bracing FEd Internal column FEd Design loading in key members: Roof design UDL External column Bracing Floor design UDL Internal column (unbraced frame) Internal column (braced frame) 1.3 to 4.8 kN FEd = 1219.6 m Wk = 0.7 kN qEd = 35.11 to D4.0 kN FEd = 1504.3 kN/m External column FEd Bracing FEd Internal column FEd 3.2 kN FEd = 421.2 kN Wind = 43.

0 kN FEd = 920.0 kN FEd = 1616.0 kN FEd = 79. Figure 4.3 kN/m qEd = 21.13 (1.2 kN Wind = 29. as does the maximum external column load and the maximum internal column load (for the unbraced frames in the structure).3 kN/m qEd = 71.05Qk “+” 1.2 kN qEd = 30.12 (1.7 kN (tension) Wind = 14.7 kN Wind = 87.0 kN/m FEd = 235.5Qk “+” EHF).7 kN EHF = 5.5Qk “+” 0. The maximum force in the bracing members results from Equation D4.25Gk“+” 1.8: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.14 EHF = 4. respectively.5 kN FEd = 1521.6 kN Wind = 29.8 kN/m qEd = 71.2 kN Wind = 0. For the case considered (Figure 4.3 kN/m External column FEd Bracing FEd Internal column FEd Summary of SLS loading: 1.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES Figure 4.16 to D4.1 kN Wind = 43.3 kN/m FEd = 760.0 kN FEd = 470.15 (1.0 kN/m Lateral SLS load at roof level Lateral SLS load at levels 1.11.0 kN/m Design loading in key members: 1.8 kN/m Wind = 0. the maximum design UDL on the roof and floors arise from Equation D4.75Wk “+” EHF). as defined by Equations D4.16 qEd = 7.25Gk “+” 1.3 kN/m qEd = 21.0 kN EHF = 19.0 kN/m qEd = 21.25Gk “+” 1.5 kN EHF = 5.25Gk “+” 1.3 kN/m qEd = 71.0 kN/m External column FEd Bracing FEd Internal column FEd From Figures 4.2 kN Wind = 0.2 kN FEd = 381.7: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation D4.2).3 to 4.8 kN (tension) 17 .6: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation D4.2 kN Wind = 0.1 kN/m HEd = 14.7.5Wk “+” EHF).7 kN qEd = 39.1 kN/m qEd = 30.2 kN Wind = 29.15 EHF = 10.5Qk “+” EHF Roof design UDL External column Bracing Floor design UDL Internal column (unbraced frame) Internal column (braced frame) qEd = 39.00Qk “+” 0.2 kN Figure 4.0 kN/m qEd = 30.0 kN qEd = 71.0 kN EHF = 19.0 kN/m qEd = 21.5 kN EHF = 5.5Qk “+” EHF Roof design UDL External column Bracing Floor design UDL Internal column (unbraced frame) Internal column (braced frame) qEd = 15.0 kN EHF = 19. while the maximum internal column load (for the braced frames in the structure) arises from Equation D4.00Gk “+” 1.6 kN HEd = 29.8 to 4.19.0 kN/m qEd = 30. are shown in Figures 4. Serviceability load combinations.7 kN Wind = 87. 2 and 3 Design loading in key members: 1. it may be seen that the maximum loadings in different members often arise from different load combinations.7 kN Wind = 87.5 kN qEd = 15.5Wk Roof SLS UDL Floor SLS UDL qEd = 7.

17 (1.0 kN/m qEd = 30.0 kN HEd = 0.9 kN/m Summary of SLS loading: 1.6 kN EHF = 1.12.7 kNm M = 11330 kNm 18 .0 kN/m qEd = 30.9 kN/m qEd = 18.3 kN qEd = 21.5 kN/m qEd = 21.2 kN EHF = 1.0 kN/m HEd = 0.3 kN Wind = 58.0 kN/m qEd = 21.3 kN Lateral SLS load at roof level Lateral SLS load at levels 1. illustrated for the example frame in Figure 4.0 kN Wind = 0.2 kN EHF = 1.6. 2 and 3 Figure 4.3 kN Figure 4.7 kN Wind = 29.8 kN/m qEd = 0.9 kN/m qEd = 18.10: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.0 kN/m From Figures 4.0 kN/m HEd = 29. 2 and 3 but at roof level Equation D4.7 kN Wind = 29. and Equation D4.17 Wind = 29.8 to 4.00Qk Roof SLS UDL Floor SLS UDL qEd = 9.2 kN Wind = 14.9: SLS loading arising from Equation D4. EHF = 1.0 kN/m Summary of SLS loading: 1.0 kN/m qEd = 21.00Wk “+” EHF) governs.00Wk “+” 0.2 kN Wind = 58.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES Figure 4.2 kN HEd = 58.0 kN Wind = 0. For checking against overturning (EQU).3 kN Wind = 58. are shown per frame in Figure 4.2 kN HEd = 58.9Gk “+” 1.0 kN/m Wind = 29.7Qk Roof SLS UDL Floor SLS UDL qEd = 2.0 kN qEd = 9.19 qEd = -3.0 kN qEd = 30.5 kN/m HEd = 29.2 kN Wind = 58.12.10 may be applied.11: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.12: Loading per frame for EQU overturning check qEd = 13.0 kN/m qEd = 0.0 kN/m Summary of SLS loading: 1.2 kN Figure 4. only Equation 6. 2 and 3 Lateral SLS load at roof level Lateral SLS load at levels 1.11 it may be observed that Equation D4.00Qk “+” EHF) is critical for vertical deflections of the beams.0 kN Wind = 0. together with the overturning and restoring moments.00Qk “+” 0.0 kN/m qEd = 30.18 Wind = 0.8 kN/m qEd = 0. resulting in the load combination given by Equation D4.0 kN/m Lateral SLS load at roof level Lateral SLS load at levels 1.0 kN/m qEd = 0.00Wk Roof SLS UDL Floor SLS UDL qEd = -3.3 kN qEd = 2.5Wk “+” EHF Overturning moment per frame Restoring moment per frame M = 893.3 kN Wind = 58.3 kN Wind = 58.7 kN Wind = 29. Note that loads.18 (1.7Qk “+” EHF) governs for horizontal deflections of the frame at levels 1. 2 and 3 Equilibrium assessment: 0.19 (1.2 kN/m qEd = 18.

2 0.5 1.0 ψ0 0. Snow loads and wind loads are site specific and are influenced by the geometry of the structure and its orientation.9 ψ1 Although industrial buildings can be designed to support mezzanine floors and cranes.2 (1) of EN 1991-1-1 states that on roofs. 5.1 presents the ψ factors that are relevant to portal frame design.e. orientation etc.1. The majority of portal frames have roof pitches of 5°. irrespective of the actual site wind pressures.1d and 5. 2. The self weights of false ceilings over intermediate floors are often also treated as service loads. the snow load would have to be greater than 1.6 kN/m2.0 Gkc/(Gkc+Qkc) 0.1: ψ factors relevant to portal frame structures Imposed loads on roofs Wind loads 0. Designers who have been working with BS 6399-2 will find the approach for determining wind pressures very similar although some terminology has changed. greater than 0. Snow loads are determined by reference to EN 1991-1-3 and its UK National Annex. The UK National Annex confirms this in clauses NA. may result in significantly lower roof loading (in combination with wind) than is used in current UK practice.1c. it is possible to determine the critical load cases.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.1e have been produced for portal frames with these roof pitches and present overall pressure coefficients.0 0.1d and 5. the snow load simply needs to exceed the imposed load to become critical. Figures 5. and (2) that imposed load and wind load should not appear together in any given load combination. Figures 5.4 times the imposed load (i. Table 7. Clause 3. 6° or 10°.7). then it is only this lesser value that would be applied in combination with the wind load. altitude. the pressure and force coefficients depend only on the external shape of the structure. 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.4 and NA. which.85.3 and 7.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 5 . 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.1.2.4a of EN 1991-1-4 cannot be used for roof coefficients. service loads. The second implication is that for cases where the snow load is less than 0. general actions part 1-4.2 0. 5. most portal frames. Service loads tend to be ‘project specific’ but a nominal value of around 0. Although wind pressures vary depending on site location.Wind loading Wind actions are defined as variable fixed actions. The first implication is in line with current practice in the UK. 19 . In Table 5.1.e. to comply with the requirements of Clauses 5. By looking at the overall pressure coefficients. for roofs that are not accessible except for normal maintenance and repair. Given the different combination factors for snow and imposed loading. Wind actions” [2] is very important in explaining the limitations of the new European Standard.2.84 kN/m2) to be critical in the wind (leading) plus imposed or snow load combination. depending on geographical locations. Wind loads are determined by reference to EN 1991-1-4 and its UK National Annex. ‘Classification of actions’. The basis for this clause is that it would be unreasonable to consider that maintenance would be undertaken in severe weather conditions. External pressure coefficients for the walls have been extracted from Table 7. coupled with the fact that the combination factor for snow loading (ψ0 = 0. snow loads are classified as variable fixed actions unless otherwise specified in the code. the loading would typically be taken as the larger of an imposed load of 0.1b have been included to show the intermediate steps required to arrive at the figures in 5.Snow loading In Section 2 of EN 1991-1-3. instead. 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. the UK National Annex directs us to use Table 10 of BS 6399-2. imposed loads or snow loads and wind loads. For buildings with h/d ≤1. where.1e. Gkc = permanent crane action and Gkc + Qkc = total crane action (from Clause A. they are primarily loaded by their self weight. 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 1.5 0. although some extended expressions have been shown. imposed loads and snow loads or wind loads should not be applied together simultaneously. In this section it also states that exceptional snow loads and exceptional snow drifts may be treated as accidental actions.3. The same value of 0.2.0 0. The concept of ψ factors was introduced in Section 3 and Table 5. Where the imposed load or snow load is the leading variable action. the imposed loads and snow loads are not applied simultaneously).6 kN/m2 or the snow load (i.2. The publication “Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. the external wind forces on the windward and leeward faces are multiplied by 0.1a and 5.5 and also states that Annex B should be used to determine the drifted snow load case.6 kN/m2 is also recommended for roof slopes less than 30º in Table NA.3 of EN 1991-3 Annex A).5) is lower than that for imposed loading (ψ0 = 0.25. Similar intermediate steps have not been included for Figures 5.7 of the UK National Annex to EN 1991-1-1. 0. In d u s t r i al bu i l d i n gs 5.0 ψ2 Snow loads at altitude less than or equal to 1000 m Crane loads 5. This implies (1) that snow load and imposed load should not appear together in any given load combination. but designers might also like to refer to Reference [5].1c.2 of EN 1991-1-4 two addition factors must be applied to the external force coefficients: 1.1 of EN 1991-1-4 assuming an h/d ratio ≤ 0.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 .1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 . Once the basic external coefficients have been established.1 General Table 5.7 0.

6 -0.255 -0. the primary condition for wind loading on the roof is suction.34 -0.1b: 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 .3 -1. -0.6 0.3 -0.3 / +0.1a: External Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 5° roof pitch The above coefficients are now modified by the 0. Within the range of coefficients are the values -0.595 -0.255 Transverse Wind 1 Transverse Wind 1 0.3 0. 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.8 Longitudinal Wind 1 -0.51 -0.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES In recent years internal pressures of -0.34 -0. the internal pressure coefficients are now derived from Figure 7.6 -0.2 used traditionally by UK engineers.595 0.0 -0. for the range of roof pitches considered.2 0.8 Longitudinal Wind 1 -1.6 -0. The resulting diagrams show that. This may still be appropriate for large storage buildings with no windows and doors primarily in one face.0 0.85 and cscd factors to give: Transverse Wind 2 Figure 5.255 Transverse Wind 2 Figure 5. However. These values have been used in the derivation of the overall force coefficients.3 / +0.02 0.8 -0.7 -0.255 -0.13 of EN 1991-1-4 and are based on relative wall porosity.4 -0.6 -0.7 0.4 -0.8 -0.3 -0.0 have been adopted by many portal frame designers.

72 -0.8 -0.455 Internal pressure 0.54 -0.71 0.045 -0.2 -0. Transverse wind 2a causes maximum sidesway.85 -0.3 0.22 Internal pressure 0.02 0.85 Internal pressure 0.006 -0.7 x 0.693 -0. Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction.089 -0.255 0.04 -0.85 -0.58 x 0.193 -0.5 0.3 x 0.0 0. However.3 -0.595 0.14 -0.255 -1.455 Transverse Wind 1 -1.255 0.595 0. The above coefficients are typical for internal transverse portal frames in a building.8 -0.1c: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 5° roof pitch Transverse Wind 2a Figure 5.589 -0.2 Longitudinal Wind 1 -0. 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.8 -0.2 -1.2 -0.595 -0.455 Transverse Wind 2 0.8 -1.255 -0.489 -0. local effects must be included.395 Internal pressure 0.895 Internal suction -0.686 0.395 -1.389 -0.16 x 0.595 0.389 -0.395 Internal pressure 0.506 -0. For final design.255 -0.34 -0.089 -0.395 Internal pressure 0.0 0.8 Longitudinal Wind 1 -0.51 -0.1d: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 6° roof pitch Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof.0 -0.183 Transverse Wind 1a -0.3 0.0 -0.85 -0.306 -0.055 -0.02 x 0.0 Internal suction -0.2 -0.045 -0.21 0.895 -0.85 0.255 Internal suction -0.3 0.6 -0. Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof. Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction.186 0.85 -0.3 0.51 -0.34 -0.017 0. but also for the design of secondary components such as purlins.895 0.0 0.8 -1. side rails and claddings.006 -0.045 Transverse Wind 2a Figure 5.3 0.3 Pressure shown as positive values Suction shown as negative values 21 .36 x 0.3 0.8 -1.595 0.41 x 0. Towards the ends of the structure more onerous coefficients are applicable.3 Internal suction -0.506 -0.306 -0.2 -0.02 0.0 -0.595 0.493 -0.595 0.6 -0.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES The same process can be applied to a portal with 6° roof pitch to give: -0.0 -0.255 0.04 -0.85 -0.41 x 0.6 -0.6 -0.85 -1.317 Transverse Wind 2 -0.255 0. not only for the design of frames.986 -0.85 -0.8 -1.34 -0. Key Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.455 -0.2 -0.34 -0.045 Transverse Wind 1a 0.36 x 0.895 Transverse Wind 1 -0. Transverse wind 2a causes maximum sidesway.

85 -0.1 x 0.6 kN/m2) Wind load .7 x 0.895 0.65 -0.2. the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 (Clause NA. 1.15 Pressure shown as positive values Suction shown as negative values Figure 5.045 Transverse Wind 2a Key Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.85 0.2: Typical clear span portal frame Dead load: Cladding Purlins (0.150 kN/m2 0.85 0.455 -0.55 -0.10 factor to allow for rafter haunches) 0.625 -0.595 0.125 -0.8 m maximum centres.2.8) Rafter (0.1 / 6.54 × 1.8 -1.085 0. Transverse wind 2a causes maximum sidesway.14b 0.0 Longitudinal Wind 1 -0. The structure is assumed to be clad with composite sheeting supported by purlins and side rails at 1.383 -0.85 0.8 -0.71 -0.2 SLS design example for a single span portal Consider a 25 m span portal frame. as discussed in Section 3.3 0.895 -0. Additional considerations for cranes are introduced in Section 5.045 Transverse Wind 1a 0.00Qk “+” 1.00 x 0.425 -0. Subject to a number of geometrical restraints.00Wk (suction) “+” EHF Figure 5.25 factor to allow for purlin sleeves) (1. (1.083 -0.00Wk (pressure) “+” EHF 0.255 6. 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: Gksup Gkinf Qk = = = = = Dead load + Service load Dead load Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.6 x 0.1.21 -0.1e: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 10° roof pitch 5.71 -0. -1.9) allows that second order effects may be ignored in the plastic design of portal frames under gravity loading only provided αcr ≥ 5. 5.281 kN/m2 1.595 0.283 kN/m2 22 5.255 Combinations of actions for portal frames are considered in this Section.583 -0.3.70Qk “+” 1.395 -0.032 kN/m2 0.583 -0.85 -0.45 x 0.0) Dead load on slope Slope factor (6° slope) Dead load on plan Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof.2 Transverse Wind 1 -0.three load cases as identified earlier Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition) Internal suction -0.21 -0.5 x 0.1.595 -0. 6 m to eaves and in 6 m bays with a 6° roof pitch.385 Internal suction -0.2 and 4.1 Serviceability limit state design For the serviceability limit state.255 0.046 × 1.00Qk “+” 0.51 -0.383 -0.85 0.2 -1. Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction.083 -0.65 -0.51 -0.3 -0.2.0055 0.85 -0.3 x 0.2 Portal frames Internal pressure 0.05 5.2.099 kN/m2 0. The serviceability limit state is treated first since this is likely to govern the design of this form of construction.1.25/1.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES -0.3 of this publication.85 -0.85 Internal pressure 0.50Wk (pressure) “+” EHF 0.51 -0. For more information on this and P-∆ effects refer to Sections 4.3 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 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.0 more general approach is to apply equivalent horizontal forces (EHF).2 -0.395 -1.115 Internal pressure 0.455 Wk Ad Transverse Wind 2 0. The .85 -0.383 -0.

35Gksup “+” 1.000 0. Accidental 6.25Gksup 1.550 Design load (kN/m2) 0. This is likely to be transverse wind with pressure on the windward slope and suction on the leeward slope.6 kN/m2) = Load from snow build-up or drift = 0.10 or 6.25Gksup 1.800 Gkinf = Dead load Qk Wk Load (kN/m2) Equation 6.75Wk (pressure) “+” 1. The values of the EHF will vary with the load combination and may. 5.800 Ad = 0.2.05Qk “+” 0.550 Design load (kN/m2) 0.25Gksup 1.00Qk “+” 1.00Qk “+” 0.1 above. In this range it is unlikely that the roof will be subjected to wind pressure throughout the span. 5.11b 1.000 0.50Wk (suction) + EHF 1.1 of this guide. be ignored.50Qk “+” 0. If frame is unsymmetrical in any way the designer should apply the wind load in the direction to maximise the sway effect.600 kN/m2 = Wind load: Wind pressure = 0.2: Load combinations for the serviceability limit state Qk = 0.600 0.000 0.000 0. and that if the snow load were to exceed 1. Table 5.50Qk “+” 0. In reality the loading pattern is more complex than this and the following procedure may be of use. noting that the equivalent horizontal force is 0.10b Equation 6. Now consider the same example.800 0.00Ad “+” EHF 23 .50Wk (pressure) + EHF 1.500 kN/m2.05 (with ψ0 = 0. (This is generally longitudinal wind with internal pressure) 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF 1.50Qk “+” 0.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES Gksup = Dead + Service load = 0.15 VEd. Substituting the loadings for the example into these equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.250 0. Identify the wind case for maximum suction on the rafter. Each of the above load combinations should be analysed with the relevant equivalent horizontal force.35Gksup “+” 1.800 0.00Qk “+” 0.5) applying to the snow loading. The relevant ψ factors are given in Table 5.05Qk “+” 1. all three combinations to Equation 6.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) For the ultimate limit state.600 0.10b from EN 1990 are to be considered.10a and 6. Use the wind load cases identified in steps 2 and 3 of this procedure in equation 6.35Gksup “+” 1.283 kN/m2 Qk Wk Ad = Imposed load = 0.850 0.800 Ad = 0. Carry out an elastic analysis for each individual serviceability load case.920 -0. then the factor of 1.75Wk (pressure) + EHF 1. Wind suction = -0.550 kN/m2 Applying the loads for the example to the set of serviceability equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.000 EHF EHF EHF EHF Note that.420 0.10a and 6.05Qk “+” 1.2.00Gksup “+” 0.05Qk “+” 0.1.000 -0. 2.35Gksup “+” 1.00Gkinf “+” 0.600 Wk (pressure) = +0.800 0.00Gkinf “+” 0. as well as the effects of the wind. as recommended in Section 5. 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. The bold figures identify the critical load combinations. Suggested procedure: 1.00Wk + EHF 1. but removing the load condition of pressure on the roof – the load combinations of Table 5.75 (with ψ0 = 0.35Gksup “+” 1.00Qk + EHF 1.50Qk “+” 0. the above matrix simply presents these as uniform suction or pressure on the roof. assuming that the designer will opt for Equations 6. The bold figures identify the critical load combinations.2a emerge. Gksup = Dead load + Service load = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0. as introduced in Section 3.283 + 0.14b to identify maximum displacements.10a 6. Table 5.14b must be considered.4 times the imposed loading.10b at ULS. The above ultimate limit state load combinations are implemented in the design example started earlier for the serviceability limit state.600 -0.2a: Load combinations for the serviceability limit state (no uniform roof pressure) Load (kN/m2) Qk = 0.10 1.00Qk “+” 1.00Wk “+” 1.433 kN/m2 Gkinf = Dead = 0.00Gkinf “+” 1. Equations 6.14b The normal roof pitch for portal frame structures in the UK is in the range 5-15°.50Wk (suction) + + + + 6.500 -0. when HEd ≥ 0.000 Ad = Wind load – 5 load cases.14b The designer must be aware of the possible number of wind load cases to be considered.800 kN/m2 3.3.7) currently applying to the imposed loading would become 0. With the following loading.5% of the vertical reaction at the column base and therefore includes the self weight of any cladding carried by the column.600 Wk (suction) = -0.000 0. imposed load is being considered in combination with wind. Hence.150 = 0.00Wk “+” 1. Identify the wind case that results in the maximum eaves displacement (side sway).50Wk (pressure) “+” 0.75Wk (suction) + EHF 1.500 Wk (suction) = -0. 4.

Maximum wheel loads = 40 kN.000 0.800 0.3: ULS load combinations Load (kN/m2) Equation 6.000 0.3.10b 0. other than for a high ratio of dead to imposed load (see Section 3.921 -0.900 0. 5 tonne electric overhead crane.375 0. Wind suction = -0.6 kN/m2) = Wind load (generally suction) . the horizontal load may be shared between the two crane rails.283 BS5950-1: 0.375 0.11b 0.4 ULS design example for a single span portal Gksup = Dead + Service load = 0.600 kN/m2 Load (kN/m2) Table 5.10a and 6.000 Ad = 0.630 0.000 0.00Qk “+” “+” “+” “+” 1.50Wk 0.150 = 0.215 1.800 0.40 Wk = -0.900 0.917 0.900 0. It would appear that there are more combinations to consider if we apply 6.000 0.5 kN.750 -1.10 are more onerous and therefore are likely to be ignored.00Qkc 1. The crane’s load Qkc considered below may therefore have both vertical and horizontal components. then the horizontal loads are applied to just a single crane beam.70Qk 0.00Qkc 1.600 0.000 0.3a result. No reduction in loading can be applied on the basis of area since such reduction only applies to roofs with access. 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.500 Wk (suction) = -0. 1.000 Notes: 1. If this pressure is removed from the example.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.000 0.550 kN/m2 Table 5.585 0.10a.10a 0.1.000 0.566 kN/m2 1.3a: Simplified ULS load combinations (no uniform roof pressure) Gksup = 0.000 0.10b the design loads to be considered in 6.200 0.283 Equation 6.three load cases = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition) Equation 6.000 0.000 0. 5.541 0.283 + 0.1.3. 2.000 0. As shown in Figures 5.840 kN/m2 0.10b but.0.14b 1.550 = Load from snow build-up or drift = 0.283 5.60 Qk = 1.541 0. 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.00 Gk .00Qkc 0.283 Equation 6. The derivation of the maximum and minimum reactions is shown for vertical loads.200 0.750 -1.20 (Gk + Qk + Wk) = 1.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 5.40 Gk + 1.590 -0.000 0.10 or 6.921 -0.433 0. 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. positive pressure on the whole roof does not occur for normal portal frame roof pitches.750 -1.500 kN/m2.10 Gksup = 0.000 0.485 1.433 kN/m2 Gkinf = Dead = 0.541 0.2.000 0.283 0.585 0.000 0.100 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. by observation.00Wk 1. if the wheels are single flanged.917 1.800 kN/m2 Equation 6.70Qk 0.433 Gkinf = 0.317 1.11b 0.375 -0. 6.541 0.550 Wk Ad = Crane load (vertical load (including crane self weight) and horizontal surge load) Other combinations are possible.433 0. The 24 .200 0.585 0.000 0.50Wk 1.3 Portal frames with cranes Ad = 0. but is also applicable to the horizontal loads.000 0.837 kN/m2 1.983 = Wind load: Wind pressure = 0. minimum wheel loads = 12.000 Qk = Wk (pressure) 0.860 1. the design loads in Table 5.816 1.630 0.10b 0.55 Design load (kN/m2) 1.2 of EN 1991-3:2006. given the choice of 6.00Qkc “+” “+” “+” “+” 0.965 -0. If the wheels are double flanged.10b combinations are more onerous than those of 6.585 0.441 1.550 0.10a and 6.600 Wk (suction) = .433 Gkinf = 0.1) which is particularly unlikely for this form of construction.585 0.630 0. but those that are most likely to provide the critical design condition are as follows: 6.00Wk (pressure) (pressure) (pressure) (suction) Portal frame designers will generally set out to provide the most economic frame solution and.630 0.000 Design load (kN/m2) 1.1 Serviceability limit state design Gksup = Dead load + Service load Gkinf = Dead load Qk Qkc = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.000 0.283 Qk = 0.917 1.000 0.630 0.00Qk 0.283 kN/m2 Qk Wk Ad = Imposed = 0.900 0. 5. The vertical loads are modified by dynamic factors taken from Table 2.083 Equation 6.600 = +0.

00Gkinf “+” “+” “+” “+” 1. Minimum coincident reaction = 1.50Qkc “+” 0.0 / 17.4 x 12.850 56.35Gksup “+” 1.6m wheel base.920 56.50Qkc “+” 0. = -0.800 0.3 Ultimate limit state (STR) The number of load combinations again increases because of the addition of the load from the crane.10b and the accidental condition the following combinations result: [For the accidental combinations.05Qk 1.10.3 from EN 1991-3 Annex A)].150 = 0.00Qkc “+” “+” “+” “+” 0.14b 0.TYPICAL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEELWORK magnitude of the horizontal load is dependent on factors particular to each project.00Wk (pressure) “+” EHF Gksup “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.90Qkc “+” 0. Assume that the crane is supported centrally on bogies with a 3.00Qkc “+” 0.0 / 17.000 -0.00Wk (pressure) “+” EHF Gksup “+” 1.50Qk 1.00Wk (suction) “+” EHF 1.50Qk “+” 1.0 / 17.670 56.5 0.35Gksup 1.420 0.75Wk 1.5 = 17.500 -0.00Wk (suction) “+” EHF 1.35Gksup 1.50Qkc “+” 0.35Gksup 1.10b 1.4 times the wheel load.000 0. ψ2 = ratio of the permanent crane action and the total crane action = 50/125 = 0.25Gksup 1.00Ad “+” 0.25Gksup 1.50Qk “+” 1.550 load 56.00Gkinf “+” 0.500 kN/m2.35Gksup “+” 1. Maximum reaction to portal from simply supported crane beams = 1.0 = 1. at least one of which can be discarded after SLS design Wk Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition) Figure 5.40Qkc “+” 0.6m into the span and hence the maximum reaction to the portal is 1+2.0/ Wk (suction) (kN/m2) 17.35Gksup 1.000 0.420 0.50Qkc “+” 0.4.2.800 0. 6.11b Gksup “+” 1.5. The bold and shaded figures identify the critical load combinations.5kN = -0.283 + 0.00Qk “+” 0.50Wk (suction) “+” EHF (pressure) “+” EHF (pressure) “+” EHF (suction) “+” EHF Substituting the loadings for the example into these equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.00Gkinf “+” “+” “+” “+” “+” 1.3.0 / 17.00Ad “+” 0.6 kN/m2) = Crane load (vertical load on columns with horizontal surge loads) = Wind load (generally suction) – three load cases.5 0.05Qk 0. 0.550 kN/m2 = 0.50Qkc 1.50Wk (suction) “+” EHF Wk Ad = Max / min crane wheel loads = 56.10a 1.20Wk (pressure) “+” EHF 5.00Qk “+” 0.40Qkc “+” 0.600 0.000 Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design Qkc = 0.000 25 .75Wk (pressure) “+” EHF 1.00Qkc “+” 1.10a. Table 5.5 kN = Wind load: Wind pressure Wind suction = Load from snow build-up or drift = 0.4/6.50Qkc “+” 1.00Qk “+” 0. If one wheel is positioned directly on the line of the portal.600 = +0.50Wk (pressure) “+” EHF 0.4 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 5.00Wk 0.433 kN/m2 Gkinf = Dead = 0.50Wk 1.05Qk “+” 1.500 0. 6. 6.05Qk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.3.00Qk “+” “+” “+” “+” 1.283 kN/m2 Qk Qkc = Imposed load = 0.800 Accidental 6.800 kN/m2 6. The bold figures identify the critical load combinations.00Qk “+” 0.4 x 40 = 56 kN.10 1.50Qkc 0.40 (Clause A. The individual load cases are as follows: Gkinf = Dead load Qk Qkc Gksup = Dead load + Service load = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.3: Typical clear span portal frame with travelling overhead crane Gksup = Dead + Service load = 0.75Wk (pressure) “+” EHF 1. the second wheel is 3.250 0.25Gksup 1.000 0.00Qk “+” 0. 5.50Qkc 1.600 kN/m2 When each load combination is considered with respect to Equations 6.5 0.75Wk (suction) “+” EHF 6.250 0.00Ad “+” 0.5 kN.4: SLS load combinations Load (kN/m2) Equation 6.75Wk (pressure) “+” EHF 1.

590 1.0 / 26.4 / 15.0 / 26.433 0.541 0.0 / 26.25 84.000 0.4 / 7.283 0.585 0.215 1.083 Qkc = 56.000 Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design 0.000 0.900 0.585 0.541 0.200 0.0 / 26.25 0.25 0.000 0.317 1.25 84.283 Equation 6.630 0.0/ 17.10 Equation 6.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES Load (kN/m2) Table 5.630 0.585 0.000 0.630 0.585 0.000 0. 2.546 1.441 1.000 0.00 50.600 = +0.25 84.11b Equation 6. EHF to be applied in the same direction as the horizontal surge.000 0.000 0.000 Equation 6.10a 0.000 0.000 1.0 / 26.000 0.375 0.000 0.433 0.25 84.375 0.000 0.000 0.25 84.0 / 26.541 0.917 0.630 0. 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.630 0.750 -1.921 -0.100 0.000 0.25 84. 26 .5kN 84.965 -0.590 -0.900 0.600 0.000 0.860 1.585 0.800 0.000 0.0 / 26.10b 0.485 1.00 84.000 0.000 0.0 / 26.0 Notes: 1.283 0.375 0.000 0.550 load Wk (suction) (kN/m2) = -0.433 Gkinf = 0.283 0.5: ULS load combinations Gksup = 0.75 22.585 0. 3. Transverse wind load cases will cause suction on the roof but will also cause the portal to sway.917 1.983 1.375 -0.900 0.750 -1.550 84. SLS will identify the load case for maximum sway.550 0.200 0.0 / 26.500 0.25 0.630 0.

Wind loading on buildings. 27 . J. Digest 436. Issue: 12). H. King.M. (2004). M. The Steel Construction Institute. 2004. The Steel Construction Institute. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Guide to evaluating design wind loads to BS 6399-2: 1997. N.. M. The Building Research Establishment.. Calgaro J. R.. BRE. Brown. P. SCI Publication P365. J. (2006). SCI Publication P362. J. Steel Building Design: Concise Eurocodes. Cook. The Building Research Establishment.. and Way. Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1 – Background documentation and design guidelines. M.Steel Building Design: Medium Rise Braced Frames. Rackham. 119. Thomas Telford Ltd.-A. The Steel Construction Institute. The Structural Engineer (Vol. Designers’ Guide to EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. and Holický. general actions . and Lindner.EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES 6 . G. 1999. Thomas Telford Publishing. (2002) Snow loading in the UK and Eire: Ground snow load map. 2009. 2003. 2009. SCI Publication P361. ECCS Publication No.. Brettle.. 80. A. Greiner. Gulvanessian. (2007). C. (2002). Boissonnade. BRE Digest 439. The Steel Construction Institute. 1999. D. N.Part 1-4. Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Roof loads due to local drifting of snow. Re fe r e n ce s [1] [2] [3] Steel Building Design: Introduction to the Eurocodes. Jaspart. W. D. Wind actions. SCI Publication P286. ECCS Technical Committee 8 – Stability. Currie.

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

- Eurocode 3 Actions
- Designers-Guide-to-EN1992-1-1-and-EN1992-1-2
- Designers' Guide to en 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3 - Design of Steel Structures
- THE BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES TO EC3 (4th EDITION)
- Steel Design To Eurocode 3 - University Of Sheffield Structural Engineering Masters
- EC3 & EC4 Worked Examples
- Design Aids EuroCode
- Eurocode Guide - Online
- Worked Examples to Eurocode 2
- Eurocode 3
- Eurocode Design Example Book
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 1 - Actions on Bridges
- steel_design
- DESIGN_OF_STRUCTURAL_CONNECTIONS_TO _EUROCODE_3
- How to Design Concrete Structures Using Eurocode 2
- Designers’ guide to EN 1994-1-1 Composite Steel and Concrete
- Load Combination Eurocode
- ECCS Recommendations Simple Joints
- Structural Elements Design Manual-Working With Eurocodes 2009
- Ccip Worked Examples Ec2
- Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
- EuroCode_4
- Steel Structures, Practical Design Studies 2nd - T. J. MacGinley
- Designers' Guide to en 1998
- Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design-General Rules-Guide to en 1997-1
- Ccip Concise Ec2
- Eurocode 3 Simplified
- Eurocode 4 Design Composite Steel Concrete Structures
- Structural Connections according to Eurocode 3.pdf

- Finite Element Analysis of IC Engine Connecting Rod Using Different Materials for Weight Reduction
- As 5100.7-2004 Bridge Design Rating of Existing Bridges
- An Implication of Fatigue Concept on Design of Cement Concrete Pavement and Its Critical Comparison with Other Methods
- tmp18D2
- tmpBB34
- Comparative Study of Effect of Structural Irregularities & Different Types of Bracings in Multistoried Steel Building
- Comparative Study of Seismic Analysis between Conventional RC Frame and Flat Slab with Drop
- Fatigue or Durability Analysis of Steering Knuckle
- IJSRDV3I90285.pdf
- Evaluation of The Performance of Tie Rod Using FEA
- tmpA1D2
- Comparative Study between Precast and Cast In-Situ Structure Under Combination of Dynamic Loads and Connections between Precast Elements
- A REVIEW OF WIND LOAD EFFECTS AND LOAD CALCULATION ON TALL CHIMNEYS
- Load analysis and Multi body dynamics analysis of connecting rod in single cylinder 4 stroke Engine
- Study and Review on the Analyses of Leaf Spring
- Effect of Different Foundation Systems on Response Reduction Factor of R.C.C Frame Type Staging Using Non-Linear Static Push-Over Analysis
- Performance Evaluation and Optimization of Tie rod in Suspension System of Car for a Buckling study using Theoretical and Experimental approach
- Comparative Study of Different Bracing Systems for Irregular High Rise Steel Structure
- Rudolph John Tohan v. Joseph T. Ryerson and Son, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (Custodis Construction Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation). Norman Wilson v. Joseph T. Ryerson and Son, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (Custodis Construction Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation), 265 F.2d 920, 3rd Cir. (1959)
- As NZS 4065-2010 Concrete Utility Services Poles
- Evaluation of Dynamic Response of a Structure When Subjected To Blast Load
- As 5100.2-2004 Bridge Design Design Loads
- AS 4154-1993 General access floors (elevated floors).PDF
- Study on Effect of Wind Load and Earthquake Load on Multi-storey RC Framed Buildings
- Performance Evolution of Tie Rod in Suspension System of Car Using Finite Element Approach
- Analysis of multi storey building with floating column at various locations
- As 3826-1998 Strengthening Existing Buildings for Earthquake
- As 3962-2001 Guidelines for Design of Marinas
- Seismic Performance Study of R.C. Buildings having Plan Irregularity using Pushover Analysis
- Snow Weight

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading