Eurocode - Load Combinations For Steel Structures - R1

Eurocode Load
Combinations
for Steel Structures
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
BCSA Publication No. 53/16
Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

Provided by IHS Markit Licensee=ARCADIS (UK) Limited/5962772003, User=Mohan, Anil
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Markit Not for Resale, 03/31/2022 05:50:48 MDT
Eurocode Load
Combinations
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
The British Constructional

Steelwork Association Limited
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. Industry 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
Publication Number 53/16

First Edition December 2010
Second Edition July 2016
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
Foreword
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 Prof. L. Gardner Imperial College London
• Multi-storey buildings – Continuous construction Mr. P. J. Grubb Consultant
• Portal frames without cranes
• Portal frames with cranes
Chapter 1 gives a brief introduction to EN 1990 Basis of design

and EN 1991 Actions on structures together with simple
explanations of the design situations presented in EN 1990.
Chapter 2 is a list of abbreviations, definitions and symbols and
again simple, easy to understand explanations are given. Chapter
3 gives a comprehensive description of the load combinations for
both the Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States, together with a
list of the load combination factors which are used to account for
the reduced probability of the simultaneous occurrence of two or
more variable loads. These values are based on the
recommendations given in the UK National Annex for EN 1990.
Chapter 4 sets out the load combinations for both simple and
moment resisting frames. Information is given on the sway
sensitivity of frames, frame imperfections and the use of the
equivalent horizontal force (EHF) (a general approach that
replaces imperfections with a system of notional horizontal forces).
Reduction factors for the number of storeys and floor area are also
described together with pattern loading and overturning. Section
4.2 concentrates on the load combinations for simple construction
while section 4.3 identifies the differences between simple and
continuous construction. Chapter 4 concludes with a worked
example that illustrates the application of the load combinations
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
equations given in EN 1990 for a three storey high, simple braced

frame.
Chapter 5 sets out the application of EN 1990 to industrial

buildings with and without crane loads and illustrates the approach
with the following examples:
• Serviceability Limit State – Single span portal frame

• Ultimate Limit State – Single span portal frame
• Serviceability Limit State – Single span portal frame with
overhead crane
• Ultimate Limit State – Single span portal frame with
overhead crane
3
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
4
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Introduction to EN 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Introduction to EN 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. ABBREVIATIONS, DEFINITIONS AND SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Symbols (Greek letters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Ultimate limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Serviceability limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1 Classification of frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
4.1.2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal forces (EHF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
4.1.3 Second order P-Δ 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 Moment resisting frames ( continuous 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 Equation 6.10a & 6.10b with αcr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
4.2.4 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10a & 6.10b with αcr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.2.5 SLS load combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.3 Braced frames (simple construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.3.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
4.3.2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10a and 6.10b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
4.3.3 SLS load combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
4.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
5. INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 - Snow loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P-Δ effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 Portal frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.2 SLS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3 Portal frames with cranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.4 ULS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5
1. Introduction
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.
Table 1.1: Parts of EN 1991

1.2 Introduction to EN 1990
EN 1991 Part Action type
EN 1990: Eurocode – Basis of structural design is the primary EN 1991-1 General actions
Eurocode document in that it establishes the common principles EN 1991-2 Traffic loads on bridges
and requirements that apply to all aspects of structural design to the EN 1991-3 Actions induced by cranes and machinery
Eurocodes. Combinations of actions for all structures are set out in EN 1991-4 Silos and tanks
EN 1990. This section provides a brief introduction to the code.
EN 1991-1 is sub-divided into seven sub-parts, which provide
EN 1990 considers ultimate and serviceability limit states, the
designers with most of the information required to determine each
former being associated with the safety of people and the structure,
individual action on a structure. The seven sub-parts are given in
while the latter concerns the functioning and appearance of the
Table 1.2, with EN 1991-1-1, EN 1991-1-3, EN 1991-1-4 and EN
structure and the comfort of people. For ultimate limit states,
1991-1-7 being of particular relevance to this publication.
checks should be carried out for the following, as relevant:
Table 1.2: Sub-parts of EN 1991-1
• EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of the
structure.
EN 1991-1 Part Action type
• STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or
structural members. EN 1991-1-1 Densities, self weight and imposed loads
• GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground. EN 1991-1-2 Actions on structures exposed to fire
• FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members. EN 1991-1-3 Snow loads
EN 1991-1-4 Wind actions
In the context of structural steelwork in buildings, EQU (to assess EN 1991-1-5 Thermal actions
overturning and sliding as a rigid body) and STR (to determine EN 1991-1-6 Actions during execution (construction)
forces and moments in structural members under various load EN 1991-1-7 Accidental actions (impact and explosions)
combinations) are of primary concern.
EN 1991-1-1 is similar to BS 6399-1 and, since most structural
EN 1990 also emphasises, in Section 3, that all relevant design designers are familiar with this document, the change to EN 1991-
situations must be examined. Design situations are classified as 1-1 will be relatively straightforward.
follows, the first two being the ‘fundamental’ ones:
EN 1991-1-3 is used to determine snow loads and, although some
• Persistent design situations, which refer to conditions of normal of the terminology is unfamiliar, when read with the UK National
use. Annex to EN 1991-1-3, is very similar to BS 6399-3. The snow map
• Transient design situations, which refer to temporary conditions, in the UK National Annex is zoned with altitude adjustments, as
such as during execution (construction) or repair. opposed to that in BS 6399-3, which had isopleths, and it benefits
• Accidental design situations, which refer to exceptional from better analysis of the latest data from the metrological office [4].
conditions such as fire, explosion or impact.
6
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

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

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

The terminology adopted in the Eurocodes will be unfamiliar to the Co-existence:
majority of designers and may prove an obstacle to the rapid Eurocodes being in force in parallel with national codes.
uptake of the Eurocodes. Most of the definitions given in the
Combinations of actions:
Eurocodes derive from:
The combination of different sources of load acting simultaneously
for the verification of structural reliability for a given limit state.
• ISO 2394 (1998) General principles on reliability for structures
• ISO 3898 (1997) Basis for design of structures – Notations – Conformity:
General symbols Compliance with standards.
• ISO 8930 (1987) General principles on reliability for structures –
Design resistance:
The capacity of the structure or element to resist the design load.
List of equivalent terms
EN 1990 provides a basic list of terms and definitions which are Effects of actions:
applicable to all the other Eurocode parts, thus ensuring a Internal moments and forces, bending moments, shear forces
common basis for the structural Eurocodes. This section has been and deformations caused by actions.
provided to help to explain some of the key abbreviations,
Execution:
definitions and symbols used in the structural Eurocodes.
All activities carried out for the physical completion of the work
including procurement, the inspection and documentation thereof.
The term covers work on site; it may also signify the fabrication
2.1 Abbreviations
of components off site and their subsequent erection on site.
B Rules applicable only to buildings Fatigue:
EHF Equivalent Horizontal Force A mode of failure in which a member ruptures after many
EN European Standard applications of load.
EQU Associated with the loss of static equilibrium
Fundamental combinations:
FAT Associated with fatigue failure of the structure or
Combinations of actions for the persistent or transient design
structural members
situations.
GEO Associated with failure or excessive deformation of the
ground Frequent:
I Informative Likely to occur often, but for a short duration on each occasion.
N Normative
NA National Annex Informative:
NCCI Non-Conflicting Complementary Information For information, not a mandatory requirement – see normative.
P Principles Load arrangement:
STR Associated with internal failure or excessive deformation Identification of the position, magnitude and direction of the loads
of the structure or structural members (loading pattern).
Load case:
2.2 Definitions Compatible loading arrangements considered simultaneously
Load combination:
Attention is drawn to the following key definitions, which may be See ‘Combinations of actions’.
different from current national practice:
National Annex:
Accidental action: The document containing nationally determined parameters
An exceptional loading condition usually of high magnitude but (NDPs). This is an essential supplement without which the
short duration such as an explosion or impact.. Eurocode cannot be used.
Action: NDPs:
A load, or imposed deformation to which a structure is subjected Nationally Determined Parameters. Values left open in a
(e.g. temperature effects or settlement). Eurocode for definition in the country concerned.
Application rules: Non-Contradictory Complementary Information:

Clauses marked ‘P’ in the Eurocodes are principles, which must Permitted additional information and guidance.
be followed. Clauses not marked ‘P’ are application rules which, Normative:
when followed, satisfy the principles. Alternative design rules Mandatory, having the force of a Standard.
may be adopted. Application rules make up the bulk of the
codes and give the values and formulae to be used in the design. Persistent:
Likely to be present for most of the design life.
Characteristic:
The typical (unfactored) value of a parameter to be used in Principles:
design. Clauses marked ‘P’ define structural performance that must be
achieved.
8 --`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

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.
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Resistance:
The capacity of a member or component to withstand actions
without mechanical failure, e.g. bending resistance.
Transient:
Likely to be present for a period much shorter than the design life
but with a high probability of occurring.
Verify:
Check the design output to make sure it complies.
2.3 Symbols (Greek letters)
The following Greek letters are used in EN 1990 and this document:
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)
γ (gamma) Partial factor

γG Partial factor for permanent actions
γQ Partial factor for variable actions
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
ξ (xi) Reduction factor
Σ (sigma) Summation
9
3. Combinations of actions
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 (e.g., Gk > favourable and unfavourable actions. For permanent actions, the
4.5Qk for the case of office floor loading, where ψ0 = 0.7), only upper characteristic (superior) value Gkj,sup should be used when
Equation 6.10b need be considered for strength (STR) that action is unfavourable, and the lower characteristic (inferior)
verifications. For verifying equilibrium (e.g. assessing sliding or value Gkj,inf should be used when that action is favourable. This
overturning as a rigid body), only Equation 6.10 may be applied. clause allows the designer to consider a permanent action as
The load combination expressions, as they appear in Eurocode, either favourable or unfavourable, in separate load combinations.
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
are provided below: As stated in EN 1990, this approach is only necessary where the
results of verification are sensitive to variations in the magnitude of
Σ γG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i (6.10) a permanent action from place to place in a structure. This idea is
j≥1 i>1
considered in more detail in Reference [7] with a continuous beam
example. All variable actions should generally be present within a
Σ γG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1 ψ0,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i (6.10a) load combination unless they have a favourable influence, in which
j≥1 i>1
case they are assigned a partial factor γQ of zero, effectively
excluding them.
Σ ξγG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i (6.10b)
j≥1 i>1
Table 3.1: Design values of actions for equilibrium (EQU)
where “+” implies ‘to be combined with’ Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying
Σ implies ‘the combined effect of’ transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable
ψ0 is a combination factor, discussed below situations action actions
ξ is a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent Eq. 6.10 1.10 Gkj,sup 0.9 Gkj,inf 1.5 Qk,1 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
actions G, discussed below (0 when favourable)
γG is a partial factor for permanent actions
γP is a partial factor for prestressing actions
γQ is a partial factor for variable actions Table 3.2: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using
P represents actions due to prestressing Equation 6.10
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
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
The characteristic combination is given by Equation 6.14b of EN
Eq. 6.10b ξ×1.35Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf 1.5 Qk,1 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
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)
from 1.35 to 1.25. In applying Equation 6.10a all variable actions

are termed ‘accompanying’ (the largest of which is the main The frequent combination is given by Equation 6.15b of EN 1990
‘accompanying action’), whereas in applying Equation 6.10b the and is normally used for reversible limit states including excessive
most significant variable action is termed the ‘leading variable temporary (elastic) deformations or vibrations.
action’, and all others (i>1) are simply ‘accompanying’.
The combination factor ψ0 that appears in each of Equations 6.10,

Σ
j≥1
Gk, j “+” P “+” ψ1,1Qk,1 “+” Σ ψ2,iQk,i
i>1
(6.15b)
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)
0.6 for wind loading on buildings in EN 1990, whereas the UK

National Annex gives values of 0.7 for imposed loading on roofs The UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 (Clauses NA.2.23 and
and 0.5 for wind loading. Selected values of ψ0 from the UK NA.2.24) states that vertical and horizontal deflections may be
National Annex are given in Table 3.4. Values of ψ1 and ψ2 from checked using the characteristic combination with variable loads
the UK National Annex are also provided in Table 3.4, but only only (i.e. permanent loads should not be included). Deflection
feature in serviceability or accidental combinations. limits are also provided, which are the same as those given in BS
5950. The basis for employing the characteristic combination is
Table 3.4: Values of ψ factors for buildings that excessive deflections may cause permanent local damage to
connected parts or finishes (i.e. irreversible limit states), even
Action ψ0 ψ1 ψ2
though the steel members themselves will generally remain
Imposed loads in buildings, category elastic.
(see EN 1991-1-1)
Category A: domestic, residential areas 0.7 0.5 0.3
Category B: office areas 0.7 0.5 0.3
Category C: congregation areas 0.7 0.7 0.6
Category D: shopping areas 0.7 0.7 0.6
Category E: storage areas 1.0 0.9 0.8
Category F: traffic area, vehicle weight ≤ 30 kN 0.7 0.7 0.6
Category G: traffic area,
30 kN < vehicle weight ≤ 160 kN 0.7 0.5 0.3
Category H: roofs 0.7 0 0
Snow loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-3)
– for sites located at altitude H > 1000 m
above sea level 0.7 0.5 0.2
– for sites located at altitude H ≤ 1000 m
above sea level 0.5 0.2 0
Wind loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-4) 0.5 0.2 0
Temperature (non fire) in buildings
(see EN 1991-1-5) 0.6 0.5 0
11
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

4. Multi-storey buildings
In this section, Eurocode load combinations for multi-storey stiff (i.e. sway deformation under the design loading is relatively
buildings are set out. General guidance for both simple and small) – this is deemed to be the case for elastic analysis when αcr
moment resisting frames is given in Section 4.1, since, in principle, ≥ 10, and similarly, according to the UK National Annex, for plastic
load combinations are the same for both types of structure. analysis of clad frames when the additional stiffening effect of the
However, differences in treatment often arise due to differences in cladding has been neglected. In cases where αcr is less than 10,
sway stiffness, member interaction etc. and hence, specific the designer is presented with a number of options. These include
guidance and examples for moment resisting and simple frames is enhancement of the stability system such that αcr is raised above
provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. The following load 10 and hence second order effects may be ignored, making
categories are considered: Dead loads Gk, imposed loads Ik, snow allowance for second order effects by approximate means
loads Sk and wind loads Wk. (amplified sway method or effective length method, both of which
were allowed in BS 5950), or making allowance for second order
4.1 General effects by performing a second order structural analysis enabling
and accounting for deformation of the structure under load. It
4.1.1 Classification of frames should be noted that if αcr is less than 3, then an accurate second
An important classification of frames is in relation to their sway order analysis must be performed (Clause 5.2.2(5) of EN 1993-1-
sensitivity. Adequate sway stiffness is important because it limits 1). The aforementioned is summarised in Table 4.1.
the lateral deflections of the frame and hence controls second order
(P-Δ) effects. Sway stiffness is assessed in EN 1993-1-1 in a similar Table 4.1: Summary of analysis methods and treatment of
way as it is in BS 5950, through the αcr parameter (equivalent to λcr second order effects
in BS 5950), which represents the factor by which the design
loading would have to be increased to cause overall elastic buckling Limits on αcr Analysis method Result
of the frame in a global sway mode (Clause 5.2.1(3) of EN 1993-1- αcr ≥ 10 First order analysis Second order
1). A simplified means of determining αcr for regular frames is also effects ignored
given in Equation 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1. Regardless of the frame type
10 > αcr ≥ 3 First order analysis plus Second order effects
(i.e. braced or moment resisting), if αcr is greater than or equal to
amplified sway method or allowed for by
10, the sway stiffness is deemed sufficiently large for second order
effective length method approximate means
effects to be ignored. Conversely, if αcr is less than 10, second order
effects may no longer be ignored. Second order effects are αcr < 3 Second order analysis Second order effects
discussed further in Section 4.1.3. allowed for more
accurately
4.1.2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal
forces (EHF) The most common approximate treatment of second order effects
Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the in multi-storey buildings, which may be applied provided that αcr
structural analysis by defining an initial slant for the frame. ≥3, is the so called ‘amplified sway method’. In this method,
However, the more general approach is to replace this geometric account for second order effects is made by amplifying all lateral
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
imperfection with a system of equivalent horizontal forces (EHF), loading on the structure (typically wind loads and EHF) by a factor,
referred to as notional horizontal loads in BS 5950. Whereas in BS referred to in the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 as kr, which
5950, equivalent horizontal forces were only required in the is related to the sway stiffness of the structure through Equation
vertical load case, in the Eurocodes it is deemed that since frame D4.1 (Equation 5.4 of EN 1993-1-1).
imperfections are inherently present, they should be included in all
1
ULS load combinations, since their purpose is to represent the kr = (D4.1)
1-1/αcr
initial imperfect geometry, from which deflections occur under the
applied load. EHF are not required in SLS load combinations. The
EHF should be determined separately for each load combination 4.1.4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (αn) and
since they depend on the level of design vertical loads. For each floor area (αA)
storey, the EHF may be calculated as the design vertical load for As the number of storeys in a building increase, the likelihood that
that storey (not the cumulative vertical load) multiplied by 1/200 all floors will be loaded to the full design level decreases. Similarly,
(i.e. 0.5%). Depending on the height of the structure and the large floor areas will seldom be subjected to the full design loading
number of columns contributing to the horizontal force on the uniformly. To reflect this, reduction factors for imposed loads may
bracing system, reductions to this basic value of 1/200 are be applied for the design of floors, beams and roofs and for the
possible, as detailed in Clause 5.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-1. If design of columns and walls. For the design of individual floors,
horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads (VEd) these beams and roofs, the area reduction factor αA may be applied. For
sway imperfections may be disregarded, and EHF ignored – this the design of columns and walls, the reduction factor αn for the
would more often apply to low rise buildings. number of storeys may be applied. The reduction factor αn relates
to the number of floors supported by the column section under
4.1.3 Second order (P-Δ) effects consideration, and may be applied to the total imposed load being
Second order effects relate to the increase in member forces and carried. If, for a given column or wall, αA < αn, then αA may be
moments that occur as a result of deformation of the structure used in place of αn, but αA and αn may not be used together
under load. As outlined in Section 4.1.1, second order (P-Δ) (Clause NA.2.6).
effects need not be considered provided the frame is sufficiently
12
Reduction factors αA for imposed loads on floors and accessible

roofs are provided in Clause NA.2.5 of the UK National Annex to
EN 1991-1-1 (see Equation D4.2), and replace those given in
Clause 6.3.1.2(10) of EN 1991-1-1.
γGG k γGG k + γQQ k
αA = 1.0 – A/1000 ≥ 0.75 (D4.2) Storey under consideration
where A is the area (m2) supported.
Reduction factors αn for imposed loads from several storeys used

for calculating column forces are defined in Clause 6.3.1.2(11) and
by Equation 6.2 of EN 1991-1-1. Revised expressions are
provided in the UK National Annex (Clause NA.2.6 and Equation
Figure 4.1(b): Pattern loading for continuous floor beams
NA.2), as given by Equations D4.3 to D4.5 below. These reduction
factors may be applied to the total imposed load experienced by a (b) Applies to support (hogging) moments
given column, but may only be employed when the imposed load
is the leading variable action in a load combination. When the For the design of columns or walls loaded from several storeys (2 or
imposed load is an accompanying action, either ψ0 or αn may be more) the total imposed floor load on each storey should be assumed
applied, but not both. to be uniformly distributed (Clause 6.2.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1).
αn = 1.1 – n/10 for 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 (D4.3) 4.1.6 Dead loads

In load combinations, the total self-weight of the structure and non-
αn = 0.6 for 5 < n ≤ 10 (D4.4) structural components should be taken as a single action (Clause
3.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1). Permanent roof loads and floor loads may
αn = 0.5 for n > 10 (D4.5) therefore be treated as a single action Gk in load combinations.
4.1.5 Pattern loading 4.1.7 Overturning

For the design of floors within one storey and for the design of Overturning of a structure as a rigid body is independent of its
roofs, EN 1991-1-1 Clause 6.2.1(1) states that pattern loading lateral load resisting system and sway stiffness. It is solely a
should be considered for continuous construction, though the matter of equilibrium (EQU), for which only Equation 6.10 of EN
storeys other than the one under consideration may be assumed 1990 should be applied. The critical load combination for general
to be uniformly loaded (Clause 6.2.1 of EN 1991-1-1). Pattern multi-storey buildings emerges on the basis of maximising the
loading need not be considered for simple construction. The two overturning moment due to the horizontal loading (wind and EHF)
loading patterns identified in Clause AB.2 of EN 1993-1-1 for and minimising the restoring moment due to the vertical loading. It
continuous floor beams to assess (a) the span moments and (b) is generally appropriate to consider only a single value for dead
support moments for the storey under consideration are shown in loading, but the concept of upper (superior) Gk,sup and lower
Figures 4.1(a) and (b), respectively. In Figure 4.1(a), alternative (inferior) Gk,inf characteristic values should be considered where
spans carry the design permanent and variable load (γGGk + γQQk) sensitivity to variability in dead loads is very high (Clause A1.3.1 of
while other spans carry only the design permanent load (γGGk). In EN 1990). For the overturning load case, a factor of 0.9 is applied
Figure 4.1(b), two adjacent spans carry the design permanent and to the dead load (where it is contributing to the restoring moment)
variable load (γGGk + γQQk) while all other spans carry only the and factor of 1.5 is applied to the wind load, as the leading variable
design permanent load ( γGGk). action. The wind load has been denoted Wk in this document.
Equivalent horizontal forces are included, as in all ULS
combinations, but these are not factored (again) since they are
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
already based on factored loading. Thus, the overturning load

combination is given by Equation D4.6.
γGG k γ GG k + γQQ k
0.9Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.6)
Storey under consideration
As noted in Section 4.1.2, the EHF may be calculated as 0.5%

(with some scope for reduction) of the load on each storey, and are
thus dependant upon the load combination being considered.
Figure 4.1(a): Pattern loading for continuous floor beams

(a) Applies to span (sagging) moments
13
4.2 Moment resisting frames In Equation D4.10, the wind load is now considered as the leading
(continuous construction) variable action with a load factor of 1.5, thus the imposed load is
reduced by a combination factor ψ0 of 0.7 (applicable in all cases
Moment resisting frames are statically indeterminate. There is except for storage areas), to give a load factor = 0.7 x 1.5 = 1.05.
interaction between the members and so load combinations need Again, since this load combination features wind loading, the snow
to be considered for the full structure. For simple braced frames, load, which has a value of ψ0 = 0.5 (at altitudes of less than 1000m),
the individual members can essentially be designed in isolation should be applied to the roof to give a load factor = 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75.
enabling more straight-forward load combinations, as described in
Section 4.3. Unbraced (moment resisting) frames are also Gravity + Wind leading
generally less stiff laterally than braced frames, and are therefore 1.35Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 1.05Ik (floors) “+” 0.75Sk (roof) “+” EHF (D4.10)
more likely to require consideration of second order effects.
4.2.2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with
αcr < 10
4.2.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with
For frames with αcr < 10, second order effects must be considered.
αcr ≥ 10
This may be avoided by appropriate reconfiguration of the bracing
For frames with αcr ≥ 10, second order effects need not be
system in order to increase the sway stiffness of the structure and
considered. The basic gravity load combination (i.e. dead load +
hence ensure αcr ≥ 10, though simply increasing the cross-sectional
imposed load) arising from Equation 6.10 of EN 1990 is given by
area of the bracing to achieve this will generally prove to be
Equation D4.7:
uneconomical. Otherwise, account must be made of second order
effects. For αcr < 3, an accurate second order analysis is required,
Gravity only
while for regular frames with αcr ≥ 3 approximate methods to allow
1.35Gk “+” 1.5lk (floors) “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof) “+” (D4.7)
for second order effects may be employed, the most common of
which is the amplified sway method. In this case, load combinations
Equation D4.7 applies to the full building – for the floors, the
will be the same as those defined in Section 4.2.1, except that all
imposed floor loading Ik should be adopted, whilst for the roof, the
horizontal loads (Wk + EHF) and other possible sway effects (e.g.
higher of the imposed roof load Ik,roof and the snow load Sk should
arising from asymmetric loading) will be multiplied by kr (Equation
be used. Since the variable gravity load on the roof will be either
D4.1). Note that kr is derived from αcr, which is in turn dependent on
the imposed load or the snow load (i.e. snow and imposed roof
the loading FEd on the structure, so, as for EHF, kr should be
load are not to be considered simultaneously – see Clause
determined separately for each load combination.
3.3.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1), both are considered to be the leading
variable action, attracting a load factor of 1.5. 4.2.3 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10a and
6.10b with αcr ≥ 10
Considering wind loading, for cases of wind uplift Wk,up, gravity loads Considering load combinations from Equation 6.10a and 6.10b of
are favourable since they oppose the uplift forces. In such cases, the EN 1990, as explained in Section 3.1, unless the dead load is
dead load is assigned a load factor of 1.0, whilst the imposed load (or substantially greater than the imposed load, the governing load
snow load) has a load factor of zero. This results in Equation D4.8. combinations will be derived from Equation 6.10b, and Equation
6.10a will not normally need to be considered. The only difference
1.0Gk “+” 1.5Wk,up “+” EHF Wind uplift (D4.8) between Equation 6.10b and Equation 6.10 is that Equation 6.10b
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
will have a lower dead load factor of 1.25 due to the introduction of
Considering dead, imposed and wind loads acting together, and the ξ factor with a UK National Annex value of 0.925 (see Section
assuming all loads to be always unfavourable (i.e. causing an 3.1). Noting that ξ is a reduction factor on unfavourable dead
increase in member forces or moments), two further load loads, and hence will not affect the wind uplift combination where
combinations, given by Equations D4.9 and D4.10, arise from the dead load is favourable, the load combinations given by
Equation 6.10 of EN 1990. In Equation D4.9, imposed load is Equations D4.7 to D4.10 (derived from Equation 6.10) now (by
assumed to be the leading variable action and hence attracts a load applying Equation 6.10b) become:
factor of 1.5, whilst the wind load Wk is reduced by a combination
factor ψ0 of 0.5 (to give a load factor = 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75). Note that, at Gravity only
the roof level, the imposed load should not be considered in 1.25Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof) “+” EHF (D4.11)
combination with either the snow load or the wind load (see Clause
3.3.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1). Hence, in Equation D4.9, the imposed floor Wind uplift
load Ik is applied to the floors and the snow load Sk is applied to the 1.0Gk “+” 1.5Wk,up “+” EHF (D4.12)
roof, with both considered to be the leading variable action, with a
load factor of 1.5, at their location. Gravity leading + Wind
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.13)
Gravity leading + Wind
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.9) Gravity + Wind leading
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 1.05Ik (floors) “+” 0.75Sk (roof) “+” EHF (D4.14)
Equations D4.11 to D4.14 represent the four basic load

combinations for multi-storey frames. For economy, it is
recommended that these load combinations (Equations D4.11 to
D4.14 all emerging from Equation 6.10b) be used in preference to
those arising from Equation 6.10 (Equation D4.7 to D4.10).
14
4.2.4 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a 4.3 Braced frames (simple construction)
and 6.10b with αcr < 10
As described in Section 4.2.2, when αcr < 10, second order effects In simple braced frames, load combinations and design
must be considered. If the amplified sway method is employed, load calculations can be simplified by separating the treatment of
combinations will be the same as those given in Equations D4.11 to different groups of members. Four groups of members, namely
D4.14, except that all horizontal loads (wind and equivalent roof beams, floor beams, columns, and columns forming part of
horizontal forces) and other sway effects are multiplied by the factor the bracing system, are considered under the following two sub-
kr, which, as noted in Section 4.2.2 is load combination dependent. sections, which address load combinations according to Equation
6.10 and Equations 6.10a and 6.10b, respectively. Note that in
4.2.5 SLS load combinations simple braced frames, equivalent horizontal forces (EHF) and
As outlined in Section 3.2, the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 second order effects need only be considered for the bracing
states that vertical and horizontal deflections may be checked members and the columns that form part of the bracing system.
using the characteristic combination with variable loads only (i.e.
permanent loads should not be included). The characteristic 4.3.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10
combination is defined by Equation 6.14b of EN 1990, where the
leading variable action is unfactored (i.e. taken as its characteristic ROOF BEAMS
value) and all accompanying variable actions are reduced by the For roof beams, four load combinations should be considered. The
combination factor ψ0. first considers gravity loads only, in which the variable action is
taken as the higher of the imposed roof load and the snow load.
Assuming all loads to be unfavourable, the resulting SLS
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
combinations are given by Equations D4.15 (where imposed load 1.35Gk “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof) Gravity only (D4.19)
or snow load on the roof is taken as the leading variable action) and
D4.16 (where wind load is taken as the leading variable action). The wind uplift combination is given by:
1.0Ik (floors) “+” 1.0Sk (roof) “+” 0.50Wk (D4.15) 1.0Gk “+” 1.5Wk,up Wind uplift (D4.20)
1.0Wk “+” 0.70Ik (floors) “+” 0.5Sk (roof) (D4.16) The final two combinations consider dead load, snow load and
wind load, with snow leading (Equation D4.21) and wind leading
For cases where the influence of horizontal loading on vertical (Equation D4.22).
deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where wind load is 1.35Gk “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk Gravity leading + Wind (D4.21)
favourable (e.g. suction on a roof may reduce deflections), Equation
D4.15 reduces simply to Equation D4.17 (i.e. checking vertical 1.35Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 0.75Sk (roof) Gravity + Wind leading (D4.22)
deflections under unfactored imposed or snow loading only).
FLOOR BEAMS
1.0Ik (floors) “+” 1.0(Ik roof or Sk) (roof) (D4.17)
For floor beams, only the gravity load combination needs to be
applied:
For cases where the influence of vertical loading on horizontal
deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where vertical 1.35Gk “+” 1.5Ik Gravity only (D4.23)
loading is favourable, Equation D4.16 reduces to Equation D4.18 (i.e.
checking horizontal deflections under unfactored wind loading only). COLUMNS
For columns, the gravity load only combination, with the higher of
1.0Wk (D4.18) the imposed roof load and the snow load applied at roof level, is
given by Equation D4.24:
Deflection limits are also provided in the UK National Annex to EN
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof) Gravity only (D4.24)
1993-1-1 in Clauses NA.2.23 and NA.2.24. The deflection limits of
relevance to multi-storey buildings, which are the same as those
Where the wind load also has a downward vertical component at
given in BS 5950, are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
the roof level, the following two combinations should also be
assessed:
Table 4.2: Vertical deflection limits
Gravity leading + Wind
Vertical deflection Limit
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk (D4.25)
Cantilevers Length/180
Beam carrying plaster or other brittle finish Span/360 Gravity + Wind leading
Other beams (except purlins and sheeting rails) Span/200 1.35Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 1.05Ik (floors) “+” 0.75Sk (roof) (D4.26)
Table 4.3: Horizontal deflection limits
Horizontal deflection Limit

In each storey of a building with more Height of
than one storey that storey/300
15
COLUMNS FORMING PART OF THE BRACING SySTEM 4.4 Example

For the columns forming part of the bracing system, horizontal
loads (wind and EHF) play an important role. The following three The following example illustrates application of the above ULS
load combinations should be considered, all of which contain the load combinations (from Equations 6.10a and 6.10b) to a simple
equivalent horizontal forces (EHF). Additionally, where αcr < 10, braced frame. A plan view of the structure is given in Figure 4.2,
allowance should be made for second order effects in the manner showing 5 internal frames and two end frames that contain
described in Section 4.1.3. diagonal cross-bracing, all spaced at 6 m intervals. A cross-section
of the building, showing the frame and bracing geometry, together
Gravity only with the considered loads, is given in Figure 4.3. Cross-bracing is
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof)“+” EHF (D4.27) employed and the bracing members are assumed to resist tension
Gravity leading + Wind only. It is also assumed that αcr ≥ 10, so second order effects are
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.28) neglected. Imposed load reduction factors have not been
considered.
Gravity + Wind leading
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 1.05Ik (roof) “+” 0.75Sk (roof) “+” EHF (D4.29) 36m
4.3.2 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a Vertical

and 6.10b bracing
As explained in Section 3.1 and 4.2.3, Equation 6.10a will not
normally govern the design of multi-storey steel buildings and hence
15m
only the load combinations from Equation 6.10b generally need to

be considered. In this case, the load combinations given by
Equations D4.19 to D4.29 are unchanged except that all 1.35 factors
are reduced to 1.25 due to the application of the dead load reduction
Wind
factor, ξ which is equal to 0.925 in the UK (i.e. 0.925 ×1.35 = 1.25).
Figure 4.2: Plan view of building showing 5 internal frames
The load combinations may therefore be summarised as follows:
and 2 end frames that contain diagonal cross-bracing and
provide the lateral stability for the wind direction indicated
ROOF BEAMS
1.25Gk “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof) Gravity only (D4.30) The characteristic (unfactored) loading on the structure is as
1.0Gk “+” 1.5Wk,up Wind uplift (D4.31) follows:
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk Gravity leading + Wind (D4.32)
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 0.75Sk (roof) Gravity + Wind leading (D4.33) Roof dead load Gk,roof = 3.5 kN/m2
Floor dead load Gk = 3.5 kN/m2
FLOOR BEAMS
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Ik Gravity only (D4.34) Roof imposed load Ik,roof = 1.5 kN/m2
Floor imposed load Ik = 5.0 kN/m2
COLUMNS
Gravity only Roof snow load Sk = 0.5 kN/m2
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof) (D4.35)
Gravity leading + Wind Maximum downward wind pressure on roof Wk = 0.1 kN/m2
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk (D4.36) Maximum uplift wind pressure on roof Wk,up = 0.1 kN/m2
Gravity + Wind leading Maximum total (windward + leeward) lateral wind pressure
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 1.05Ik (floors) “+” 0.75Sk (roof) (D4.37) Wk = 0.75 kN/m2
COLUMNS FORMING PART OF THE BRACING SySTEM Equivalent horizontal forces (EHF) are determined on the basis of
Gravity only + EHF φ multiplied by the total vertical load for each storey, where φ =
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5(Ik,roof or Sk) (roof)“+” EHF (D4.38) φ0αhαm. For the calculation of αh and αm, h = 14.4 m is the height
Gravity leading + Wind + EHF of the building (in metres) and m = 14 is the number of columns
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Ik (floors) “+” 1.5Sk (roof) “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.39) contributing to the horizontal force on the bracing system.
Gravity + Wind leading + EHF

1.25Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 1.05Ik (floors) “+” 0.75Sk (roof) “+” EHF (D4.40)
4.3.3 SLS load combinations

For simple braced frames, it may generally be assumed that the
horizontal loads do not have any impact on the deflections of the
beams and the vertical loads do not affect the lateral deflections of
the structure. Hence, beam deflections may be checked under
unfactored imposed loads only and lateral frame deflections may
be checked under unfactored wind loads only, as given by
Equations D4.17 and D4.18, respectively. The angle of the bracing to the horizontal is 35.8°
16
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Gk,roof;Ik,roof;Sk;Wk;Wk up Table 4.4: Design UDLs (kN/m) on roof beams of internal

frames
3.6m
Vertical Vertical ULS
Gk,roof Ik,roof Sk =
Wk Gk;Ik Wk Load Wk = Wk,up Design
Equation = 3.5 = 1.5 0.5
Combination 0.1 = -0.1 UDL
kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2
kN/m2 kN/m2 qEd
Outer 3.6m
Gk;Ik
21.00 9.00 3.00 0.60 -0.60
Characteristic -
column kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
26.25 13.5 39.75

D4.30 Gravity - - -
3.6m
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Gk;Ik
21.00 -0.90 20.10
D4.31 Wind Uplift - - -
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Inner Bracing (in 3.6m
column
Gravity
end frames) D4.32 leading +
26.25
-
4.50 0.45
-
31.20
kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
Wind
5m 5m 5m
Gravity
26.25 2.25 0.90 29.40
D4.33 leading + - -
kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
Wind
Figure 4.3: Cross-section of building, bracing configuration
and loading
The design (factored) loads on the roof beams, floor beams and Table 4.5: Design UDLs (kN/m) on floor beams of internal
columns in the internal frames, and bracing and columns in the frames that do not contain bracing
end frames that contain diagonal cross-bracing, are calculated,
ULS
based on the load combinations given by Equations D4.30 to Gk = Ik
Load Design
Equation 3.5 = 5.0
D4.39, and presented in Tables 4.4 to 4.7. The maximum design Combination UDL
kN/m2 kN/m2
uniformly distributed loads (UDLs) and forces are marked in bold, qEd
indicating the critical load combinations. 21.00 30.00

Characteristic -
kN/m kN/m
26.25 45.00 71.25

D4.34 Gravity
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Table 4.6: Design UDLs on frame (kN/m) and design axial forces (kN) in bottom storey columns of internal
frames that do not contain bracing
Design axial Design axial

Gk,roof = 3.5 Ik,roof Sk = 0.5 Gk = 3.5 Ik Vertical Wk =
Equation Load Combination force in inner force in outer
kN/m2 = 1.5 kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2 = 5.0 kN/m2 0.1 kN/m2
columns NEd columns NEd
Characteristic 21.00 kN/m 9.00 kN/m 3.00 kN/m 21.00 kN/m 30.00 kN/m 0.60 kN/m - -
D4.35 Gravity 26.25 kN/m 13.50 kN/m - 26.25 kN/m 45.00 kN/m - 1267.5 kN 633.8 kN
D4.36 Gravity leading + Wind 26.25 kN/m - 4.50 kN/m 26.25 kN/m 45.00 kN/m 0.45 kN/m 1224.8 kN 612.4 kN
D4.37 Gravity + Wind leading 26.25 kN/m - 2.25 kN/m 26.25 kN/m 31.50 kN/m 0.90 kN/m 1013.3 kN 506.6 kN
Table 4.7: Design UDLs on frame and design axial forces (kN) in bottom storey bracing and columns of end
frames that contain diagonal cross-bracing
Force due Force due Design
Design
Ik,roof Ik Vertical to lateral to lateral EHF EHF axial force
Gk,roof = Sk = 0.5 Gk = 3.5 axial tensile in inner
Equation Load Combination = 1.5 = 5.0 Wk = 0.1 Wk = 0.75 Wk = 0.75 (roof (floor braced
3.5 kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2 force in
kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m kN/m2 kN/m2 level) level)
bracing NEd columns
2
(roof level) (floor level) NEd

10.50 4.50 1.50 10.50 15.00 0.30
Characteristic 24.3 kN 48.6kN - - - -
kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
13.13 6.75 13.13 22.50
D4.38 Gravity + EHF - - - - 4.4 kN 7.8 kN 34.3 kN 653.8 kN
kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
Gravity leading + 13.13 2.25 13.13 22.50 0.225
D4.39 - 18.2 kN 36.5 kN 3.4 kN 7.8 kN 190.3 kN 723.6 kN
Wind + EHF kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
Gravity + 13.13 1.13 13.13 15.75 0.45
D4.40 - 36.5 kN 72.9 kN 3.2 kN 6.3 kN 341.8 kN 706.4 kN
Wind + EHF kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
17
5. Industrial buildings
5.1 General the approach for determining wind pressures very similar although
some terminology has changed. The publication “Designers’
Although industrial buildings can be designed to support Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, general
mezzanine floors and cranes, they are primarily loaded by their actions part 1-4. Wind actions” [5] is very important in explaining
self weight, service loads, imposed loads or snow loads and wind the background and limitations of the new European Standard.
loads. Service loads tend to be ‘project specific’ but a nominal
value of around 0.05 kN/m2 should always be considered in Although wind pressures vary depending on site location, altitude,
structural design to allow for loads from nominal lighting. This orientation etc, the pressure and force coefficients depend only on
value will increase if more substantial services such as sprinkler the external shape of the structure. By looking at the overall
systems or air-conditioning are incorporated. The self weights of pressure coefficients, irrespective of the actual site wind
false ceilings over intermediate floors are often also treated as pressures, it is possible to determine the critical load cases. For a
service loads. Snow loads and wind loads are site specific and are portal frame with a roof pitch of 5°, Figure 5.1 shows the external
influenced by the geometry of the structure and its orientation. pressure coefficients, cpc, while the overall pressure coefficients
Snow loads are determined by reference to EN 1991-1-3 and its (internal and external) are presented in Figure 5.2.
UK National Annex. Wind loads are determined by reference to
EN 1991-1-4 and its UK National Annex, but designers might also External pressure coefficients for the walls have been extracted
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
like to refer to Reference [5] for further guidance. from Table 7.1 of EN 1991-1-4 assuming an h/d ratio ≤ 0.25, while
those for the roof have been extracted from Tables 7.4a and 7.4b.
Clause 3.3.2 (1) of EN 1991-1-1 states that on roofs, imposed Once the basic external coefficients have been established, to
loads and snow loads or wind loads should not be applied together comply with the requirements of Clauses 5.3 and 7.2.2 of EN
simultaneously. This means (1) that snow load and imposed load 1991-1-4, two additional factors are applied:
should not appear together in any given load combination, and (2)
that imposed load and wind load should not appear together in any 1. The structural factor cscd – for the majority of portal frames the
given load combination. The basis for this clause is that it would be height will be less than 15 m and the value of cscd is taken as
unreasonable to consider that maintenance would be undertaken 2. For buildings with h/d ≤1, which covers most portal frames, the
in severe weather conditions. external horizontal wind forces on the windward and leeward
faces (i.e. under transverse wind loading) are multiplied by 0.85.
The concept of ψ factors was introduced in Section 3 and Table 5.1
presents the ψ factors that are relevant to portal frame design. In Internal pressure coefficients cpi for buildings with uniformly
Table 5.1, Gkc = permanent crane action and Gkc + Qkc = total crane distributed openings are determined from Figure 7.13 of EN 1991-
action (from Clause A.2.3 of EN 1991-3 Annex A). 1-4. Values of the internal pressure coefficients depend on the h/d
ratio of the building and the parameter μ, which is the ratio
Table 5.1: ψ factors relevant to portal frame structures between the sum of the areas of openings where the external
pressure coefficient is zero or negative and the sum of the areas
ψ0 ψ1 ψ2 of all openings. For longitudinal wind load cases, the external
Imposed loads on roofs 0.7 0.0 0.0 pressure coefficients will be predominantly negative, hence the
value of μ will be close to unity and, from Figure 7.13 of EN 1991-
Snow loads at altitude less than
1-4, assuming h/d ≤ 0.25, cpi will be approximately -0.3. For
or equal to 1000 m 0.5 0.2 0.0
transverse wind load cases, μ will be lower and hence higher
Wind loads 0.5 0.2 0.0 values of cpi will be found from Figure 7.13. Note 2 of clause
Crane loads 1.0 0.9 Gkc/(Gkc+Qkc) 7.2.9(6) of EN 1991-1-4 states that cpi values may be estimated as
the more onerous of 0.2 and -0.3. This, however, may prove to be
overly conservative, and it is recommended that designers make
5.1.1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 - Snow loading
use of Figure 7.13 to determine the specific values of cpi for their
In Section 2 of EN 1991-1-3, ‘Classification of actions’, snow loads
building. For the example presented herein, 0.0/-0.3 is used for the
are classified as variable fixed actions unless otherwise specified in
longitudinal wind load case, with 0.0 clearly being the more critical,
the code. In this section it also states that exceptional snow loads
while 0.2/-0.3 is used for the transverse wind load cases.
and exceptional snow drifts may be treated as accidental actions,
depending on geographical locations. The UK National Annex
confirms this in Clauses NA.2.4 and NA.2.5 and also states that
Annex B should be used to determine the drifted snow load case.
This approach is consistent with current UK practice for designers
using BS 6399-3 and BRE Digest 439 [8] to determine uniform
snow loads and the loads caused by drifted snow.
5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading

Wind actions are defined as variable fixed actions. The process
for determining wind pressures is based on a 10-minute mean
wind velocity and a new map has been provided in the UK National
Annex. Designers who have been working with BS 6399-2 will find
18
-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
-0.6 -0.6
-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6
-0.6 Internal -0.6
pressure 0.0
Longitudinal Wind Longitudinal Wind
-0.6 0.2 -0.6 0.2

-1.2 -0.6 -1.2 -0.6
-0.8 0.0
-1.4 -0.8
-0.595 -0.255 0.595 -0.255
0.395 Internal
-0.455
pressure 0.2
Transverse Wind 1a Transverse Wind 1a
0.0 -0.6 -0.6 0.2

-0.6 -1.2 -0.6
-0.3 0.5
-0.9 -0.3
0.595 -0.255 0.595
Internal
-0.3
0.895 0.0
suction -0.3
Transverse Wind 1b Transverse Wind 1b
Key -0.6
0.0 -0.6
Pressure shown as positive values
Suction shown as negative values -0.2 -0.8
-0.8
0.595 -0.255
0.395 Internal -0.455
Figure 5.1: External pressure coefficients – Portal frame with pressure 0.2
5% roof pitch
Transverse Wind 2a
-0.6
0.0 -0.6
0.3 -0.3
-0.3
0.595 -0.255
0.895 Internal 0.045
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
suction -0.3
Transverse Wind 2b
Figure 5.2: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 5o

roof pitch
The above coefficients are typical for internal transverse portal Key
frames in a building. Towards the ends of the structure and, for Overall coefficients shown thus: 0.0
the design of secondary components such as purlins, side
rails and cladding, more onerous coefficients are applicable. Pressure shown as positive values
Suction shown as negative values
19
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P- Δ effects

Roof Pitch Apex
Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the Eaves Rafter
structural analysis by defining an initial sway for the frame. The
more general approach is to apply equivalent horizontal forces
(EHF). For more information on this and P-Δ effects refer to
Eaves Haunch Apex Haunch
Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of this publication. Subject to a number of
Column
geometrical restraints, the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1
(Clause NA.2.9) allows that second order effects may be ignored
in the plastic design of portal frames under gravity loading only
provided αcr ≥ 5. Note that the axial compression in the rafters of a Figure 5.3: Typical clear span portal frame
portal frame can be significant. See Equation 5.3 of EN 1993-1-1
which precludes the use of the approximate formula (Equation 5.2 Dead load: Cladding 0.150 kN/m2
of EN 1993-1-1) for the determination of αcr. In such instances, an Purlins (0.046 × 1.25/1.8) 0.032 kN/m2
elastic buckling analysis should be performed to calculate αcr. (1.25 factor to allow for purlin sleeves)
Rafter (0.54 × 1.1 / 6.0) 0.099 kN/m2
(1.10 factor to allow for rafter haunches)
5.2 Portal frames Dead load on slope 0.281 kN/m2
Slope factor (5° slope) 1.0038
Combinations of actions for portal frames (see Figure 5.3) are Dead load on plan 0.282 kN/m2
considered in this section. Additional considerations for cranes are
introduced in Section 5.3. The serviceability limit state is treated Gksup = Dead + Service load = 0.282 + 0.150 = 0.432 kN/m2
first since this is likely to govern the design of this form of Gkinf = Dead load = 0.282 kN/m2
construction. Ik = Imposed load = 0.600 kN/m2
Sk = Snow load = 0.500 kN/m2
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design
For the serviceability limit state, the UK National Annex to EN Wk = Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2
1993-1-1 states that deflections may be checked using the Wk,up = Wind uplift = -0.800 kN/m2
characteristic combination of loading and considering variable Ad = Load from snow drift = 0.550 kN/m2
loads only, as discussed in Section 3.2.
Applying the loads for the example to the set of serviceability

Assuming that for steel portal frame structures the dead load can
equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.2.
be accurately determined and that the combined dead and service
Data in bold text identifies the critical load combinations.
loads can be treated as one dead load:
Gksup = Dead load + Service load

Table 5.2: Load combinations for the serviceability limit state
Gkinf = Dead load
from Equation 6.14b
Ik = Imposed load
Sk = Uniform snow load
Wk = Wind load (Wk,up = wind uplift)
Wk (pressure) = 0.500 Ad = Design
Ad = Load from snow drift (accidental load condition) Load (kN/m2) Ik = 0.600 Sk = 0.500
Wk,up (uplift) = 0.800 0.55
load
(kN/m2)
6.14b 1.0 (Ik or Sk) Imposed or snow load only Imposed only 0.600 - - - 0.600
1.0Sk “+” 0.5Wk Snow leading plus wind
Snow leading +
0.5Sk “+” 1.0Wk Wind leading plus snow Wind - 0.500 0.250 - 0.750
1.0Wk,up Wind uplift Wind leading +
Snow - 0.250 0.500 - 0.750
5.2.2 SLS design example for a single span portal Wind uplift - - -0.800 - -0.800
Consider a 25 m span portal frame, 6 m to eaves and in 6 m bays
with a 5° roof pitch. The structure is assumed to be clad with
The designer must be aware of the possible number of wind load
composite sheeting supported by purlins and side rails at 1.8 m
cases to be considered, the above matrix simply presents these as
maximum centres.
uniform pressure or uplift on the roof. In reality the loading pattern
is more complex than this and the following procedure may be of
use.
20
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Suggested procedure: From Equation 6.10a:
1. Carry out an elastic analysis for each individual serviceability Gravity only (Imposed)
load case. 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Ik “+” EHF (D5.5)
2. Identify the wind case for maximum suction on the rafter. (This Gravity only (Snow)
is generally longitudinal wind with internal pressure). 1.35Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” EHF (D5.6)
3. Identify the wind case that results in the maximum eaves Gravity (Snow) + Wind
displacement (side sway). This is likely to be transverse wind 1.35Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D5.7)
with pressure on the windward slope and suction on the leeward
Wind uplift
slope.
1.0Gkinf “+” 0.75Wk,up “+” EHF (D5.8)
4. Use the wind load cases identified in steps 2 and 3 of this
procedure in Equation 6.14b to identify maximum
displacements. From Equation 6.10b:
5. If the frame is unsymmetrical in any way the designer should
Gravity only
apply the wind load in the direction to maximise the sway effect.
1.25Gksup “+” 1.5(Ik or Sk) “+” EHF (D5.9)
5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) Gravity (Snow) leading + Wind
For the ultimate limit state, Equations 6.10 or 6.10a and 6.10b from 1.25Gksup “+” 1.5Sk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D5.10)
EN 1990 are to be considered, as introduced in Section 3.1. The Wind leading + Gravity (Snow)
following possible load combinations result: 1.25Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D5.11)
Wind uplift
From Equation 6.10: 1.0Gkinf “+” 1.5Wk,up “+” EHF (D5.12)
Gravity only
1.35Gksup “+” 1.5(Ik or Sk) “+” EHF (D5.1)
The accidental load combinations, given by Equation 6.11b, are:
Gravity (Snow) leading + Wind
1.0Gksup “+” 1.0Ad “+” EHF
1.35Gksup “+” 1.5Sk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF
(Accidental) (D5.13)
(D5.2)
1.0Gksup “+” 1.0Ad “+” 0.2Wk “+” EHF (Accidental + Wind) (D5.14)
Wind leading + Gravity (Snow)
1.35Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D5.3)
Wind uplift 5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal
1.0Gkinf “+” 1.5Wk,up “+” EHF (D5.4) Using the loads from Section 5.2.2, design loads for the ULS and
accidental load combinations are given in Table 5.3. The bold text
identifies the critical combinations.
Table 5.3: ULS and accidental load combinations
Load Gksup = 0.432 Ik Wk (pressure) = 0.500 Design load

Sk = 0.500 Ad = 0.550
(kN/m2) Gkinf = 0.282 = 0.600 Wk,up (uplift) = -0.800 (kN/m2)
Gravity only (Imposed) 0.583 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.483

Equation Gravity (Snow) leading + Wind 0.583 0.000 0.750 0.375 0.000 1.708
6.10 Wind leading + Gravity (Snow) 0.583 0.000 0.375 0.750 0.000 1.708
Wind uplift 0.282 0.000 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.918
Gravity only (Imposed) 0.583 0.630 0.000 0.000 1.213 0.000

Equation Gravity only (Snow) 0.583 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.958 0.000
6.10a Gravity (Snow) + Wind 0.583 0.000 0.375 0.375 1.333 0.000
Wind uplift 0.282 0.000 0.000 -0.600 0.000 -0.318
Gravity only 0.540 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.440

--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Equation Gravity (Snow) leading + Wind 0.540 0.000 0.750 0.375 0.000 1.665
6.10b Wind leading + Gravity (Snow) 0.540 0.000 0.375 0.750 0.000 1.665
Wind uplift 0.282 0.000 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.918
Equation Accidental 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.550 0.982

6.11b Accidental + Wind 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.550 1.082
21
Portal frame designers will generally set out to provide the most Assume that the crane is supported centrally on bogies with a 3.6
economic frame solution and are therefore likely to choose m wheel base. If one wheel is positioned directly on the line of the
Equations 6.10a and 6.10b over the more onerous Equation 6.10. portal, the second wheel is 3.6 m into the span of the crane beam
It would appear that there are more combinations to consider if we and hence the maximum reaction to the portal is 1+2.4/6.0 = 1.4
apply 6.10a and 6.10b but, by observation, 6.10b combinations are times the wheel load.
more onerous than those of 6.10a, other than for a high ratio of
dead to imposed load (see Section 3.1) which is particularly Maximum reaction to portal from simply supported crane beams =
unlikely for this form of construction. 1.4 x 40 = 56 kN.
Minimum coincident reaction = 1.4 x 12.5 = 17.5 kN.

5.3 Portal frames with cranes
Consider the same loads as in the previous example, plus the
The inclusion of one additional imposed load type increases the crane loads.
number of possible load combinations since each imposed load
type has to be considered as the leading or main accompanying Qkc = Max. / min. crane loads = 56.0 / 17.5 kN
variable action in turn. The introduction of a crane (see Figure 5.4)
also increases the horizontal loads (both transverse and Substituting the loadings for the example into SLS equations yields
longitudinally) to be carried by the structure as the crane will the loads summarised in Table 5.4. Data in bold text identifies the
generate horizontal surge loads as it lifts and moves loads around. critical load combinations.
The crane load Ikc considered below includes self-weight and may
have both vertical and horizontal components. The vertical loads
Table 5.4: Load combinations for the serviceability limit state
are modified by dynamic factors taken from Table 2.2 of EN 1991-
from Equation 6.14b
3:2006.
Load Ik = Sk = Wk (pressure) Design Ikc =
(kN/m2) 0.600 0.500 = +0.500 load 56.0/
Wk,up (uplift) (kN/m2) 17.5 kN
= -0.800
Imposed or Snow only 0.600 - - 0.600 -
Imposed or Snow 0.600 - - 0.600 56.0/17.5
leading + Crane
Figure 5.4: Typical clear span portal frame with travelling
Snow leading - 0.500 0.250 0.750 56.0/17.5
overhead crane
+ Crane + Wind
Note that the ψ factors for crane loads are given in Table A2 of EN Wind leading - 0.250 0.500 0.750 56.0/17.5
1991-3 as ψ0 = 1.0 and ψ1 = 0.9 and ψ2 is the ratio between the + Snow + Crane
permanent crane action and the total crane action. These ψ factors Wind uplift - - -0.800 -0.800 -
are confirmed in the UK National Annex to EN 1991-3.
5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design

Since the combination factor ψ0 for cranes is equal to 1.0, the crane 5.3.3 Ultimate limit state (STR)
load as the leading variable action will not result in the most critical As with SLS, since the combination factor ψ0 for cranes is equal to
combination. The following SLS combinations should be considered. 1.0, the crane load as the leading variable action will not result in
the most critical ULS combination. The following ULS
1.0(Ik or Sk) (Imposed or Snow only) (D5.15) combinations should be considered. From Table A.1 of EN 1991-3,
1.0(Ik or Sk) “+” 1.0Ikc (Imposed or Snow leading + Crane) (D5.16) and confirmed in Clause NA.2.6 of the UK National Annex, the γ
1.0Sk “+” 1.0Ikc “+” 0.5Wk (Snow leading + Crane + Wind) (D5.17) factor for unfavourable crane loads has a value of 1.35.
1.0Wk “+” 0.5Sk “+” 1.0Ikc (Wind leading + Snow + Crane) (D5.18)
1.0Wk,up (Wind uplift) (D5.19) From Equation 6.10;
Gravity only
5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with 1.35Gksup “+” 1.5(Ik or Sk) “+” EHF (D5.20)
overhead crane
Gravity leading + Crane
Consider the 25 m span portal frame of the previous example with a 1.35Gksup “+” 1.5(Ik or Sk) “+” 1.35Ikc “+” EHF (D5.21)
24 m span, 5 tonne electric overhead crane. Maximum wheel loads
Gravity (Snow) leading + Crane + Wind
= 40 kN, minimum wheel loads = 12.5 kN. The derivation of the
1.35Gksup “+” 1.5Sk “+” 0.75Wk “+” 1.35Ikc “+” EHF (D5.22)
maximum and minimum reactions is shown for vertical loads, but is
also applicable to the horizontal loads. How the horizontal loads are Wind leading + Gravity (Snow) + Crane
transferred to the main structure is dependent on the number of 1.35Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” 1.5Wk “+” 1.35Ikc “+” EHF (D5.23)
flanges to the wheels supported by the crane rail. If the wheels are Wind uplift
double flanged, the horizontal load may be shared between the two 1.0Gkinf “+” 1.5Wk,up “+” EHF (D5.24)
crane rails; if the wheels are single flanged, then the horizontal loads
are applied to just a single crane beam. The magnitude of the
horizontal load is dependent on factors particular to each project.
22
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

From Equation 6.10a: The accidental load combinations, given by Equation 6.11b, are:
Gravity only (Imposed) Accidental
1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Ik “+” EHF (D5.25) 1.0Gksup “+” 1.0Ad “+” EHF (D5.36)
Gravity only (Snow) Accidental + Wind
1.35Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” EHF (D5.26) 1.0Gksup “+” 1.0Ad “+” 0.2Wk “+” EHF (D5.37)
Gravity (Imposed) + Crane Accidental + Crane
1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Ik “+” 1.35Ikc “+” EHF (D5.27) 1.0Gksup “+” 1.0Ad “+” 0.9Ikc “+” EHF (D5.38)
Gravity (Snow) + Crane Accidental + Wind + Crane
1.35Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” 1.35Ikc “+” EHF (D5.28) 1.0Gksup “+” 1.0Ad “+” 0.2Wk “+” 0.4Ikc “+” EHF (D5.39)
Gravity (Snow) + Wind + Crane 5.3.4 ULS design example for a single span portal with
1.35Gksup “+” 0.75Sk “+” 0.75Wk “+” 1.35Ikc “+” EHF (D5.29) overhead crane
Wind uplift Substituting the example loadings into the above load combination
1.00Gkinf “+” 1.5Wk,up “+” EHF (D5.30) expressions yields the design loads summarised in Table 5.5. Note
that, for the accidental load combinations, the value of ψ2 for
cranes is taken as the ratio of the permanent crane action to the
From Equation 6.10b:
total crane action, which is assumed to be 0.4 in this example.
Gravity only Note also that load combinations in which the crane is not present,
1.25Gksup “+” 1.5(Ik or Sk) “+” EHF
--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
(D5.31) including the wind uplift case, have been considered. The critical
Gravity leading + Crane load combinations are identified in bold text.
1.25Gksup “+” 1.5(Ik or Sk) “+” 1.35Ikc “+” EHF (D5.32)
Gravity (Snow) leading + Crane + Wind
Wind leading + Gravity (Snow) + Crane
Wind uplift
1.0Gkinf “+” 1.5Wk,up “+” EHF (D5.35)
Table 5.5: ULS and accidental load combinations
Load Gksup = 0.432 Ik Wk (pressure) = 0.500 Design load

Sk = 0.500 Ad = 0.550 Ikc = 56.0/ 17.5 kN
(kN/m2) Gkinf = 0.282 = 0.600 Wk,up (uplift) = -0.800 (kN/m2)
Gravity only 0.583 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.483 0.000

Gravity leading + Crane 0.583 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.483 75.6/ 23.625
Equation
Gravity (Snow) leading + Crane + Wind 0.583 0.000 0.750 0.375 0.000 1.708 75.6/ 23.625
6.10
Wind leading + Gravity (Snow) + Crane 0.583 0.000 0.375 0.750 0.000 1.708 75.6/ 23.625
Wind uplift 0.282 0.000 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.918 0.000
Gravity only (Imposed) 0.583 0.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.213 0.000
Gravity only (Snow) 0.583 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.958 0.000
Equation Gravity (Imposed) + Crane 0.583 0.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.213 75.6/ 23.625
6.10a Gravity (Snow) + Crane 0.583 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.958 75.6/ 23.625
Gravity (Snow) + Wind + Crane 0.583 0.000 0.375 0.375 0.000 1.333 75.6/ 23.625
Wind uplift 0.282 0.000 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.918 0.000
Gravity only 0.540 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.440 0.000

Gravity leading + Crane 0.540 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.440 75.6/ 23.625
Equation
Gravity (Snow) leading + Crane + Wind 0.540 0.000 0.750 0.375 0.000 1.665 75.6/ 23.625
6.10b
Wind leading + Gravity (Snow) + Crane 0.540 0.000 0.375 0.750 0.000 1.665 75.6/ 23.625
Wind uplift 0.282 0.000 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.918 0.000
Accidental 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.550 0.982 0.000

Equation Accidental + Wind 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.550 1.082 0.000
6.11b Accidental + Crane 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.550 0.982 50.4/ 15.75
Accidental + Wind + Crane 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.550 1.082 22.4/ 7.0
23
6. References
[1] Steel Building Design: Introduction to the Eurocodes, SCI
Publication P361, The Steel Construction Institute, 2009.
[2] Steel Building Design: Concise Eurocodes, SCI Publication

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

(2004).Steel Building Design:
Medium Rise Braced Frames. SCI Publication P365.
The Steel Construction Institute, 2004.
[4] Brettle, M., Currie, D.M. (2002) Snow loading in the UK and
Eire: Ground snow load map.
The Structural Engineer (Vol; 80, Issue: 12).
[5] Cook, N. (2007). Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode

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

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

Designers’ Guide to EN 1990
Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design.
Thomas Telford Publishing.
[8] Roof loads due to local drifting of snow, BRE Digest 439,
The Building Research Establishment, 1999.
24 --`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

--`,`,`,``,,,```,,,,```,,,,,,,,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Eurocode Load Combinations



Eurocode - Load Combinations For Steel Structures - R1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocode - Load Combinations For Steel Structures - R1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurocode Load

BCSA Publication No. 53/16

Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

BCSA Publication No. 53/16

Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

The British Constructional

Publication Number 53/16

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

equations given in EN 1990 for a three storey high, simple braced

Chapter 5 sets out the application of EN 1990 to industrial

• Serviceability Limit State – Single span portal frame

2. ABBREVIATIONS, DEFINITIONS AND SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 1.1: Parts of EN 1991

Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

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

2. Abbreviations, definitions and symbols

Application rules: Non-Contradictory Complementary Information:

Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

2.3 Symbols (Greek letters)

γ (gamma) Partial factor

ξ (xi) Reduction factor

from 1.35 to 1.25. In applying Equation 6.10a all variable actions

The combination factor ψ0 that appears in each of Equations 6.10,

0.6 for wind loading on buildings in EN 1990, whereas the UK

Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

Reduction factors αA for imposed loads on floors and accessible

where A is the area (m2) supported.

Reduction factors αn for imposed loads from several storeys used

αn = 1.1 – n/10 for 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 (D4.3) 4.1.6 Dead loads

4.1.5 Pattern loading 4.1.7 Overturning

already based on factored loading. Thus, the overturning load

As noted in Section 4.1.2, the EHF may be calculated as 0.5%

Figure 4.1(a): Pattern loading for continuous floor beams

Equations D4.11 to D4.14 represent the four basic load

Table 4.3: Horizontal deflection limits

Horizontal deflection Limit

COLUMNS FORMING PART OF THE BRACING SySTEM 4.4 Example

4.3.2 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a Vertical

only the load combinations from Equation 6.10b generally need to

Gravity + Wind leading + EHF

4.3.3 SLS load combinations

Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

Gk,roof;Ik,roof;Sk;Wk;Wk up Table 4.4: Design UDLs (kN/m) on roof beams of internal

26.25 13.5 39.75

indicating the critical load combinations. 21.00 30.00

26.25 45.00 71.25

Design axial Design axial

(roof level) (floor level) NEd

5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6

Longitudinal Wind Longitudinal Wind

-0.6 0.2 -0.6 0.2

Transverse Wind 1a Transverse Wind 1a

0.0 -0.6 -0.6 0.2

Transverse Wind 1b Transverse Wind 1b

Figure 5.2: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 5o

5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P- Δ effects

Applying the loads for the example to the set of serviceability

Gksup = Dead load + Service load

Copyright British Constructional Steelwork Association

Suggested procedure: From Equation 6.10a:

Table 5.3: ULS and accidental load combinations

Load Gksup = 0.432 Ik Wk (pressure) = 0.500 Design load