Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eurocode Load Combinations For Steel Structures-2010
Eurocode Load Combinations For Steel Structures-2010
Com binations
for Ste el S truct ure s
B C S A P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 5 3/ 10
Euro code Loa d
Comb inations
for S te el S tructure s
B C S A P u b l i c a t i on N o . 5 3 / 1 0
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
T h e B r it is h Co n s t r u ct i o n a l
Ste e l wo rk Asso c i ati o n L i mi te d
Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited (BCSA)
study or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright is the national organisation for the steel construction industry: its
Design and Patents Act 1988, this publication may not be Member companies undertake the design, fabrication and erection
reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form by any means of steelwork for all forms of construction in building and civil
without the prior permission of the publishers or in the case of engineering. Associate Members are those principal companies
reprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms of the involved in the direct supply to all or some Members of
licences issued by the UK Copyright Licensing Agency, or in components, materials or products. Corporate Members are
accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate clients, professional offices, educational establishments etc.,
Reproduction Rights Organisation outside the UK. which support the development of national specifications, quality,
fabrication and erection techniques, overall industry efficiency and
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here good practice.
should be sent to the publishers, The British Constructional
Steelwork Association Ltd. at the address given below. The principal objectives of the Association are to promote the use
of structural steelwork; to assist specifiers and clients; to ensure
Although care has been taken to ensure, to the best of our that the capabilities and activities of the industry are widely
knowledge, that all data and information contained herein are understood and to provide members with professional services in
accurate to the extent that they relate to either matters of fact or technical, commercial, contractual, quality assurance and health
accepted practice or matters of opinion at the time of publication, and safety matters. The Association’s aim is to influence the
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited, the trading environment in which member companies have to operate
authors and the reviewers assume no responsibility for any errors in order to improve their profitability.
in or misinterpretations of such data and/or information of any loss
or damages arising or related to their use. A current list of members and a list of current publications and
further membership details can be obtained from:
Publications supplied to members of the BCSA at a discount are
not for resale by them. The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited
4, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London SW1A 2ES
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd. Tel: +44(0)20 7839 8566, Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
4, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London SW1A 2ES Email: postroom@steelconstruction.org
Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634 Website: www.steelconstruction.org
Email: postroom@steelconstruction.org
Website: www.steelconstruction.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
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
F or e wo r d
One of the most challenging aspects of the Eurocodes is gaining a Chapter 6 is a list of references where further guidance on
thorough understanding of the loading and load combination for applying the Eurocodes to steel and composite structures is given.
practical buildings. This challenge is not technical but primarily one
related to the way the information is presented and the terminology It is intended to update this publication and BCSA would
used in the Eurocodes. The presentation and terminology used in appreciate any observations, particularly on inaccuracies and
the Eurocodes are very different to that found in British Standards ambiguities, or proposals on alternative approaches or on any
such as BS 5950. The Eurocodes have a preference for other matters which should be included in future editions.
mathematical formulae over tables and graphs and some of the
explanations are brief. The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd.
4, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London SW1A 2ES
The principal aim of this publication is to provide the reader with Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
straightforward guidance on the loading and load combinations for Email: postroom@steelconstruction.org
both the serviceability and ultimate limit states for the following Website: www.steelconstruction.org
building types:
This publication was prepared by:
• Multi-storey buildings – Simple construction Dr L. Gardner Imperial College
• Multi-storey buildings – Continuous construction Mr. P. J. Grubb Consultant
• Portal frames without cranes
• Portal frames with cranes
Chapter 4 sets out the load combinations for both simple and
moment resisting frames. Information is given on frame
classification (i.e. braced or unbraced), frame imperfections and
the use of the equivalent horizontal force (EHF) (a general
approach that replaces imperfections with a system of notional
horizontal forces). Reduction factors for the number of storeys and
floor area are also described together with pattern loading and
overturning. Section 4.2 concentrates on the load combinations for
simple construction while section 4.3 identifies the differences
between simple and continuous construction. Chapter 4 concludes
with a worked example that illustrates the application of the load
combinations equations given in EN 1990 for a three storey high,
simple braced frame.
3
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
4
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
C on t e n t s
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Introduction to EN 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Introduction to EN 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Ultimate limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Serviceability limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1 Classification of frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal forces (EHF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3 Second order (P-∆) effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (αn) and floor area (αA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.5 Pattern loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.6 Dead loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.7 Overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 Braced frames (simple construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with αcr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with αcr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a and 6.10b with αcr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.4 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a and 6.10b with αcr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.5 SLS load combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Moment resisting frames (continuous construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 - Snow loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P-Δ effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2 Portal frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2 SLS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3 Portal frames with cranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3.4 ULS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
1 . I n t ro d u ct i o n
1.1 Background • Seismic design situations, which refer to conditions where the
structure is subjected to seismic events.
Implementation of the structural Eurocodes is underway. The
primary challenges are perceived to be related not to the technical In Clause 4.1.1(1) of EN 1990, actions (imposed loads and
content, but rather to the presentation and terminology of the deformations) are classified by their variation with time, as
documents, since this is very different to that found in existing UK permanent, variable or accidental. Permanent actions (G) are
structural design codes. Immediate differences may be observed those that essentially do not vary with time, such as the self-weight
in the preference for mathematical formulae over tables and of a structure and fixed equipment; these have generally been
graphs, brevity of explanations and axis conventions. The referred to as dead loads in previous British Standards. Variable
intention of this guide is to provide straightforward guidance on actions (Q) are those that can vary with time, such as imposed
combinations of actions (load combinations) for the two principal loads, wind loads and snow loads; these have generally been
types of steel structure – multi-storey buildings and industrial referred to as live loads in previous British Standards. Accidental
buildings. Further guidance on applying the Eurocodes to steel actions (A) are usually of short duration, but high magnitude, such
and composite structures is given in [1], [2], [3]. as explosions and impacts. Classification by variation with time is
important for the establishment of combinations of actions.
Each Eurocode document is accompanied by a National Annex.
The National Annex contains nationally determined parameters
(NDPs), which are values left open by the Eurocode for definition 1.3 Introduction to EN 1991
by the country in which the building is to be constructed.
EN 1991 Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures comprises four parts,
Equation numbers employed in this guide, unless prefixed by the as given in Table 1.1. EN 1991-2 and EN 1991-4 are not relevant
letter D, follow the equation numbering of EN 1990. to this publication.
6
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
7
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
2 . A b b re v i at i o n s , de f i n i t io n s a n d s ym b o l s
The terminology adopted in the Eurocodes will be unfamiliar to the Characteristic:
majority of designers and may prove an obstacle to the rapid The typical value of a parameter to be used in design.
uptake of the Eurocodes. Most of the definitions given in the
Co-existence:
Eurocodes derive from:
Eurocodes being in force in parallel with national codes.
• ISO 2394 (1998) General principles on reliability for structures Combinations of actions:
• ISO 3898 (1997) Basis for design of structures – Notations – The combination of different sources of load acting
General symbols simultaneously for the verification of structural reliability for a
• ISO 8930 (1987) General principles on reliability for structures – given limit state.
List of equivalent terms
Conformity:
Compliance with standards.
EN 1990 provides a basic list of terms and definitions which are
applicable to all the other Eurocode parts, thus ensuring a Design resistance:
common basis for the structural Eurocodes. This section has been The capacity of the structure or element to resist the design load.
provided to help to explain some of the key abbreviations,
Effects of actions:
definitions and symbols used in the structural Eurocodes.
Internal moments and forces, bending moments, shear forces
and deformations caused by actions.
2.1 Abbreviations Execution:
All activities carried out for the physical completion of the work
B Rules applicable only to buildings including procurement, the inspection and documentation thereof.
EHF Equivalent Horizontal Force The term covers work on site; it may also signify the fabrication
EN European Standard of components off site and their subsequent erection on site.
EQU Associated with the loss of static equilibrium
Fatigue:
FAT Associated with fatigue failure of the structure or
A mode of failure in which a member ruptures after many
structural members
applications of load.
GEO Associated with failure or excessive deformation of the
ground Fundamental combinations:
I Informative Combinations of actions for the persistent or transient design
N Normative situations.
NA National Annex
NCCI Non-Conflicting Complementary Information Frequent:
P Principles Likely to occur often, but for a short duration on each occasion.
STR Associated with internal failure or excessive deformation Informative:
of the structure or structural members For information, not a mandatory requirement – see normative.
Load arrangement:
2.2 Definitions Identification of the position, magnitude and direction of the loads
(loading pattern).
Attention is drawn to the following key definitions, which may be Load case:
different from current national practice: Compatible loading arrangements considered simultaneously
8
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
Principles:
Clauses marked ‘P’ define structural performance that must be
achieved.
Quasi-:
Being partly or almost.
Quasi-permanent action:
An action that applies for a large fraction of the design life.
Quasi-static:
The static equivalent of a dynamic action.
Reference period:
Any chosen period, but generally the design life.
Reliability:
The mathematical probability of a structure fulfilling the design
requirements.
Transient:
Likely to be present for a period much shorter than the design life
but with a high probability of occurring.
Verify:
Check the design output to make sure it complies.
The following Greek letters are used in EN 1990 and this document:
α (alpha)
αA Reduction factor for area
αn Reduction factor for number of storeys
αcr Factor by which the design loads FEd would have
to be increased to cause global elastic instability at
the load Fcr (i.e. αcr = Fcr/FEd)
ψ (psi)
ψ0 Factor for combination value of a variable action
ψ1 Factor for frequent value of a variable action
ψ2 Factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable
action
Σ (sigma) Summation
9
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
3 . C om bi n at i o n s o f a ct i o n s
Combinations of actions, generally referred to as load • Permanent actions Gk,1, Gk,2, …
combinations, are set out for all structures in Clause 6.4.3.2 of EN • A leading variable action Qk,1
1990. They are presented not simply as a series of multiplication • Accompanying variable actions Qk,2, Qk,3, …
factors to be applied to the various loading components, but
instead in an unfamiliar algebraic format, which requires The latter may be characterised as either ‘main’ or ‘other’
explanation. In Sections 4 and 5 of this guide, the provisions of the accompanying variable actions; main accompanying variable
code are explained and presented in a format that is more familiar actions being factored by γQ,1 and other accompanying variable
to UK engineers. actions being factored by γQ,i. However, since the recommended
value (Eurocode and UK National Annex) of both γQ,1 and γQ,i is
1.5, no distinction is needed in practice, and no further distinction
3.1 Ultimate limit states will be made in this guide.
Combinations of actions are defined in Clause 6.4.3 of EN 1990 for In general, unless it is clearly not a critical combination, each
the four design situations: persistent, transient, accidental and variable action should be considered as the leading variable
seismic. Combinations of actions for the persistent (i.e. final usage action, in turn. Clause 6.1 (2) of EN 1990 states that actions that
of complete structure) and transient (e.g. construction) design cannot occur simultaneously, for example due to physical reasons,
situations are referred to as fundamental combinations. This guide should not be considered together in combination.
focuses on the fundamental combinations, though combinations of
actions for accidental design situations are also considered in Tables 3.1 to 3.3 set out values for the partial factors (γG and γQ)
Section 5 for portal frames. for permanent and variable actions. These tables are based on
Tables NA.A1.2(A) and (B) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990.
For each of the selected design situations, combinations of actions Note that Table NA.A1.2(A) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990
for persistent or transient design situations (fundamental applies to verification of static equilibrium (EQU) of building
combinations) at ultimate limit states (other than fatigue) may be structures, Table NA.A1.2(B) applies to the verification of structural
derived either from Equation 6.10 of EN 1990 or from Equations members (STR) in buildings, and Table NA.A1.2(C) relates to any
6.10a and 6.10b. The UK National Annex has elected to allow the verifications involving geotechnical actions, such as piles and
use of either approach, though it should be noted that Equations footings (which are not considered in this guide).
6.10a and 6.10b will provide more favourable combinations of
actions (i.e. lower load factors). Furthermore, unless there is an In clause 6.4.3.1(4) of EN 1990 a distinction is made between
unusually high ratio of dead load Gk to imposed load Qk (i.e. Gk > favourable and unfavourable actions. For permanent actions, the
4.5Qk), only Equation 6.10b need be considered for strength (STR) upper characteristic (superior) value Gkj,sup should be used when
verifications. For verifying equilibrium (e.g. assessing sliding or that action is unfavourable, and the lower characteristic (inferior)
overturning as a rigid body), only Equation 6.10 may be applied. value Gkj,inf should be used when that action is favourable. This
The load combination expressions, as they appear in Eurocode, clause allows the designer to consider a permanent action as
are provided below: either favourable or unfavourable, in separate load combinations.
As stated in EN 1990, this approach is only necessary where the
Σ γG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i (6.10) results of verification are sensitive to variations in the magnitude of
j≥1 i>1
a permanent action from place to place in a structure. This idea is
considered in more detail in Reference [7] with a continuous beam
Σ γG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1 ψ0,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i (6.10a) example. All variable actions should generally be present within a
j≥1 i>1
load combination unless they have a favourable influence, in which
case they are assigned a partial factor γQ of zero, effectively
Σ
j≥1
ξγG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i
i>1
(6.10b) excluding them.
Ignoring prestressing actions, which are generally absent in Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying
conventional steel structures, each of the combination expressions transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable
contains: situations action actions
Eq. 6.10 1.35 Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf 1.5 Qk,1 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
10
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
Table 3.3: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using 3.2 Serviceability limit states
Equations 6.10a and 6.10b
For serviceability limit states, guidance on combinations of actions
Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying is given in Clauses 6.5.3 and A1.4 of EN 1990. Three groups of
transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable combinations are identified: characteristic, frequent and quasi-
situations action actions permanent.
Eq. 6.10a 1.35 Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
ξ×1.35Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf 1.5 Qk,1 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
The characteristic combination is given by Equation 6.14b of EN
Eq. 6.10b
1990 and is normally used for irreversible limit states, such as
permanent local damage or permanent unacceptable
The ξ factor that appears in Equation 6.10b of EN 1990 is a deformations.
reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G. The UK
National Annex sets the ξ factor equal to 0.925. When combined
with γG in Equation 6.10b the effect is to reduce the overall factor
Σ
j≥1
Gk, j “+” P “+” Qk,1 “+” Σ ψ0,iQk,i
i>1
(6.14b)
6.10a and 6.10b is one of three ψ factors (ψ0, ψ1 and ψ2) used in
EN 1990. The purpose of ψ0 is to take account of the reduced The quasi-permanent combination is given by Equation 6.16b of
probability of the simultaneous occurrence of two or more variable EN 1990 and is normally used for reversible limit states where long
actions. ψ factors are discussed in Section 4.1.3 of EN 1990. term effects are important (e.g. shrinkage, relaxation or creep).
Values for ψ factors for buildings in the UK are given in Table This is rarely applicable for steel structures.
NA.A1.1 of BS EN 1990. In general, these factors are the same
as those recommended in Table A1.1 of EN 1990, but with some
exceptions. For example, ψ0 is 0 for imposed loading on roofs and
Σ
j≥1
Gk, j “+” P “+” Σ ψ2,iQk,i
i>1
(6.16b)
11
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
4 . M u l t i - s t or e y b u i l di n g s
In this section, Eurocode load combinations for multi-storey sway imperfections may be disregarded, and EHF ignored – this
buildings are set out. General guidance for both simple and would more oftern apply to low rise buildings.
moment resisting frames is given in Section 4.1, since, in principle,
load combinations are the same for both types of structure. 4.1.3 Second order (P-Δ) effects
However, differences in treatment often arise due to differences in Second order effects relate to the increase in member forces and
sway stiffness, member interaction etc. and hence, specific moments that occur as a result of deformation of the structure
guidance and examples for simple and moment resisting frames is under load. As outlined in Section 4.1.1, second order (P-Δ)
provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. effects need not be considered provided the frame is sufficiently
stiff (i.e. sway deformation under the design loading is relatively
4.1 General small) – this is deemed to be the case for elastic analysis when αcr
> 10, and similarly, according to the UK National Annex, for plastic
4.1.1 Classification of frames analysis of clad frames when the additional stiffening effect of the
Structural frames may be classified with regards to their lateral cladding has been neglected. In cases where αcr is less than 10,
load resisting system and sway stiffness. Concerning the lateral the designer is presented with a number of options. These include
load resisting system, a frame may be regarded as either braced enhancement of the stability system such that αcr is raised above
or unbraced. As a guide, for a frame to be classified as ‘braced’, 10 and hence second order effects may be ignored, making
it should contain a bracing system with lateral stiffness of at least allowance for second order effects by approximate means
five times that of the unbraced frame [8], which will be the case in (amplified sway method or effective length method, both of which
braced simple construction. Bracing systems using wire ties (as were allowed in BS 5950), or making allowance for second order
opposed to open or hollow sections) may result in the frame being effects by performing a second order structural analysis enabling
classified as ‘unbraced’. and accounting for deformation of the structure under load. It
should be noted that if αcr is less than 3, then an accurate second
Sway stiffness is commonly achieved through the provision of a order analysis must be performed (Clause 5.2.2(5) of EN 1993-1-
suitable bracing system or by utilising the inherent bending 1). The aforementioned is summarised in Table 4.1.
resistance of a rigid frame. Adequate sway stiffness is important
because it limits the lateral deflections of the frame and hence Table 4.1: Summary of analysis methods and treatment of
controls second order (P-Δ) effects. Sway stiffness is assessed in second order effects
EN 1993-1-1 in a similar way as it is in BS 5950, through the αcr
parameter (equivalent to λcr in BS 5950), which represents the Limits on αcr Analysis method Result
factor by which the vertical design loading would have to be αcr > 10 First order analysis Second order
increased to cause overall elastic buckling of the frame (Clause effects ignored
5.2.1(3) of EN 1993-1-1). A simplified means of determining αcr for
10 > αcr > 3 First order analysis plus Second order effects
regular frames is also given in Equation 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1.
amplified sway method or allowed for by
Regardless of the frame type, if αcr is greater than 10, the sway
effective length method approximate means
stiffness is deemed sufficiently large for second order effects to be
ignored. Conversely, if αcr is less than 10, second order effects αcr < 3 Second order analysis Second order effects
may no longer be ignored. Second order effects are discussed allowed for more
further in Section 4.1.3. accurately
4.1.2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal The most common approximate treatment of second order effects
forces (EHF) in multi-storey buildings, which may be applied provided that αcr
Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the >3, is the so called ‘amplified sway method’. In this method,
structural analysis by defining an initial sway for the frame. account for second order effects is made by amplifying all lateral
However, the more general approach is to replace this geometric loading on the structure (typically wind loads and EHF) by a factor,
imperfection with a system of equivalent horizontal forces (EHF), referred to in the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 as kr, which
referred to as notional horizontal loads in BS 5950. Whereas in BS is related to the sway stiffness of the structure through Equation
5950, equivalent horizontal forces were only required in the D4.1 (Equation 5.4 of EN 1993-1-1).
vertical load case, in the Eurocodes it is deemed that since frame
1
imperfections are inherently present, they should be included in all kr = (D4.1)
1-1/αcr
ULS load combinations. This appears entirely rational. EHF are
not required in SLS load combinations. The EHF should be
determined separately for each load combination since they 4.1.4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (αn) and
depend on the level of design vertical loads. For each storey, the floor area (αA)
EHF may be calculated as the design vertical load for that storey As the number of storeys in a building increase, the likelihood that
(not the cumulative vertical load) multiplied by 1/200 (i.e. 0.5%). all floors will be loaded to the full design level decreases. Similarly,
Depending on the height of the structure and the number of large floor areas will seldom be subjected to the full design loading
columns in a row, reductions to this basic value of 1/200 are uniformly. To reflect this, reduction factors for imposed loads may
possible, as detailed in Clause 5.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-1. If be applied for the design of floors, beams and roofs and for the
horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads (VEd) these design of columns and walls. For the design of individual floors,
12
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
beams and roofs, the area reduction factor αA may be applied. For Figure 4.1: Pattern loading for continuous floor beams
the design of columns and walls, the reduction factor αn for the
number of storeys may be applied. The reduction factor αn relates
to the number of floors supported by the column section under
consideration, and may be applied to the total imposed load being
carried. If, for a given column or wall, αA < αn, then αA may be γGGk γGGk + γQQk
used in place of αn, but αA and αn may not be used together Storey under consideration
(Clause NA.2.6).
αn = 1.1 – n/10 for 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 (D4.3) 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
αn = 0.6 for 5 < n ≤ 10 (D4.4) to be uniformly distributed (Clause 6.2.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1).
13
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
0.9Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.6) forces or moments). A good example of this is the uplift case,
where imposed load is clearly favourable since it opposes the
As noted in Section 4.1.2, the EHF may be calculated as 0.5% uplift. The imposed load therefore has a load factor of zero for the
(with some scope for reduction) of the load on each storey, and are uplift case, whilst the dead load has a load factor of 1.0. This
thus dependant upon the load combination being considered. results in Equation D4.9.
4.2 Braced frames (simple construction) 1.00Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.9)
In terms of ease of analysis and design, there are a number of The wind load itself may also be favourable, for example where
advantages associated with simple construction. The structural uplift results in reduced columns loads. Assuming wind load to be
members can, largely, be designed in isolation, with the beams favourable leads to the load combination given by Equation D4.10.
considered as simply-supported members carrying the vertical
loading and the columns as pin ended compression members with 1.35Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” EHF (D4.10)
a nominal moment arising from the eccentric beam reactions. A
bracing system will typically be employed to resist the horizontal 4.2.2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with
loading, though note that columns forming part of the bracing αcr < 10
system will also attract axial forces arising from the horizontal For frames with αcr < 10, second order effects must be considered.
loading (wind loads and EHF), as described in Reference [5]. This may be avoided by appropriate reconfiguration of the bracing
system in order to increase the sway stiffness of the structure and
4.2.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with hence ensure αcr ≥ 10, though this may be uneconomical.
αcr > 10 Otherwise, account must be made of second order effects. For
For frames with αcr > 10, second order effects need not be αcr < 3, an accurate second order analysis is required, whilst for
considered. Assuming all loads to be always unfavourable (i.e. regular frames with αcr ≥ 3 approximate methods to allow for
causing an increase in member forces or moments), two basic second order effects may be employed, the most common of
load combinations, given by Equations D4.7 and D4.8, arise from which is the amplified sway method. In this case, load
Equation 6.10. In Equation D4.7, imposed load is assumed to be combinations will be the same as those defined in Section 4.2.1,
the leading variable action and hence attracts a load factor of 1.5, except that all horizontal loads (Wk + EHF) and other possible sway
whilst the wind load is reduced by a combination factor ψ0 of 0.5 effects (e.g. arising from asymmetric loading) will be multiplied by
(to give a load factor = 0.5 × 1.5 = 0.75). In Equation D4.8, wind kr (Equation D4.1). Note that kr is derived from αcr, which is in turn
load is considered as the leading variable action with a load factor dependant on the loading FEd on the structure, so, as for EHF, kr
of 1.5, thus the imposed load is reduced by a combination factor should be determined separately for each load combination.
ψ0 of 0.7 (applicable in all cases except for storage areas), to give
a load factor = 0.7 × 1.5 = 1.05). It is assumed throughout this 4.2.3 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10a and
section that imposed loading on the roofs of multi-storey buildings 6.10b with αcr > 10
will be greater than the snow loading, thus attracting a combination Employing Equations 6.10a and 6.10b of EN 1990, and adopting
factor ψ0 = 0.7, rather than ψ0 = 0.5, which applies to snow loading the same approach as described in Section 4.1.1, three load
(at altitudes of less than 1000 m). Note, as discussed in Section combinations arise when all loads are assumed to be
4.1.2 of this guide, that the EHF should be determined separately unfavourable, as given by Equations D4.11 to D4.13. Note that
for each load combination. Equation D4.11 arises from Equation 6.10a where all variable
actions are reduced by the combination factor ψ0, while Equations
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.7) D4.12 and D4.13 emerge from Equation 6.10b, and have a lower
dead load factor of 1.25 due to the introduction of the ξ factor (see
1.35Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.8) Section 3.1).
Equation D4.7 would generally govern the design of the beams 1.35Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.11)
and columns, whilst Equation D4.8 would be expected to be more
critical for the bracing members. The imposed load in Equation 1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.12)
D4.7 may be reduced by the area reduction factor αA, given by
Equation D4.2, for the design of the beams. For column design, 1.25Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.13)
the imposed load may be reduced by the reduction factor for
number of storeys αn (that the column under consideration is Of the above three combinations, Equation D4.11 will only govern
supporting) or the reduction factor for area αA, whichever is the on the rare occasions where the dead load is significantly larger
more beneficial. Note that the imposed load reduction factors may than the imposed load. For the uplift combination, given by
only be applied in combinations where the imposed loading is the Equation D4.14, the wind load is the leading variable action,
leading variable action (Equation D4.7). Pattern loading need not attracting a load factor of 1.5, and the imposed load is absent since
be considered for column design (see Section 4.1.5). it is favourable. Note that Equation D4.14 is the same as D4.9,
showing that the uplift load combination is the same whether
Other load combinations arise by considering that the variable derived from Equation 6.10 or Equations 6.10a and 6.10b.
actions may be favourable (i.e. causing a reduction in member
14
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
1.00Gk “+” 1.5 Wk “+” EHF (D4.14) relevance to multi-storey buildings, which are the same as those
given in BS 5950, are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Similarly, the wind favourable case results in Equation D4.15.
Table 4.2: Vertical deflection limits
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” EHF (D4.15)
Vertical deflection Limit
Equations D4.12 to D4.15 represent the four basic load Cantilevers Length/180
combinations for multi-storey frames. For economy, it is Beam carrying plaster or other brittle finish Span/360
recommended that these load combinations (Equations D4.11 to
Other beams (except purlins and sheeting rails) Span/200
D4.15 all emerging from Equation 6.10b) be used in preference to
those arising from Equation 6.10 (Equations D4.7 to D4.10).
Table 4.3: Horizontal deflection limits
4.2.4 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a
and 6.10b with αcr < 10
Horizontal deflection Limit
As described in Section 4.2.2, when αcr < 10, second order effects In each storey of a building with more Height of
must be considered. If the amplified sway method is employed, than one storey that storey/300
load combinations will be the same as those given in Equations
D4.11 to D4.15, except that all horizontal loads (wind and As 4.1.2 if horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads
equivalent horizontal forces) and other sway effects are multiplied (VEd) the EHF can be ignored. This is most likely to be the case in
by the factor kr, which, as noted in Section 4.2.2 is load Equations D4.17 and D4.19.
combination dependant.
4.3 Moment resisting frames (continuous
4.2.5 SLS load combinations construction)
As outlined in Section 3.2, the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1
states that vertical and horizontal deflections may be checked For the case of simple braced frames, the members can
using the characteristic combination with variable loads only (i.e. essentially be designed in isolation. For moment resisting frames,
permanent loads should not be included). The characteristic the structure is not statically determinate, there is interaction
combination is defined by Equation 6.14b of EN 1990, where the between the members and this simplification may not generally be
leading variable action is unfactored (i.e. taken as its characteristic made. Unbraced (moment resisting) frames are also generally less
value) and all accompanying variable actions are reduced by the stiff laterally than braced frames, and are therefore more likely to
combination factor ψ0. require consideration of second order effects. However, the basic
load combinations derived for simple frames in Section 4.2 are
Assuming all loads to be unfavourable, the resulting SLS equally applicable to moment resisting frames.
combinations are given by Equations D4.16 (where imposed load
is taken as the leading variable action) and D4.17 (where wind It is therefore recommended that, as for simple frames, the ULS
load is taken as the leading variable action). load combinations for moment resisting frames be based on
Equations 6.10a and 6.10b. This results in five load combinations
1.00Qk “+” 0.50Wk (D4.16) given by Equations D4.11 to D4.15, of which D4.11 is unlikely to
govern except in cases of an unusually high ratio of dead to
1.00Wk “+” 0.70Qk (D4.17) imposed loading. SLS load combinations are given by Equations
D4.16 to D4.19.
For cases where the influence of horizontal loading on vertical
deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where wind load is 4.4 Example
favourable (e.g. suction on a roof may reduce deflections),
Equation D4.16 reduces simply to Equation D4.18 (i.e. checking The following example illustrates application of the above load
vertical deflections under unfactored imposed loading only). combinations (from Equations 6.10a and 6.10b) to a simple braced
frame. The general case considered is set out in Figure 4.2, where
1.00Qk (D4.18) the loads shown are unfactored (characteristic values). The
following notation is used: Gkr = permanent actions on roof; Gkf =
For cases where the influence of vertical loading on horizontal permanent actions on floors; Qkr = imposed load on roof; Qkf =
deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where vertical imposed load on floors; Wk = wind loads. Frames are spaced at 6
loading is favourable, Equation D4.17 reduces to Equation D4.19 m centres and every third frame is braced (in the configuration
(i.e. checking horizontal deflections under unfactored wind loading shown in Figure 4.2). For the equilibrium check only, lateral forces,
only). together with overturning and restoring moments, are shown per
frame. Throughout the remainder of the example, lateral forces are
1.00Wk (D4.19) shown per braced frame. It is assumed that αcr > 10, so second
order effects are neglected. Imposed load reduction factors have
Deflection limits are also provided in the National Annex to EN not been considered. EHF have been calculated on the basis of
1993-1-1 in Clauses NA.2.23 and NA.2.24. The deflection limits of 1/200 of the total vertical load for each storey.
15
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
Figure 4.2: Unfactored loading on example frame Figure 4.4: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation
D4.12
Gkr = 3.5 kN/m2
EHF = 10.0 kN qEd = 36.9 kN/m
Qkr = 1.5 kN/m2
Wk = 0.63 kN/m2 Wind = 21.9 kN
Wk = 0.2 kN/m2
3.6 m
External Internal
column FEd column FEd
3.6 m
6m 6m 6m Design loading in key members:
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF
Roof design UDL qEd = 36.9 kN/m
Figures 4.3 to 4.7 present the total factored design loading on the
structure arising from the five load combinations defined by Floor design UDL qEd = 71.3 kN/m
Equations D4.11 to D4.15, respectively. External column FEd = 752.0 kN
Bracing FEd = 257.5 kN (tension)
Internal column (unbraced frame) FEd = 1504.0 kN
Internal column (braced frame) FEd = 1807.1 kN
Figure 4.3: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation Figure 4.5: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation
D4.11 D4.13
EHF = 9.4 kN qEd = 35.0 kN/m EHF = 8.1 kN qEd = 30.0 kN/m
Wind = 21.9 kN Wind = 43.7 kN
qEd = 59.9 kN/m Bracing FEd qEd = 57.8 kN/m Bracing FEd
EHF = 16.2 kN EHF = 15.6 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN Wind = 87.5 kN
16
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
Figure 4.6: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation From Figures 4.3 to 4.7, it may be seen that the maximum loadings
D4.14 in different members often arise from different load combinations.
EHF = 4.1 kN qEd = 15.3 kN/m
For the case considered (Figure 4.2), the maximum design UDL on
Wind = 43.7 kN the roof and floors arise from Equation D4.15 (1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+”
EHF), as does the maximum external column load and the
qEd = 21.0 kN/m maximum internal column load (for the unbraced frames in the
EHF = 5.7 kN structure). The maximum force in the bracing members results
Wind = 87.5 kN from Equation D4.13 (1.25Gk“+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF), while
the maximum internal column load (for the braced frames in the
qEd = 21.0 kN/m
EHF = 5.7 kN
structure) arises from Equation D4.12 (1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+”
Wind = 87.5 kN 0.75Wk “+” EHF).
External Internal Figure 4.8: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.16
column FEd column FEd
qEd = 7.1 kN/m
Wind = 14.6 kN
Design loading in key members:
1.00Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” EHF qEd = 30.0 kN/m
External Internal
column FEd column FEd
17
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
Figure 4.9: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.17 Figure 4.11: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.19
qEd = 30.0 kN/m For checking against overturning (EQU), only Equation 6.10 may
be applied, resulting in the load combination given by Equation
Wind = 0.0 kN
D4.6, illustrated for the example frame in Figure 4.12. Note that
loads, together with the overturning and restoring moments, are
qEd = 30.0 kN/m shown per frame in Figure 4.12.
Wind = 0.0 kN
Figure 4.12: Loading per frame for EQU overturning check
qEd = 30.0 kN/m EHF = 1.2 kN qEd = 13.2 kN/m
Wind = 14.6 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
qEd = 18.9 kN/m
EHF = 1.7 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN
Equilibrium assessment:
0.9Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF
Overturning moment per frame M = 893.7 kNm
Restoring moment per frame M = 11330 kNm
18
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
5 . In d u s t r i al bu i l d i n gs
5.1 General Table 5.1: ψ factors relevant to portal frame structures
19
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
In recent years internal pressures of -0.3 / +0.0 have been adopted The resulting diagrams show that, for the range of roof pitches
by many portal frame designers. This may still be appropriate for considered, the primary condition for wind loading on the roof is
large storage buildings with no windows and doors primarily in one suction. If dominant openings are regarded as closed in a storm
face. However, the internal pressure coefficients are now derived (elective dominant openings) the maximum uplift for ULS design is
from Figure 7.13 of EN 1991-1-4 and are based on relative wall always for longitudinal wind (wind blowing directly onto the gable
porosity. Within the range of coefficients are the values -0.3 / +0.2 causing suction on all external faces of the portal) with internal
used traditionally by UK engineers. These values have been used pressure as is common with current practice.
in the derivation of the overall force coefficients.
Figure 5.1a: External Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame Figure 5.1b: Modified External Pressure Coefficients – Portal
with 5° roof pitch frame with 5° roof pitch
The above coefficients are now modified by the 0.85 and cscd
factors to give:
Key
Overall coefficients shown thus:
Pressure shown as positive values
Suction shown as negative values
20
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
The same process can be applied to a portal with 6° roof pitch to give:
-0.255 -0.306
0.0 -0.34 0.017 -0.389
Figure 5.1c: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 5° Figure 5.1d: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 6°
roof pitch roof pitch
Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof. Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof.
Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction. Transverse wind 2a Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction. Transverse wind 2a
causes maximum sidesway. causes maximum sidesway.
The above coefficients are typical for internal transverse portal
frames in a building. Towards the ends of the structure more
onerous coefficients are applicable. However, the intention of
these diagrams is purely to eliminate less onerous combinations Key
for later analysis and the overall pattern is similar for the areas with Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.3
higher coefficients. For final design, local effects must be included, Pressure shown as positive values
not only for the design of frames, but also for the design of Suction shown as negative values
secondary components such as purlins, side rails and claddings.
21
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
-0.625 -0.71 Combinations of actions for portal frames are considered in this
-1.05 -0.583 Section. Additional considerations for cranes are introduced in
0.7 x 0.85 -0.3 x 0.85
0.395 Internal -0.455 Section 5.3. The serviceability limit state is treated first since this
pressure 0.2
is likely to govern the design of this form of construction.
Transverse Wind 1
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design
For the serviceability limit state, the UK National Annex to EN
1993-1-1 states that deflections may be checked using the
-0.425 -0.51
-0.85 -0.383 characteristic combination of loading and considering variable
loads only, as discussed in Section 3.2.
-0.125 -0.21
-0.55 -0.083
0.595 -0.255 Assuming that for steel portal frame structures the dead load can
0.895 Internal 0.045
suction -0.3 be accurately determined and that the combined dead and service
loads can be treated as one dead load:
Transverse Wind 1a
Gksup = Dead load + Service load
Gkinf = Dead load
0.1 x 0.85
-0.51
-0.383 Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than
0.6 kN/m2)
-0.115 -0.71
-0.583 Wk = Wind load - three load cases as identified earlier
0.595 -0.255 Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load
0.395 Internal -0.455
pressure 0.2 condition)
Key
Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.15
Pressure shown as positive values
Suction shown as negative values
Figure 5.1e: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with Figure 5.2: Typical clear span portal frame
10° roof pitch
Dead load: Cladding 0.150 kN/m2
Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof.
Purlins (0.046 × 1.25/1.8) 0.032 kN/m2
Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction. Transverse wind 2a
(1.25 factor to allow for purlin sleeves)
causes maximum sidesway.
Rafter (0.54 × 1.1 / 6.0) 0.099 kN/m2
(1.10 factor to allow for rafter haunches)
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P-∆ effects Dead load on slope 0.281 kN/m2
Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the Slope factor (6° slope) 1.0055
structural analysis by defining an initial sway for the frame. The Dead load on plan 0.283 kN/m2
22
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
Gksup = Dead + Service load 3. Identify the wind case that results in the maximum eaves
= 0.283 + 0.150 displacement (side sway). This is likely to be transverse wind
= 0.433 kN/m2 with pressure on the windward slope and suction on the
Gkinf = Dead leeward slope.
= 0.283 kN/m2 4. Use the wind load cases identified in steps 2 and 3 of this
procedure in equation 6.14b to identify maximum
Qk = Imposed load
displacements.
= 0.600 kN/m2
5. If frame is unsymmetrical in any way the designer should apply
Wk = Wind load: the wind load in the direction to maximise the sway effect.
Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2;
Wind suction = -0.800 kN/m2 5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR)
Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift For the ultimate limit state, Equations 6.10 or 6.10a and 6.10b from
= 0.550 kN/m2 EN 1990 are to be considered, as introduced in Section 3.1.
Applying the loads for the example to the set of serviceability The relevant ψ factors are given in Table 5.1 above.
equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.2. The
values of the EHF will vary with the load combination and may, With the following loading,
when HEd ≥ 0.15 VEd, be ignored. The bold figures identify the
critical load combinations. Gksup = Dead load + Service load
Gkinf = Dead load
Table 5.2: Load combinations for the serviceability limit state Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.6
kN/m2)
Load (kN/m2) Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design load
Wk = Wind load – 5 load cases, 2 of which can be discarded
0.600 = +0.500 0.550 (kN/m2)
after SLS analysis
Wk (suction)
= -0.800 Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition)
Equation 6.14b 0.600 0.250 0.000 0.850
0.420 0.500 0.000 0.920 if the typical load cases that were considered for the serviceability
0.000 -0.800 0.000 -0.800 limit state are now considered for ultimate limit state with the
following possible load combinations result:
The normal roof pitch for portal frame structures in the UK is in the
range 5-15°. In this range it is unlikely that the roof will be 6.10 1.35Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.00Qk + EHF
subjected to wind pressure throughout the span. Hence, all three 1.35Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
combinations to Equation 6.14b must be considered. 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Wk (pressure) + EHF
1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 1.50Wk (suction) + EHF
Now consider the same example, but removing the load condition
of pressure on the roof – the load combinations of Table 5.2a 6.10a 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 0.00Wk + EHF
emerge. 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.75Wk (suction) + EHF
Table 5.2a: Load combinations for the serviceability limit
state (no uniform roof pressure) 6.10b 1.25Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.00Wk + EHF
1.25Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
Load (kN/m2) Qk = Wk (suction) Ad = Design load 1.25Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Wk (pressure) + EHF
0.600 = -0.800 0.550 (kN/m2) 1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 1.50Wk (suction) + EHF
Equation 6.14b 0.600 0.000 0.000 0.600
0.000 -0.800 0.000 -0.800 Accidental
6.11b 1.00Gksup “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.00Wk “+” 1.00Ad “+” EHF
The designer must be aware of the possible number of wind load
Note that, as recommended in Section 5.1 of this guide, imposed load is
cases to be considered, the above matrix simply presents these as
being considered in combination with wind, and that if the snow load were
uniform suction or pressure on the roof. In reality the loading to exceed 1.4 times the imposed loading, then the factor of 1.05 (with ψ0 =
pattern is more complex than this and the following procedure may 0.7) currently applying to the imposed loading would become 0.75 (with ψ0
be of use. = 0.5) applying to the snow loading. Each of the above load combinations
should be analysed with the relevant equivalent horizontal force, noting that
the equivalent horizontal force is 0.5% of the vertical reaction at the column
Suggested procedure: base and therefore includes the self weight of any cladding carried by the
1. Carry out an elastic analysis for each individual serviceability column, as well as the effects of the wind. The above ultimate limit state
load case. load combinations are implemented in the design example started earlier for
2. Identify the wind case for maximum suction on the rafter. (This the serviceability limit state. Substituting the loadings for the example into
these equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.3. The
is generally longitudinal wind with internal pressure)
bold figures identify the critical load combinations, assuming that the
designer will opt for Equations 6.10a and 6.10b at ULS.
23
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal Table 5.3a: Simplified ULS load combinations (no uniform
roof pressure)
Gksup = Dead + Service load = 0.283 + 0.150
= 0.433 kN/m2 Load Gksup = Qk = Wk (suction) Ad = Design
Gkinf = Dead (kN/m2) 0.433 0.600 = - 0.800 0.55 load
= 0.283 kN/m2 Gkinf = (kN/m2)
0.283
Qk = Imposed
= 0.600 kN/m2 Equation 6.10b 0.541 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.921
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917
Wk = Wind load:
Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2; Equation 6.11b 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.550 0.983
Wind suction = -0.800 kN/m2
Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift
= 0.550 kN/m2
5.3 Portal frames with cranes
Table 5.3: ULS load combinations The inclusion of one additional imposed load type increases the
number of possible load combinations since each imposed load
Load Gksup = Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design type has to be considered as the leading or main accompanying
(kN/m2) 0.433 0.600 = +0.500 0.550 load variable action in turn. The introduction of a crane also increases
Gkinf = Wk (suction) (kN/m2) the horizontal loads (both transverse and longitudinally) to be
0.283 = -0.800 carried by the structure as the crane will generate horizontal surge
Equation 6.10 0.585 0.900 0.000 0.000 1.485 loads as it lifts and moves loads around. The crane’s load Qkc
0.585 0.900 0.375 0.000 1.860 considered below may therefore have both vertical and horizontal
0.585 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.965 components. The vertical loads are modified by dynamic factors
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917 taken from Table 2.2 of EN 1991-3:2006.
Equation 6.10a 0.585 0.630 0.000 0.000 1.215
0.585 0.630 0.375 0.000 1.590 5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design
0.283 0.000 -0.600 0.000 -0.317 Gksup = Dead load + Service load
Equation 6.10b 0.541 0.900 0.000 0.000 1.441 Gkinf = Dead load
0.541 0.900 0.375 0.000 1.816 Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than
0.541 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.921 0.6 kN/m2)
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917 Qkc = Crane load (vertical load (including crane self weight)
Equation 6.11b 0.433 0.000 0.100 0.550 1.083 and horizontal surge load)
Wk = Wind load (generally suction) - three load cases
BS5950-1: 1.40 Gk + 1.60 Qk = 1.566 kN/m2 Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift
1.00 Gk - 1.40 Wk = -0.837 kN/m2 (accidental load condition)
1.20 (Gk + Qk + Wk) = 1.840 kN/m2
Other combinations are possible, but those that are most likely to
Notes:
1. No reduction in loading can be applied on the basis of area since such
provide the critical design condition are as follows:
reduction only applies to roofs with access.
2. For shallow pitched portals there is no pressure on the whole rafter and 6.14b 1.00Qk “+” 1.00Qkc “+” 0.50Wk (pressure)
since suction will reduce the total load it must not be included if the most 0.70Qk “+” 1.00Qkc “+” 0.50Wk (pressure)
onerous design combination is to be considered. 0.70Qk “+” 1.00Qkc “+” 1.00Wk (pressure)
0.00Qk “+” 0.00Qkc “+” 1.00Wk (suction)
Portal frame designers will generally set out to provide the most
economic frame solution and, given the choice of 6.10 or 6.10a 5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with
and 6.10b the design loads to be considered in 6.10 are more overhead crane
onerous and therefore are likely to be ignored. It would appear Consider the 25 m span portal frame of the previous example with
that there are more combinations to consider if we apply 6.10a and a 24 m span, 5 tonne electric overhead crane. Maximum wheel
6.10b but, by observation, 6.10b combinations are more onerous loads = 40 kN, minimum wheel loads = 12.5 kN. The derivation of
than those of 6.10a, other than for a high ratio of dead to imposed the maximum and minimum reactions is shown for vertical loads,
load (see Section 3.1) which is particularly unlikely for this form of but is also applicable to the horizontal loads. How the horizontal
construction. loads are transferred to the main structure is dependent on the
number of flanges to the wheels supported by the crane rail. If the
As shown in Figures 5.1, positive pressure on the whole roof does wheels are double flanged, the horizontal load may be shared
not occur for normal portal frame roof pitches. If this pressure is between the two crane rails; if the wheels are single flanged, then
removed from the example, the design loads in Table 5.3a result. the horizontal loads are applied to just a single crane beam. The
24
TYPICAL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
magnitude of the horizontal load is dependent on factors particular 5.3.3 Ultimate limit state (STR)
to each project. The number of load combinations again increases because of the
addition of the load from the crane. The individual load cases are
Assume that the crane is supported centrally on bogies with a as follows:
3.6m wheel base. If one wheel is positioned directly on the line
of the portal, the second wheel is 3.6m into the span and hence Gksup = Dead load + Service load
the maximum reaction to the portal is 1+2.4/6.0 = 1.4 times the Gkinf = Dead load
wheel load.
Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.6
Maximum reaction to portal from simply supported crane beams =
kN/m2)
1.4 x 40 = 56 kN,
Minimum coincident reaction = 1.4 x 12.5 = 17.5 kN. Qkc = Crane load (vertical load on columns with horizontal
surge loads)
Wk = Wind load (generally suction) – three load cases, at least
one of which can be discarded after SLS design
Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition)
25
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
Notes:
1. Transverse wind load cases will cause suction on the roof but will also cause the portal
to sway. SLS will identify the load case for maximum sway.
2. EHF to be applied in the same direction as the horizontal surge.
3. Frame may naturally sway therefore important to ensure that the surge load is applied
in two alternative directions to find the natural sway and ensure that the EHF does not
‘prop’ the frame.
26
EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
6 . Re fe r e n ce s
[1] Steel Building Design: Introduction to the Eurocodes, SCI
Publication P361, The Steel Construction Institute, 2009.
[4] Brettle, M., Currie, D.M. (2002) Snow loading in the UK and
Eire: Ground snow load map. The Structural Engineer (Vol;
80, Issue: 12).
[9] Roof loads due to local drifting of snow, BRE Digest 439, The
Building Research Establishment, 1999.
27
Eurocode Load Combinations
for Steel Structures
B C S A P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 5 3 /1 0