sly 2018 Verulam Topics of importance openly discussed | TheStructuralEngineer Opinion Lotters senders cntrnstons io Verdam fo submited va ema to” favuam@tetruetery Contributions maybe ested on ‘grounds of style andi anath oy Inetiaien’sectoral departnen Roof Skin? ' Combination rules Anumber of responses to Alasdair Beal's question (May 2013) has. prompted the author to summarise the initial result of his enquiry concerning overall safety factors when addressing a combination of actions. In Verulam (May 2019) | asked for help identiying which clause in Eurocode 0 (or ‘other Eurocodes) explains leary which imposed loadings should be considered a5 separate 'variabo actions'in ECO Eq. 630 Toad combinations. As a practical example, for a steel beam supporting a particular combination of reot and flor loads (Figure 1) Tfasked whether the correct Eurocode overall safely factor should be 15 or 122. BS 5950 ‘would have required a safety factor of 18, ‘and BS 449 would have required 17. it was gratifying to see throe replies in the following issue - but disappointing that they do not agree about the answer. Anthony ‘Jones suggests that competent engineers "would consider the four loadings as one ‘action fr the calculation, giving an overall safety factor of 15.0n the other hand, on the basis of guidance in Institution manuals, Ray Badgery says that they aro separato ‘actions, so the safety factor should be 122, [A first Nick Eckford Says the question cannot be answered but then he argues | that maximum values of diferent loads are unikely to occur together and ECO recognises this, ‘permitting more economical | design’ soit would appear that he also boleves the safety factor shout be 122, 'So, we have one correspondent wo boves thatthe safety factor should be 15 and two who belive it shouldbe 122. However none of them hasbeen abe to dently a Ewocode clause that solves the conundrum by making clear which loadings fare considered as separate variable actions nECO EA, 610 and which are rot ‘Can any oer readers help? Alternatively, could The Structural Engineer find space for a Technical Guidance Note that provides ‘aclear explanation of how the Eurccode ‘safety factor system works and, inthe process, answers the question? ‘Alasdair (and others Im sure! will no doubt be interested to learn that we've received several more responses inthe interim that may provide the answers he seeks. Firstly, a useful example from John Parker, involving several variable actions. ‘Alasdair Beal asks how he should combine root, car park, office and retail loads to design a beam that supports all four types of load atthe same time (May 2018 Verulam) ‘The approach to such probiems is 12 consider whether al four actions coulc “TREAT THEM AS ALL PART OF ONE VARIABLE ACTION" Rw teasonably be at their maximum vate the same time. In this case they coule ‘shop and the cifice could bein use the root is loaded and there ae cas ‘car park. So treat them as al part ct © variable action, “The Eurocode approach is useful fe ‘combinations of loads tha ar unlike) peak together, For example, in most = ‘would be over-conservative to desi" highest wind loads occurring atthe 27 time as maximum temperatures H.Y. Ng explains the method of working through the task of taking the leading action in turn -althous! ‘engineering judgment should rationalise this process. ‘The total imposed characteristic load” X3(25 415+ 4 +25)= 62" — |although this considers only one variable action. The loads can be considered as individual actions (separate variable actions) if their variation causes significant differences in verification results, ie. deemed as sensitive tothe results. ‘When considering as individual actions (separate variable actions), each action should be checked in turn as the leading action, and the worst case taken. In the example, itis obvious the most ‘onerous case would be to have the reduction combination factors applied to the loads of lower magnitude. However, most designers would adopt the ‘conservative approach of considering all loads as one variable action, ie. no reduction factor applied. “EACH ACTION SHOULD BE CHECKED IN TURN AND THE WORST CASE TAKEN' n Code Ci 6.431 states: ‘Where the results of averitication are very sensitive to variations of the magnitude of a permanent ‘ction from place to place in the structure, the unfavourable and the favourable parts of this action shall be considered as individual actions. Jacek Gabrielczyk’s recommendations would seem to be appropriate for ensuring safety. |read with interest Alasdair Beal's poser on ‘hich imposed loadings may be considered {as separate variable actions in BS EN1990 Eq 610, 610a and 610 and which may ‘ot. The Eurocodes describe themselves as rules’ and each Eurocode states quite Clearly in its foreword: ‘Compliance with a British Standard cannot confer immunity from legal obligations”. The corollary is that the Eurocodes are a guide in that they are to bbe considered as covering the principles to which design is intended to conform. Having established that EN1990 is ‘a guide, | suggest that the apparently Contradictory safety factors that arise ut of Mr Beal's design example are both ‘correct. The guidance lacking in the code ‘on which route to follow, should be replaced _ by the designer's choice based on his/her knowledge of the use of that specific area Of the building, For example, ifthe retail area is served by both the car park and 1 offices, then its likely that these three eas will be in use at the same time and therefore the loads should be considered as e variable action. If these areas are used dependently of one another then | would ‘argue that their loadings are three separate actions. It should be borne in mind that as interesting as a particular design may be, ts loadings are secondary to its urpose to serve a function. | would add that interpretation of design guidance is 1 fundamental part of engineering. If this ‘were not the case then there would be no ‘need for structural engineers, no need for an Institution of Structural Engineers, just software programs. ‘And finally, Paul Devine, a consultant engineer working for OCSC in Dublin and the representative for Ireland on the ‘CEN TC250/SC4 committee for Eurocode 4, contributes to the debate. The letter from Alasdair Beal (May 2013) raises an important issue that could create alot of confusion for many people. Several responses were subsequently published inlast months issue, Itis wth concern that [feelit is necessary to point out that, while they were all well-meaning, they were ot code referenced and advised unsafe ‘approaches. From the outset its necessary to state with clarity that in the example presented by Alasdair, the imposed loads ‘would all be required by the code to be taken as a single action; the rest ofthis response explains the reasons why, The problem is primarily one of language. In the UK & Ireland we have been used to talking about dead and live loads and we have used imposed load! as a synonym for "ve load’, The Eurocodes do not comply with this Our traditional ‘dead loads! are ‘now called permanent, which doesn't cause too much dificulty in transition, However live load is now variable, but is not the same {are imposed load. All actions that are not ‘permanent are now variable actions (lve), however not all variable actions are due to imposed loads. Imposed loads result in ‘a special sub-set of all possible variable actions, In the Eurocode ~ EN 1990 (incidentally, itis incorrect to call it Eurocode 0), we are given the combination rules that tell us there may be a leading variable action ‘and accompanying variable actions. The ‘accompanying variable actions are often reduced (with respect to the probability of coincidental occurrence) in accordance with the rules given in Section 6 EN 1990, The question raised by Alasdair is: When is a variable action allowed to be Considered an accompanying action and thus potentially reduced? First let us look at clause 3:3:12)P EN wwwithestructuralengineet.org 55 1991-11 which says: ‘In design situations when imposed loads act simultaneously with other variable actions (e.g, actions induced by wind, snow, cranes or rmachiner), the total imposed loads ‘considered in the load case shall be ‘considered as a single action’ This may lead us to believe that we have found a contradiction. EN 1990, allows the separating of variable actions into lead and accompanying, but this Clause implies that if they act at once then they are all considered to be a single action (ie. meaning everything is the leading action). The issue, as stated, is in language. Imposed’ is not a synonym for ‘variable’ All imposed loads are considered to act as a single action but not all variable actions are imposed. Referencing Table [Ait from EN 1990 we see that there is. a ‘category of actions called ‘Imposed loads’ that includes (among others) office, retal, traffi, and roof actions. There are then further categories for snow, wind and temperature. It should now be plain to see that all the actions in Alasdair's example are from imposed loads and, in accordance with EN 1991-14 clause 3.31(2)P, they should bbe considered in design as a single action acting on his floor plate. The co-incidental variable actions which would be combined in accordance with the rules in Section "THEY WERE NOT CODE REFERENCED AND ADVISED UNSAFE APPROACHES’ Az EN 1990 would then be any snow, wind, temperature effects, crane loads oF machinery. In Alasdair example the factor Of safety to be used is indeed 15, as he has included none of these accompanying variable load types. A simple way to understand iis that EN 1991s itself spit into ten parts. EN 1991-14, the first part, deals with the Variable action due to imposed loads. Each of the other parts deal with a separate type of variable action. The combination rules must not be applied to the valves determined within a given variable action type. Iti the values calculated for each type of variable action that are combined using EN 1990 rules. | think it is very important to thank Alasdair for highlighting a potential ‘misunderstanding which could result in ‘unconservative designs if engineers were to think the Eurocodes are implying that imposed loads may be spilt into lead and accompanying actions.