BS 1990 Basis For Structural Designsdvgfdsvxcvxreuyoi8uy3465u86798okj, Lkjbmngcggdfgqewgfrthhfgh

Twinning Latvia EN 1990: Basis of Structural Design 1
Content Page

Codes and Literature 3

List of figures 6

List of tables 6

EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design 7

Foreword 7

General 10

Scope 10
Distinction between Principles and Application Rules 10
Structural design and structural safety 11
Assumptions 11
Requirements 13

Basic requirements for structures 13
Limiting or avoiding of potential damage 17
Reliability management 18
Design working life 19
Durability 20
Quality management 20
Principles of limit states design 21

General 21
Design situations 22
Ultimate limit states 22
Serviceability limit states 23
Limit state design 24
Basic variables 25

Actions and environmental influences 25
Classification of actions 25
Characteristic values of actions 25
Other representative values of variable actions 27
Representation of fatigue actions 28
Representation of dynamic actions 28
Geotechnical actions 28
Environmental influences 28
Material and product properties 29
Geometrical data 30
Structural analysis and design assisted by testing 30

Structural analysis 30
Structural modelling 30
Static actions 30
Dynamic actions 30
Fire design 31
Design assisted by testing 32
Verification by the partial factor method 32

General 32
Limitations 32

Design values 33
Design values of actions 33
Design values of material or product properties 33
Design values of geometrical data 33
Design values of the effects of actions 34
Design resistance 38
General 40
Verifications of static equilibrium and resistance 41
Combination of actions (fatigue verifications excluded) 42
Partial factors for actions and combinations of actions 46
Partial factors for materials and products 46
Verifications 47
Serviceability criteria 47
Combination of actions 47
Partial factors for materials 48
Annex A1 (normative) Application for Buildings 49
Field of application 49
Combinations of actions 49
General 49
Values of factors 50
Design values of actions in persistent and transient design
situations 51
Design values of actions in the accidental and seismic design
situations 56
Partial factors for actions 59
Serviceability criteria 59
Deformations and horizontal displacements 59
Vibrations 59
Examples for Application of Annex A1 60
Example A-1: Marquee structure 60
Example A-2: Reinforced concrete slab for a roof terrace 64
Example A-3: Supporting beam 67
Example A-4: Continuous beam under bending 70
Example A-5: Reinforced concrete column and foundation
subjected to normal force and bending moment 72
Annex B (informative) Management of Structural Reliability for
Construction Works 90
Scope and field of application 90
Reliability differentiation 90
Consequences classes 90
Differentiation by values 91
Differentiation by measures relating to the partial factors 92
Design supervision differentiation 92
Inspection during execution 93
Partial factors for resistance properties 93
Annex C (informative) Basis for Partial Factor Design and
Reliability Analysis 94

Scope and Field of Applications 94
Symbols 94
Introduction 95
Overview of reliability methods 96
Reliability index 100
Target values of reliability index 110
Approach for calibration of design values 112
Reliability verification formats in Eurocodes 122
Partial factors in EN 1990 123
0
factors 124
Examples due to the Basis of Reliability Analysis 132
Example C-1: Calculation of the failure probability
by numerical integration 132
Example C-2: Reliability index for the bending capacity
of a reinforced concrete joist 134
of a steel beam 136
Example C-4: Log Normal Distribution
applied to material strengths 139
Example C-5: Gumbel Distribution applied to
variable actions 140
Example C-6: Gumbel Distributions referred to
different reference periods 141
Example C-7: Snow load referred to different
reference periods 142
Example C-8: Determination of the design point
applying the Rackwitz-Fieler-Algorithm 143
Example C-9: Design values of a reinforced concrete joist
applying fixed sensitivity factors 147
Example C-10: Design value and partial factor for a snow load148
Example C-11: Combination of an imposed load with
a snow load 149
Example C-12: Combination of a wind load with
a snow load 151
an imposed load 151
a permanent load 152

Codes and Guidelines
[89/106/EWG 88]
Council Directive 89/106/EEC on construction products
from 21 December 1988 CPD
(Authority paper EC, L40/1989, p. 1).
[ISO/FDIS 2394 98]
International Standard ISO/FDIS 2394 General principles
on reliability for structures Final Draft 1998. International
Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.
[EN 1990 02]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN):
EN 1990: Basis of Structural Design.
Edition April 2002.

[TC1/015 91]
Commission of the European Community:
Interpretative Document Mechanical Resistance and
Stability". Final Draft May 1991. Document TC1/015.
[DIN 1055-100 01]
DIN 1055-100: Grundlagen der Tragwerksplanung,
Sicherheitskonzept, Bemessungsregeln.
Ausgabe Mrz 2001.
[DIN 4149-1 00]
Bauten in deutschen Erdbebengebieten Teil 1:
Lastannahmen, Bemessung und Ausfhrung blicher
Hochbauten. Bearbeitungsstand 2000.
[DIN 18000-1 90]
DIN 18 000 Teil 1: Stahlbauten; Bemessung und
Konstruktion. Ausgabe November 1990.
[DIN 1045-1 01]
DIN 1045-1: Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und
Spannbeton Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion.
Ausgabe Juli 2001.
Berichtigung 2 zu DIN 1045-1. Ausgabe Juni 2005.
[DIN 1054 05]
DIN 1054: Baugrund Sicherheitsnachweise im Erd- und
Grundbau. Ausgabe Januar 2005.
[EN 1991-1-1 02]:
EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, Part 1-1:
General actions: Densities, self-weight and life loads on
buildings. Edition April 2002.
[EN 1991-1-3 03]:
General actions: Snow loads. Edition July 2003.
[EN 1991-1-4 05]:
General actions: Wind loads. Edition April 2005.
[EN 1991-1-5 03]:
General actions: Thermal actions. Edition Nov. 2003.
[EN 1991-1-7 05]:
General actions: Accidental actions. Draft 2005.
[EN 1991-2 03]
EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, Part 2:
Traffic loads on bridges. Edition September 2003.
[EN 1992-1-1 04]
EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
Edition December 2004.
[EN 1997-1 04]
EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design Part 1:
General rules. Edition November 2004.
[EN 1998-1 06]
EN 1998 Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake resistance,
Part 1: Fundamentals. Edition April 2006.

Cited Literature
[BoD-doc 96]
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork:
Background Documentation Eurocode 1 (ENV 1991)
Part 1: Basis of Design. March 1996
[FIB-MC 90 99]
Structural Concrete Textbook on Behaviour, Design and
Performance. Updated knowledge of the CEB/FIP Model
Code 1990 Volume 2: Basis of Design. International
Federation for Structural Concrete (fib) 1999
[Grnberg 98]
Grnberg, J.: Eurocode-Sicherheitskonzept: Lassen sich
die Lastkombinationen vereinfachen? Der Prfingenieur
April 1998
[Grnberg, Klaus 99]
Grnberg, J., Klaus, M.: Bemessungswerte nach
Eurocode-Sicherheitskonzept fr Interaktion von Bean-
spruchungen. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 3 (1999), S. 114
[Grnberg, Klaus 01]
Grnberg, J., Klaus, M.: Diagramme fr die gezielte
Querschnittsbemessung bei Interaktion von Lngskraft und
Biegemoment nach DIN 1045-1. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
8 (2001), S. 539
[Grnberg 04]
Grnberg, J.: Grundlagen der Tragwerksplanung
Sicherheitskonzept und Bemessungsregeln fr den
konstruktiven Ingenieurbau. Erluterungen zu DIN 1055-
100. Praxis Bauwesen, Beuth Verlag 2004.
[GRUSIBAU 81]
DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.: Grundlagen zur
Festlegung von Sicherheitsanforderungen fr bauliche
Anlagen. 1. Auflage. Berlin / Kln: Beuth Verlag GmbH
1981
[Knig, Hosser, Schobbe 82]
Knig, G., Hosser, D., Schobbe, W.: Sicherheits-
anforderungen f r die Bemessung von baulichen Anlagen
nach den Empfehlungen des NABau eine Erluterung.
Der Bauingenieur 57 (1982), Seite 69 bis 78
[Schobbe 82]
Schobbe, W.: Konzept zur Definition und Kombination von
Lasten im Rahmen der deutschen Sicherheitsrichtlinie.
Ernst & Sohn 1982
[Schuller 81]
Schuller, G. I.: Einfhrung in die Sicherheit und
Zuverlssigkeit von Tragwerken. W. Ernst & Sohn 1981
[Spaethe 92]
Spaethe, G.: Die Sicherheit tragender Baukonstruktionen.
Springer 1992

List of figures
Fig. 1: Action model (load arrangement) 14
Fig. 2: Structural model 15
Fig. 3: Material Law 15
Fig. 4: Representative values of a variable action 28
Fig. 5: Predominant action effect E
Qd,1
= E (Q
k,1
;
Q,1
)
in non-linear structural analysis 36
Fig. 6 Relation between individual partial factors 39
Fig. 7: Limit state of static equilibrium
(here: safety against lifting off) 42
Fig. 8: Interface at the joint between foundation and subsoil and
load transfer 54
Fig. 9: Example for structural design of a foundation subjected
to second order effects 55
Fig. 10: Overview of reliability methods 96
Fig. 11: Limit state equation in the original x-space 103
Fig. 12: Limit state equation in the standardized y-space 103
Fig. 13: Distribution density of the random variable u
1
104
Fig. 14: Transformation relations according to FORM 108
Fig. 15: Linearization of the limit state equation in the design
point 109
Fig. 16: Gumbel distribution, at the design point x
d
(y
d
)
approximated by a Standard Normal Distribution 113
Fig. 17: Sensibility factors fixed with respect to the limit state
expressed in standardized y-coordinates 114
Fig. 18: Sensibility factors in case of two simultaneous actions116
Fig. 19: Partial factors for variable actions 123
Fig. 20: Borges-Castanheta-Model 125
Fig. 21: Distribution densities of a single variable action Q
2
,
in accordance to the significant time intervals 126
Fig. 22: Determination of the maximum value E
max
126
Fig. 23: Combination factors
0,i
for variable actions Q
i
130
List of tables
Table 1: Indicative design working life 19
Table 2: Systematics of verification procedure 21
Table 3: Single actions for buildings 49
Table 4: Recommended values of factors for buildings 50
Table 5: Recommended values for partial factors
F
57
Table 6: Relation between and P
f
100
Table 7: Reliability index and failure probability 105
Table 8: Target reliability index for Class RC2 structural
members
1)
111
Table 9: Design values for various distribution functions 117
Table 10: Partial factors depending on the variation coefficients 124
Table 11: Expressions for
o
in case of two variable actions 124
Table 12: Basic time intervals T
1
for single actions 128
Table 13: Assembly of combination factors
0,i
131

EN 1990
Basis of Structural Design
Foreword

This document (EN 1990: 2002) has been prepared by Technical
Committee CEN/TC 250 Structural Eurocodes. Conflicting
national standards shall be withdrawn at the latest by March 2010.
[EN 1990 02], Foreword
Background of the Eurocode programme
In 1975, the Commission of the European Community decided on an
action programme in the field of construction, based on article 95 of
the Treaty. The objective of the programme was the elimination of
technical obstacles to trade and the harmonisation of technical
specifications.

Within this action programme, the Commission took the initiative to
establish a set of harmonised technical rules for the design of
construction works which, in a first stage, would serve as an
alternative to the national rules in force in the Member States and,
ultimately, would replace them.

In 1989, the Commission and the Member States of the EU and
EFTA decided, on the basis of an agreement between the
Commission and CEN, to transfer the preparation and the publication
of the Eurocodes to the CEN through a series of Mandates, in order
to provide them with a future status of European Standard (EN).
CEN:
European Committee for
Standardization
Comit Europen de
Normalisation
This links de facto the Eurocodes with the provisions of all the
Councils Directives and/or Commissions Decisions dealing with
European standards.
[89/106/EWG 88]
The Structural Eurocode programme comprises the following
standards generally consisting of a number of Parts:

EN 1990 Eurocode 0 : Basis of Structural Design
EN 1991 Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3 : Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4 : Design of composite steel and
concrete structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5 : Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6 : Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7 : Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8 : Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
EN 1999 Eurocode 9 : Design of aluminium structures

Responsibility of Member States
Eurocode standards recognise the responsibility of regulatory
authorities in each Member State and have safeguarded their right to
determine values related to regulatory safety matters at national level
where these continue to vary from State to State.


Status and field of application of Eurocodes
The Member States of the EU and EFTA recognise that
EUROCODES serve as reference documents for the following
purposes:

as a means to prove compliance of building and civil engineering
works with the
essential requirements of Council Directive 89/106/EEC,
particularly Essential Requirement N1 Mechanical
resistance and stability
and Essential Requirement N2 Safety in case of fire ;
[89/106/EWG 88]
[TC1/015 91]
as a basis for specifying contracts for construction works and
related engineering services

as a framework for drawing up harmonised technical
specifications for construction products (ENs and ETAs)

The Eurocodes, as far as they concern the construction works
themselves, have a direct relationship with the Interpretative
Documents referred to in Article 12 of the CPD, although they are of
a different nature from harmonised product standards.
CPD Council Directive
89/106/EEC on construction
products
The Eurocode standards provide common structural design rules for
everyday use for the design of whole structures and component
products of both a traditional and an innovative nature.
Unusual forms of construction or design conditions are not
specifically covered and additional expert consideration will be
required by the designer in such cases.

National Standards implementing Eurocodes
The National Standards implementing Eurocodes will comprise the
full text of the Eurocode (including any annexes), as published by
CEN,
which may be preceded by a National title page
and National foreword
and may be followed by a National annex.

The National annex may only contain information on those
parameters which are left open in the Eurocode for national choice,
known as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDP),
to be used for the design of buildings and civil engineering works to
be constructed in the country concerned, i.e. :

values and/or classes where alternatives are given in the
Eurocode, i.e. values of - and -factors or establishing
reliability classes,

values to be used where a symbol only is given in the
Eurocode,

country specific data (geographical, climatic, etc.),
e.g. snow map, wind zones, earthquake zones ,

the procedure to be used where alternative procedures are given
in the Eurocode,
i.e. concerning ground structure interaction,

decisions on the application of informativ annexes,
i.e. treating them as normative in the Member State,

references to non-contradictory complementary information to
assist the user to apply the Eurocode.
A wide field of interpretation!
Therefore, see Guidance Paper L

Links between Eurocodes and products harmonised technical
specifications (ENs and ETAs)

There is a need for consistency between the harmonised technical
specifications for construction products and the technical rules for
works.
Furthermore, all the information accompanying the CE Marking of
the construction products which refer to Eurocodes should clearly
mention which Nationally Determined Parameters have been taken
into account.

Intended users of EN 1990
EN 1990 is intended for use by :
committees drafting standards for structural design and
related product, testing and execution standards ;

clients (e.g. for the formulation of their specific requirements on
reliability levels and durability) ;

designers and constructors;
relevant authorities.
EN 1990 may be used as a guidance document for the design of
structures outside the scope of EN 1991 to EN 1999, for :

assessing other actions and their combinations ;
modelling material and structural behaviour;
assessing numerical values of the reliability format. See [EN 1990 02], annexes B
and C, for example
Numerical values for partial factors and other reliability parameters
are recommended as basic values that provide an acceptable level of
reliability.
They have been selected assuming that an appropriate level of
workmanship and of quality management applies.
When EN 1990 is used as a base document by other CEN/TCs the
same values need to be taken.

National Annex for EN 1990
This standard gives alternative procedures, values and
recommendations for classes with notes indicating where national
choices may have to be made.
Therefore the National Standard implementing EN 1990 should have
a National annex containing all Nationally Determined Parameters to
be used for the design of buildings and civil engineering works to be
constructed in the relevant country.

National choice is allowed in EN 1990 through clauses :
A1.1(1)
A1.2.1(1)
A1.2.2 (Table A1.1)
A1.3.1(1) (Tables A1.2(A) to (C))
A1.3.1(5)
A1.3.2 (Table A1.3)
A1.4.2(2)


General
[EN 1990 02], Section 1
Scope
[EN 1990 02],
1.1 Scope
EN 1990 establishes the Principles and requirements for
safety,
serviceability
and durability
of structures, describes the basis for their design and verification and
gives guidelines for related aspects of structural reliability.
Clause (1)
(as referred to [TC1/015 91])
It is based on the limit state concept
used in conjunction with a partial factor method.

EN 1990 is intended to be used in conjunction with Eurocodes
EN 1991 to 1999 for the structural design of new structures, i.e.
buildings and civil engineering works, including
geotechnical aspects,
structural fire design,
situations involving earthquakes,
execution and temporary structures.
Clause (2)
(i.e. direct application)
EN 1990 also gives guidelines for the aspects of structural reliability
relating to safety, serviceability and durability :

for the design of structures where other materials or other
actions outside the scope of EN 1991 to 1999 are involved.
Clause (3)
to serve as a reference document for other CEN TC's concerned
with structural matters.

EN 1990 also is applicable for
the structural appraisal of existing construction,
in developing the design of repairs
and alterations or in assessing changes of use.
Clause (4)
Distinction between
Principles and Application Rules
[EN 1990 02],
1.4 Distinction between Principles
and Application Rules
Depending on the character of the individual clauses, distinction is
made in EN 1990 between Principles and Application Rules.
Clause (1)
The Principles are identified by the letter P following the paragraph
number. They comprise :
Clause (2)
general statements and definitions for which there is no
alternative, as well as

requirements and analytical models for which no alternative is
permitted unless specifically stated.

The Application Rules are generally recognized rules which comply
with the Principles and satisfy their requirements.
Clauses (3) and (4)
It is permissible to use alternative design rules, provided that they
accord with the relevant Principles and are at least equivalent with
regard to the structural safety, serviceability and durability to be
expected when using the Eurocodes.
Clause (5)


Structural design and structural safety

Structural design of buildings and civil engineering works means:
The design of the structure in the whole as well as of their structural
members (slabs, columns, walls, footings) has to be performed with
respect to the approved rules of engineering.

These rules are based on the sum of experiences in engineering,
and they are well developed in practical application.
They are generally recognized by all persons involved in building, as
they are clients, architects, civil engineers in structural design and
execution.
[Spaethe 92]
To assure the structural safety the following measures are required: [EN 1990 02]
1. Measures to avoid human errors
(Assumptions and preconditions for structural design),
2. Measures to warrant a sufficient safety margin between
action effect and structural resistance
(Basic requirements for design and execution of structures),
3. Measures to prevent potential causes of failure and/or reduce
their consequences
(Limiting or avoiding of potential damage).
See Section 1 General
1.3 Assumptions
See Section 2 Requirements
2.1 Basic requirements
In the following these measures are described in detail.

Assumptions
[EN 1990 02],
1.3 Assumptions
Design which employs the Principles and Application Rules is
deemed to meet the requirements provided the assumptions given in
EN 1990 to EN 1999 are satisfied (see Section 2).
Clause (1)
The general assumptions for structural design according to EN 1990
are :

1. The choice of the structural system and the design of the
structure is made by appropriately qualifi ed and experienced
personnel.
2. Execution is carried out by personnel having the appropriate
skill and experience.
3. Adequate supervision and quality control is provided during
execution of the work, i.e. in design offices, factories, plants,
and on site
4. The construction materials and products are used as specified
in EN 1990 or in ENs 1991 to 1999 or in the relevant execution
standards or reference material or product specifications.
5. The structure will be adequately maintained.
6. The structure will be used in accordance with the design
assumptions.
Clause (2)

See also [EN 1990 02],
2.2 Reliability management,
Clause (5),
2.5 Quality management,
Clause (1)
These general assumptions are in the range of principles!
They are the preconditions for the safety concept and strongly
connected with the basic requirements for structures.


Education
Failure analysis has shown that most of the collapse situations are
generated by persons involved in building.
One possible reason for that may be the lack of knowledge.
Teaching, further studying as well as training on the job have to
contribute to reduction of danger risk.

Communication
The powerful increasing of science leads to the development of
specialising in all subject areas.
More and more experts are working on multidisciplinary tasks
developing more and more complex.
Therefore, information and communication between the persons
involved in building gain in importance increasingly.

Coordination
Because of economic necessities the special activities are divided
onto different experts in design as well as onto different companies
for execution.
Problems often arise at the interfaces in the design process and in
the sequence of construction work.
Therefore, the coordination between these separate activities is of
eminent importance.

Sense of responsibility
Human errors, as a consequence of carelessness, lack of attention
or negligence, pose a potential danger.
Therefore, sense of quality and of responsibility have to be crucial
task of education.

Building inspection
Only a few human errors are unavoidable and unrecognisable.
The most important procedures to detect errors and mistakes are
controlling and inspection.
Controlling also induce psychological effects on the quality of
workmanship.

Quality assurance
Effective strategies of controlling have to face systematically those
problems which are of dominant importance for structural safety or
which have the risk of errors appearing most frequently.
These procedures are most essential for quality assurance or for
quality management respectively.

Human errors are not covered by the safety margins defined in
the design codes!


Requirements
[EN 1990 02], Section 2
Basic requirements for structures
[EN 1990 02],
2.1 Basic requirements for
structures
The basic requirements for structures are established in
the Interpretative Document Mechanical Resistance and
Stability" associated to the Construction Product Directive
as well as in some basic codes as they are ISO 2394 or
GRUSIBAU in Germany.
[TC1/015 91],
[89/106/EWG 88],
[GRUSIBAU 81],
[ISO/FDIS 2394 98]
A structure shall be designed and executed in such a way that it
will, during its intended life, with appropriate degrees of reliability and
in an economical way
Clause (1)
sustain all actions and influences likely to occur during
execution and use, and
remain fit for the use for which it is required.

To reach a sufficient reliability, a structure shall be designed to have
adequate:
Clause (2)
structural resistance
serviceability,
and durability.

See [EN 1990 02], 2.4
To assure an adequate structural resistance the following events are not
allowed to occur

collapse of the entire structure or of one structural element,
or large deformations exceeding the limits of failure.

In the case of fire, the load-bearing capacity of the structure shall be
assured for the required period of time.
Clause (3)
A structure shall be designed and executed in such a way that it will
not be damaged by events such as:
Clause (4)
explosion,
impact, and
the consequences of human errors,
The events to be taken into
account are those agreed for an
individual project with the client
and the relevant authority.
to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.
The basic requirements should be met: Clause (6)
by the choice of suitable materials,
by appropriate design and detailing, and
by specifying control procedures for design, production,
execution, and use relevant to the particular project.

The provisions of Section 2 should be interpreted on the basis that
due skill and care appropriate to the circumstances is exercised in
the design, based on such knowledge and good practice as is
generally available at the time that the design of the structure is
carried out.
Clause (7)
see [EN 1990 02], 1.3

The dimensions of the structure as well as the material properties
have to be designed in such a way that, during its intended life, the
following inequality is satisfied with a high probability:

E R (or C)
or
Z R (or C) E 0 (1)

where E Action effect (as a function of place and time)
R Structural resistance
C Serviceability criterion
(i.e. permissible deformation)
Z Safety margin (or safety zone)

Z > 0 The structure is sustainable (stable)
or usable (for the use intended)

Z = 0 The structure has reached the ultimate limit state (ULS)
or the serviceability limit state (SLS)

Z < 0 The structure fails (collapse or large deformation) or looses
its fitness for use

The satisfaction of inequality (1) would be trivial if the design
engineer would not have to meet the opposite requirements of
economy and low material consumption.
The intention of economical building forces the structural engineer to
keep the safety margin as small as possible.
[Spaethe 92]
The engineers responsibility consists in balancing carefully
the requirements for safety and for economy.

The quantities of R (or C) and E are not known precisely during the
design process, because the resistances R (criteria C) do not
appear before the execution whereas the actions E even do not
appear before the use of the structure.

Therefore, engineers have to make decisions during the design
process which are connected with a lot of risks.
To reduce these risks they need devices which enable them to judge
reliably the structural behaviour in the future.

The most important resource is the structural analysis which is
composed of

Assumption about the actions to be expected concerning
their magnitudes design value and
their distribution action model (load arrangement)

Fig. 1: Action model (load arrangement)

Analysis of the action effects (internal forces) and of their
transmission through the structure down to the foundation by
means of
Structural models (stability systems) based on the
available methods of structural analysis, as they are linear-
elastic analysis, plastic analysis or other methods of non-
linear analysis

see [EN 1990 02], 1.5.6 Terms
relating to structural analysis
Fig. 2: Structural model
Calculation of the structural resistances resulting from the
cross area dimensions in combination with the material
properties (strength, material law) of the structural members
and the subsoil concerning
their magnitudes design values and
their distribution resistance model

Fig. 3: Material Law
Between the theoretical model imagination during the design
process and the real structure during its execution and its working
life, there are the following deviations:

Systematic deviations (model uncertainties)
of the action models,
of the structural models,
of the resistance models

The model uncertainties depend on the insufficiencies of the
calculation procedures.
By reason of the increasing capability of computers, the model
uncertainties may be reduced but not be eliminated.


Stochastic deviations
(variations of the mechanical parameters)

of the actions (load parameters),
of the geometrical data (dimensions) and
of the material properties.

The structural behaviour in reality only can be predicted by means of
a probabilistic analysis.
To this end, stochastic models are needed on the basis of random
sampling. Often the extent of sampling is not sufficient.

The variations of material and subsoil properties are
influenced by the natural composition, the manufacturing and
the assembly in site.
The variations of the structural geometry predominantly
result from execution.
The variations of actions result from their alterations from
place to place as well as from their variation in time.
The quantities of these variations are different with respect to
their source (permanent actions, variable actions, accidental
actions or seismic actions).
In fact, the variations of permanent actions are subjected to the
same influences as the material properties, but they are
significantly lower.

Reliability analysis of structures:

The influence of stochastic variations on the safety or reliability of a
structure only can be analysed by means of stochastic methods.
In practise, however, simplifications are necessary which must be
derived from these methods or theories.
See [EN 1990 02],
Annex C
Parameter controlled safety concept:
The mechanical quantities are treated as basic variables to be
identified by characteristic values.
The model uncertainties and the parameter variations are covered by
partial factors.
See [EN 1990 02],
Sections 3, 4, 6;
Annex A1
These parameters are combined linearly and then allocated to
structural models close to reality.
The action effects resulting from structural analysis have to be
compared with the resistances by means of inequality (1), in order to
prove structural stability.


Limiting or avoiding of potential damage

In spite of these two strategies
Measures to avoid human errors See [EN 1990 02],
1.3 Assumptions
Measures to warrant a sufficient safety margin See [EN 1990 02],
2.1 Basic requirements,
Clauses (1) to (4)
errors cannot be excluded completely!
There is a remaining risk.
Furthermore, actions are possible which have not been considered in
design, as they are resulting

from errors which were not detected although systematic
inspections were performed,

from the stochastic coincidence of extreme events,
from exceeding the loading limits during the working life,
from hazards which are caused by persons or nature
(e.g. explosions)

from insufficient knowledge and wrong activities of persons, e.g.
the users of the structure who have not been informed about the
loading limits

Controlling and inspection are limited to the period of design,
construction and execution for most of the buildings and civil
engineering works.

Exceptions are bridges, large dams and nuclear power plants.
The collapses of hall structures which occurred recently in Germany
and Poland may highlight the importance of inspections with certain
intervals during the working life of structures which are used by the
public.

To assure structural safety, the third strategy is to reduce the
consequences of failure and, especially, to avoid injuring and even
killing of people.

Therefore, potential damage shall be avoided or limited by
appropriate choice of one or more of the following :

avoiding, eliminating or reducing the hazards to which the
structure can be subjected;
selecting a structural form which has low sensitivity to the
hazards considered ;
selecting a structural form and design that can survive
adequately the accidental removal of an individual member or a
limited part of the structure, or the occurrence of acceptable
localised damage ;
avoiding as far as possible structural systems that can collapse
without warning ;
tying the structural members together.
[EN 1990 02],
2.1 Basic requirements,
Clause (5)
See also 2.2 Reliability
management, Clauses (5) and (6)


Reliability management
[EN 1990 02],
2.2 Reliability management
The reliability required for structures within the scope of EN 1990
shall be achieved:
Clause (1)
a) by design in accordance with ENs 1990 to 1999 and See also [EN 1990 02],
1.3 and 2.1
b) by appropriate execution and quality management measures. See 2.2(5) and Annex B
Different levels of reliability may be adopted inter alia : Clause (2)
for structural resistance; See [EN 1990 02], Annex C
for serviceability.
The choice of the levels of reliability for a particular structure should
take account of the relevant factors, including :
Clause (3)
See also [EN 1990 02], Annex B
the possible cause and /or mode of attaining a limit state;
the possible consequences of failure in terms of risk to life,
injury, potential economical losses ;
See also [EN 1990 02], 2.1:
Limiting or avoiding of potential
damage
public aversion to failure; Especially with respect to the use
of public buildings like concert
halls or large bridges
the expense and procedures necessary to reduce the risk of
failure.

The levels of reliability that apply to a particular structure may be
specified in one or both of the following ways:
Clause (4)
by the classification of the structure as a whole; [EN 1990 02], Annex B
by the classification of its components.
The levels of reliability relating to structural resistance and
serviceability may be achieved by suitable combinations of:
Clause (5)
a) preventative and protective measures, e.g.
implementation of safety barriers,
active and passive protective measures against fire,
protection against risks of corrosion
such as painting or cathodic protection, etc.);
See also [EN 1990 02], 2.1:
damage
b) measures relating to design calculations:
representative values of actions,
the choice of partial factors;
2.1 Basic requirements:
Parameter controlled safety
concept
c) measures relating to quality management; See also [EN 1990 02],
1.3 Assumptions
d) measures aimed to reduce errors in design and execution of the
structure, and gross human errors;
See also [EN 1990 02], 2.1:
damage

e) other measures relating to the following other design matters:
the basic requirements,
the degree of robustness (structural integrity),
durability, including the choice of the design working life,
the extent and quality of preliminary investigations of soils
and possible environmental influences,
the accuracy of the mechanical models used,
the detailing;

f) efficient execution, e.g. in accordance with execution standards
referred to in EN 1991 to EN 1999;
1.3 Assumptions
g) adequate inspection and maintenance according to procedures
specified in the project documentation.
1.3 Assumptions
The measures to prevent potential causes of failure and/or reduce
their consequences can, in appropriate circumstances, be
interchanged to a limited extent provided that the required reliability
levels are maintained.
Clause (6)
2.1 Basic Requirements,
Clause (5)
Design working life
[EN 1990 02],
2.3 Design working life
The design working life should be specified Clause 1
Indicative categories and according values are given in Table 1.
These values may also be used for determining time-dependent
performance (e.g. fatigue-related calculations).
See [EN 1990 02], Table 2.1
Table 1: Indicative design working life
Design working life
category
Indicative design working
life (years)
Examples
1 10 Temporary structures
(1)

2 10-25 Replaceable structural parts, e.g. gantry girders,
bearings
3 15-30 Agricultural and similar structures
4 50 Building structures and other common structures
5 100 Monumental building structures, bridges, and
other civil engineering structures
1) Structures or parts of structures that can be removed with a view to being re-used should not be
considered as temporary.

The level of reliability depends on a specified reference period which
should be
established equally to the design working life in case of
permanent design situations, or
considered in relation to the design working life in case of
transient or accidental design situations.

See [EN 1990 02], Annex C


Durability
[EN 1990 02],
2.4 Durability
The structure shall be designed such that deterioration over its
design working life does not impair the performance of the structure
below that intended,
having due regard to its environment and the anticipated level of
maintenance.
Clause (1)
In order to achieve an adequately durable structure, the following
should be taken into account:
the intended or foreseeable use of the structure;
the required design criteria;
the expected environmental conditions;
the composition, properties and performance of the materials
and products;
the properties of the soil;
the choice of the structural system;
the shape of members and the structural detailing;
the quality of workmanship, and the level of control;
the particular protective measures;
the intended maintenance during the design working life.
Clause (2)
The environmental conditions shall be identified at the design stage
so that their significance can be assessed in relation to durability
and adequate provisions can be made for protection of the materials
used in the structure.
Clause (3)
The degree of any deterioration may be estimated on the basis of
calculations, experimental investigation, experience from earlier
constructions, or a combination of these considerations.
Clause (4)
Quality management
[EN 1990 02],
2.5 Quality management
In order to provide a structure that corresponds to the requirements
and to the assumptions made in the design, appropriate quality
management measures should be in place. These measures
comprise:
definition of the reliability requirements,
organisational measures and
controls at the stages of design, execution, use and
maintenance.
Clause (1)


Principles of limit states design
[EN 1990 02], Section 3
General
[EN 1990 02],
3.1 General
The bearing capacity of a structure will be verified with respect to the
approved rules of engineering, considering the requirements for
durability, by facing of

the design values of resulting action effects and resistances
as defined for limit states and the according design situations.

Limit states

A structure does not meet any longer the requirements of design if it
exceeds a limit state.

A distinction shall be made between ultimate limit states and
serviceability limit states.
Clause (1)
An ultimate limit state is exceeded by collapse or similar
kinds of structural failure

A serviceability limit state is exceeded when the
requirements of use established for the structure or one of its
elements are not fulfilled any longer.

Table 2: Systematics of verification procedure [DIN 1055-100 01], Table 1
Limit state Ultimate Serviceability
Requirements Safety of people
Safety of the structure
Comfort of people
Functioning of the structure
Appearance of the construction works
Verification
criteria
Loss of static equilibrium
Material failure
Stability failure
Fatigue

Stress limitation
Crack occurrence
Deformations
Vibrations
Design
situations
Persistent and transient
Accidental
Earthquake
Rare or characteristic
Frequent
Quasi-permanent
Action onto the
structure
Design values of action effects
(destabilising actions,
internal forces)
(stresses, crack widths, deformations)
Reaction of the
structure
Design values of resistances
(stabilising actions,
material strengths)
Serviceability criteria
(permissible stresses, decompression,
crack widths, deformations)

Verification of one of the two categories of limit states may be
omitted provided that sufficient information is available to prove that it
is satisfied by the other.

Clause (2)
Limit states should be related to design situations which should be
classified as persistent, transient or accidental.
Clause (3), (4);
see [EN 1990 02], 3.2
Verification of limit states that are concerned with time dependent
effects (e.g. fatigue) should be related to the design working life of
the construction.
Clause (5)
See also [EN 1990 02], 2.3


Design situations
[EN 1990 02],
3.2 Design situations
A structure has to be investigated in those design situations that
can occur in the limit states to be considered.

The relevant design situations shall be selected taking into
account the circumstances under which the structure is required to
fulfil its function.
Clause 1
Design situations shall be classified as follows:
persistent design situations, which refer to the conditions of
normal use
transient design situations, which refer to temporary conditions
applicable to the structure, e.g. during execution or repair;
accidental design situations, which refer to exceptional
conditions applicable to the structure or to its exposure, e.g. to
fire, explosion, impact or the consequences of localised failure;
seismic design situations, which refer to conditions applicable
to the structure when subjected to seismic events.
Clause (2)
The selected design situations shall be sufficiently severe and varied
so as to encompass all conditions that can reasonably be foreseen
to occur during the execution and use of the structure.
Clause (3)
These design situations are related to certain verification criteria
and the according formats for the calculation of the design values of
the structure (Table 2).
[DIN 1055-100 01], Table 1,
see above
Ultimate limit states
[EN 1990 02],
3.3 Ultimate limit states
The limit states that concern:
the safety of people, and / or
the safety of the structure
shall be classified as ultimate limit states.
Clause (1)
[DIN 1055-100 01], Table 1,
see above
In some circumstances, the limit states that concern the protection
of the contents should be classified as ultimate limit states.
Clause (2)
Contents within a structure
States prior to structural collapse, which, for simplicity, are
considered in place of the collapse itself, may be treated as ultimate
limit states.
Clause (3)
e.g. large deformations
The following ultimate limit states shall be verified where they are
relevant (Table 2):
Loss of equilibrium of the structure or any part of it,
considered as a rigid body;
failure by excessive deformation, transformation of the
structure or any part of it into a mechanism, rupture, including
supports and foundations;
loss of stability of the structure or any part of it;
failure caused by fatigue or other time-dependent effects.
Clause (4)

[DIN 1055-100 01], Table 1,
see above

Mechanism = kinematical chain
Note: Different sets of partial factors are associated with the various
ultimate limit states. Failure due to excessive deformation is
structural failure due to mechanical instability.
see [EN 1990 02], 6.4.1

Serviceability limit states
[EN 1990 02],
3.4 Serviceability limit states
The limit states that concern (Table 2):
the functioning of the structure or structural members under
normal use;
the comfort of people;
the appearance of the construction works.
Clause (1)
[DIN 1055-100 01], Table 1,
see above
A distinction shall be made between reversible and irreversible
serviceability limit states.
Clause (2)
The verification of serviceability limit states should be based on
criteria concerning the following aspects:
Clause (3)
a) deformations
that affect the appearance,
? the comfort of users or
? the functioning of the structure (including the functioning of
machines or services),
? or that cause damage to finishes or non-structural
members ;

b) vibrations
that cause discomfort to people, or
that limit the functional effectiveness of the structure;

c) damage that is likely to adversely affect
the appearance,
the durability or
the functioning of the structure.


Limit state design
[EN 1990 02],
3.5 Limit state design
The design has to be performed in the following steps:
1. Establishing of action models and structural models applying
the design values of geometrical data.
[EN 1990 02], 5.1.1
Design for limit states shall be based on the use of structural
and load models for relevant limit states.
Clause (1)
Possible deviations from the assumed directions or positions
of actions shall be taken into account.
Clause (8)
Structural and load models may be either physical models or
mathematical models.
Clause (9)
2. Assessment of representative values for single actions as
well as for material properties.
[EN 1990 02], Section 4
3. Calculation of design values
Design values of actions are determined by combining linearly
the representative values of single actions .
[EN 1990 02], Section 6
The requirements of 3.5(1)P should be achieved by the partial
factor method, described in section 6.
Clause (4)
In case of linear analysis, the representative values of single
action effects should be calculated separately.
Hence the design values of action effects are determined by
linear combination with the partial factor method.

4. Structural analysis on the basis of the chosen models. [EN 1990 02], 5.1
The verifications shall be carried out for all relevant design
situations and load cases.
Clause (3)
The selected design situations shall be considered and critical
load cases identified.
Clause (6)
For a particular verification load cases should be selected,
identifying compatible load arrangements, sets of deformations
and imperfections that should be considered simultaneously
with fixed variable actions and permanent actions.
Clause (7)
5. Verification of the limit states [EN 1990 02], 6.4 and 6.5
The design values of the action effects on the structure
are not allowed to exceed the design values of the structural
resistance or the design values of serviceability criteria.

It shall be verified that no limit state is exceeded when relevant
design values are used in these models, for
actions,
material properties or
product properties and
geometrical data.
Clause (2)
As an alternative, when agreed with the client and the relevant
authority, a design directly based on probabilistic methods may
be used.
Clause (5)
For a basis of probabilistic
methods, see Annex C.

Basic variables
[EN 1990 02], Section 4
Actions and environmental influences
[EN 1990 02], 4.1 Actions and
environmental influences
Classification of actions
[EN 1990 02], 4.1.1
Actions shall be classified by their variation in time as follows:
permanent actions (G), e.g. self-weight of structures, fixed
equipment and road surfacing, and indirect actions caused by
shrinkage and uneven settlements;
variable actions (Q), e.g. imposed loads on building floors,
beams and roofs, wind actions or snow loads;
accidental actions (A), e.g. explosions, or impact from
vehicles.
Clause (1)
Certain actions, such as seismic actions and snow loads, may be
considered as either accidental and/or variable actions, depending
on the site location, see EN 1991.
Clause (2)
Actions caused by water may be considered as permanent and / or
variable actions depending on the variation of their magnitude with
time.
Clause (3)
Actions caused by fluid pressure, the magnitude of which is limited
by geometrical or hydrological conditions, may be considered as
permanent, too.
See [DIN 1055-100], 6.1 (9)
Actions shall also be classified
by their origin, as direct or indirect,
by their spatial variation, as fixed or free, or
by their nature and / or the structural response,
as static or dynamic.
Clause (4)
An action should be described by a model, its magnitude being
represented in the most common cases by one scalar which may
have several representative values.
Clause (5)
See also [EN 1990 02], 5.1
Characteristic values of actions
[EN 1990 02], 4.1.2
The characteristic value F
k
of an action is its main representative
value and shall be specified:
as a mean value, an upper or lower value, or a nominal value
(which does not refer to a known statistical distribution),
see EN 1991;
in the project documentation, provided that consistency is
achieved with methods given in EN 1991.
Clause (1)
The characteristic value of a permanent action shall be assessed
as follows:
if the variability of G can be considered as small,
one single value G
k
may be used;
if the variability of G cannot be considered as small, two values
shall be used:
an upper value G
k,sup
and a lower value G
k,inf
.
Clause (2)
The variability of G may be neglected if G does not vary significantly
during the design working life of the structure and its coefficient of
variation is small.
G
k
should then be taken equal to the mean value.
Clause (3)

Note : This coefficient of variation may be in the range of 0,05 to 0,10
depending on the type of structure.

In cases when the structure is very sensitive to variations in G
(e.g. some types of prestressed concrete structures), two values
should be used even if the coefficient of variation is small.
Then G
k,inf
is the 5% fractile and G
k,sup
is the 95% fractile of the
statistical distribution for G, which may be assumed to be Gaussian.
Clause (4)
The self-weight of the structure may be represented by a single
characteristic value and be calculated on the basis of the nominal
dimensions and mean unit masses, see EN 1991-1.1.
Clause (5)
Prestressing (P) should be classified as a permanent action
caused by either controlled forces and/or controlled deformations
imposed on a structure. These types of prestress should be
distinguished from each other as relevant (for example prestress by
tendons, prestress by imposed deformation at supports, etc.).
Clause (6)
For variable actions, the characteristic value (Q
k
) shall correspond
to either :
an upper value with an intended probability of not being
exceeded or a lower value with an intended probability of being
achieved, during some specific reference period;
a nominal value, which may be specified in cases where a
statistical distribution is not known.
Clause (7)
Values are given in the various Parts of EN 1991. Note 1
The characteristic values of climatic actions are based upon the
probability of 0,02 of its time-varying part exceeding for a reference
period of one year.
This is equivalent to a mean return period of 50 years for the time-
varying part.
However in some cases the character of the action and / or the
selected design situation makes another fractile and / or return
period more appropriate.
Note 2
For accidental actions the design value A
d
should be specified for
individual projects.
Clause (8)
See also [EN 1991-1-7 05].
For seismic actions the design value A
Ed
should be assessed from
the characteristic value A
Ek
or specified for individual projects.
Clause (9)
See also [EN 1998 06].
For multi-component actions the characteristic action should be
represented by groups of values each to be considered separately in
design calculations.
Clause (10)
One example for multi-component actions are the traffic loads on
bridges which are described by load models composed of
concentrated and uniformly distributed loads combined by means of
certain factors.
See [EN 1991-2 03]:
Actions on bridges


Other representative values of variable actions
[EN 1990 02], 4.1.3
Other representative values Q
rep
of a variable action shall be defined
as a product of a characteristic value Q
k
and a combination
factor
i
( 1,0), as follows:
Clause (1)
a) the combination value, represented as a product
Q
comb
=
0
Q
k
,
used for the verification of ultimate limit states and irreversible
serviceability limit states;
see section 6 and Annex C
The factors
0
are chosen in such a way that the reliability of a
structure does not remain under the intended level when they
are applied to the combination rules for actions.
In other words: Using the factors
0
, the failure probability for
the action effect resulting from combination of actions shall be
adequate to that for the effect of a single action.

b) The infrequent value, represented as a product
Q
infr
=
1,infr
Q
k
,
1,infq

Q
k
, is used for the verification of certain serviceability limit
states specifically for concrete bridge decks, or concrete parts
of bridge decks.
Note 2
The infrequent value, defined only for road traffic loads,
thermal actions and wind actions, is based on a return
period of one year.
see [EN 1991-2 03];
[EN 1991-1-5 03];
[EN 1991-1-4 05]
c) the frequent value, represented as a product
Q
freq
=
1
Q
k
,
used for the verification of ultimate limit states involving
accidental actions and for verifications of reversible
serviceability limit states;

For buildings, for example, the frequent value is chosen so, that
the time it is exceeded is 0,01 of the reference period;
for road traffic loads on bridges, the frequent value is assessed
on the basis of a return period of one week.
Note 1
d) the quasi -permanent value, represented as a product
Q
perm
=
2
Q
k
,
used for the verification of ultimate limit states involving
accidental actions and for the verification of reversible
serviceability limit states. Quasi-permanent values are also
used for the calculation of long-term effects.

For loads on building floors, the quasi-permanent value is
usually chosen so that the proportion of the time it is exceeded
is 0,50 of the reference period.
The quasi-permanent value can alternatively be determined as
the value averaged on a chosen period of time.
In the case of wind actions or road traffic loads, the quasi-
permanent value is generally taken as zero.
Note
In case of fatigue, other representative values may be considered.
The design value Q
d
and the various representative values Q
rep
(Q
k
,
Q
com
, Q
infr
, Q
freq
and Q
perm
) are presented in Fig. 4.
See [EN 1990 02], Section 6

Fig. 4: Representative values of a variable action [Spaethe 92]
Representation of fatigue actions
[EN 1990 02], 4.1.4
The models for fatigue actions should be those that have been
established in the relevant parts of EN 1991 from evaluation of
structural responses to fluctuations of loads performed for common
structures (e.g. for simple span and multi-span bridges, tall slender
structures for wind, etc.).
Clause (1)
For structures outside the field of application of models established
in the relevant Parts of EN 1991, fatigue actions should be defined
from the evaluation of measurements or equivalent studies of the
expected action spectra.
Clause (2)
Representation of dynamic actions
[EN 1990 02], 4.1.5
The characteristic and fatigue load models in EN 1991 include the
effects of accelerations caused by the actions either implicitly in the
characteristic loads or explicitly by applying dynamic enhancement
factors to characteristic static loads.
Clause (1)
When dynamic actions cause significant acceleration of the
structure, dynamic analysis of the system should be used.
Clause (2)
See [EN 1990 02], 5.1.3 (6).
Geotechnical actions
[EN 1990 02], 4.1.6
Geotechnical actions shall be assessed in accordance with EN 1997-1. Clause (1)
Environmental influences
[EN 1990 02], 4.1.7
The environmental influences that could affect the durability of the
structure shall be considered in the choice of structural materials,
their specification, the structural concept and detailed design.
Clause (1)
The effects of environmental influences should be taken into account,
and where possible, be described quantitatively.
Clause (2)
Effects of environmental influences on concrete structures, for
instance, are considered by means of exposition classes which are
referred to certain corrosion attacks (such as carbonation, chlorides,
seawater, frost, de-icing salt and aggressive chemicals).
See EN 206-1: Concrete Part 1:
Specification, performance and
conformity

Characteristic value Q
k

Design value Q
d
=
Q

Q
k

Combination value Q
comb
=
0

Q
k

Frequent value Q
freq
=
1

Q
k

Quasi-permanent value Q
perm
=
2

Q
k

Q
t
Infrequent value Q
infr
=
1,infr

Q
k


Material and product properties
[EN 1990 02], 4.2 Material and
product properties
Properties of materials (including soil and rock) or products should
be represented by characteristic values.
Clause (1)
see [EN 1990 02], 1.5.4.1
Characteristic values are the basis for inspection during
manufacturing, execution and use.
[Spaethe 92]
When a limit state verification is sensitive to the variability of a
material property, upper and lower characteristic values of the
material property should be taken into account.
Clause (2)
Characteristic values of a material or product property generally
are defined as fractile values of a certain statistical distribution.

Unless otherwise stated in ENs 1991 to 1999 these characteristic
values should be chosen:
Clause (3)
as the 5% fractile value where a low value is unfavourable,
e.g. for material resistance in the ultimate limit state,

as a mean value where action effects depend on integration of
material properties over a structure, e.g. for the structural
stiffness parameters in non-linear analysis,
See Clause (8)
Note: Different values should be
used to take into account the
duration of the load.
as the 95% fractile value where a high value is unfavourable,
e.g. for material properties which indirect actions depend on,
See Clause (6)
as nominal value, where insufficient statistical data are
available (or design values may be established directly).
Clause (5)

Material property values shall be determined from standardised
tests performed under specified conditions.
A conversion factor shall be applied where it is necessary to
convert the test results into values which can be assumed to
represent the behaviour of the material or product in the structure or
the ground.
Clause (4)
Note:
See annex D
and ENs 1992 to 1999
Where upper or lower design values of a material or product
property are established directly (e.g. friction factors, damping
ratios), they should be selected so that the reliability level is
achieved, as required for the limit state considered.
Clause (5)
The reductions of the material strength or product resistance to
be considered resulting from the effects of repeated actions are given
in ENs 1992 to 1999 and can lead to a reduction of the resistance
over time due to fatigue.
Clause (7)
Characteristic values of material or product properties are given
in ENs 1992 to 1999 and in the relevant European product
standards.
If values are taken from product standards without guidance on
interpretation being given in ENs 1992 to 1999, the most adverse
values should be used.
Clause (9)
Where a partial factor for materials or product is needed,
a conservative value shall be used, unless suitable statistical
information exists to assess the reliability of the value chosen.
Clause (10)
See also ENs 1992 to 1999


Geometrical data
[EN 1990 02],
4.3 Geometrical data
Geometrical data shall be represented
by their characteristic values, or
(e.g. in case of imperfections) directly by their design values.
Clause (1)
The dimensions specified in the design may be taken as
characteristic values.
Clause (2)
Where the statistical distribution of geometrical quantities is
sufficiently known, they may be established as fractile values.
Clause (3)
Imperfections that should be taken into account in the design of
structural members are given in ENs 1992 to 1999.
Clause (4)
as to be applied to Second order
non-linear analysis, for example
Tolerances for connected parts that are made from different
materials shall be mutually compatible.
Clause (5)
Structural analysis
and design assisted by testing
[EN 1990 02], Section 5
Structural analysis
[EN 1990 02],
5.1 Structural analysis
Structural modelling
[EN 1990 02], 5.1.1
Calculations shall be carried out using appropriate structural models
involving relevant variables.
Clause (1)
See also [EN 1990 02], 3.5 (2)
These structural models should be appropriate for predicting
structural behaviour with an acceptable level of accuracy.
They should also be appropriate to the limit states considered.
Clause (2)

See also [EN 1990 02], 3.5 (1)
Structural models shall be based on established engineering theory
and practice (approved rules of engineering).
If necessary, they shall be verified experimentally.
Clause (3)
See above: Structural design
and structural safety
Static actions
[EN 1990 02], 5.1.2
The modelling for static actions shall be based on an appropriate
choice of the force-deformation relationships of the members and
their connections and between members and the ground.
Clause (1)
Boundary conditions applied to the model shall represent those
intended in the structure.
Clause (2)
Effects of displacements and deformations shall be taken into
account in the context of ultimate limit state verifications if they
result in a significant increase of the effect of actions.
Clause (3)
Condition for applying second
order analysis
Indirect actions shall be introduced in the analysis as follows :
in linear elastic analysis, directly or as equivalent forces
(using appropriate modular ratios where relevant);
in non-linear analysis, directly as imposed deformations.
Clause (4)
Dynamic actions
[EN 1990 02], 5.1.3
The structural model to be used for determining the dynamic action
effects has to compass all relevant structural members, their
masses, strengths, stiffnesses and damping characteristics, and all
relevant non structural members with their properties.
Clause (1)

The boundary conditions applied to the model shall be
representative of those intended in the structure.
Clause (2)
When it is appropriate to consider dynamic actions as quasi -
static, the dynamic parts may be considered either by including
them in the static values or by applying equivalent dynamic
amplification factors to the static actions.
Clause (3)
In the case of ground-structure interaction, the contribution of the
soil may be modelled by appropriate equivalent springs and dash-
pots.
Clause (4)
Where relevant (e.g. for wind induced vibrations or seismic actions)
the actions may be defined by a modal analysis based on linear
material and geometric behaviour.
Clause (5)
For structures that have regular geometry, stiffness and mass
distribution, provided that only the fundamental mode is relevant, an
explicit modal analysis may be substituted by an analysis with
equivalent static actions.

Applying the law of conservation of energy, the fundamental eigen
frequency may be determined as the ratio of kinetic and potential
vibration energy.
[Grnberg 06]
The dynamic actions may be also expressed, as appropriate, in
terms of time histories or in the frequency domain, and the
structural response determined by appropriate methods.
Clause (6)
Where dynamic actions cause vibrations of a magnitude or
frequencies that could exceed serviceability requirements, a
serviceability limit state verification should be carried out.
Clause (7)
Fire design
[EN 1990 02], 5.1.4
The structural fire design analysis shall be based on design fire
scenarios (see EN 1991-1-2), and shall consider models for the
temperature evolution within the structure as well as models for the
mechanical behaviour of the structure at elevated temperature.
Clause (1)
The required performance of the structure exposed to fire should be
verified by either global analysis, analysis of sub-assemblies or
member analysis, as well as the use of tabular data or test results.
Clause (2)
The behaviour of the structure exposed to fire should be assessed by
taking into account either:
nominal fire exposures, or
modelled fire exposures,
as well as the accompanying actions.
Clause (3)
Note : See also EN 1991-1-2.
The structural behaviour at elevated temperatures, should be
assessed in accordance with ENs 1992 to 1996 and EN 1999, which
give thermal and structural models for analysis.
Clause (4)
See the parts 1-2 of each code
family, concerning fire design
Where relevant to specific material and the method of assessment
either a uniform or a non-uniform temperature may be assumed
within cross-sections and along members;
either structural members may be analysed separately or
considering interaction between members in fire exposure.
Clause (5)
The mechanical behaviour of structural members at elevated
temperatures should be modelled non-linear.
Clause (6)

Design assisted by testing
[EN 1990 02],
5.2 Design assisted by testing
Design may be based on a combination of tests and calculations. Clause (1)
Normally, the verification of structures based on testing only,
i.e. without any accompanying calculations, is not permitted!

Testing may be carried out, for example, in the following
circumstances:
if adequate calculation models are not available;
if a large number of similar components are to be used;
to confirm by control checks assumptions made in the design.
See Annex D.
Design assisted by test results shall achieve the level of reliability
required for the relevant design situation.
The statistical uncertainty due to a limited number of test results
shall be taken into account.
Clause (2)
Partial factors (including those for model uncertainties) comparable
to those used in ENs 1991 to 1999 should be used.
Clause (3)
Verification by the partial factor method
[EN 1990 02], Section 6
General
[EN 1990 02], 6.1 General
When using the partial factor method, it shall be verified that, in all
relevant design situations, no relevant limit state is exceeded
when design values for actions or action effects and resistances are
used in the design models.
Clause (1)
For the selected design situations and the relevant limit states the
individual actions for the critical load cases should be combined as
detailed in this section.
However, actions that cannot occur simultaneously, for example due
to physical reasons, should not be considered together in
combination.
Clause (2)
Design values should be obtained by using
the characteristic values or
other representative values
in combination with partial and other factors as defined in this
section and in EN 1991 to EN1999.
Clause (3)

See [EN 1990 02], Annex A:
A1 with respect to buildings,
A2 with respect to bridges
It can be appropriate to determine design values directly where
conservative values should be chosen.
Clause (4)
Design values directly determined on statistical bases shall
correspond to at least the same degree of reliability for the various
limit states as implied by the partial factors given in this standard.
Clause (5)
Limitations
[EN 1990 02], 6.2 Limitations
The use of the Application Rules given in EN 1990 is limited to
ultimate and serviceability limit state verifications of structures
subject to static loading, including cases where the dynamic effects
are assessed using equivalent quasi-static loads and dynamic
amplification factors, including wind or traffic loads.
For non-linear analysis and fatigue the specific rules given in various
parts of ENs 1991 to 1999 should be applied.
Clause (1)

Design values
[EN 1990 02],
6.3 Design values
Design values of actions
[EN 1990 02], 6.3.1
In general, the characteristic value F
k
of an action can be
transformed into a design value F
d
by means of a partial factor and a
factor:
Clause (1)
d f rep
F F (6.1a)

with
rep k
F F (6.1b)

where:
F
k
is the characteristic value of the action (G
k
or Q
k
).
F
rep
is the relevant representative value of the action.
f
is a partial factor for the action which takes account of
the possibility of unfavourable deviations of the action
values from the representative values.

is either 1,00 or
0
,
1
or
2
.
However, the design value A
Ed
of a seismic action should be
determined taking account of the structural behaviour and other
relevant criteria detailed in EN 1998.
Clause (2)
Design values of material or product properties
[EN 1990 02], 6.3.3
The characteristic values X
k
of material or product properties are
transformed into a design values X
d
by means of partial factors.
Clause (1)
In special cases a conversion factor has to be introduced considering
effects of load duration, moisture, temperature etc. as well as scale
effects.

k
d
m
X
X
(6.3)

X
k
is the characteristic value of the material or product
property
see [EN 1990 02], 4.2(3)
is the mean value of the conversion factor
m
is the partial factor for the material or product property to
take account of
the possibility of an unfavourable deviation of a material or
product property from its characteristic value;
the random part of the conversion factor .

Alternatively the conversion factor may be taken into account:
implicitly within the characteristic value itself,
or by using
M
instead of
m
(see expression (6.6b)).
Clause (2)
Design values of geometrical data
[EN 1990 02], 6.3.4
Design values of geometrical data such as dimensions of members
that are used to assess action effects and/or resistances may be
represented by nominal values:
Clause (1)
a
d
= a
nom
(6.4)


Where the effects of deviations in geometrical data (e.g. inaccuracy
in the load application or location of supports) are significant for the
reliability of the structure (e.g. by second order effects) the design
values of geometrical data shall be defined by:
Clause (2)
d nom
a a a + (6.5)

a takes account of:
the possibility of unfavourable deviations from the
characteristic or nominal values;
the cumulative effect of a simultaneous occurrence of
several geometrical deviations.

Note: a
d
can also represent geometrical imperfections where a
nom
= 0.
Effects of other deviations should be covered by partial factors Clause (3)
Design values of the effects of actions
[EN 1990 02], 6.3.2
The action effects (E) are the answers of the structure to the actions
(F) depending on the geometrical data (a) and the material properties
(X).

Therefore, for a specific load case the design values of the action
effects (E
d
) can be expressed in general terms as:
{ }
d Ed d,1 d,2 d,1 d,2 d,1 d,2
, ,..., , ,..., , , E E F F a a X X K (6.2)
Clause (1)
F
d,i
are the design values of actions F
i
to be determined
applying equation (6.1).

a
d,i
are the design values of relevant geometrical data,
e.g. the span of a beam.

X
d,i
are the material properties, if relevant for structural
analysis, e.g. the stiffness of a beam.

Ed
is a partial factor taking account of uncertainties:
in modelling the effects of actions, i.e. the deviations of the
structural model from the structure or any structural
member in reality ;
in some cases, in modelling the actions, i.e. the deviations
of the action arrangements such as concentrated or
distributed loads, constant thermal actions or linear
temperature gradients, etc. from the real actions.

The design values of action effects E
d
may represent internal forces,
stresses or deformations, e.g.:
the design value of an acting bending moment M
Ed
,
the design value of a longitudinal stress within a beam
Ed
or
the design value of a deflection f
Ed
.

The index Ed identifies an action effect for a certain design
situation in a limit state which depends on a combination of actions.

Introducing the partial factors
f,i
for actions, equ. (6.2) may be
transformed into:
See Fig. 6
{ }
d Ed f,1 rep,1 f,2 rep,2 d,1 d,2 d,1 d,2
, ,..., , ,..., , , E E F F a a X X K (6.2 *)


In most cases, the following simplification can be made : Clause (2)
{ }
d F,1 rep,1 F,2 rep,2 d,1 d,2 d,1 d,2
, ,..., , ,..., , , E E F F a a X X K (6.2a)

with extended design values of actions
d,i F,i rep,i
F F (6.1c)

where
F,i Ed f,i
(6.2b)

Considering the different single actions, but disregarding the
dependencies on geometrical data and material properties, equation
(6.2 *), and (6.2a) respectively, will adopt the
General format for combination of actions in the limit states:
[Grnberg 04]
{ }
d Ed g,1 k,1 g,2 k,2 q,1 rep,1 q,2 rep,2
, ,..., , ,... E E G G Q Q
(6.2 **)
{ }
d G,1 k,1 G,2 k,2 Q,1 rep,1 Q,2 rep,2
, ,..., , ,... E E G G Q Q (6.2a *)

G
k,j
characteristic values of single permanent actions G
j
:
Q
rep,i
representative values of single variable actions Q
i
:
g,j
,
q,I
;
G,j
,
Q,I
according partial factors
See [EN 1990 02], 4.1
A single action is represented by one or several characteristic values
of forces or deformations from one unique origin, e.g. permanent
weight G, life loads Q
N
, snow and ice loads Q
S
, wind loads Q
W
, or
thermal actions Q
T
.
Actions are independent of each other if they come from different
origins and if their correlation may be neglected with respect to
structural reliability.
[Grnberg 04]
The independent (single) actions relevant for buildings are assembled
in the context of Annex A1.
See comment to [EN 1990 02],
Annex A1
Although the solar energy, acting on the atmosphere and earths
surface, is the common source of all environmental actions, such as
snow and ice loads, wind loads and thermal actions, they are
considered independently.
The reasons are the unimportant correlations between these actions
as well as their basic periods which differ essentially.

Different kinds of use (multiple categories of use in one building)
normally are partially correlated, and that is from the superior
intention of the building.
The same kinds of use on different floors (i.e. only one category of
use in one building) are only partly correlated, but stronger than
different kinds of use.

All imposed loads or life loads within one building coming from all
categories of use appearing there are assembled to a multi-
component action which is treated as one single action.
Multi-component action:
see [EN 1990 02], 4.1.2 (10)
This multi-component action results of a previous combination of
actions according to special rules given in the action codes.
See [EN 1991-1-1 02]
or [EN 1991-2 03], for instance


Where a distinction has to be made between favourable and
unfavourable effects of permanent actions, two different partial factors
shall be used (
G,inf
and
G,sup
).
Clause (3)
Unfavourable effects of a permanent action increase the effects of the
leading variable action Q
k,1
, e.g. if an imposed load Q
k,1
and self-
weight are acting in the same direction. Then the characteristic value
G
k
, or the upper value G
k,sup
respectively, has to be multiplied by the
upper partial factor
G,sup
, e.g. by
G,sup
= 1,35.
The index sup is an abbreviation
of the Latin word superior which
means the higher one.
Favourable effects of a permanent action decrease the effects of the
k,1
, e.g. if an imposed load Q
k,1
and self-
weight are acting in opposite directions. Then the characteristic
value G
k
, or the lower value G
k,inf
respectively, has to be multiplied by
the lower partial factor
G,inf
, e.g. by
G,inf
= 1,00.
The index inf is an abbreviation
of the Latin word inferior which
means the lower one.
Formats for combination of actions in non-linear analysis:
For non-linear analysis (i.e. when the relationship between actions
and their effects is not linear), the following simplified rules may be
considered in the case of a single predominant action (Q
k,1
):
Clause (4)
See Fig. 5
a) When the action effect increases more than the actions, the
partial factors
F,i
should be applied to the representative values
of the actions:

{ }
d G,1 k,1 G,2 k,2 Q,1 k,1 Q,2 rep,2
, ,..., , ,... E E G G Q Q
(6.2-N1)
equivalent to equ. (6.2a *)
One example for application of equ. (6.2-N1) is the second
order non-linear analysis of a building column where the design
bending moment M
Ed
increases more than the contributing
single actions.

Another example is the second order non-linear analysis of an
arch structure. Depending on one single action Q
1
only, the
horizontal reaction force H
1
results from equ. (6.2-N1):
{ }
Qd,1 Q,1 k,1 Q,1 Qk,1
H H Q H > (6.2-H1)

Fig. 5: Predominant action effect E
Qd,1
= E (Q
k,1
;
Q,1
) in non-linear structural analysis

E
Qd,1
Q
1
H
Qd,1
>
Q,1

H
Qk,1

N
Qd,1
=
Q,1

N
Qk,1

linear
a) above proportionality
b) below proportionality
Q
k,1
Q
d,1
=
Q,1

Q
k,1

N
Qk,1
H
Qk,1


b) When the action effect increases less than the action (i.e. the
k,1
), the partial factor
F
(
Q,1
) should be
applied to the action effect of the representative value of the
action:
Clause (4); continued
G,1 G,2 Q,2
d Q,1 k,1 k,2 k,1 rep,2
Q,1 Q,1 Q,1
, , ..., , , ... E E G G Q Q

' ;

(6.2-N2)
The design values of each single action are divided through the
partial factor according to the leading variable action.
This partial factor is applied to the resulting effect of the
reduced actions.

One example is the second order non-linear analysis of a
suspension bridge. Depending on one single action Q
1
only, the
longitudinal force of the main rope N
1
results from equ. (6.2-N2)
as the following:

{ }
Qd,1 Q,1 k,1 Q,1 Qk,1
N N Q N (6.2-H2)

Formats for combination of actions in linear-elastic analysis:

d G,1 Gk,1 G,2 Gk,2 Q,1 Qrep,1 Q,2 Qrep,2
... ... E E E E E + + + + +
(6.2-E)

The representative values of single action effects, i.e. E
Gk,j
and E
Qrep,I
,
are the answers of the structure to the representative values of the
single actions G
k,j
and Q
rep,I
respectively:

( )
Gk,j k,j
E E G

characteristic values of single permanent action effects
( ) ( )
Qrep,i rep,i i k,i i Qk,i
E E Q E Q E

representative values of single variable action effects
G,j
,
Q,I
according partial factors

In case of linear-elastic behaviour, the structural analysis may be
carried out for each single action, as they are
permanent loads G
k
,
imposed loads Q
N,k
(or life loads),
snow loads Q
S,k
,
wind loads Q
W,k
,
thermal actions Q
T,k
,
,
separately, but using the same structural model.
Applying the principle of superposition, the single action effects, e.g.
internal forces, stresses or deformations, may be combined linearly.
[Grnberg 04]


In this case the combination rule (6.2-E) describes an additive
superposition of the design values of single action effects:
d Gd,1 Gd,2 Qd,1 Qd,2
... ... E E E E E + + + + + (6.2-Ed)
where
Gd,j G,j Gk,j
E E

Qd,i Q,i Qrep,i Q,i i Qk,i
E E E

In those cases where more refined methods are detailed in the
relevant EN 1991 to EN 1999 (e.g. for prestressed structures), they
should be used in preference to clause (4).
Clause (5)
Design resistance
[EN 1990 02], 6.3.5
The resistances (R) depend on geometrical data (a) and on material
properties (X). Therefore, the general format may be written as

( )
d d,1 d,2 d,1 d,2
, ,..., , ,... R R a a X X

The design values of resistances R
d
may represent internal forces,
stresses or deformations, e.g.:
the design value of a resisting bending moment M
Rd
,
the design value of a longitudinal strength
Rd
or
the design value of a permissible deflection f
Rd
.

1. Format applying divided partial factors
By means of partial factors, the following formats may be derived
expressing the design resistance R
d
:
Clause (1)
{ }
d d,1 d,2 d,1 d,2
Rd
k,1 k,2
1 2 d,1 d,2
Rd m,1 m,2
1
, ,..., , , . . .
1
, ,..., , , . . .
R R X X a a
X X
R a a

' ;

(i = 1) (6.6)

Rd
is a partial factor covering uncertainty in the resistance
model, plus geometric deviations if these are not modelled
explicitly.

see [EN 1990 02], 6.3.4(2)
X
d,i
is the design value of material property X
i
.
2. Format applying integrated partial factors
The following simplification of expression (6.6) may be made: Clause (2)
k,1 k,2
d 1 2 d,1 d,2
M,1 M,2
, , ... , ,...
X X
R R a a

_

,
(i 1) (6.6a)

where
M,i Rd m,i
(6.6b)


3. Format applying one partial factor
R
for structural
resistance

Alternatively to expression (6.6a), the design resistance may be
obtained directly from the characteristic value of a material or
product resistance, without explicit determination of design values for
individual basic variables, using:
Clause (3)
k
d
R
R
R
(6.6c)

Note : This is applicable to products or members made of a
single material (e.g. steel) and is also used in connection
with Annex D Design assisted by testing.

Alternatively to expressions (6.6a) and (6.6c), for structures or
structural members that are analysed by non-linear methods, and
comprise more than one material acting in association, or where
ground properties are involved in the design resistance, the following
expression for design resistance can be used :
Clause (4)
R R
d 1 k,1 2 k,2 d,1 d,2
R M,1 M,2
1
, , ... , , , . . . R R X X a a

_

,

(6.6d)
Note:
In [EN 1990 02]
M,1
is used
instead of
R
In equ. (6.6d) the material properties are established as arithmetic
values, adapting the characteristic values X
k,i
to the required level of
reliability by means of the ratios
R
/
M,i
.

The meaning of the different partial factors and their relations to each
other are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6 Relations between individual partial factors

Uncertainty of
representative values of
actions
Model uncertainties
Uncertainty of material
properties
Actions and
action effects
Structural resistances
Ed

Rd

M


[EN 1990 02],
6.4 Ultimate limit states
General
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.1
The required level of reliability (safety) of a structure in the whole or
of the structural members has to be verified (Table 2)
by comparing the design values of action effects and of
structural resistances
considering the relevant design situations.
[Grnberg 04]

[DIN 1055-100 01], Table 1
To meet the requirements on the ultimate limit states, the following
measures have to be taken:
See above: Structural design and
structural safety
1. Measures to avoid human errors
(Assumptions and preconditions for structural design),
2. Measures to warrant a sufficient safety margin between
action effect and structural resistance,
3. Measures to prevent potential causes of failure and/or reduce their
consequences (Limiting or avoiding of potential damage).
See [EN 1990 02],
1.3 Assumptions
See [EN 1990 02],
2.1 Basic requirements
The requirements on the safety of people as well as on the safety of
the structure and its equipment have to be met considering a given
level of reliability.
[Grnberg 04]
There is no absolute safety. The required level of reliability only can
be defined by a permissible failure probability P
f,requ
.
[Spaethe 92]
The establishment of the permissible failure probability is a problem
of optimisation in the public society:
If the safety level is chosen too high, the expenses of building
will become too high.
If the safety level is chosen too low, the events of damage or
failure will occur too frequently.

The target values of failure probability are established in Annex C:
P
f,requ
= 10
-6
for a reference period of one year
P
f,requ
= 5

10
-5
for a design working life of 50 years
[EN 1990 02], Annex C
The following ultimate limit states shall be verified as relevant: Clause (1)
a) EQU: Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it
considered as a rigid body, where:
minor variations in the value or the spatial distribution of
actions from a single source are significant, and
the strengths of construction materials or ground are
generally not governing;

b) STR: Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or
structural members, including footings, piles, basement walls,
etc., where the strength of construction materials of the
structure governs;

c) GEO: Failure or excessive deformation of the ground where the
strengths of soil or rock are significant in providing resistance;

d) FAT: Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members.
Note: For fatigue design, the combinations of actions are given
in EN1992 to EN 1999.


The design values of actions shall be in accordance with Annex A. Clause (2)
Verifications of static equilibrium and resistance
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.2
When considering a limit state of static equilibrium of the
structure (EQU), it shall be verified that:
Clause (1)
stb d, dst d,
E E (6.7)
E
d,dst
is the design value of the effect of destabilising actions;
E
d,stb
is the design value of the effect of stabilising actions.
Generally, the properties of materials and soil do not affect the limit
state of static equilibrium. Therefore, the resistance is replaced by
stabilising actions.
[Grnberg 04]
Variable actions are not allowed to contribute to stabilisation. So
they become part of the destabilising actions when acting
unfavourably.

The permanent action are treated differently: As small deviation of
their magnitude and spatial distribution may be significant with
respect to static equilibrium, the permanent actions have to be
subdivided into their unfavourable and their favourable parts. The
former contribute to destabilising actions, the latter, however, to
stabilising actions.

Where appropriate the expression for a limit state of static
equilibrium may be supplemented by additional terms, including, for
example, a coefficient of friction between rigid bodies.
Clause (2)
Alternatively, friction may be
treated as a material resistance
If considering a limit state of rupture or excessive deformation
of a section, member or connection (STR and/or GEO), it shall be
verified that:
Clause (3)
d d
E R (6.8)

E
d
is the design value of the effect of actions such as internal
force, moment or a vector representing several internal forces
or moments;

R
d
is the design value of the corresponding resistance including
all the structural properties with their according design values.

Note 1: Details for the methods STR and GEO are given in Annex A. See [EN 1990 02], Annex A
Note 2: Expression (6.8) does not cover all verification formats
concerning buckling, i.e. failure that happens where second order
effects cannot be limited by the structural response, or by an
acceptable structural response. See EN 1992 to EN 1999.

If different kinds of action effects interact in a structural member, i.e.
shear and torque in a beam out of reinforced concrete, equ. (6.8)
generally may be replaced by the following format:
[Grnberg 04]
1,d 2,d
1,d 2,d
1
n n
E E
R R
_ _
+

, ,
(6.8-INT)

Specific verification formats for combined actions are given in the
design codes (ENs 1992 to 1999), also the exponent n.
In many cases either n = 1 or n = 2 is chosen.


In cases where the verification of static equilibrium also involves the
resistance of structural members(see Fig. 7) an adequate format
can be derived combining equations (6.7) and (6.8).
See [EN 1990 02], Annex A

Fig. 7: Limit state of static equilibrium (here: safety against lifting off)
Combination of actions (fatigue verifications excluded)
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.3
General [EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.1
For each critical load case, the design values of the effects of
actions (E
d
) shall be determined by combining the values of actions
that are considered to occur simultaneously.
Clause (1), (3)
The combinations of actions
should be in accordance with
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.2 to 6.4.3.4.
Each combination of actions should include
a leading variable action (Q
k,1
) or
an accidental action (A
d
).
Clause (2)
Where the results of a verification are very sensitive to variations of
the magnitude of a permanent action from place to place in the
structure, the unfavourable and the favourable parts of this action
shall be considered as individual actions.
Clause (4)
Note: This applies in particular to the verification of static equilibrium
and analogous limit states.
See [EN 1990 02], 6.4.2(2)
Where several effects of one action (e.g. bending moment and
normal force due to self-weight) are not fully correlated, the partial
factor applied to any favourable component may be reduced.
Clause (5)
Imposed deformations should be taken into account where relevant. Clause (6)
The idea of the following combination formats is to verify the different
design situations on the same level of reliability! Hence, it is not true
that accidental design situations are less reliable (or safe) than
persistent design situations.
[Grnberg 04]
Combinations of actions for persistent or transient design
situations (fundamental combinations)
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.2
Persistent situations comprise the usual conditions of using the
structure, whereas transient situations are limited temporally.

The general format of effects of actions is derived from equ. (6.2 **): Clause (1)
{ }
d Ed g,j k,j p k q,1 k,1 q,i 0,i k,i
; ; ; E E G P Q Q j 1; i > 1
(6.9a)

The combination of effects of actions to be considered should be
based on
the design value of the leading variable action (Q
k,1
) and
the design combination values of accompanying variable
actions.
Clause (2)

Lifting off?
or R
d

E
d,stb
E
d,dst

Applying the simplification of integrated partial factors the according
format may be derived from equ. (6.2a *):
[Grnberg 04]
{ }
d G,j k,j P k Q,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k,i
; ; ; E E G P Q Q j 1; i > 1
(6.9b)

The combination of actions in brackets { }, in (6.9b) may either be
expressed as:
Clause (3)
G,j k,j P k Q,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
G P Q Q
>
+ + +

(6.10)

or, alternatively for STR and GEO limit states, the less favourable of
the two following expressions :

G,j k,j P k Q,1 0,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
G P Q Q
>
+ + +

(6.10a)
G,j j k,j P k Q,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
G P Q Q
>
+ + +

(6.10b)

where
+ implies "to be combined with"
implies "the combined effect of
j
< 1 is a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions
G
k,j
(in case of favourable action effect,
j
is included in
the partial factor
G,inf
= 1,00)

Note : Further information for this choice is given in Annex A.
Non-linear structural analysis

If the relationship between actions and their effects is not linear,
expressions (6.9a) or (6.9b) should be applied directly, depending
upon the relative increase of the effects of actions compared to the
increase in the magnitude of actions.
Clause (4)
See also [EN 1990 02], 6.3.2.(4)
The combination formats for partial factor design can be presented
on three different levels, as to be shown by means of the
fundamental combinations. Other combinations may be presented
accordingly.
[Grnberg 04]
Level 1: Actions
The design values of action effects result from structural analysis on
the basis of different combinations of actions according to
equ. (6.9a) or (6.9b) respectively, in connection with equ. (6.10):
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.9)
d G,j k,j P k Q,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k, i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.10)

The leading variable action Q
k,1
is not self-evident. Therefore, each
single variable action has to be introduced as leading variable action,
one after the other, to find out the significant combination of actions.


The combination formats have to be applied on this level in any case
of non-linear structural analysis:
In case of action effects below proportionality, Equ. (6.9) should
be applied (or simplified rule equ. 6.2-N2).
In case of action effects above proportionality, Equ. (6.10)
should be applied (which is equivalent to equ. 6.2-N1).
See also comments to linear
elastic analysis in the context of
[EN 1990 02], 6.3.2
Level 2: Action effects
The combination formats may be applied on this level in case of
linear-elastic structural analysis.
d
(e.g. N
Ed
, V
Ed
, M
Ed
) result from
linear superposition of characteristic values of single action effects:

d G,j Gk,j p Pk Q,1 Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk, i
j 1 i 1 >
+ + +

E E E E E
(6.10-Ed)
Compare Equ. (6.2-E)
In this case the characteristic value of the leading variable action
effect E
Qk,1
can be determined before, in order to detect the
significant combination of action effects:

( ) ( ) [ ]
i Qk, i , 0 i Q, Qk,1 1 , 0 Q,1
1 Max. 1 E E (6.10-Q1)

However, equ. (6.10-Q1) has to be evaluated for each relevant point
in the structure separately. The results may be different significant
combinations at different places.
On the other hand, structural design becomes very clear if the
effects of single actions are followed separately throughout the
structure to combine them only at critical points.
Especially, the availability of characteristic values of single action
effects is convenient at the interface between the structure and the
subsoil because of some differing safety elements.

Level 3: internal forces, stresses
The combination formats may be applied on this level in case of
linear-elastic structural analysis and, furthermore, linear
calculation of internal forces or stresses.
The design values of stresses
Ed
result from a linear combination of
characteristic values of single action stresses:

>
+ + +
Ed G,j Gk,j p Pk Q,1 Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk, i
j 1 i 1

(6.10-
Ed
)

In this case the characteristic value of the leading variable action
stress
Qk,1
can be determined before, in order to detect the
significant combination of action stresses:

( ) ( )
Q,1 0,1 Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk,i
1 Max. 1 1
]
(6.10-
Q1
)

Combining on level 3 is advantageous if the stresses
Qk,i
result from
different action effects, e.g. from longitudinal forces N
Qk,i
and bending
moments M
Qk,i
according to each single action Q
k,i
.

+
Ed Ed
Ed
N M
A W
or
+
,Ed Ed Ed
W
M N M
A
(6.10-K)

M
,Ed
is core point moment referred to the core extent W

/

A.

Instead of equ. (6.10-
Ed
) the fundamental combination may be
written as follows:

>
+
+ +
,Ed G,j ,Gk,j p ,Pk

j 1
Q,1 ,Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk,i
i 1
M M M
M M
(6.10-M
Ed
)

In this case the characteristic value of the leading variable core point
moment M
Qk,1
can be determined as follows:

( ) ( )
Q,1 0,1 ,Qk,1 Q,i 0,i ,Qk,i
1 Max. 1 M M

1
]

(6.10-M
Q1
)

Design values of action effects can be calculated on level 3
approximately, even then, if non-linear material laws or cracks in
reinforced concrete structures have to be considered.
[Grnberg, Hansen, Klaus 97]
Combinations of actions for accidental design situations [EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.3
Accidental situations refer to extraordinary conditions of the
structure or its environment, as they are fire or burning, explosion,
impact, high water, or failure of single structural elements.

The general format of effects of actions should be: Clause (1)
{ } dA k,j k d , 1 k,1 2,i k,i
; ; ; ; E E G P A Q Q j 1; i > 1 (6.11a)

The combination of actions in brackets { } can be expressed as : Clause (2)
( )
k,j k d 1,1 2,1 k,1 2,i k, i
1 1
" " " " " " " "
j i
G P A or Q Q
>
+ + + +

(6.11b)

Linear-elastic structural analysis [Grnberg 04]
In case of linear-elastic structural behaviour, the design values of
action effects may be calculated using the principle of superposition:

( )
dA Gk,j Pk Ad 1,1 2,1 Qk,1 2,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E or E E
>
+ + + +

(6.11-Ed)

Characteristic value of the leading variable action effect E
Qk,1
:
( ) ( ) [ ]
i Qk, i 2, i 1, Qk,1 1 , 2 1 , 1
Max. E E (6.11-Q1)
if
1,1
is chosen with respect to E
Qk,1
.

Accidental design situation occur more rarely than persistent and
transient design situations. Therefore, lower design values applied to
equ. (6.11) are sufficient to meet the same target value of failure
probability P
f,requ
.

The choice between
1,1

Q
k,1
or
2,1

Q
k,1
should be related to the
relevant accidental design situation (impact, fire or survival after an
accidental event or situation).
Clause (3)
Combinations of actions for accidental design situations should
either
involve an explicit accidental action A (fire or impact) or
refer to a situation after an accidental event (A = 0).
Clause (4)
For fire situations, apart from the temperature effect on the material
properties, A
d
should represent the design value of the indirect
thermal action due to fire.
Clause (5)


Combinations of actions for seismic design situations [EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.4
The general format of effects of actions should be: Clause (1)
{ } dE k,j k Ed 2,i k,i
; ; ; E E G P A Q j 1; i 1 (6.12a)

The combination of actions in brackets { } can be expressed as: Clause (2)
k,j k Ed 2,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
G P A Q

+ + +

(6.12b)

dE Gk,j Pk AEd 2,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E E

+ + +

(6.12-Ed)

Seismic design situation occur even more rarely than accidental
design situations. Therefore, even lower design values applied to
equ. (6.12) are sufficient to meet the same target value of failure
probability P
f,requ
.

Partial factors for actions and combinations of actions
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.4
The values of the and factors for actions should be obtained from
EN 1991 and from Annex A.
Clause (1)
Partial factors for materials and products
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.5
The partial factors for properties of materials and products should be
obtained from ENs 1992 to 1999.
Clause (1)

[EN 1990 02],
6.5 Serviceability limit states
Verifications
[EN 1990 02], 6.5.1
In serviceability limit states the same verification format is used as in
ultimate limit states. It shall be verifi ed that:
Clause (1)
( )
d d d
or E C R (6.13)

C
d
(R
d
) is the limiting design value of the relevant serviceability
criterion, i.e. permissible stress, deformation or vibration.

E
d
is the design value of the effects of actions specified in the
serviceability criterion, determined on the basis of the
relevant combination.

[EN 1990 02], 6.5.2
The deformations to be taken into account in relation to serviceability
requirements should be
as detailed in the relevant Annex A according to the type of
construction works,
or agreed with the client or the National authority.
Clause (1)
For other specific serviceability criteria such as crack width, stress
or strain limitation, slip resistance, etc., see ENs 1992 to 1999.

Combination of actions
[EN 1990 02], 6.5.3
The combinations of actions to be taken into account in the relevant
design situations should be appropriate for the serviceability
requirements and performance criteria being verified.
Clause (1)
The combinations of actions for serviceability limit states are defined
symbolically by the following expressions:
Clause (2)
See also [EN 1990 02], 6.5.4
Note: It is assumed, in these expressions, that all partial factors are
equal to 1,00. See Annex A and EN 1991 to EN 1999.

a) Characteristic combination:
General format:
{ }
d,rare k,j k k,1 0,i k,i
; ; ; E E G P Q Q j 1; i > 1 (6.14a)

in which the combination of actions in brackets { } (called the
characteristic combination), can be expressed as:

k,j k k,1 0,i k,i
j 1 i 1
" " " " " " G P Q Q
>
+ + +

(6.14b)

Note: The characteristic combination is normally used for
irreversible limit states (e.g. damage of the structure).

In case of linear-elastic structural behaviour, the design values of
action effects may be calculated using the principle of superposition:

>
+ + +
1 j 1 i
i Qk, i 0, 1 , Qk Pk j Gk, rare d,
E E E E E (6.14-Ed)

Qk,1
:
( ) ( ) [ ]
i Qk, i , 0 1 , Qk 1 , 0
1 Max. 1 E E (6.14-Q1)


b) Frequent combination:
General format:
{ }
d,freq k,j k 1,1 k,1 2,i k,i
; ; ; E E G P Q Q (6.15a)

in which the combination of actions in brackets { }, (called the
frequent combination), can be expressed as:

k,j k 1,1 k,1 2,i k,i
j 1 i 1
" " " " " " G P Q Q
>
+ + +

(6.15b)

Note: The frequent combination is normally used for reversible
limit states (e.g. corrosion attack on reinforcement in
cracked concrete)

d,freq Gk,j Pk 1,1 Qk,1 2,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E E
>
+ + +

(6.15-Ed)

Qk,1
:
( ) ( ) [ ]
i Qk, i , 2 i , 1 1 , Qk 1 , 2 1 , 1
Max. E E (6.15-Q1)

c) Quasi -permanent combination:
General format:
{ }
d,perm k,j k 2,i k,i
; ; E E G P Q (6.16a)

in which the combination of actions in brackets { }, (called the
quasi-permanent combination), can be expressed as:

k,j k 2,i k,i
j 1 i 1
" " " " G P Q

+ +

(6.16b)

Note: The quasi-permanent combination is normally used for
long-term effects and the appearance of the structure (e.g.
the deformations of a structure).

d,perm Gk, j Pk 2,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E

+ +

(6.16-Ed)

For the representative value of the prestressing action (i.e. P
k
or P
m
),
reference should be made to the relevant design Eurocode for the
type of prestress under consideration.
Clause (3)
Effects of actions due to imposed deformations shall be considered
where relevant.
Clause (4)
Note: In some cases expressions (6.14) to (6.16) require
modification. Detailed rules are given in the relevant Parts
of ENs 1991 to 1999.

Partial factors for materials
[EN 1990 02], 6.5.4
For serviceability limit states the partial factors
M
for the properties
of materials should be taken as 1,0 except if differently specified in
EN1992 to EN1999.
Clause (1)

Annex A1 (normative)
Application for Buildings
[EN 1990 02], Annex A1
Field of application
[EN 1990 02],
A1.1 Field of application
This annex A1 gives rules and methods for establishing
Combinations of actions for buildings.
It also gives the recommended
design values of permanent, variable and accidental actions
and factors to be used in the design of buildings.
Clause (1)
Combinations of actions
[EN 1990 02],
A1.2 Combinations of actions
General
[EN 1990 02], A1.2.1
Effects of actions that cannot exist simultaneously due to physical
or functional reasons should not be considered together in
combinations of actions.
Clause (1)
Combinations of actions that include prestressing forces should be
dealt with as detailed in EN 1992 to EN 1999.
Clause (4)
The combination formats describe combinations of single actions. [EN 1990 02], 6.3.2
A single action is represented by one or several characteristic values
of forces or deformations from one unique origin, e.g. permanent
weight G, life loads Q
N
, snow and ice loads Q
S
, wind loads Q
W
, or
thermal actions Q
T
.
Actions are independent of each other if they come from different
origins and if their correlation may be neglected with respect to
structural reliability.
[Grnberg 04]
In order to limit the number of possible combinations of actions, the
single actions may be distributed according to Table 3.
Compare [DIN 1055-100 01],
Tabelle A.1
Table 3: Single actions for buildings

Permanent actions Variable actions
Self-weights G
k
Imposed loads, life loads Q
N,k

Snow and ice loads Q
S,k

Prestressing P
k
Wind loads Q
W,k

Earth pressure G
E,k
Thermal actions Q
T,k

Permanent fluid pressure G
H,k

2)
Variable fluid pressure Q
H,k

2)

Indirect actions
caused by uneven settlements

Q
,k

1)

Accidental actions (siehe [EN 1991-1-7]) A
d

Seismic actions (see [EN 1998-1]) A
Ed

1)
Design values Q
,d
may be used for uneven settlements instead of characteristic values.
2)
Generally fluid pressure has to be treated as variable action.
Fluid pressure, the magnitude of which is limited by geometrical or hydrological conditions, may be
treated as permanent action.


The following differentiations may be considered:
a) Generally, the self-weights of the structure and of the fixed
equipment, as permanent loads, may be united to one common
single action G
k
.
See [EN 1990 02],
Table A.1.2(B)
This simplification is justified if the variability of G is small
(coefficient of variation V
G
0,1).
see [EN 1990 02], 4.1.2
In case of V
G
> 0,1, the self-weight of the structure and of the
fixed equipment should be treated as separate single actions.
[Grnberg 04]
In case of a limit state of static equilibrium, the permanent
actions have to be subdivided into their unfavourable and their
favourable parts.
see [EN 1990 02], 6.4.2
b) Generally, all the imposed loads and life loads within one
building coming from different categories of use appearing
there are assembled to one multi-component action Q
N,k
.
[Grnberg 04]
See [EN 1991-1-1 02]
or [EN 1991-2 03], for instance

Values of factors
[EN 1990 02], A1.2.2
Values of factors should be specified. Clause (1)
Recommended values of factors for the more common actions
may be obtained from Table 4.
See [EN 1990 02], Table A.1.1

Table 4: Recommended values of factors for buildings
Action
0

1

2

Imposed loads in buildings, category (see EN 1991-1-1)
Category A : domestic, residential areas
Category B : office areas
Category C : congregation areas
Category D : shopping areas
Category E : storage areas

0,7
0,7
0,7
0,7
1,0

0,5
0,5
0,7
0,7
0,9

0,3
0,3
0,6
0,6
0,8
Category F : traffic area, vehicle weight 30kN
Category G : traffic area, 30kN < vehicle weight 160kN
Category H : roofs
0,7
0,7
0
0,7
0,5
0
0,6
0,3
0
Snow loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-3)*
Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden 0,7 0,5 0,2
Remainder of CEN Member States,
for sites located at altitude H > 1000 m above see level

0,7

0,5

0,2
Remainder of CEN Member States,
for sites located at altitude H 1000 m above see level

0,5

0,2

0
Wind loads on buildings (see EN 1991-1-4) 0,6 0,2 0
Temperature (non-fire) in buildings (see EN 1991-1-5) 0,6 0,5 0
NOTE The values may be set by the National annex.
* For countries not mentioned below, see relevant local conditions.


Remarks for application of Table 4:
Imposed loads or life loads, acting on separate parts or floors of
a multi-storey-building, are not independent of each other but
partly correlated.

Therefore, their effects on load transferring structural elements,
such as columns, walls and foundations, are determined by
means of special combination rules given in the action codes,
using special reduction factors
n
.
See [EN 1991-1-1 02]
or [DIN 1055-3 02]
Combining the multi-component action Q
N,k
with another leading
variable action Q
k,1
, the maximum factor of the different
categories of use may be chosen, but any reduction factors
n

have to be removed.
[Grnberg 04]
Imposed loads or life loads, which evidently come from different
origins or are correlated only poorly, should be introduced as
separate single actions to the combination formats, i.e. with
their according factors instead of reduction factors
n
.

Earth pressure or permanent fluid pressure are treated as
permanent actions. Therefore, they may not be reduced by
factors in any case.
See also [EN 1997] !
Fluid pressure which is limited by geometrical or hydrological
conditions is treated as permanent action, too.

factors according to variable fluid pressure have to be
established with respect to location and have to be agreed by
all parties involved, especially the relevant authority.

factors according to actions induced by cranes or machinery
have to be established with respect to their use.
See [EN 1991-1-3 03]
Special factors have to be introduced according to transient
actions during construction.

[EN 1990 02];
A1.3 Ultimate limit states
The combinations of actions given in expressions 6.9a to 6.12b
should be used when verifying ultimate limit states.
A1.2.1, Clause (2);
see 6.4.3
in persistent and transient design situations
[EN 1990 02], A1.3.1
The design values of actions for ultimate limit states in the persistent
and transient design situations (expressions 6.9a to 6.10b) should
be in accordance with Tables A1.2(A) to (C).
Clause (1)
In applying Tables A1.2(A) to A1.2(C) in cases when the limit state
is very sensitive to variations in the magnitude of permanent actions,
the upper and lower characteristic values of actions should be taken
according to 4.1.2(2)P.
Clause (2)
Static equilibrium (EQU, see 6.4.1) for building structures should
be verified using the design values of actions in Table A1.2(A).
Clause (3)
Loss of static equilibrium may be induced by lifting off, overturning or
buoyancy, for instance.
See [EN 1990 01], 6.4.1
Static equilibrium may be verified, considering linear structural
analysis on the level of action effects.
Therefore, the following format can be derived from equ. (6.10-Ed) in
connection with equ. (6.7):


( )
d,dst G,sup Gk,j,sup Q Qk,1 0,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
d,stb G,inf Gk,j,sup p,inf Pk,inf
j 1
>
_
+ +

,
+

E E E E
E E E

(6.10-EQU)
Note:
E
d,dst
and E
d,stb
have to be
compared by means of their
absolute values!
The values may be set by the National annex.
The recommended set of values for are :
G,sup
= 1,10
G,inf
= 0,90
Q
= 1,50 where unfavourable (0 where favourable)
Table A1.2(A), Note 1
In this verification the characteristic values of all parts G
k,j,sup
of
permanent actions G
j
with unfavourable effects are multiplied by the
upper partial factor
G,sup
, while all the other parts G
k,j,inf
with favourable
effects are multiplied by the partial factor
G,inf
.

In cases where the verification of static equilibrium also involves the
resistance of structural members, as an alternative to two separate
verifications based on Tables A1.2(A) and A1.2(B), a combined
verification, based on Table A1.2(A), may be adopted, if allowed by
the National annex.
Considering once more linear structural analysis on the level of
action effects, the following format can be derived from equ. (6.10-
Ed):

( )
d G,sup Gk,j,sup G,inf Gk,j,inf
j 1 j 1
p Pk Q Qk, 1 0,i Qk, i
i 1

>
+
_
+ + +

,

E E E
E E E

(6.10-EQU/Ed)
Note:
E
d,dst
and E
d,stb
have to be
introduced considering their
correct signs!
G
k,j,sup
and G
k,j,inf
again represent the unfavourable and favourable parts
of the permanent actions G
j
, respectively.

with the following set of recommended values for , which may be
altered by the National annex.
G,sup
= 1,35
G,inf
= 1,15
Q
provided that applying
Gj,inf
= 1,00 both to the favourable part and to
the unfavourable part of permanent actions does not give a more
unfavourable effect.
Design of structural members (STR, see 6.4.1) not involving
geotechnical actions should be verified using the design values of
actions from Table A1.2(B).
Clause (4)
These design values shall approach the limit state of structural
failure (STR), which may be induced by rupture, by excessive
deformation, by transferring the structure into a mechanism, by loss
of stability or by sliding, for instance.
See [EN 1990 01], 6.4.1
One of the following combination formats should be chosen: See [EN 1990 01], 6.4.3
a) Non-linear structural analysis (in general)
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.9)


b) Non-linear structural analysis
(action effect increases more than the actions)
d G,j k,j P k Q,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.10)

c) Linear structural analysis
d G,j Gk,j p Pk Q,1 Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk, i
j 1 i 1
E E E E E
>
+ + +

(6.10-Ed)
( ) ( ) [ ]
i Qk, i , 0 i Q, Qk,1 1 , 0 Q,1
1 Max. 1 E E (6.10-Q1)

Alternative combination rules instead of equation (6.10)
d G,j k,j P k Q,1 0,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.10a)
d G,j j k,j P k Q,1 k,1 Q,i 0,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.10b)
Equ. (6.9) and (6.10-Ed) may be substituted analogously.

The choice between 6.10 (6.10-Ed), or 6.10a and 6.10b will be in the
National annex. In case of 6.10a and 6.10b, the National annex may in
addition modify 6.10a to include permanent actions only.
Table A1.2(B), Note 1
The and values may be set by the National annex.
The following values for and are recommended when using
expressions 6.10 (6.10-Ed), or 6.10a and 6.10b.
G,j,sup
= 1,35
G,j,inf
= 1,00
Q,i
j,sup
= 0,85 (so that
j,sup
G,sup
= 0,85

1,35 1,15).
j,inf
= 1,00 (so that
j,inf
G,inf
= 1,00).
See also EN 1991 to EN 1999 for values to be used for imposed
deformations.

The characteristic values of all permanent actions from one source
are multiplied by
G,j,sup
if the total resulting action effect is
unfavourable, but by
G,j,inf
if the total resulting action effect is
favourable. For example, all actions originating from the self weight of
the structure may be considered as coming from one source. This
also applies if different materials are involved.
For particular verifications, the values for
G
and
Q
may be subdivided
into
g
and
q
and the model uncertainty factor
Ed
. This may be
relevant in case of non-linear structural analysis when equation (6.9)
is applied. A value of
Ed
in the range 1,05 to 1,15 can be used in
most common cases and can be modified in the National annex.
Design of structural members (footings, piles, basement walls,
etc.) (STR) involving geotechnical actions and the resistance of
the ground (GEO, see 6.4.1) should be verified using one of the
following three approaches supplemented, for geotechnical actions
and resistances, by EN 1997:
Clause (5)

Approach 1: Applying in separate calculations design values
from Table A1.2(C) and Table A1.2(B) to the geotechnical
actions as well as the other actions on/from the structure.
In common cases, the sizing of foundations is governed by
Table A1.2(C) and the structural resistance is governed by
Table A1.2(B);

Approach 2: Applying design values from Table A1.2(B) to the
geotechnical actions as well as the other actions on/from the
structure;

Approach 3: Applying design values from Table A1.2(C) to the
geotechnical actions and, simultaneously, applying partial
factors from Table A1.2(B) to the other actions on/from the
structure.

The use of approaches 1, 2 or 3 is chosen in the National annex.
As the partial factors of Table A1.2(B) are calibrated on structures,
considering the resistances of structural materials, approach 2
should be chosen for design of all kinds of structural elements
involving geotechnical actions or reactions, i.e. in all cases of
interaction between structure and soil.
[DIN 1055-100 01];
[DIN 1054 05]
The partial factors of Table A1.2(C) only should be chosen in limit
states where only geotechnical resistances are governing whereas
structural resistances are not relevant.
e.g. in limit states of
overall stability, ground failure
or loss of stability of a slope
Using approach 2, the interaction between structure and subsoil is
consistent because the load transfer is performed by means of
characteristics values of the effects of single actions, see Fig. 8.
See [EN 1997]
See also [Grnberg-04],
Example A.5

Fig. 8: Interface at the joint between foundation and subsoil and load transfer
Therefore, the combinations of actions for geotechnical verifications
may be chosen either in accordance with the general rules of
[EN 1990 01] or in accordance with specific rules given in
[EN 1997].

=
Soil reactions
H
Gk
; H
Qk
e
k
N
Gk
; N
Qk
M
Gk
; M
Qk
N
Gk
+ N
Qk
Actions on the subsoil
H
Gk
; H
Qk
N
Gk
; N
Qk
M
Gk
; M
Qk
b

In case of structures which have to be designed by means of second
order non-linear analysis, all relevant second order effects have to be
included calculating the soil reaction, which has to be in equilibrium
with the second order deformed structure.
See [Grnberg-04]
Especially for instance, this is valid for the foundation of cantilever
columns in halls, which only are stabilized by their foundations.

For calculating the characteristic values of action effects occurring at
the joints between foundation and subsoil the following steps are
suggested (see Fig. 9):
Application see [Grnberg-04],
Example A.5

Fig. 9: Example for structural design of a foundation subjected to second order effects

H
Wind,k
; M
Wind,k
Single action Q
Wind,k
e

=
N
Gk
; M

Gk
N
Single action G
k
Second order deformations
in the ultimate limit state
caused by the action effect
E
d
= E (
G

G
k
;
Q

Q
Wind,k
)
Partial factors [EN 1990 - 01]:
G
k,inf
(favourable):
G,inf
= 1,00
G
k,sup
(unfavourable):
G,sup
= 1,35
Q
Wind,k
:
Q
=1,50
=
H
Ed
=
Q

H
wind,k
e
d
N
Ed
=
G

N
Gk
M
Ed
=
G

M

Gk
+
Q

M
Wind,k
effects to the foundation
N
Ed


1. Second order non-linear analysis of the structure in the ultimate
limit state, using the design values of actions: (G
d,inf
=
G,inf

G
k,inf

or G
d,sup
=
G,sup

G
k,sup
(alternatively); Q
Wind,d
=
Q

Q
Wind,k
; ) and
of structural resistances in accordance with the specific design
codes, including the resulting design values of the soil pressure
reactions with their according zones of no contact between
foundation and subsoil.
See [EN 1990 01]
2. Designing the structure including its foundation and verifying the
limit states in accordance with the specific design codes.

3. Determining the characteristic values of the effects of single
actions in the joint between foundation and subsoil (N
Gk
, M
II
Gk
;
N
Wind,k
, H
Wind,k
, M
Wind,k
; etc.) on the basis of the equilibrium
conditions of the structure, considering the second order
deformations in the ultimate limit state.
See Fig. 9
4. Determining the design values of the effects of single actions on
the subsoil (N
Ed
; H
Ed
; M
Ed
) and verifying the limit states, on the
basis of the characteristic values above and in accordance
either with [EN 1990 01] or with [EN 1997].
See [EN 1990 01]
or [EN 1997]
In case of limit state GEO, either equ. (6.10) or equ. (6.10-Ed)
should be chosen for combination format, applying the partial factors
of Table A1.2(C).

The values may be set by the National annex. The recommended
set of values for are :
G,j,sup
= 1,00
G,j,inf
= 1,00
Q,i
Table A1.2(C), Note
Overall stability of buildings (e.g. the stability of a slope supporting a
building) should be verified in accordance with EN 1997.
Clause (6)
Hydraulic and buoyancy failure (e.g. in the bottom of an excavation
for a building structure) should be verified in accordance with EN
1997.
Clause (7)
Design values of actions in the accidental and seismic
design situations
[EN 1990 02], A1.3.2
The partial factors for actions for the ultimate limit states in the
accidental and seismic design situations (expressions 6.11a to
6.12b) should be 1,0. values are given in Table A1.1.
Clause (1)
One of the following combination formats should be chosen: see 6.4.3
a) Accidental design situations:
General format for structural analysis
( )
dA k,j k d 1,1 2,1 k,1 2,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " " " "
j i
E E G P A or Q Q
>

+ + + +
' ;

(6.11a+b)

Linear-elastic structural analysis
( )
dA Gk,j Pk d 1,1 2,1 Qk,1 2,i Qk,i
1 1 >
+ + + +
A
j i
E E E E or E E
(6.11-Ed)

( ) ( )
1,1 2,1 Qk,1 1,i 2,i Qk,i
Max. E E
1

]
(6.11-Q1)
if
1,1
is chosen with respect to E
Qk,1
.


b) Seismic design situations:
General format for structural analysis
dE k,j k Ed 2,i k,i
1 1
" " " " " "
j i
E E G P A Q

+ + +
' ;

(6.12a+b)

dE Gk,j Pk AEd 2,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E E

+ + +

(6.12-Ed)

Partial factors
F
for actions
The recommended values for partial factors
F
applied to buildings in
the ultimate limit state are summarized in Table 5.
These
F
factors may be applied to usual civil engineering works, too.
See above
(Additions due to
[DIN 1055-100 01]
in italic letters)
Partial factors
P
with respect to prestressing are given in the specific
design codes.

Table 5: Recommended values for partial factors
F

Kind of ultimate limit state Action Symbol Situations
P/T A/S
Permanent actions:
Self-weight of the structure and of the fixed
equipment,
permanent actions, induced by ground
or fluid pressure

unfavourable
G,sup
1,10 1,00
favourable
G,inf
0,90 0,95
In case of low variations of the permanent
actions, e.g. when verifying the safety
against buoyancy

unfavourable
G,sup
1,05 1,00
favourable
G,inf
0,95 0,95
Unfavourable variable actions
Q
1,50 1,00
Loss of static equilibrium
(EQU)
Accidental or seismic actions
A
- 1,00
Single permanent actions (see above)
unfavourable
G,sup
1,35 1,00
favourable
G,inf
1,00 1,00
Single variable actions, unfavourable
Q
1,50 1,00
Failure of the structure,
one of its members or of the
foundation, caused by rupture
or excessive deformations
(STR)
A
- 1,00
Single permanent actions (see above)
G
1,00 1,00
Single variable actions, unfavourable
Q
1,30 1,00
Failure of the soil, such as
ground failure or loss of
stability of a slope (GEO)
A
- 1,00
P
Persistent Situation
T
Transient Situation
A
Accidental Situation
S
Seismic situation


Situations to be detailed in the specific design codes

a) Indirect actions induced by constrained deformations
generally are treated as variable actions. If the stiffness is
reduced, e.g. by cracking or by relaxation, the partial factor
Q,I
may be reduced accordingly.

b) Considering transient design situations separated from
persistent design situations, partial factors may be adapted.
See [EN 1997], for instance
c) In case of fatigue failure of a structure the partial factors for
actions generally are set equal to 1,00 (
G
,
Q
= 1,00). Action
models as well as adequate combinations of actions are given
in the specific design codes.

d) If a collapse situation is possible in the ultimate limit state
before reaching the material resistance, e.g. induced by
buckling, special safety elements have to be introduced
additionally into limit state verification.

[EN 1990 02];
A1.4 Serviceability limit states
The combinations of actions given in expressions 6.14a to 6.16b
should be used for verification. These equations are summarized as
follows.
A1.2.1, Clause (3);
see 6.4.3
a) Characteristic combination:
General format
d,rare k,j k k,1 0,i k,i
j 1 i 1
" " " " " " E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.14a+b)

d,rare Gk,j Pk Qk,1 0,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E E
>
+ + +

(6.14-Ed)

( ) ( )
0,1 Qk,1 0,i Qk,i
1 Max. 1 E E 1
]
(6.14-Q1)

b) Frequent combination:
General format
d,freq k,j k 1,1 k,1 2,i k,i
j 1 i 1
" " " " " " E E G P Q Q
>

+ + +
' ;

(6.15a+b)

d,freq Gk,j Pk 1,1 Qk,1 2,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E E
>
+ + +

(6.15-Ed)

( ) ( )
1,1 2,1 Qk,1 1,i 2,i Qk,i
Max. E E
1

]
(6.15-Q1)

c) Quasi -permanent combination:
General format
d,perm k,j k 2,i k,i
j 1 i 1
" " " " E E G P Q

+ +
' ;

(6.16a+b)

d,perm Gk,j Pk 2,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E

+ +

(6.16-Ed)


Partial factors for actions
[EN 1990 02], A1.4.1
For serviceability limit states the partial factors for actions should be
taken as 1,00, except if differently specified in EN 1991 to EN 1999.
Clause (1)
[EN 1990 02], A1.4.2
The serviceability criteria should be specified for each project and
agreed with the client.
Clause (2)
The serviceability criteria may be defined in the National annex. NOTE
The serviceability criteria for deformations and vibrations shall be
defined :
depending on the intended use ;
in relation to the serviceability requirements in accordance with
[EN 1990 01], 3.4 ;
independently of the materials used for supporting structural
member.
Clause (3)
Deformations and horizontal displacements
[EN 1990 02], A1.4.3
If the appearance of the structure is being considered, the quasi-
permanent combination (expression 6.16b) should be used.
Clause (4)
Long term deformations due to shrinkage, relaxation or creep should
be considered where relevant, and calculated by using the effects of
the permanent actions and quasi-permanent values of the variable
actions.
Clause (6)
Vibrations
[EN 1990 02], A1.4.4
To achieve satisfactory vibration behaviour of buildings and their
structural members under serviceability conditions, the following
aspects, amongst others, should be considered:
the comfort of the user;
the functioning of the structure or its structural members
(e.g. cracks in partitions, damage to cladding, sensitivity of
building contents to vibrations).
Other aspects should be considered for each project and agreed with
the client.
Clause (1)
For the serviceability limit state of a structure or a structural member
not to be exceeded when subjected to vibrations, the natural
frequency of vibrations of the structure or structural member should
be kept above appropriate values which depend upon the function of
the building and the source of the vibration, and agreed with the
client and/or the relevant authority.
Clause (2)
If the natural frequency of vibrations of the structure is lower than the
appropriate value, a more refined analysis of the dynamic response
of the structure, including the consideration of damping, should be
performed.
Clause (3)
Possible sources of vibration that should be considered include
walking, synchronised movements of people, machinery, ground
borne vibrations from traffic, and wind actions. These, and other
sources, should be specified for each project and agreed with the
client.
Clause (4)


Examples for Application of Annex A1
Example A-1: Marquee structure
For the rafter of a marquee structure with a roof inclination of
30 degrees fabricated out of steel, the ultimate and serviceability
limit states shall be investigated.
Structural System:
The characteristic values of actions (loads) are taken from the
relevant parts of EN 1991-1.

a) Permanent loads [EN 1991-1-1 02]
Roof covering with slate, double on formwork: 0,55 kPa (ra) ra abbreviation for
referred to roof area
Self weight of the structure: 0,15 kPa (ra)
Characteristic value: g
k
= 0,70 kPa (ra)
b) Imposed loads (alternatively to snow loads) [EN 1991-1-1 02]
Distributed load: q
N,k
=0,375 kPa (ba)
or concentrated load: Q
N,k
=1,0 kN
Roof not to be walked on
(category H), = 30
The concentrated load is decisive if located at the gutter:
q
N,k

L

/

2 = 0,375

1,20

3,00

/

2 = 0,68 kN < 1,0 kN

c) Wind loads [EN 1991-1-4 05]
Reference velocity pressure (WZ 2): q
b,2
= 0,39 kPa (ra) WZ 2: Wind zone 2 in Germany as
for the location Hannover
Height of the structure above ground level: z = 3,00 m
Site factor (site category II): c
e,II
(z = 3,00 m) = 1,66 [EN 1991-1-4 05], Fig. 4.2
Gust velocity pressure: q
p,2,II
= c
e,II
(z)

q
b,2
= 0,65 kPa (ra)
Shape factors for an open roof with 30 degrees inclination:
Luff side of the building:
Pressure from below (as for a wall): c
pe,10
= 0,8
Pressure from above (30 degrees): c
pe,10
= + 0,4
The result is a lifting load: c
pe,10
= 0,4

[EN 1991-1-4 05], table 7.1
[EN 1991-1-4 05], table 7.4a
(decisive)

30
3,00
Wind load: q
W,k

Imposed load: q
N,k
; Q
N,k
Permanent load: g
k
Reinforced concrete wall
+ 3,00 m
Snow load: q
S,k
; Q
S,k
Rafter, a = 1,20 m
Strut

Leeward side of the buildung:
Suction from below (as for a wall): c
pe,10
= + 0,5
Suction from above (30 degrees): c
pe,10
= 0,5
These loads are compensating.

[EN 1991-1-4 05], table 7.1
[EN 1991-1-4 05], table 7.4a
Characteristic value of wind load (lifting!):
q
W,k
= c
pe,10
q
p,2,II
= 0,4 0,65 = 0,26 kPa (ra)

d) Snow loads [EN 1991-1-3 03]
Snow load on the ground (locations 285 m above see level):
s
k,II
= 0,85 kPa (ba)
SZ 2: Snow load zone 2
in Germany as for the location
Hannover (50 m above see level)
ba abbreviation for
referred to base area
Shape factor (inclination = 30):
1
= 0,8 [EN 1991-1-3 03], table 5.2
Characteristic value for snow load:
q
S,k
= s
i
=
1

s
k
= 0,8

0,85 = 0,68 kPa (ba)

Snow overhanging the edge of a roof:
Q
S,k
= S
e
s
i
2
/

= 0,68
2
/

3,0 = 0,154 kN/m
[EN 1991-1-3 03], section 6.3,
Fig. 6.2 (k = 1)
Characteristic values of the load effects (internal forces) in the
rafters (distance a = 1,20 m):

a) due to permanent loads
Reaction at support:
A
G,k
= 0,70

/

cos 30

3,00

/

2 =
0,97

3,00

/

2 = 1,455 kN
Tension force: N
G,k
= 1,455

/

sin 30 = +2,91 kN
Max. bending moment: M
G,k
= 0,97

3,00
2
/

8 = +1,09 kNm

b) due to concentrated imposed load at the gutter
q
N,k
= q
N,k

a = 0,375

1,20 = 0,45 kN/m or Q
N,k
= 1,00 kN
Maximum tension force: N
N,k
= 1,00

/

sin 30 = +2,00 kN
Max. bending moment: M
N,k
= 0,45

3,00
2
/

8 = +0,51 kNm
Neither the tension force nor the bending moment are decisive
compared with the effects of snow loads.

c) due to wind loads
A
W,k
= 0,26

1,20

3,00

/

cos 30

/

2 =
0,312

3,464

/

2 = 0,540 kN
Compression force: N
W,k
= 0,540

/

tan 30 = 0,94 kN
Min. bending moment: M
W,k
= 0,312

3,464
2
/

8 = 0,47 kNm

d) due to snow loads
A
S,k
= (0,68

3,00

/

2 + 0,154)

1,20 =
1,174 kN/m 1,20 m = 1,41 kN
Tension force: N
S,k
= 1,41

/

sin 30 = +2,82 kN
Max. bending moment:
M
S,k
= 0,68

1,20

3,00
2
/

8 = +0,92 kNm

AG,k
NG,k

A
W,k

N
W,k

A
S,k

N
S,k

AG,k
NG,k

Q
N,k
N
N,k

Serviceability limit state
The deflection of the rafter shall be calculated for the characteristic
(rare) combination: This stress level is in accordance with the
traditional practice of design in Germany assuring a sufficiently stiff
structure. Generally, this verification is bound to the contract with
the client.

factors:
Imposed loads (roofs, category H):
0,N
= 0
Snow loads (altitude H 1000 m):
0,S
= 0,5
Wind loads:
0,W
= 0,6
See Table 4
[EN 1990 02], Table A.1.1
Determination of the decisive characteristic combination:
Imposed loads and snow loads on roofs do not exist
simultaneously. Therefore, they must not be combined with
each other.
The lifting wind pressure induces a favourable effect and,
therefore, must not be considered.
The consequence is that the snow load is the only single
variable action remaining.
[EN 1990 02], A1.2.1 (1)
Decisive characteristic combination for bending effects:
M
Ed,rare
= M
G,k
+ M
S,k
= 1,09 + 1,01 = 2,10 kNm [EN 1990 02], equ. (6.14)
Design value for elastic deflection of a one-span beam in case of
steel construction:
4 2
Ed Ed
Ed Cd
q L M L 5 5 8 L
f f
384 E J 384 2,1 J 300

The serviceability criterion is the
permissible deflection referred to
the beam span.
This format can be transferred into the following design condition:
J
requ
= 14,88

M
Ed
L = 14,88

2,10

3,464 = 108 cm
4

The following beam shall be provided: IPE 100 S 235
A = 10,3 cm
2
; J
y
= 171 cm
4
; W
y
= 34,2 cm
3

Characteristic value of extreme normal stresses:
i,k
= N
i,k
/ A + M
i,k
/ W
y

a)
G,k
= (+ 2,91

/

10,3 + 109

/

34,2)

10 =
+ 2,8 + 31,9 = +34,7 MPa

b)
N,k
= (+ 2,00

/

10,3)

10 = + 1,9 MPa
alternatively: (+ 51

/

34,2)

10 = +14,9 MPa

c)
W,k
= ( 0,94

/

10,3 47

/

34,2)

10 =
0,9 13,7 = 14,6 MPa

d)
S,k
= (+ 2,82

/

10,3 + 92

/

34,2)

10 =
+ 2,7 + 26,9 = +29,6 MPa

Ultimate limit state

Linear elastic structural analysis, fundamental combination: [EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.2
The fundamental combination can be determined considering the
same criteria as for the characteristic combination. Therefore, the
snow loads remain as the only single variable action.


The fundamental combination is applied to the bending stresses:
Ed
=
G,sup
G,k
+
Q
S,k
= 1,35

G,k
+ 1,50

S,k
=
1,35

34,7 + 1,50

29,6 = 46,8 + 44,4 = 91 MPa
[EN 1990 02], equ. (6.10-
Ed
)
Alternative formats:
Ed
=
G,sup
G,k
+
Q
0,S
S,k
= 1,35

G,k
+ 1,50

0,5

S,k
=
1,35

34,7 + 0,75

29,6 = 46,8 + 22,2 = 69 MPa
Derived from [EN 1990 02],
equ. (6.10-a)
Ed
=
G,sup
j,sup
G,k
+
Q
S,k
= 1,35

0,85

G,k
+ 1,50

S,k
=
1,15

34,7 + 1,50

29,6 = 39,9 + 44,4 = 84 MPa
(decisive)
Derived from [EN 1990 02],
equ. (6.10-b)
j,sup
= 0,85, see [EN 1990 02],
Structural resistance:
R
d
= R (X
k
/

M
; a
nom
) [EN 1990 02], 6.3.5
The geometrical data a
nom
are the data of cross area, e.g. A, W
y
,
which already have been used for the calculation of action effects,
i.e. of the extreme normal stresses.

For yielding beginning at the upper or lower surface of the beam the
design value of steel strength is governing:
Rd
=
Rk
/

M
= f
yk
/

M
= 235

/

1,10 = 214 MPa
Comparing the design values above, it is verified that
Rd
>
Ed
The result of this verification shows that the serviceability criterion of
deflection f
Ed
L

/

300 is decisive for this design.

M
= 1,10
see [EN 1993-1]
Limit state equation depending on design values

The characteristic values of the calculated stresses above are the
basis. The assumptions with respect to probability distributions are
normal for permanent actions, Gumbel for variable actions and
lognormal for material strengths.
[EN 1990 02], Annex C

Basic variable Characteristic
value
Fractile Variation
coefficient
Permanent
load
34,7 MPa 50% 0,10
Snow load 32,1 MPa 98% 0,15
Resistance 235 MPa 5% 0,07

The variation coefficient of resistance includes the uncertainties of
the resistance model. The conversion factor is assumed
= 1,0.

The design values are calculated on the basis of a reliability index
= 3,8 and a model factor
Ed
= 1,10 concerning uncertainties of the
action models.

a) Permanent loads (accompanying action):
( )
( )
j G Ed R G
Ed
1 0,4 V
1 0,4 0,8 3,8 0,07 1,10 1,085 1,19

+

Standard normal distribution
Comment to Annex C,
equation (C-93); C-100)
Gd
=
G
Gk
= 1,19

34,7 = 41,4 MPa

b) Snow loads (leading action):
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
S,d S,50 S,50
S,50 S,50
Q m 1 0,7797 V 0,5772 ln ln 0,7 3,8
m 1 3,873 V
1
1 +
]
]
+
( ) ( )
( )
50
S,k Q,50 S,50
Q,50 S,50
Q m 1 0,7797 V 0,5772 ln ln 0,98
m 1 0,458 V
1
1
+
]
]

S,d S,50
S Ed Ed
S,k S,50
Q 1 3,873 V
Q 1 0,458 V
1 3,873 0,15
1,10 1,10 1,698 1,87
1 0,458 0,15

+

+

Gumbel distribution
Comment to Annex C,
equation (C-107)
Sd
=
S
Sk
= 1,87 32,1 = 60,0 MPa
c) Resistance
( )
2
d R R R R
R m exp V 0,5 V
( ) ( )
1 2
k R R R
R m exp 0,05 V 0,5 V

( ) ( ) ( )
M k d R
R / R exp 0,8 3,8 1,645 V exp 1,395 0,07 1,10
Comment to Annex C,
Table 9
[Spaethe 92]
Rd
=
Rk
/
M
= 235 / 1,10 = 214 MPa
Limit state equation:
( )
d Rd Sd Gd
g 214 60 42 = 112 MPa >0
Comment to Annex C,
equation (C-9); (C-31)
Example A-2: Reinforced concrete slab for a roof terrace

The actions comprise of constantly distributed loads, defined by the
characteristic values G
k
(permanent loads), Q
N,k
(imposed loads) and
Q
S,k
(snow loads).

G
k
= 25

0,33 + 1,75 = 10,0 kPa
Q
N,k
= = 4,0 kPa

Congregation area, see
[EN 1991-1-1 02], table 6.1+6.2
Q
S,k
= = 0,68 kPa
If the roof terrace is drained inwards, neither snow hangovers nor
icicles have to be taken into account at the end of the cantilever.
see [EN 1991-1-3 03],
compare Example A-1
In case of a linear-elastic structural analysis, the characteristic
values of the action effects have to be calculated first.

a) Permanent loads
M
A,Gk
= 10,0

3,00
2
/

2 = 45,0 kNm/m
B
Gk,sup
(cantilever) = 45,0

/

6,0 = 7,5 kN/m
B
Gk,inf
(span 1)= + 10,0

6,0

/

2 = + 30,0 kN/m

B
Gk
= 7,5 + 30,0 = + 22,5 kN/m
G
k
, Q
N,k
, Q
S,k
33
Span 1
A B
x
B

6,00

3,00
Cantilever

b) Imposed loads
min M
A,N,k
= 4,0

3,00
2
/

2 = 18,0 kNm/m
min B
N,k
(cantilever) = 18,0

/

6,0 = 3,00 kN/m
max B
N,k
(span 1) = + 4,0

6,0

/

2 = + 12,0 kN/m
c) Snow loads
The snow loads induce overall unfavourable effects if they are
distributed over the complete area, while snow loads acting only
on the cantilever is decisive for lifting off at support B.

min M
A,S,k
= 0,68

3,00
2
/

2 = 3,06 kNm/m
min B
S,k
(cantilever) = 3,06

/

6,0 = 0,51 kN/m
max B
S,k
(span 1) = 0,68

9,0

1,5

/

6,0 = + 1,53 kN/m
Ultimate limit state of structural failure

The following design values of action effects (bending moments and
support reactions) are determined using
G,sup
= 1,35 for unfavourable
effects, but
G,inf
= 1,0 for favourable effects of permanent actions.

-factors for combination of actions:
Imposed loads (category C, congregation areas):
0,N
= 0,7
Snow loads (H 1000 m above sea level):
0,S
= 0,5
Note: The simultaneous occurrence of imposed loads and snow
loads is a very conservative assumption!
[EN 1990 02], Table A.1.1
Determination of the leading variable action for combination of
actions, see the following table:
See equation (6.14-Q1)
Q
N,k
Q
S,k
( )
0,i A,Qk,i
1 mi nM ( ) ( ) 1 0,7 18,0 5,40 > ( ) ( ) 1 0,5 3,06 1,53
( )
0,i Qk,i
1 mi nB ( ) ( ) 1 0,7 3,00 0,90 > ( ) ( ) 1 0,5 0,51 0,26
( )
0,i Qk,i
1 max B ( ) 1 0,7 12,0 3,6 > ( ) 1 0,5 1,53 0,77
Obviously, the imposed loads are leading while the accompanying
snow loads are reduced by means of the combination factor
0,S
.

Extreme design values of bending moments:

Load case 1 (min M
A
and max A):
min M
A,Ed
= 1,35

45,0 1,50

(18,0 + 0,5

3,06) = 90,0 kNm/m
Load case 2 (max B and max M
1
):
max B
Ed
= + 1,35

22,5 + 1,50

(12,0 + 0,5

1,53) = + 49,5 kN/m
acc (G + Q)
1,Ed
= 1,35

10,0 + 1,5

(4,0 + 0,5

0,68) = 20,0 kPa
max M
1,Ed
= + 49,5
2
/

(2

20,0) = + 61,3 kNm/m

Detailed calculation of the design values according to the relevant
load cases, see the following table:


Effects according to load case M
A,Ed
x
B,Ed
M
1,Ed
(G+Q)
1,Ed
B
Ed

Nr. Load arrangement kNm/m m kNm/m kPa kN/m
1

90,04 4,50 + 50,64 20,01 + 45,02
2

63,04 4,95 +61,28 20,01 +49,52
3

78,80 3,08 + 10,69 9,00 + 13,87

Limit state of static equilibrium

Static equilibrium shall be investigated for lifting off at support B
because of the wide cantilever dimension.

Therefore, the support reaction B is calculated according to the
characteristic values of actions whereas the permanent actions are
subdivided into those parts which separately induce favourable and
unfavourable effects.

Limit state format:
( )
d,dst G,sup Gk,j,sup Q Qk,1 0, i Qk, i
j 1 i 1
d,stb G,inf Gk,j,sup p,inf Pk,i nf
j 1
E E E E
E E E

>
_
+ +

,
+

See equation (6.10-EQU)
B
Ed,dst
= 1,10

B
Gk,sup
+ 1,50

(min B
N,k
+ 0,5

min B
S,k
)
1,10

7,5 + 1,50

(3,00 + 0,5

0,51) = 13,1 kN
B
Ed,stb
= 0,90

B
Gk,inf
= 0,90

30,0 = 27,0 kN

The limit state of static equilibrium is not exceeded as
E
d,dst
< E
d,stb
.

1,35 G
k

1,5 Q
k,N

0,75 Q
k,S
1,35 G
k

1,5 Q
k,N

0,75 Q
k,S

1,0 G
k

1,5 Q
k,N

0,75 Q
k,S

-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
0,00 1,50 3,00 4,50 6,00 7,50 9,00
Load case 1
Load case 2
Load case 3
x [m]
M
Ed
[kNm]

Example A-3: Supporting beam

The actions on the supporting beam comprise the distributed loads
of the slab above the ground-floor (G
k,1
; Q
k,1
) as well as the
concentrated loads of the columns to be supported. These columns
on their part support the loads of the upper storey slab (G
k,2
; Q
k,2
)
and the roof (G
k,3
; Q
k,3
; Q
k,4
).

Only the distributed components of the imposed loads q
k
are
considered in this example. The concentrated components Q
k
are
not considered because the local resistance of structural elements
shall not be investigated.
[EN 1991-1-1 02]
Longitudinal distance of structural elements: a =5,00 m
Lateral dimensions see the following figure:

The building is strutted sufficiently by masonry or concrete walls.
The longitudinal roof beams are supported only vertically.

Ground-floor slab
G
k,1
= 8,00 kPa

5,00 m + 10 kN/m = 50 kN/m
Q
N,k,1
= 5,00 kPa

5,00 m = 25 kN/m See [EN 1991-1-1 02];
shopping areas, category D2
Upper storey slab
G
k,2
5,00 kPa

5,00 m

3,00 m = 75 kN
Q
N,k,2
2,00 kPa

5,00 m

3,00 m = 30 kN See [EN 1991-1-1 02];
office areas, category B1
Attic (factor 1,25 applied to support reaction of continuous rafters)
G
k,3
1,20 kPa

5,00 m

3,00 m

1,25 = 22,5 kN

x
B

C
A
B
2 1
G
k,2

Q
N,k,2

40
8,00 m
5,03 m
3,00
G
k,2

Q
N,k,2

G
k,1
, Q
N,k,1

G
k,3

Q
S,k

Q
W,k

G
k,3

Q
S,k

Q
W,k

3,00 3,00 3,00
6,00 6,00

Snow loads
Snow load on the ground
(locations 285 m above see level): s
k,II
= 0,85 kPa (ba)
Shape factor (inclination = 40):
1
= 0,533 [EN 1991-1-3 03], table 5.2
q
S,k
= s
i
=
1

s
k
= 0,533

0,85 = 0,45 kPa (ba)

Snow or ice overhanging the edge of a roof must not be
considered.
because of the magnitude of roof
inclination angle ( = 40)
Q
S,k
0,45

5,00

6,00

0,625 = 8,4 kN
Wind loads [EN 1991-1-4 05]
b,2
Exposure factor (terrain category II III): c
e,II III
(z) 2,05 [EN 1991-1-4 05], Fig. 4.2
Gust velocity pressure: q
p,2,II
= c
e,II
(z)

q
b,2
= 0,80 kPa (ra)
Shape factor for an saddleback roof with 40 inclination,
without suction peaks, longitudinal distance of structural
elements 5,00 m:

Luff side (area H): c
pe,10
< + 0,6
Leeward side (area I): c
pe,10
= 0,3
Ridge (longitudinal) direction (area H): c
pe,10
= 0,9
(decisive)
[EN 1991-1-4 05], table 7.4a
[EN 1991-1-4 05], table 7.4a
[EN 1991-1-4 05], table 7.4b
Characteristic value of wind load (pressure):
q
WD,k
= c
pe,10
q
p,2,II
= 0,6

0,80 = 0,48 kPa (ra)
Q
WD,k
+ 0,48

5,00

6,00

0,625

/

cos
2
40 = +15,3 kN

Characteristic value of wind load (suction):
q
WS,k
= c
pe,10
q
p,2,II
= 0,9

0,80 = 0,72 kPa (ra)
Q
WD,k
0,72

5,00

6,00

0,625

/

cos
2
40 = 23,0 kN

Because of linear-elastic structural analysis, the characteristic
values of the bending moments in the midspan are calculated first.

M
1,Gk
= 50

6,0
2
/

8 + (75 + 22,5)

6,0

/

4 =
225 + 112,5 + 33,75 = 371,3 kNm

max M
1,N,k
= 25

6,0
2
/

8 + 30

6,0

/

4 =
112,5 + 45,0 = 157,5 kNm

max M
1,S,k
= 8,4

6,0

/

4 = + 12,6 kNm
M
1,WD,k
= + 15,3

6,0

/

4 = + 23,0 kNm
M
1,WS,k
= 23,0 6,0

/

4 = 34,5 kNm
All permanent actions are assumed coming from one source.
On the other hand, the permanent loads of the roof structure and of
the concrete structure could be treated as separate single actions,
but the resulting load combinations would not be relevant.

Furthermore, all imposed loads are united to one single action
because the use within the building is correlated.
Concerning the combination of
imposed loads within a building,
see [EN 1991-1-1 02]

Ultimate limit state, fundamental combination
-factors for the variable actions are chosen according to Table 4: See [EN 1990 02], Table A.2
Q
N
shopping or office areas:
0,N
= 0,7
Q
S
snow loads (locations H < 1000 m asl):
0,S
= 0,5
Q
W
wind loads:
0,W
= 0,6
Determination of the leading variable action See equation (6.10-Q1)

(1
0,N
)

M
1,N,k
= 1,50

0,3

157,5 = 70,88 kNm

(1
0,S
)

M
1,S,k
= 1,50

0,5

12,6 = 9,45 kNm

(1
0,W
)

M
1,WD,k
= 1,50

0,4

23,0 = 13,80 kNm
Wind suction (M
1,WS,k
) induces favourable effects at the place to
be verified and, therefore, must not be considered.

The imposed loads are leading (as to be recognized from intuition).
Design value of the maximum bending moment at the midspan: See equation (6.10-Ed)
max M
1,Ed
=
G,sup

M
1,Gk
+
Q

(M
1,N,k
+
0,S

M
1,S,k
+
0,W

M
1,WD,k
) =

1,35

371,3 + 1,50

(157,5 + 0.5

12,6 + 0,6

23,0) =
501 + 236 + 10 + 21 = +768 kNm

Alternative format:
Determination of the predominant action:
See [EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.2 (3),
equations (6.10a) / (6.10b)
G,sup

(1
j
)

M
1,Gk
= 1,35

0,15

371,3 = 75,19 kNm
>
Q

(1
0,N
)

M
1,N,k
= 1,50

0,3

157,5 = 70,88 kNm

The permanent action effects are predominate compared with
the leading variable action effects

max M
1,Ed
=
G,sup

M
1,Gk
+
Q

(
0,N

M
1,N,k
+
0,S

M
1,S,k
+
0,W

M
1,WD,k
) =
Corresponding to
equation (6.10a)
1,35

371,3 + 1,50

(0,7

157,5 + 0,5

12,6 + 0,6

23,0) =
501 + 165 + 10 + 21 = +697 kNm

Serviceability limit state
Frequent combination (as for verification of crack withs)
-factors for the frequent and quasi-permanent values of the variable
actions are chosen according to Table 4:
See [EN 1990 02], Table A.2
Q
N
shopping or office areas:
1,N
/
2,N
= 0,7 / 0,6
The characteristic values of the bending moments show the
predominant effect of the sale-rooms. Therefore, the choice of
the corresponding -factors is conservative.

Q
S
snow loads (H < 1000 m asl):
1,S
/
2,S
= 0,2 / 0
Q
W
Wind loads:
1,W
/
2,W
= 0,2 / 0
Determination of the leading variable action See equation (6.15-Q1)
(
1,N

2,N
)

M
1,N,k
= 0,1

157,5 = 15,75 kNm
(
1,S

2,S
)

M
1,S,k
= 0,2

12,6 = 2,52 kNm
(
1,W

2,W
)

M
1,W,k
= 0,2

23,0 = 4,60 kNm
Again the imposed loads are leading.

Design value of the maximum bending moment at the midspan: See equation (6.15-Ed)
max M
1,Ed
=
M
1,Gk
+
1,N

M
1,N,k
+
2,S

M
1,S,k
+
2,W

M
1,WD,k
=

371,3 + 0,7

157,5 + 0

12,6 + 0

23,0 =
371 + 110 + 0 + 0 = +481 kNm

Example A-4: Continuous beam under bending

A two span beam shall be analysed being a structural element of an
office building (see the following figure). This beam is subjected to
permanent loads (g
k
), imposed loads (q
N,k
) and by a temperature
gradient (q
T,k
).

The imposed loads (q
N,k
) are arranged alternatively on the left span,
on the right span or all over the beam.
The temperature gradient (q
T,k
) can act
either from above (upper surface cold, negative action)
or from below (lower surface cold, positive action).

g
k
= 60 kN/m
q
N,k
= 40 kN/m
q
T,k
= T
k
= t 7 K
8,0 m 8,00 m
EJ = 1200 MNm
2
; H = 1,00 m
A B C
M
Gk

M
T,k

M
N,k

According bending moments:
Characteristic values of independent actions:

Characteristic values of action effects

Load case min M
B
A (C) q x max M
1
1 G
k
480 180 60 3,00 + 270
2 Q
N,left,k
160 140 40 3,50 + 245
3 Q
N,right,k
160 20 0
4 Q
N,overall,k
320 120 40 3,00 + 180
5 Q
T,k
t 126 t 16 0
Ultimate limit state of structural failure
The action effects are calculated applying the fundamental
combination in case of linear structural analysis:

d G,j Gk,j p Pk Q,1 Qk,1 Q,i 0,i Qk,i
j 1 i 1
E E E E E
>
+ + +

See equation (6.10-Ed)
Determination of the leading variable action:
( ) ( ) [ ]
i Qk, i , 0 i Q, Qk,1 1 , 0 Q,1
1 Max. 1 E E

See equation (6.10-Q1)
-factors for combination of actions:
Imposed loads (category B, office areas):
0,N
= 0,7
Temperature in buildings:
0,T
= 0,6
[EN 1990 02], Table A.1.1
Applying equation (6.10-Q1) to the characteristic values of action
effects, the following results are obtained
The imposed loads are leading in case of equal signs of the
effects of variable actions
The temperature gradient is leading in case of opposite signs of
the effects of variable actions and, therefore, the imposed loads
induce favourable effects which have to be suppressed.

Design values
min
M
B,Ed

A
Ed

(C
Ed
)
q
Ed
x
(M
Ed
=0)
max
M
1,Ed

[kNm] [kN] [kN/m] [m] [kNm]
a1 1,35 M
Gk
+1,50 M
N,left,k
+0,90 M
Qk,T
775 468 141 6,64 + 777
a2 1,00 M
Gk
+1,50 M
N,right,k
0,90 M
T,k
833 135 60 4,50 + 152
b1 1,00 M
Gk
+1,50 M
T,k
291 204 60 6,80 + 347
b2 1,35 M
Gk
+1,50 M
Noverall,k
0,90 M
T,k
1241 408 141 5,79 + 590
Remarks to the design moment curves: See figure below
1. The curves according to the maximum values of bending
moments (max M
1,Ed
; min M
B,Ed
) do not govern the relevant
action effects in those areas of the beam where the moments
change their signs.

2. Therefore, the curves according to the minimum values of
bending moments (min M
1,Ed
; max M
B,Ed
) are needed to assure a
minimum bearing capacity and bending stiffness all over the
beam.


Design moment curves:

Example A-5: Reinforced concrete column and
foundation subjected to normal force
and bending moment

for an internal roof girder within a storage building fabricated out of
precast concrete units.

The characteristic values are taken from the relevant parts of
EN 1991-1

-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0 11,0 12,0 13,0 14,0 15,0 16,0
1,35 M
Gk
+ 1,50 M
N,left,k
+ 0,90 M
T,k
1,35 M
Gk
+ 1,50 M
N,right,k
+ 0,90 M
T,k

1,00 M
Gk
+ 1,50 M
T,k

1,00 M
Gk
+ 1,50 M
N,right,k
0,90 M
T,k

1,35 M
Gk
+ 1,50 M
N,overall,k
0,90 M
T,k

1,00 M
Gk
+ 1,50 M
N,left,k
0,90 M
T,k

M [kNm]
x [m]

25,00
26,40
1,75
50
30
25
60/30
Girder distance: 7,50
Length of hall: 45,00
Roof inclination:

5,64
1,00
15
2,50/1,20
h = 7,20
1,30
H = 8,00
25
A
d

0,75

a) Permanent loads [EN 1991-1-1 02]
Trapezoidal sheet metal roof on purlins: 2,70 kPa (ra)
Self weight of the roof girder: 0,20 kPa (ra)
Characteristic value: g
k
=2,90 kPa (ra)

b) Snow loads [EN 1991-1-3 03]
Snow load on the ground (locations 285 m above see level):
s
k,II
= 0,85 kPa (ba)
Shape factor (inclination = 5,64 < 30):
1
= 0,8 [EN 1991-1-3 03],
Fig. 5.1 and Table 5.2
q
S,k
= s
i
=
1

s
k
= 0,8

0,85 = 0,68 kPa (ba)

Uneven distributed snow loads, concentrated snow load at the
gutter as well as ice loads are not relevant.

c) Wind loads [EN 1991-1-4 05]
b,2
Site factor (site category II): c
e,II
(z = 8,00 m) = 2,20
c
e,II
(z = 9,30 m) = 2,30
[EN 1991-1-4 05], Fig. 4.2
Gust velocity pressure:
q
p,2,II
= c
e,II
(8,00)

q
b,2
= 2,20

0,39 = 0,86 kPa (ra)
q
p,2,II
= c
e,II
(9,30)

q
b,2
= 2,30

0,39 = 0,90 kPa (ra)

6 partial load cases are considered with respect to an internal
girder and the according columns:

c1: Wind in hall transverse direction, without suction peaks
and pressure differences
c2: Suction peaks on the luff side of the roof
c3: Pressure difference on the leeward side of the roof
c4: Internal pressure within the hall
c5: Internal suction within the hall
c6. Wind in hall lengthwise direction

The partial load cases c2 or c3 occur simultaneously with
the partial load case c1.
The partial load cases c1 or c6 occur alternatively.
The partial load cases c4 or c5 also occur alternatively
and, in case of unfavourable effect, have to be combined
either with the partial load cases c1 to c3 or with the partial
load case c6.

Roof areas: q
p,2,II
(z = 9,30 m) = 0,90 kPa (ra)
Shape factors for a 5,6 inclined roof without suction peaks: [EN 1991-1-4 05],
Luff side, division G: c
pe,10
= 1,2
Division H: c
pe,10
= 0,6
Fig. 7.8 and Table 7.4a

Leeward side, division J: c
pe,10
= 0,6 / + 0,2
division I: c
pe,10
= 0,6
Fig. 7.8 and Table 7.4a
Lengthwise wind flow, division H: c
pe,10
= 0,7 Fig. 7.8 and Table 7.4b
Internal pressure: c
pi
= + 0,2 / 0,3 7.2.9 (6), Note 2
Regulation of signs:
external pressure positive (+), external suction negative ().
according to
[EN 1991-1-4 02], Fig. 5.1
Division of roof area with respect to the shape factors in case
of hall transverse wind flow:

The load directions at the roof are defined downwards as
positive (+) and upwards as negative ().

Transverse wind flow:
c1. Division H, J, I (suction):
w
s
= c
pe,10

q
p,2,II
= 0,6

0,90 = 0,54 kPa (ra)
q
Ws,k
= w
s

a = 0,54

7,50 = 4,05 kN/m
Q
Wsa,k
= q
Ws,k

L

/

2 = 4,05

26,4

/

2 = 53,5 kN

c2. Division G (-suction):
w
s
= c
pe,10
q
p,2,II
= 1,2 0,90 = 1,08 kPa
q
Ws,k
= w
s
a = 1,08 7,50 = 8,10 kN/m
Q
Ws1,k
( 8,10 + 4,05)

1,85 = 7,5 kN

c3. Division J, I (-pressure):
w
d
w
s
= (0,2 ( 0,6))

q
p,2,II
= + 0,8

0,90 = + 0,72 kPa
q
Wd,k
= (w
d
w
s
) a = + 0,72 7,50 = + 5,40 kN/m
Q
Wd1,k
= + 5,40

1,85

11,575

/

25,00 = + 4,6 kN
Q
Wd2,k
=+ 5,40

1,85

13,425

/

25,00 = + 5,4 kN

Internal pressure or suction respectively:
c4. Internal pressure:
w
di
= c
pi
(pressure) q
p,2,II
= 0,2 0,90 = 0,18 kPa
q
Wdi,k
= w
di
a = 0,18 7,50 = 1,35 kN/m
Q
Wdi,k
= q
Wdi,k

L

/

2 = 1,35

25,9

/

2 = 17,5 kN

c5. Internal suction:
w
si
= c
pi
(suction) q
p,2,II
= + 0,3 0,90 = + 0,27 kPa
q
Wsi,k
= w
si
a = + 0,27 7,50 = + 2,03 kN/m
Q
Wsi,k
= q
Wsi,k

L

/

2 = + 2,03

25,9

/

2 = + 26,2 kN

1,75
50
G: 1,85 m
15
1,30
25
25,00
26,40
H: 11,35 m
J : 1,85 m
I: 11,35 m
Girder distance: a = 7,50 m

Lengthwise wind flow:
c6. Division H (suction):
w
s
= c
pe,10
q
p,2,II
= 0,7 0,90 = 0,63 kPa
q
Ws,k
w
s
a = 0,63 7,50 = 4,73 kN/m
Q
Wsa,k
= q
Ws,k

L

/

2 = 4,73

26,4

/

2 = 62,4 kN

Wall areas: q
p,2,II
(z = 8,00 m) = 0,86 kPa
The load directions at the walls are defined inwards as positive
(+) and outwards as negative ().

Transverse wind flow:
Shape factors for h

/

d = 9,3

/

25,9 = 0,36 [EN 1991-1-4 05],
Luff side, Division D: c
pe,10
< + 0,8
Leeward side, Divisiojn E: c
pe,10
0,5

c1a Wind pressure:
w
da
= c
pe,press
q
p,2,II
= + 0,8 0,86 = + 0,69 kPa
q
Wda,k
w
da
a = + 0,69 7,50 = +5,16 kN/m

c1b Wind suction:
w
sa
= c
pe,suct
q
p,2,II
= 0,5 0,86 = 0,43 kPa
q
Wsa,k
w
sa
a = 0,43 7,50 = 3,23 kN/m

c2. (-suction): no action
c3. (-pressure): no action
Internal pressure or suction respectively: See above: 7.2.9 (6), Note 2
c4. Internal pressure:
w
di
= c
pe,press
q
p,2,II
= 0,2 0,86 = 0,17 kPa
q
Wdi,k
w
d
a = 0,17 7,50 = 1,29 kN/m

c5. Internal suction:
w
si
= c
pe,suct
q
p,2,II
= + 0,3 0,86 = + 0,26 kPa
q
Wsi,k
w
s
a = + 0,26 7,50 = + 1,94 kN/m

Lengthwise wind flow:
Shape factors for h

/

d = 9,3

/

25,9 = 0,36 [EN 1991-1-4 05]
e = Min. (b = 25,9; 2

h = 2

9,3) = 18,6 m < d = 45,0 m
Division B: c
pe,10
= 0,8
c6. (suction):
w
sa
= c
pe,Suct
q
p,2,II
= 0,8 0,86 = 0,69 kPa
q
Wsa,k
w
s
a = 0,69 7,50 = 5,16 kN/m

d) Imposed loads (alternatively to snow loads) [EN 1991-1-1 02]
Distributed load: q
N,k
=0,4 kPa (ba)
or concentrated load: Q
N,k
=1,0 kN
Roof not accessible except for
normal maintenance and repair
(category H), Table 6.10

e) Accidental action [EN 1991-1-7 05]
Fork lift: Q
N,k,prov
= 44 kN
Impact load: A
d
= 5

Q
N,k,prov
= 5

44 = 220 kN
Action level above floor (foundation): h =0,75 m
[EN 1991-1-1 02], Table 6.5
[EN 1991-1-7 05], section 4.4
Note: The effect of the impact is not persecuted until the joint
between the foundation and the subsoil.

Structural model

Characteristic values of action effects at upper level of
foundation:
a) Permanent actions (G
k
)
N
G1,k
= g
k

L

/

2 = 2,90

7,5

26,4

/

2 = 287 kN
Self-weight of column: N
G2,k
36 kN
N
G,k
= N
G1,k
+ N
G2,k
= 287 36 = 323 kN
V
G,k
= H
G,k
(coupling force) = 8,97 kN
M
G,k
= N
G1,k

e + H
G,k

h =
287

0,15 8,97

7,20 = 21,53 kNm
b) Snow loads (Q
S,k
)
N
S,k
= q
S,k

L

/

2 = 0,68

7,5

26,4

/

2 = 67,3 kN
V
S,k
= H
S,k
M
S,k
= N
S,k

e + H
S,k

h =
67,3

0,15 2,103

7,20 = 5,05 kNm

c) Wind loads (Q
W,k
; q
W,k
)
c1. Transverse wind flow, without suction peaks (-suction) and
pressure difference (-pressure):

Luff side:
N
Wd,k
(1)
= Q
Wsa,k
= = +53,5 kN
q
Wda,k
= = + 5,16 kN/m

25,00
80
e = 15
h = 7,20
H = 8,00
e = 15
A
d

h = 0,75
Rigid coupling
Rigid constraint Rigid constraint

Girder (G
k
),
Snow (Q
S,k
)
Wind suction (Q
Ws,k
)
Wind
pressure
(q
Wda,k
;
q
Wdi,k
);
suction
(q
Wsa,k
;
q
Wsi,k
)
N
k
, N
Ed

V
k
, V
Ed

M
k
, M
Ed

Impact
(A
d
)
Coupling
force (H
k
)

Coupling force:
H
W,k
(1)
= H
W
(Q
Wsa,k
) + H
W
(q
Wa,k
) =
+ 1,671 3,451 = 1,780 kN

V
Wd,k
(1)
= q
Wda,k

H + H
W,k
(1)
=
+ 5,16

8,00 1,78 = +39,50 kN
M
Wd,k
(1)
= N
Wd,k
(1)

e + q
Wda,k

H
2
/

2 + H
W,k
(1)

h =
53,5

0,15 + 5,16

8,00
2
/

2 1,78

7,20 = +144,28 kNm

Leeward side:
N
Ws,k
(1)
= Q
Wsa,k
= = +53,5 kN
q
Wsa,k
= = 3,23 kN/m

Coupling force:
H
W,k
(1)
= H
W
(Q
Wsa,k
) + H
W
(q
Wa,k
) =
+ 1,671 3,451 = 1,780 kN

V
Ws,k
(1)
= q
Wsa,k

H + H
W,k
(1)
= 3,23

8,00 1,78 = 27,58 kN
M
Ws,k
(1)
= N
Ws,k
(1)

e + q
Wsa,k

H
2
/

2 + H
W,k
(1)

h =
53,5

0,15 3,23

8,00
2
/

2 1,78

7,20 = 124,04 kNm

c2. Transverse wind flow, only suction peak on luff side of the roof
(-suction)

Luff side:
N
Wd,k
(2)
= Q
Ws1,k
= = +7,5 kN
V
Wd,k
(2)
= H
W,k
(2)
(coupling force) = +0,117 kN
M
Wd,k
(2)
= N
Wd,k
(2)

e + H
W,k
(2)

h =
7,5

0,15 + 0,117

7,20 = 0,28 kNm

Leeward side:
N
Ws,k
(2)
= = 0
V
Ws,k
(2)
= H
W,k
(2)
(coupling force) = +0,117 kN
M
Ws,k
(2)
= N
Ws,k
(2)

e + H
W,k
(2)

h =
0 + 0,117

7,20 = +0,840 kNm
This load case must not be considered because of its very
small contribution to action effects.

c3. Transverse wind flow, only pressure difference on leeward side
of the roof (-pressure)

Luff side:
N
Wd,k
(3)
= Q
Wd1,k
= = 4,6 kN
V
Wd,k
(3)
= H
W,k
(3)
M
Wd,k
(3)
= N
Wd,k
(3)

e + H
W,k
(3)

h =
+ 4,6

0,15 0,156

7,20 = 0,43 kNm


Leeward side:
N
Ws,k
(3)
= Q
Wd2,k
= = 5,4 kN
V
Ws,k
(3)
= H
W,k
(3)
M
Ws,k
(3)
= N
Ws,k
(3)

e + H
W,k
(3)

h =
+ 5,4

0,15 0,156

7,20 = 0,32 kNm

c4. Internal pressure within the hall:
Luff as well as leeward side:
N
W,k
(4)
= Q
Wdi,k
= = +17,5 kN
q
Wdi,k
= = 1,29 kN/m

Coupling force:
H
W,k
(4)
= H
W
(Q
Wdi,k
) + H
W
(q
Wdi,k
) =
+ 0,546 + 4,601 = + 5,147 kN

V
W,k
(4)
= q
Wdi,k

H + H
W,k
(4)
=
1,29

8,00 + 5,147 = 5,17 kN
M
W,k
(4)
= N
W,k
(4)

e + q
Wdi,k

H
2
/

2 + H
W,k
(4)

h =
17,5

0,15 1,29

8,00
2
/

2 + 5,147

7,20 = 6,84 kNm

c5. Internal suction within the hall:
N
W,k
(5)
= Q
Wsi,k
= = 26,2 kN
q
Wsi,k
= = + 1,94 kN/m

Coupling force:
H
W,k
(5)
= H
W
(Q
Wsi,k
) + H
W
(q
Wsi,k
) =
0,819 6,902 = 7,721 kN

V
W,k
(5)
= q
Wsi,k

H + H
W,k
(5)
=
+ 1,94

8,00 7,721 = +7,76 kN
M
W,k
(5)
= N
W,k
(5)

e + q
Wsi,k

H
2
/

2 + H
W,k
(5)

h =
+ 26,2

0,15 + 1,94

8,00
2
/

2 7,721

7,20 = +10,26 kNm

c6. Lengthwise wind flow:
N
W,k
(6)
= Q
Wsa,k
= = +62,4 kN
q
Wsa,k
= = 5,16 kN/m

Coupling force:
H
W,k
(6)
= H
W
(Q
Wsa,k
) + H
W
(q
Wsa,k
) =
+ 1,949 + 18,404 = + 20,353 kN

V
W,k
(6)
= q
Wsa,k

H + H
W,k
(6)
=
5,16

8,00 + 20,353 = 20,93 kN
M
W,k
(6)
= N
W,k
(6)

e + q
Wsa,k

H
2
/

2 + H
W,k
(6)

h =
62,4

0,15 5,16

8,00
2
/

2 + 20,353

7,20 = 27,93 kNm


The action effects induced by this load case (c6) are less
compared with load case (c1) and, therefore, not relevant.

d) Imposed loads (q
N,k
or Q
N,k
): not relevant!
e) Accidental action (impact)
V
Ad
= A
d
= = 220 kN
Reaction effect at the column top assumed fixed:
H
Ad
= = + 3,456 kN
M
Ad
(0,75) = H
Ad

(h h) =
3,456

(7,20 0,75) = +22,29 kNm
M
Ad
(0,00) = V
Ad

h + H
Ad

h =
220

0,75 + 3,456

7,20 = 140,11 kNm

Analysis of the column in the ultimate limit state
The equilibrium conditions of a slender structural element subjected
to longitudinal compression has to be verified considering the
effects of structural deformations (second order analysis). Here the
structural deformations out of symmetry, not resulting in any
coupling forces, are decisive.

One approach of second order analysis of concrete structures is the
so-called Method based on nominal curvature.
[EN 1992-1-1 04], 5.8.8
Applying this approach, an additional deflection of the column top
can be determined as follows:
e = e
a
+ e
2
= 0,0255 + 0,1855 = 0,211 m

e
a
deflection resulting from geometric imperfection [EN 1992-1-1 04], 5.2
e
2
deflection resulting from nominal curvature [EN 1992-1-1 04], 5.8.8.2
The additional deflection e is assumed in wind flow direction.
Action effects due to second order analysis
1. Calculation of the characteristic values of the bending
moments at the upper level of foundation

Luff side:
a) M

G,k
= M
G,k
N
G,k

e =
21,53 ( 323

0,211) = + 46,62 kNm
b) M

S,k
= M
S,k
N
S,k

e =
5,05 ( 67,3

0,211) = + 9,15 kNm
c1) M

W,k
(1)
= M
Wd,k
(1)
N
Wd,k
(1)

e =
+ 144,28 53,5

0,211 = + 133,01 kNm
c3) M

W,k
(3)
= M
Wd,k
(3)
N
Wd,k
(3)

e =
0,43 ( 4,63)

0,211 = + 0,55 kNm
c4) M

W,k
(4)
= M
W,k
(4)
N
W,k
(4)

e =
6,84 17,5

0,211 = 10,53 kNm
c5) M

W,k
(5)
= M
W,k
(5)
N
W,k
(5)

e =
+ 10,26 ( 26,2)

0,211 = + 15,79 kNm


Leeward side:
a) M

G,k
= M
G,k
+ N
G,k

e =
21,53 + ( 323

0,211) = 89,67 kNm
b) M

S,k
= M
S,k
+ N
S,k

e =
5,05 + ( 67,3

0,211) = 19,25 kNm
c1) M

W,k
(1)
= M
Ws,k
(1)
+ N
Ws,k
(1)

e =
124,04 + 53,5

0,211 = 112,76 kNm
c3) M

W,k
(3)
= M
Ws,k
(3)
+ N
Ws,k
(3)

e =
0,32 + ( 5,4)

0,211 = 1,45 kNm
c4) M

W,k
(4)
= M
W,k
(4)
+ N
W,k
(4)

e =
6,84 + 17,5

0,211 = 3,15 kNm
c5) M

W,k
(5)
= M
W,k
(5)
+ N
W,k
(5)

e =
+ 10,26 + ( 26,2)

0,211 = + 4,73 kNm

2. Combination of action effects on Level 3
The structural resistances at the bending tensile side as well
as at the bending compressive side are decisive for the bearing
capacity of the concrete column.

The design values of action effects on Level 3: internal forces,
stresses are a suitable basis to determine the relevant
combinations of actions or action effects respectively.
See comments in this paper
to [EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.2
The bending moments are transformed into the centre lines of
the reinforcement bars to define internal forces in case of
cracked concrete, see the following figure:
[Grnberg, Klaus 99]
[Grnberg, Klaus 01]

Transformation of the bending moments into the centre lines of
the reinforcement bars:

( )
s2 s2
M M N z M N 0,4 h + +
( )
s1 s1
M M N z M N 0,4 h

These formats are also valid for the transformation of bending
moments resulting from the method based on nominal
curvature (M

, M

s1
, M

s2
).

The transformations are performed by means of characteristic
values of action effects.

h
d
2

d
1
A
s1

A
s2
M
Ed

N
Ed

M
s2,Ed

N
Ed

M
s1,Ed

N
Ed

x
F
cd

a

z
s2

z
s1

F
s1,d
= A
s1
s1,d

F
s2,d
= A
s2
s2,d

cd

z

3. Persistent and transient design situation
(fundamental combination)

-factors according to Table 4: See [EN 1990 02], Table A.2
Q
S
0,S
= 0,5 See [EN 1991-1-3 03], Table 4.1
Q
W
wind loads:
0,W
= 0,6
The second order bending moments of the columns at the luff
side and at the leeward side are analysed separately, and there
with respect to both, bending tensile and compressive action
effects.
Lengthwise wind flow is not relevant for column design.

Luff side:
Bending tensile action effects (exterior side of column):
a) M

s2,Gk
= + 46,62 323

(0,4

0,60) = 30,90 kNm
(favourable)
b) M

s2,Sk
= + 9,15 67,3

0,24 = 7,00 kNm
(favourable)
c1) M

s2,Wk
(1)
= + 133,01 + 53,5

0,24 = +145,84 kNm
(leading)
c3) M

s2,Wk
(3)
= + 0,55 4,6

0,24 = 0,56 kNm
(favourable)
c4) M

s2,Wk
(4)
= 10,53 + 17,5

0,24 = 6,33 kNm
(favourable)
c5) M

s2,Wk
(5)
= + 15,79 26,2

0,24 = +9,50 kNm
(unfavourable)

The unfavourable components of wind effects are united:
c) M

s2,Wk
= M

s2,Wk
(1)
+ M

s2,Wk
(5)
=
+145,84 +9,50 = +155,34 kNm
acc M

Wk
= M

Wk
(1)
+ M

Wk
(5)
=
+ 133,01 + 15,79 = + 148,80 kNm
acc N
Wk
= N
Wdk
(1)
+ N
Wk
(5)
=
+ 53,5 26,2 = + 27,2 kN

The design values of the favourable effects of permanent
loads are multiplied by the partial factor
G,inf
= 1,00.
The design values of the favourable effects of snow loads
are not considered.
Decisive combination:

M

s2,Ed
=
G,inf

M

s2,Gk
+
Q

(M

s2,Wk
+ 0,0

M

s2,Sk
) =
1,00

( 30,90) + 1,50

(155,34 + 0,0) = +202 kNm
acc M

Ed
=
G,inf

M

G,k
+
Q

(M

W,k
+ 0,0

M

S,k
) =
1,00

46,62 + 1,50

(148,80 + 0,0) = + 270 kNm
acc N
Ed
=
G,inf

N
G,k
+
Q

(N
W,k
+ 0,0

N
S,k
) =
1,00

( 323) + 1,50

(27,2 + 0,0) = 282 kN
See equation (6.10-M
Ed
)



Bending compressive action effects
(interior side of column):

a) M

s1,Gk
= + 46,62 + 323

(0,4

0,60) = + 124,14 kNm
(unfavourable)
b) M

s1,Sk
= + 9,15 + 67,3

0,24 = + 25,30 kNm
(unfavourable)
c1) M

s1,Wk
(1)
= + 133,01 53,5

0,24 = +120,18 kNm
(unfavourable)
c3) M

s1,Wk
(3)
= + 0,55 + 4,6

0,24 = +1,66 kNm
(unfavourable)
c4) M

s1,Wk
(4)
= 10,53 17,5

0,24 = 14,73 kNm
(favourable)
c5) M

s1,Wk
(5)
= + 15,79 + 26,2

0,24 = +22,09 kNm
(unfavourable)

c) M

s1,Wk
= M

s1,Wk
(1)
+ M

s1,Wk
(3)
+ M

s1,Wk
(5)
=
+120,18 +1,66 +22,09 = +143,92 kNm
acc M

Wk
= M

Wk
(1)
+ M

Wk
(3)
+ M

Wk
(5)
=
+ 133,01 + 0,55 + 15,79 = + 149,35 kNm
acc N
Wk
= N
Wdk
(1)
+ N
Wdk
(3)
+ N
Wk
(5)
=
+ 53,5 4,6 26,2 = + 22,6 kN

Determination of the leading variable action: See equation (6.10-M
Q1
)

(1
0,S
)

M

s1,Sk
= 1,50

0,5

25,3 = 18,98 kNm
(accompanying)
(These formats may be shortened
by
Q
= 1,50 = constant.)

(1
0,W
)

M

s1,Wk
= 1,50

0,4

143,92 = 86,35 kNm
(leading)

The design values of the unfavourable effects of
permanent loads are multiplied by the partial factor
G,sup
= 1,35.
The design values of the unfavourable effects of snow
loads are reduced by means of
0,S
= 0,5.

M

s1,Ed
=
G,sup

M

s1,Gk
+
Q

(M

s1,Wk
+
0,S

M

s1,Sk
) =
1,35

124,14 + 1,50

(143,92 + 0,5

25,30) = +402 kNm
acc M

Ed
=
G,sup

M

G,k
+
Q

(M

W,k
+
0,S

M

S,k
) =
1,35

46,62 + 1,50

(149,35 + 0,5

9,15 = + 294 kNm
acc N
Ed
=
G,sup

N
G,k
+
Q

(N
W,k
+
0,S

N
S,k
) =
1,35

( 323) + 1,50

(22,6 + 0,5

( 67,3)) = 453 kN
Ed
)



Leeward side:
Note: The inversion of signs has to be observed!

Bending tensile action effects (interior side of column):
a) M

s2,Gk
= 89,67 + 323

(0,4

0,60) = 12,15 kNm
(unfavourable)
b) M

s2,Sk
= 19,25 + 67,3

0,24 = 3,09 kNm
(unfavourable)
c1) M

s2,Wk
(1)
= 112,76 53,5

0,24 = 125,59 kNm
(unfavourable)
c3) M

s2,Wk
(3)
= 1,45 + 5,4

0,24 = 0,16 kNm
(unfavourable)
c4) M

s2,Wk
(4)
= 3,15 17,5

0,24 = 7,35 kNm
(unfavourable)
c5) M

s2,Wk
(5)
= + 4,73 + 26,2

0,24 = + 11,02 kNm
(favourable)

c) M

s2,Wk
= M

s2,Wk
(1)
+ M

s2,Wk
(3)
+ M

s2,Wk
(4)
=
125,59 0,16 7,35 = 133,10 kNm
acc M

Wk
= M

Wk
(1)
+ M

Wk
(3)
+ M

Wk
(4)
=
112,76 1,45 3,15 = 117,36 kNm
acc N
Wk
= N
Wsk
(1)
+ N
Wsk
(3)
+ N
Wk
(4)
=
53,5 5,4 + 17,5 = + 65,6 kN

Determination of the leading variable action: See equation (6.10-M
Q1
)

(1
0,S
)

M

s2,Sk
= 1,50

0,5

3,09 = 2,32 kNm
(accompanying)
by
Q
= 1,50 = constant.)

(1
0,W
)

M

s2,Wk
= 1,50

0,4

133,10 = 79,86 kNm
(leading)

G,sup
= 1,35.
0,S
= 0,5.

M

s2,Ed
=
G,sup

M

s2,Gk
+
Q

(M

s2,Wk
+
0,S

M

s2,Sk
) =
1,35

( 12,15) + 1,50

( 133,10 0,5

3,09) = 218 kNm
acc M

Ed
=
G,sup

M

G,k
+
Q

(M

W,k
+
0,S

M

S,k
) =
1,35

( 89,67) + 1,50

( 117,36 0,5

19,25) = 312 kNm
acc N
Ed
=
G,sup

N
G,k
+
Q

(N
W,k
+
0,S

N
S,k
) =
1,35

( 323) + 1,50

(65,6 + 0,5

( 67,3)) = 388 kN
Ed
)



Bending compressive action effects
(exterior side of column):

a) M

s1,Gk
= 89,67 323

(0,4

0,60) = 167,19 kNm
(unfavourable)
b) M

s1,Sk
= 19,25 67,3

0,24 = 35,40 kNm
(unfavourable)
c1) M

s1,Wk
(1)
= 112,76 + 53,5

0,24 = 99,93 kNm
(unfavourable)
c3) M

s1,Wk
(3)
= 1,45 5,4

0,24 = 2,74 kNm
(unfavourable)
c4) M

s1,Wk
(4)
= 3,15 + 17,5

0,24 = + 1,04 kNm
(favourable)
c5) M

s1,Wk
(5)
= + 4,73 26,2

0,24 = 1,56 kNm
(unfavourable)

c) M

s1,Wk
= M

s1,Wk
(1)
+ M

s1,Wk
(3)
+ M

s1,Wk
(5)
=
99,93 2,74 1,56 = 104,23 kNm
acc M

Wk
= M

Wk
(1)
+ M

Wk
(3)
+ M

Wk
(5)
=
112,76 1,45 + 4,73 = 109,48 kNm
acc N
Wk
= N
Wsk
(1)
+ N
Wsk
(3)
+ N
Wk
(5)
=
+ 53,5 5,4 26,2 = + 21,87 kN

Determination of the leading variable action: See equation (6.10-MQ1)
Q
(1
0,S
) M

s1,Sk
= 1,50

0,5

35,40 = 26,55 kNm
(accompanying)
by
Q
= 1,50 = constant.)
Q
(1
0,W
) M

s1,Wk
= 1,50

0,4

104,23 = 62,54 kNm
(leading)

G,sup
= 1,35.
0,S
= 0,5.

M

s1,Ed
=
G,sup

M

s1,Gk
+
Q

(M

s1,Wk
+
0,S

M

s1,Sk
) =
1,35

( 167,19) + 1,50

( 104,23 0,5

35,40) = 409 kNm
acc M

Ed
=
G,sup

M

G,k
+
Q

(M

W,k
+
0,S

M

S,k
) =
1,35

( 89,67) + 1,50

( 109,48 0,5

19,25) = 300 kNm
acc N
Ed
=
G,sup

N
G,k
+
Q

(N
W,k
+
0,S

N
S,k
)
1,35

( 323) + 1,50

(+ 21,9 + 0,5

( 67,3)) = 454 kN
Ed
)



The bearing capacity of the reinforced concrete column can
be verified by means of two formats,

either on the basis of the design values of action effects
according to EN 1992-1-1:
[EN 1992-1-1 04]
Luff side:
N
Ed
= 282 kN and M
Ed
=+270 kNm
or N
Ed
= 453 kN and M
Ed
=+294 kNm
Leeward side:
N
Ed
= 388 kN and M
Ed
= 312 kNm
or N
Ed
= 454 kN and M
Ed
= 300 kNm

or on the basis of the design values of the transformed
bending moments:
[Grnberg, Klaus 01]
Luff side:
M
s2,Ed
=+202 kNm and acc M

Ed
= + 270 kNm
or M
s1,Ed
=+402 kNm and acc M

Ed
= + 294 kNm
Leeward side:
M
s2,Ed
= 218 kNm and acc M

Ed
= 312 kNm
or M
s1,Ed
= 409 kNm and acc M

Ed
= 300 kNm

There are four critical pairs of design values. The decisive one
has to be determined applying a suitable design table or
diagram as to be found in special literature.
If the column reinforcement is chosen symmetrical, the action
effects at the leeward side are decisive.

4. Accidental design situation
The effects of permanent and variable actions already are
known from the analysis of the fundamental combination (see
above).

-factors according to Table 4: See [EN 1990 02], Table A.2
Q
S
1,S
= 0,2

2,S
= 0

Q
W
wind loads:
1,W
= 0,2

2,W
= 0

As equal -factors are given for snow and wind loads, equation
(6.11-Q1) may be simplified as follows:
E
Qk,1
= Max. [E
Qk,i
]
Therefore, the leading varibale action is determined by
comparing the effects of single actions directly.

Obviously, the effects of wind loads are leading. They have
to be reduced by means of
2,W
= 0,2.
The effects of snow loads vanish because of
2,S
= 0.

Impact loading only is considered acting from inside into
direction outwards, as to be expected from fork lifts running
inside the hall.

Therefore, the columns on the leeward side have to be analyzed. Compare fundamental
combination

Accidental action effect on the column (see above):
M
Ad
(0,00) = 140,11 kNm

Bending tensile action effects (interior side of the column),
decisive combination:

M

s2,EdA
= M
Ad
(0,00) + M

s2,Gk
+
1,W

M

s2,Wk
+
2,S

M

s2,Sk
=
140,11 12,15 + 0,2

( 133,10) + 0,0

( 3,09) = 179 kNm
acc M

EdA
= M
Ad
(0,00) + M

G,k
+
1,W

M

W,k
+
2,S

M

S,k
=
140,11 89,67 + 0,2

( 117,36) + 0,0

( 19,25) = 253 kNm
acc N
EdA
= N
G,k
+
1,W

N
W,k
+
2,S

N
S,k
=
323 + 0,2

65,6 + 0,0

( 67,3) = 310 kN
Analogous to equ. (6.10-M
Ed
)


Bending compressive action effects (exterior side of the
column), decisive combination:

M

s1,EdA
= M
Ad
(0,00) + M

s1,Gk
+
1,W

M

s1,Wk
+
2,S

M

s1,Sk
=
140,11 167,19 + 0,2

( 104,23) + 0,0

( 35,40) = 328 kNm
zug M

EdA
= M
Ad
(0,00) + M

G,k
+
1,W

M

W,k
+
2,S

M

S,k
=
140,11 89,67 + 0,2

( 109,48)+ 0,0

( 19,25) = 252 kNm
zug N
EdA
= N
G,k
+
1,W

N
W,k
+
2,S

N
S,k
=
323 + 0,2

( 21,9) + 0,0

( 67,3)) = 319 kN
Analogous to equ. (6.10-M
Ed
)


As above, the bearing capacity of the reinforced concrete
column can be verified by means of two formats,

either on the basis of the design values of action effects
according to EN 1992-1-1:
[EN 1992-1-1 04]
N
EdA
= 310 kN and M
EdA
= 253 kNm
or
N
EdA
= 319 kN and M
EdA
= 252 kNm

or on the basis of the design values of the transformed
bending moments:
[Grnberg, Klaus 01]
M
s2,EdA
= 179 kNm and acc M

EdA
= 253 kNm
or
M
s1,EdA
= 328 kNm and acc M

EdA
= 252 kNm

Note:
Structural resistances in accidental situations (R
dA
) are
established larger than in fundamental combination (R
d
).
Therefore, the accidental combination is not expected decisive.

Analysis of the foundation in the ultimate limit state
1. Characteristic values of the effects of single actions at the
joint between foundation and subsoil

Note 1: Concerning the vertical forces, the inversion of
signs has to be observed.
Note 2: The partial load case c2 is ignored, and the partial
load case c6 is not relevant.


Self-weight of foundation (see figure at the beginning):
G
k,F
= 25

2,50

1,20

1,00 = 75,0 kN
Vertical forces:
a) N
G,k
= + 323 + 75,0 = + 398,0 kN
b) N
S,k
= = + 67,3 kN
c1) N
Wk
(1)
= = 53,5 kN
c3) Luff side: N
Wd,k
(3)
= = + 4,6 kN
Leeward side: N
Ws,k
(3)
= = + 5,4 kN
c4) N
Wk
(4)
= = 17,5 kN
c5) N
Wk
(5)
= = + 26,2 kN

Horizontal forces:
a) V
G,k
= = 8,97 kN
b) V
S,k
= = 2,10 kN
c1) Luff side: V
WD,k
(1)
= = + 39,50 kN
Leeward side: V
Ws,k
(1)
= = 27,58 kN
c3) V
Wk
(3)
= = 0,16 kN
c4) V
Wk
(4)
= = 5,17 kN
c5) V
Wk
(5)
= = + 7,76 kN

Bending moments due to second order analysis:
Luff side:
a) M

G,k
= + 46,62 8,97

1,00 = + 37,65 kNm
b) M

S,k
= + 9,15 2,10

1,00 = + 7,05 kNm
c1) M

Wk
(1)
= + 133,01 + 39,50

1,00 = + 172,51 kNm
c3) M

Wk
(3)
= + 0,55 0,16

1,00 = + 0,39 kNm
c4) M

Wk
(4)
= 10,53 5,17

1,00 = 15,70 kNm
c5) M

Wk
(5)
= + 15,79 + 7,76

1,00 = + 23,55 kNm

Leeward side:
a) M

G,k
= 89,67 8,97

1,00 = 98,64 kNm
b) M

S,k
= 19,25 2,10

1,00 = 21,35 kNm
c1) M

Wk
(1)
= 112,76 27,58

1,00 = 140,34 kNm
c3) M

Wk
(3)
= 1,45 0,16

1,00 = 1,61 kNm
c4) M

Wk
(4)
= 3,15 5,17

1,00 = 8,32 kNm
c5) M

Wk
(5)
= + 4,73 + 7,76

1,00 = + 12,49 kNm

In geotechnical design, there are various approaches for
verifying that a limit state of rupture or excessive deformation
will not occur. But within the limits of this example,
geotechnical design will not be considered.
On the other hand, the soil pressure reactions have to be
calculated on the basis of equilibrium conditions in the ultimate
limit state for designing the foundation.
[EN 1997-1 04], 2.4.7.3.4

2. Design values of resulting second order (!) action effects at
the joint between foundation at subsoil

Characteristic values:
Vertical action effect:
( ) + +
Ed G G,k Q W, k 0,S S,k
N N N N or
( ) + +
Ed G G,k Q 0,W W, k S,k
N N N N
Overturning moment:

( )
+ +
Ed G G,k Q W, k 0,S S,k
M M M M

or

( )
+ +
Ed G G,k Q 0,W W, k S,k
M M M M

Eccentricity of vertical action effect:

Ed
Ed
Ed
M
e
N

Resulting subsoil stress for verification
of subsoil failure:

( )

Ed
Ed
Ed
N
a 2 e b

As the subsoil stress
Ed
results from a non-linear function
depending on N
Ed
and e
Ed
, the decisive combination of actions
cannot be determined directly, but only by comparing the
stresses resulting from the most critical combinations.

Those combinations are assumed critical which the maximum
or minimum values of vertical forces or maximum absolute
values of overturning moments are resulting from. In doing so,
the following conditions have to be met:

In case of min N
Ed
and max M
Ed
, wind action effects, in
case of max N
Ed
, snow action effects are leading.
Permanent or snow action effects can be either
unfavourable with respect to the maximum value of N
Ed

or favourable with respect to eccentricity e
Ed
.

Luff side:
1) min N
Ek
:
G,inf
G
k
+
Q
(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(4)
)
N
Ed
= 1,00

N
Gk
+ 1,50

(N
W,k
(1)
+ N
W,k
(4)
) =
1,35

398,0 + 1,50

( 53,5 17,5) = 291,7 kN

M

Ed
= 1,00

M

Gk
+ 1,50

(M

W,k
(1)
+ M

W,k
(4)
) =
1,00

37,7 + 1,50

(172,5 15,7) = + 272,9kNm
e
Ed
= M

Ed
/

N
Ed
= 272,9

/

291,7 = 0,935 m

Ed
= 292

/

((2,50 2

0,935)

1,20) =
292

/

0,756 = 386 kPa

2) max M
Ed
:
G,sup
G
k
+
Q
(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(3)
+ W
k
(5)
+
o,S
S
k
)
see following table

3) max N
Ed
:
G,sup
G
k
+
Q
(S
k
+
o,W
(W
k
(3)
+ W
k
(5)
))
see following table

Upper level of
foundation
Joint between
foundation and
subsoil
V
Ed
e
Ed
N
Ed
a = 2,50
N
Ed
Ed
2 e
Ed

N
Ed
M

Ed
V
Ed
M

Ed
Ed
1,00

Leeward side:
1) min N
Ed
:
G,inf
G
k
+
Q
(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(4)
)
see following table

2) min M
Ed
:
G,sup
G
k
+
Q
(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(3)
+W
k
(4)
+
o,S
S
k
)
N
Ed
= 1,35

N
Gk

+ 1,50

(N
Wk
(1)
+ N
Ws,k
(3)
+N
Wk
(4)
+
o,S

N
Sk
) =
1,35

398,0
+ 1,50

( 53,5 + 5,4 17,5 + 0,5

67,3) = 489,6 kN
M

Ed
= 1,35

M

G,k

+ 1,50 (M

Wk
(1)
+ M

Wk
(3)
+ M

Wk
(4)
+
o,S

M

S,k
) =
1,35

( 98,6)
+ 1,50 ( 140,3 1,6 8,3 0,5

21,4) = 374,6 kNm
e
Ed
= M

Ed
/

N
Ed
= 374,6 / 489,6 = 0,765 m

Ed
= 490 / ((2,50 2

0,765) 1,20) =
490 / 1,164 = 421 kPa

3) max N
Ed
:
G,sup
G
k
+
Q
(S
k
+
o,W
(W
k
(3)
+ W
k
(5)
))

see following table

Comprehensive table

Foundation Combination N
Ed
M

Ed
e
Ed

Ed

[kN] [kNm] [m] [MPa]
1) 1,00

G
k
+ 1,50

(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(4)
) 292 273 0,935 386
2) 1,35

G
k
+ 1,50

(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(3)
+ W
k
(5)
+ 0,5

S
k
) 554 351 0,633 374
Luff side
3) 1,35

G
k
+ 1,50

(S
k
+ 0,6

(W
k
(3)
+ W
k
(5)
)) 666 83 0,125 247
1) 1,00

G
k
+ 1,50

(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(4)
) 292 322 1,103 825
2) 1,35

G
k
+ 1,50

(W
k
(1)
+ W
k
(3)
+ W
k
(4)
+ 0,5

S
k
) 490 375 0,765 421
Leeward side
3) 1,35

G
k
+ 1,50

(S
k
+ 0,6

(W
k
(3)
+ W
k
(5)
)) 667 155 0,233 273
Conclusions
Obviously, the leeward foundation is decisive with respect to
the soil stress
Ed
and the eccentricity e
Ed
.
The maximum design values of vertical force N
Ed
, bending
moment M

Ed
and soil stress
Ed
, occurring at the subsoil joint,
result from different combinations of actions.
The maximum design values of soil stress
Ed
and eccentricity
e
Ed
occur in correlation with the minimum design value of
vertical force N
Ed
.


Annex B (informative)
Management of Structural Reliability for
Construction Works
[EN 1990 02], Annex B
Scope and field of application
[EN 1990 02],
B1 Scope and field of application
This annex provides additional guidance to
2.2 (Reliability management)
and to appropriate clauses in EN 1991 to EN 1999.
Clause (1);
[EN 1990 02], 2.2
The approach given in this Annex recommends the following
procedures for the management of structural reliability for
construction works (with regard to ULSs, excluding fatigue):
Clause (2)
a) In relation to 2.2(5)b, classes are introduced and are based on
the assumed consequences of failure and the exposure of the
construction works to hazard.
A procedure for allowing moderate differentiation in the partial
factors for actions and resistances corresponding to the
classes is given in B3.
NOTE Reliability classification can be represented by indices
(see Annex C) which takes account of accepted or assumed
statistical variability in action effects and resistances and model
uncertainties.
[EN 1990 02], 2.2 (5) b:
Measures relating to design
calculations:
representative values of
actions,
the choice of partial factors
b) In relation to 2.2(5)c and 2.2(5)d, a procedure for allowing
differentiation between various types of construction works in
the requirements for quality levels of the design and execution
process are given in B4 and B5.
NOTE Those quality management and control measures in
design, detailing and execution which are given in B4 and B5
aim to eliminate failures due to gross errors, and ensure the
resistances assumed in the design.
[EN 1990 02], 2.2 (5) c:
Measures relating to quality
management
[EN 1990 02], 2.2 (5) d:
Measures aimed to reduce errors
in design and execution of the
structure, and gross human
errors

Reliability differentiation
[EN 1990 02],
B3 Reliability differentiation
Consequences classes
[EN 1990 02], B3.1
For the purpose of reliability differentiation, consequences classes
(CC) may be established by considering the consequences of failure
or malfunction of the structure as given in Table B1.
Clause (1); Table B1

Table B1 - Definition of consequences classes
Consequences
Class
Description Examples of buildings and civil
engineering works
CC3 High consequence for loss of human life,
or economic, social or environmental
consequences very great
Grandstands, public buildings where
consequences of failure are high
(e.g. a concert hall)
CC2 Medium consequence for loss of human
life, economic, social or environmental
consequences considerable
Residential and office buildings, public
buildings where consequences of failure
are medium (e.g. an office building)
CC1 Low consequence for loss of human life,
and economic, social or environmental
consequences small or negligible
Agricultural buildings where people do not
normally enter (e.g. storage buildings),
greenhouses


The criterion for classification of consequences is the importance, in
terms of consequences of failure, of the structure or structural
member concerned. See B3.3
Clause (2)

Differentiation by values
[EN 1990 02], B3.2
The reliability classes (RC) may be defined by the reliability index
concept.
Clause (1)
Three reliability classes RC1, RC2 and RC3 may be associated with
the three consequences classes CC1, CC2 and CC3.
Clause (2)
Table B2 gives recommended minimum values for the reliability
index associated with reliability classes (see also annex C).
Clause (3);
Table B2
Table B2 Recommended minimum values for reliability index (ultimate limit states)
Minimum values for (and according failure probability P
f
)
1 year reference period 50 years reference period
Reliability Class
1
P
f,1
50
P
f,50

RC3 5,2 1,0

10
-7
4,3 8,5

10
-6
RC2 4,7 1,3

10
-6
3,8 7,2

10
-5
RC1 4,2 1,3

10
-5
3,3 4,9

10
-4

A design using EN 1990 with the partial factors given in annex A1
and EN 1991 to EN 1999 is considered generally to lead to a
RC2 structure with a value greater than 3,8 for a 50 year reference
period.
Reliability classes for members of the structure above RC3 are not
further considered in this Annex, since these structures each require
individual consideration.
NOTE to Table B2
Considering the
50
values according to the 50 years reference period
as the basis for reliability differentiation, the
1
values and
corresponding failure probabilities P
f,1
should be evaluated from the
following equation:

[ ]
50 50
s,50 50 1 s,1
P ( ) ( ) P 1
]

where P
s,1
and P
s,50
are the survival probability for the reference
periods of 1 year and 50 years, respectively, and

1
and
50
are the according reliability indices.
EN [1990 02], Annex C,
equation (C.3)
( )
1 50
1 50
/
s,
P 1
]
; ( )
1
1 1 s,
P
;
f,1 s,1
1 P P

This leads to a modified Table (alterations are highlighted):
Minimum values for (and according failure probability P
f
)
1 year reference period 50 years reference period
Reliability Class
1
P
f,1
50
P
f,50

RC3 5,10 1,70

10
-7
4,3 8,5

10
-6
RC2 4,68 1,44

10
-6
3,8 7,2

10
-5
RC1 4,27 0,98

10
-5
3,3 4,9

10
-4


Differentiation by measures relating to the partial
factors
[EN 1990 02], B3.3
One way of achieving reliability differentiation is by distinguishing
classes of
F
factors to be used in fundamental combinations for
persistent design situations.
For example, for the same design supervision and execution
inspection levels, a multiplication factor K
FI
, see Table B3, may be
applied to the partial factors.
Clause (1);
Table B3

Table B3 K
FI
factor for actions
K
FI
factor for actions Reliability class
RC1 RC2 RC3
K
FI
0,9 1,0 1,1

NOTE: The differentiation of partial factors
F
by means of the
multiplication factors K
FI
does not approach exactly the
50
values
given in Table B2.

The calculation of design values for actions based on the rules given
in Annex C, especially applying the equations for determination of
partial factors
F
, depending on the target value of
50
and the specific
variation coefficients, would lead to a better approach.
[EN 1990 02], C7 Approach
for calibration of design values
Reliability differentiation may also be applied through the partial
factors on resistance
M
. However, this is not normally used.
An exception is in relation to fatigue verification (see EN 1993). See
also B6.
Clause (2)
Accompanying measures, for example the level of quality control for
the design and execution of the structure, may be associated to the
classes of
F
.
In this Annex, a three level system for control during design and
execution has been adopted.
Design supervision levels and inspection levels associated with the
reliability classes are suggested.
Clause (3)

Design supervision differentiation
[EN 1990 02], B4 Design
supervision differentiation
Design supervision differentiation consists of various organisational
quality control measures which can be used together.
For example, the definition of design supervision level (B4(2)) may be
used together with other measures such as classification of
designers and checking authorities (B4(3)).
Clause (1)
Three possible design supervision levels are shown in Table B4.
The design supervision levels (DSL) may be linked to the reliability
class (RC) selected or chosen according to the importance of the
structure and in accordance with National requirements or the design
brief, and implemented through appropriate quality management
measures. See 2.5.
Clause (2);
See Table B4 below

Table B4 Design supervision levels (DSL)
Design Supervision
Levels
Characteristics
Minimum recommended requirements for checking of
calculations, drawings and specifications
DSL3 relating to RC3 Extended supervision
Third party checking :
Checking performed by an organisation different from
that which has prepared the design
DSL2 relating to RC2 Normal supervision
Checking by different persons than those originally
responsible and in accordance with the procedure of the
organisation.
DSL1 relating to RC1 Normal supervision
Self-checking:
Checking performed by the person who has prepared
the design

Design supervision differentiation may also include a classification of
designers and/or design inspectors (checkers, controlling
authorities, etc.), depending on their competence and experience,
their internal organisation, for the relevant type of construction works
being designed.
Clause (3)

Inspection during execution
[EN 1990 02],
B5 Inspection during execution
Three inspection levels (IL) may be introduced as shown in Table B5.
The inspection levels may be linked to the quality management
classes selected and implemented through appropriate quality
management measures. See 2.5.
Further guidance is available in relevant execution standards
referenced by EN 1992 to EN 1996 and EN 1999.
Clause (1);
Table B5

Table B5 Inspection levels (IL)
Inspection Levels Characteristics Requirements
IL3 relating to RC3 Extended inspection Third party inspection
IL2 relating to RC2 Normal inspection
Inspection in accordance with the
procedures of the organisation
IL1 relating to RC1 Normal inspection Self inspection

Partial factors for resistance properties
[EN 1990 02], B6 Partial factors
for resistance properties
A partial factor for a material or product property or a member
resistance may be reduced if an inspection class higher than that
required according to Table B5 and/or more severe requirements are
used.
Clause (1)

NOTE Rules for various materials may be given or referenced in
EN 1992 to EN 1999.
For example: Prefabricated
concrete members
NOTE Such a reduction, which allows for example for model
uncertainties and dimensional variation, is not a reliability
differentiation measure:
It is only a compensating measure in order to keep the reliability
level dependent on the efficiency of the control measures.


Annex C (informative)
Basis for Partial Factor Design and
Reliability Analysis
[EN 1990 02], Annex C
Scope and Field of Applications
[EN 1990 02],
C1 Scope and Field of application
This annex provides information and theoretical background to the
partial factor method described in Section 6 and annex A,
Clause (1)
concerning
the verification formats for the ultimate limit states,
the calculation of design values of mechanical parameters,
such as actions or material properties,
the combinations of actions and
the determination of safety parameters, such as partial factors
or -factors.

The basis for the determination of safety parameters is the reliability
index which is introduced in section C.4.
The target values of according to the ultimate and serviceability
limit states are given in section C.6.
The partial factors for actions
F
(see section C.7) and
The -factors (see section C.10)
are determined by means of these values.

This Annex also provides the background to annex D, and is relevant
to the contents of annex B.
Clause (1) (continued)
This annex also provides information on
the structural reliability methods;
the application of the reliability-based method to determine by
calibration design values and/or partial factors in the design
expressions;
the design verification formats in the Eurocodes.
Clause (2)
Section C.4 gives an overview about reliability methods.
The approach for calibration of design values is described in
section C.7.

Symbols
[EN 1990 02],
C2 symbols
In this annex the following symbols apply:
Latin upper case letters
P
f
Failure probability
Prob () Probability of
P
s
Survival probability
Latin lower case letters
A geometrical property
g performance function

Greek upper case letters
cumulative distribution function of standard distributed
Normal distribution

Greek lower case letters
E
FORM (First Order Reliability Method) sensitivity factor for
effects of actions

R
FORM (First Order Reliability Method) sensitivity factor for
resistance

reliability index
model uncertainty
X
mean value of X
X
standard deviation of X
V
X
coefficient of variation of X
Introduction
[EN 1990 02],
C3 Introduction
The basic variables (i.e. actions, resistances and geometrical
properties) are introduced into the limit state verification formats
as design values applying the partial factor method, i.e. through
the use of partial factors and factors, see C.7.
Clause (1)
The reliability verification at present is limited to the partial factor
method. Their relevant fundamentals are presented briefly in
section C.8 which the rules of EN 1990, section 6 and Annex A.1
are referred to.

In principle numerical values for partial factors and factors can be
determined in either of two ways:
a) on the basis of calibration to a long experience of building
tradition (for most of the partial factors and the factors
proposed in the currently available Eurocodes this is the leading
principle),
b) on the basis of statistical evaluation of experimental data and
field observations (this should be carried out within the
framework of a probabilistic reliability theory).
Clause (2)
The calibration of numerical values for partial factors and -factors to
prior experience corresponds to traditional empirical safety analysis
characterized by the following components:
characteristic or nominal values on the safe side, i.e. target
values of actions rarely to be exceeded, and target values which
material strength rarely remains under;
assumptions for calculation methods and mechanical models
on the safe side;
extension of safety margin by introducing a global safety factor
or several partial factors;
design of redundant structures capable for redistribution of
internal forces from overstressed areas to not utilized areas,
e.g. by choice of statically undetermined systems and of
ductile material.
[Spaethe 92]; [Grnberg 04]

Prior the safety elements were established empirically, i.e. not
explained scientifically but guided phenomenally.
While the unsafe side calls attention by failure event, the safe
side does not announce itself. The consequence is the so-called
trial-and-error method.

Most of the partial factors and -factors established in the present
Eurocodes are generated by calibration of the partial factor method
to the traditional procedures for verification.
This is justified because statistical data about basic variables are not
sufficient to overcome the experiences of centuries. On the other
hand, leaps of the reliability level should be avoided changing from
traditional to probabilistically based safety concept.

When using clause (2), method (b), either on its own or in
combination with method (a), partial factors for different materials
and actions should be calibrated such that the reliability levels for
representative structures in ultimate limit states are as close as
possible to the target reliability index. See C6.
Clause (3)
The determination of numerical values for partial factors and -
factors by evaluation of experimental results or measurements is
described in EN 1990, Annex D.

Overview of reliability methods
[EN 1990 02],
C4 Overview of reliability methods
Fig. 10 presents a diagrammatic overview of the various methods
available for calibration of partial factor (limit states) design equations
and the relation between them.
Clause (1)

Deterministic methods

Probabilistic methods

Historical methods
Empirical methods
FORM
(Level II)
Full probabilistic
(Level III)

Calibration Calibration Calibration

Semi-
probabilistic
methods
(Level I)

Method c

Method a Partial factor
design
Method b

Fig. 10: Overview of reliability methods [EN 1990 02], Figure C1

In Fig. 10 a distinction is made between deterministic and
probabilistic methods in reliability analysis.
Deterministic methods are the basis of the empirical safety
analysis as described in the context to C.3 (2).
Otherwise, probabilistic methods are the theoretical basis for
a modern safety analysis.

The semi-probabistic methods (Level ), being the basis of this
Eurocode, are characterized by applying deterministic safety
elements (partial factors and -factors) which are determined by
means of probabilistic methods (Level ) and followed by empirical-
historical calibration.

The limit states not being exceeded are verified deterministically
applying the partial factor method (Limit state design). Assuming the
simple design situation being composed of one single action (F
j
) on
a certain structure, consisting of one material (X
i
) the limit state
equation may be written as follows:

( ) ( )
Ed F,j k,j=1,2,... Rd k,i=1,2,...m M,i
1/ /
n
E F R X

F
k,j
characteristic value of an action F
j
(e.g. upper fractile)
F,j
according partial factor
Ed
partial factor for model uncertainties with respect to the
action model and the structural model

X
k,i
characteristic value of a material strength X
i

(normally lower fractile)
M,i
according partial factor
Rd
partial factor for model uncertainties with respect to the
resistance model

The probabilistic calibration procedures for partial factors can be
subdivided into two main classes:
full probabilistic methods (Level ), and
first order reliability methods (FORM) (Level ).
[EN 1990 02], C4:
Clause (2)
The first order reliability methods are Level approximations for the
determination of the reliability index and the equivalent failure
probability P
f
= ( ).
See [EN 1990 02], C5
Especially assuming standard normally distributed basic variables R
(resistance) and E (action effect), the following is valid:

Limit sate equation:
d d
E R ;
with the design values
d R R R
R +
and
d E E E
E + ;

the reliability index
R E
2 2
R E

+
;
the sensitivity factors
R
R
2 2
R E
+
and
E
2 2
R E
E

R
and
E
are the mean values of the according standard normal
distributions with the standard deviations
R
und
E
.

The first order reliability method is the central subject of Annex C.

Full probabilistic methods (Level ) give in principle correct answers
to the reliability problem as stated. Level methods are seldom
used in the calibration of design codes because of the frequent lack
of statistical data.
[EN 1990 02], C4:
Clause (2) NOTE 1
The level methods make use of certain well defined approximations
and lead to results which for most structural applications can be
considered sufficiently accurate.
Clause (2) NOTE 2
In both the Level and Level methods the measure of reliability
should be identified with the survival probability
P
s
= (1 P
f
), where P
f
is the failure probability for the considered
failure mode and within an appropriate reference period. If the
calculated failure probability is larger than a pre-set target value
P
0
, then the structure should be considered to be unsafe.
Clause (3)
The structure may be assumed being either in the State of Failure
(F) or in the State of Survival (S), which separated from each other
by the Ultimate Limit State (ULS).
[Spaethe 92]
Both states can be characterized by occurrence probabilities P:
the failure probability P
f
= P (F) is the probability that the limit
state of failure is exceeded during a certain reference period;
the survival probability P
s
= P (S) is the probability that the limit
state of failure is not exceeded during a certain reference
period.

Therefore, P
f
and P
s
always are referred to a certain period which
usually is the design working life of the structure (e.g. 50 years).
See [EN 1990 02], 2.3
S is the complementary event to F, so that P P +
f s
1
Unfortunately, the failure probability P
f
cannot be derived from
damage statistics because
building structures have a high level of reliability and, therefore,
failure events are very rare,
only a few buildings are equivalent while individual structures
appear frequently,
working life of buildings is very long and, therefore, useful
results from damage statistics will be available too late.

These circumstances require very large numbers of random samples
which are not available in reality.

The properties of each building structure, however, are determined
by random parameters of l arge quantities and, therefore, can be
approached by means of statistical analysis.

Among these parameters especially the following are relevant:
the properties of building materials which are produced and
inspected on the basis of large quantities,
the subsoil properties which naturally recur from location to
location and can be checked continually,
the actions which can be observed or measured on the basis of
frequent recurrence,
the geometrical imperfections and
the joint properties.


In the theory of structural reliability, these parameters are defined as
basic variables, e.g. actions F
1
, F
2
, , F
m
, geometrical data a
1
, a
2
,
, a
p
and material properties X
1
, X
2
, , X
n
, which can be described
mathematically as random variables based on statistical
investigations, or by means of stochastic processes.
See [EN 1990 02], section 4
Applying the theory of probabilities to the rules of structural
mechanics, the probability of structural failure can be calculated by
means of the basic variables under the following conditions:
[Grnberg 04]
statistical information about the basic variables is sufficient,
the mechanical rules about the correlation between the actions
on the structure and the structural resistances are defined in
mathematical format,
the limit state, which the failure probability is referred to, is
defined,
the rules for calculation with random variables and stochastical
processes are transferred in such simplified formats that they
are applicable to mechanical problems in structural design.

The probability of failure and its corresponding reliability index (see
C5) are only notional values that do not necessarily represent the
actual failure rates but are used as operational values for code
calibration purposes and comparison of reliability levels of
structures.
[EN 1990 02], C4:
Clause (3) NOTE
The calculated failure probability
is a theoretical probability which only depends on the basic
variables considered and their statistical distributions assumed;
does not include the probability concerning gross human errors
(!);
directs to the perimeters of the distribution functions and,
therefore, responds very sensitively to variations of the
stochastical model;
comprises that part of the safety concept which can be
influenced by design and construction;
is only a model-dependent quantity of comparison but helpful for
decisions in the structural design process.

The Eurocodes have been primarily based on method (a)
(see Figure C1).
Method (c) or equivalent methods have been used for further
development of the Eurocodes.
Clause (4)
see Fig. 10
An example of an equivalent method is design assisted by testing
(see annex D).
NOTE

Reliability index
[EN 1990 02],
C5 Reliability index
In the Level procedures, an alternative measure of reliability is
conventionally defined by the reliability index which is related to P
f

by:
Clause (1)

f
P ( ) (C-1) [EN 1990 02]; Equation (C.1)
where is the cumulative distribution function of the standardised
Normal distribution. The relation between and is given in

Table 6: Relation between and P
f
[EN 1990 02]; Table C1

P
f
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10
-7

1,28 2,32 3,09 3,72 4,27 4,75 5,20

The reliability index describes the survival probability

s f
1 P P (C-2).

The failure probability is expressed by its negative value .
The starting point for calculating the failure probability is a limit
state characterized by the performance function g (x) depending on
the stochastical basic variables X
1
, X
2
, , X
n
which, as generalized
notations, represent actions F
1
, F
2
, , F
m
, geometrical data a
1
, a
2
,
, a
p
and material properties X
1
, X
2
, , X
n
.
Compare comment to C4 (3)
Preliminarily, the basic variables representing actions or resistances
are random variables are considered invariant with respect to time or
as one pulse within the reference period.
[Spaethe 92]
Failure occurs if the resulting action effect exceeds the structural
resistance at the first time. This state may be expressed by the limit
state equation as follows:

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 2 n
R R R E E E
1 2 n 1 2 n
0
g x g x ,x , , x
r x ,x , , x e x ,x , , x

K
K K
(C-3);
[Grnberg 04]
with the structural resistance
( )
R R R
1 2 n
r x , x , ,x K
and the resulting action effect
( )
E E E
1 2 n
e x , x , ,x K .

The strong solution for calculating the failure probability
P
f
= P [g (x) < 0]
results from integrating the distribution function
f
X
(x) = f
X
(x
1
, x
2
, , x
n
)
all over the area of failure F [x | g (x) < 0]:
See comment to C4 (3)
( )
( ) { }
f X 1 2 n 1 2 n
0 x g x
P f x , x , ,x dx dx dx
<

K K K (C-4)

The survival probability results analogously:
( )
( ) { }
s 1 2 n 1 2 n
0
X
x g x
P f x , x , , x dx dx dx

K K K (C-5)


These expressions may be shortened by vector notation:
( )
f X
F
P f x dx
; ( )
s X
S
P f x dx
.

Because of ( )
X
1 f x dx
+
, P
f
+ P
s
= 1 is always valid.

If the basic variables X
i
are stochastically independent, the
multiplication rule, based on the theory of probabilities, is valid:
See comment to 6.3.2 (2)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 2 n
X 1 2 n 1 2 n X X X
f x , x , , x f x f x f x L L (C-6)

Thereby, equations (C-4) and (C-5) are transformed into:
( )
i
n
f i i
i 1
X
F
P f x dx

L
; ( )
i
n
s i i
i 1
X
S
P f x dx

L
(C-7)

Herewith, the calculation of failure probability is reduced to an
integration over a n-dimensional space. A closed solution, however,
is limited to very special cases. The numerical integration always is
possible, but practicable only in case of a few number of basic
variables.
See example C-1
The calculation of failure probability in a closed format is relevant as
a basis for deriving approximate solutions to general problems. This
procedure is allowed under the following conditions:
the basic variables are stochastically independent and standard
normally distributed,
the limit state equation is linear.

The n-dimensional distribution function for independent standard
normally distributed random variables results from equation (C-7):
See Fig. 11, and
[EN 1990 02], Fig. C2, resp.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
1 2 n
i
i
i
X 1 2 n 1 2 n
2
n
i
n
n 2
i 1
i 1
1 1
2
2
X X X
X
/
X
X
f x , x , , x f x f x f x
x
exp

_
_

,
,
K K
(C-8)

with
Xi
= E [X
i
] mean value of the random variable X
i
s
Xi
= (Var [X
i
])
1/2
standard deviation of X
i

The limit equation is assumed linear of the format:
( )
n
0 1 1 2 2 n n 0 i i
i 1
0 g x c c x c x c x c c x
+ + + + +
L
(C-9)

The factors c
i
are deterministic constants depending on the
structural model. They are transformation parameters which connect
the basic variables X
i
with the mechanical variables to be verified in
limit states, e.g. actions with action effects or material strengths
with structural resistances.
See [Grnberg 04] and
examples C-1, C-2, C-3, C-8, C-9
For evaluation, the limit state equation has to be transformed from
the original space of basic variables X
i
(x-space) into the space of
standardized basic variables Y
i
(y-space), by means of:

i
i
i
i
X
X
X
Y

or inverse:
i i
i i X X
X Y + (C-10)


The y-space is characterized by mean values
yi
= 0 and standard
deviations
yi
according to all basic variables Y
i
.

The distribution function of the standardized basic variables Y
i

results from equation (C-8) after inserting equation (C-10):

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
1 2 n
1 2 n 1 2 n
n
2
i n 2
i 1
1 1
2
2
Y Y Y Y
/
f y ,y , ,y f y f y f y
exp y

_

,
K K
(C-11)

This distribution function is spherically symmetric with respect to the
origin of the y-space. Therefore, hyper-areas of equal distribution
density are n-dimensional spheres with their centre in the origin of
the y-space.
See Fig. 12
The limit state equation g (x) = 0 is transformed into h (y) = 0 by
inserting equation (C-10) into equation (C-9):

( )
i i
n n
0 i i i
i 1 i 1
0
X X
h y c c c y

+ +

(C-12)

The transformed limit state equation describes a n-dimensional
hyper-area in the y-space. It is useful for further operations to
transfer equation (C-12) into the Hesse normalized format:
[Spaethe 92];
[Grnberg 04]
( )
n
i i
i 1
0 h y y
(C-13)

with the sensitivity factors

( )
i
i
i
i
n
2
i
i 1
i 1 2 n
X
X
c
; , , ,
c
L (C-14)

And the reliability index
( )
i
i
n
0 i
i 1
n
2
i
i 1
X
X
c c
c
(C-15)

The reliability index is the crucial quantity using first order
reliability method (FORM). The absolute value of is the shortest
distance between the origin of the y-space and the hyper-area
h (y) = 0 having the following interpretations:
is positive if the origin of the y-space lies in the safe part of
the y-space, i.e. in case of h (0) > 0, whereas
is negative if the origin of the y-space lies in the unsafe part of
the y-space, i.e. in case of h (0) < 0.
See Fig. 12
The sensitivity factors
i
geometrically are the cosinus of the angles
between the -vector and the coordinate axis y
i
. Therefore:

n
2
i
i 1
1
(C-16)

The sensitivity
i
factor according to a basic variable X
i
is the larger,
the larger its scattering, expressed by the standard deviation
Xi
, or
the larger its transformation parameter c
i
.


Fig. 11: Limit state equation in the original x-space

Fig. 12: Limit state equation in the standardized y-space

-1
0
-4 -2 0 2 4
-3,0
-2,0
-1,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
-0,50
0
0,000
x
2
(e)
x
1
(r)
f
X2
(x
2
)
f
X1
(x
1
)
f
X
(x
1
,x
2
) = const.
Safe part
Z > 0
Unsafe part
Z < 0
Limit state straight line
g (x) = c
1

x
1
+ c
2

x
2

= r e = 0
X1

X2
x
2d
x
d1
Design point: x
d
s
X1

a
1

s
X2

a
2

f
Y
(y
1
, y
2
) = const.
Survival part: Z > 0
Failure part: Z < 0
Limit state straight line : ( )
1 1 2 2
0 h y y y + +
or
1
0 Z u +
y
d1
=
1

y
d2
=
2

Design point: y
d

u
1

1
1
1
1
X
X
x
y

2
2
2
2
X
X
x
y


The failure probability is calculated by means of integrating the
distribution density function over the failure part of the y-space:

( )
( ) { }
2 n
i
f i n 2
i 1
0
1
2
2
/
y h y
y
P exp dy

<
1 _

1
, ]

K (C-17)

The distribution densities and the limit state equation in the special
case of only two random variables X
1
and X
2
are represented in Fig.
11 with respect to the original x-space and in Fig. 12 with respect to
the standardized y-space. Furthermore, the geometrical meanings of
and
I
are indicated.

The integrand in equation (C-17) is invariant against every turning of
the coordinate system because of the spherical symmetry of its
distribution density.

Thus, a new coordinate system (u
1
, u
2
, , u
n
) is introduced such,
that the failure condition is converted into a especially simple format.
The u
1
-axis is turned into the direction of the -vector.
See Fig. 13

Fig. 13: Distribution density of the random variable u
1

The safety distance Z is defined in the u
1
-system by the following
simple equation:
( )
1
0 Z u + (C-18)

Accordingly, the (ultimate) limit state is expressed by

1
0 Z u + (C-19)

Furthermore, the failure probability is expressed in the u
1
-system:

( )
{
1 2 n
i
f i
n 2
n 1 i 1
1
2
2
u
/
u
P exp du
+ +

1 _
1

1 , ]

K (C-20)

Verteilungsdichte des Sicherheitsabstands
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
-1,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0
beta = 3,8
Z (
Z
)
Z
= 1
Safe part:
Z 0
Unsafe part:
Z < 0
u
1

Z = 0
Distribution density (u
1
)

Considering
2
i
i
1
1
2
2
u
exp du
_

,
(C-21)
and ( ) ( )
2
1
1 1 1
1
2
2
u
exp du u du

_

,

(C-22)

the following expressions results
for the failure probability:
( )
f
P (C-23);
Compare equation (C-1)
For see section C2
for the survival probability:
( ) ( )
s f
1 1 P P (C-24)
The failure probability P
f
is calculated in closed format as follows: See examples C-2; C-3
1. Establishing the limit state equation g (x) = 0, See equati on (C-9)
2. Determination of reliability index , See equation (C-15)
3. Calculation of failure probability by means of the cumulative
distribution function of the Standard Normal Distribution .
See equation (C-23)
The equations (C-23) and (C-24) are transformation relations
between the probabilities of failure (P
f
) or survival (P
s
) on one side
and the reliability index on the other side.
See Table 7

( )
f
P

P
f
( )
1
f
P

0 5,000E-01 0,5 0,000
1 1,587E-01 1,00E-01 1,282
2 2,275E-02 1,00E-02 2,326
3 1,350E-03 1,00E-03 3,090
4 3,169E-05 1,00E-04 3,719
5 2,871E-07 1,00E-05 4,265
6 9,901E-10 1,00E-06 4,768
7 1,288E-12 1,00E-07 5,200
8 6,661E-16 1,00E-08 5,615

Table 7: Reliability index and failure probability
The intersection of the limit state area h (y) (hyper-area) through the
distribution density space f
Y
(y
1
, y
2
, , y
n
) (hyper-space) shall be
inspected more detailed.
Each point within the standardized space is related to an according
distribution density. Therefore, each point on the limit state area
h (y) is related to a specific distribution density.
See Fig. 12
Because of the symmetry of the Standard Normal Distribution, this
specific distribution density comes up to its maximum value where
the -vector touches the limit state area. That is the final point yd:

( ) { }
{
( ) ( )
Y d
0 y h y
max f y f y
(C-25)


The distribution density not only of the limit state but of the whole
unsafe part of the y-space comes up to its maximum value at y
d
.
Therefore, the probability of failure occurrence also comes up to its
maximum at y
d
. This point has got the coordinates

di i
i 1 2 n y ; , , , L (C-26)

The position of this point in the original x-space, which is relevant for
practical design, can be determined by return transformation:

i i
di i X X
x (C-27)

If X
i
is standard normally distributed, the distribution density f
X
(x)
also comes up to its maximum of the limit state as well as of the
unsafe part of the original x-space:

( ) { }
{
( ) ( )
X d
0 x g x
max f x f x
(C-28)

The specific point of most probable failure is a suitable point for
establishing design values for a deterministic approach to the
reliability level P
s
= (). Therefore, this point (y
d
or x
d
) is defined as
design point.
[Spaethe 92];
[Grnberg 04]
Each coordinate of the design point is determined by for parameters:
The mean value
Xi
= E [X
i
] as well as the standard deviation
Xi

are provided by the probability function of X
i
.
The reliability index controls the location of the design point
depending on the reliability level P
s
= ().
The sensitivity factors
I
describe the scattering rates of X
i
in
proportion to the total scattering of the safety distance Z.

i
can reach values between 1 and + 1. If
i
is near to 1 or to +
1, the standard deviation
Xi
or the transformation parameter c
i
is of
decisive influence on the structural reliability.
However, if
i
takes a very low value (near to 0), the product c
i
Xi

makes no relevant effect.

Climatic actions, induced by snow or wind, for instance, generate
larger sensitivity factors
i
on light-weight structures than on heavy
structures.

The sign of
i
determines the design point located either in the lower
part or in the upper part of the distribution function. Thus the
following definition is valid:

i
is negative in case of action effects (E),

i
is positive in case of resistances (R).

The probability of failure P
f
can be expressed through a performance
function g such that a structure is considered to survive if g > 0 and
to fail if g 0:
[EN 1990 02], C5
Clause (2)
P
f
= Prob (g 0) (C-29) [EN 1990 02], equation (C.2a)
If R is the resistance and E the effect of actions, the performance
function g is:

g = R E (C-30) [EN 1990 02], equation (C.2b)
with R, E and g random variables.

The safety of a structure subjected to static loads depends strongly
on the relation of the quantities of the resulting action effect E and of
the structural resistance R. Failure occurs in case of R < E. If the
probability distributions of
R = X
1
= structural resistance and
E = X
2
= resulting action effect
are known, a very clear reliability problem of simple kind is obtained,
which is specified by the term R-E-Model. Thereby,
R and E themselves may be functions depending on further random
variables.
[Grnberg 04]
see also comment to clause (1)
The two-dimensional limit state equation can be derived from
equation (C-3) and Fig. 11 as follows:
( )
1 2
0 g x x x r e (C-31)

Thus the failure probability results from equation (C-4), either
( )
f
r e
P f r , e dr de
+

(C-32),
if integration at first is performed over r, or
( )
f
e r
P f r , e de dr
+ +

(C-33),
if integration at first is performed over e.

If R and E are stochastically independent, integration may be
performed directly applying equation (C-7),
either to equation (C-32): ( ) ( )
f R E
P F e f e de
+
, (C-34)
or to equation (C-33): ( ) ( ) ( )
f E R
1 P F r f r dr
+
. (C-35)

Generally, solutions found by numerical integration do not cause
severe difficulties. Exact integral solutions are limited to only few
special problems, for instance, if the performance function g is
standard normally distributed.
[Grnberg 04]
If g is Normally distributed, is taken as:

g
g
(C-36)
where
g
is the mean value of g, and

g
is its standard deviation,
[EN 1990 02], C5
Clause (3)
[EN 1990 02], equation (C.2c)
so that
g g
0 (C-37) [EN 1990 02], equation (C.2d)
and Prob Prob
f
0
g g
P ( g ) ( g ) (C-38) [EN 1990 02], equation (C.2e)
If the limit state equation g (x) = 0 may be written in the format
(C-31) and if R and E are standard normally distributed, the
transformation into the y-space follows from equation (C-12):
( )
R E R E
0 h y r e + (C-39)


The Hesse normalized format follows from equation (C-13):
( )
R E
0 h y r e + + (C-40)

with the sensibility factors (analogous to equation (C-14):

R E
R E
2 2 2 2
R E R E
;

+

+ +
(C-41),

and the reliability index (equation C-15)):

g
R E
2 2
g
R E

+
(C-42).

So the mean value and the standard deviation of the performance
function g yield:

g R E
;
2 2
g R E
+ (C-43)

Now as before, equations (C-23) and (C-24) are valid for the failure
probability and for the survival probability, respectively.

The coordinates of the design point in the y-space are given as

d R d E
r ; e (C-44)
The according coordinates in the x-space are determined by return
transformation:

d R R R d E E E
r ; e (C-45)
See above and
compare equation (C-27)
For other distributions of g, is only a conventional measure of the
reliability P
s
= (1 P
f
).
[EN 1990 02], C5
Clause (3), continued
The general, non-linear limit state, characterized by not normally
distributed basic variables, can be approximated by means of the
First Order Reliability Method (FORM).
[Spaethe 92];
[Grnberg 04]

Fig. 14: Transformation relations according to FORM
The main condition is that information about the types of statistical
distributions is available, or suitable estimations are possible.

The general distribution functions are defined as F
Xi
(x
i
). The basic
variables X
i
are transformed into stochastically independent and
standard normally distributed variables Y
i
.

x
F
X
(x) (y)
F,
1,0
0 1 -1 x
( ) ( )
i
1
i i X
y F x


In doing this, the probabilities of according points shall be equal, so
that the following equivalence is valid:
( ) ( )
i
i i
1 2 n
X
F x y ; i , , , K (C-46)
See examples C.4 and C.5
Hence follow the transformation relations:
( ) ( )
i
1
i i X
x F y

( ) ( )
i
1
i i
i 1 2 m
X
y F x ; , , ,

K (C-47)
See Fig. 14
These transformations generally are non-linear. Therefore, a linear
limit state equation g (x) = 0 changes into a non-linear limit state
equation h (y) = 0 after transformation.
Especially, the transformation relations are linear only then, if the
basic variables X
i
are standard normally distributed.

In the following, the transformation relations (C-47) are inserted into
the limit state equation (C-3):

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
1 2 n
1 2 n
1 1 1
1 2 n
1 2 n
0
X X X
g x g x , x , ,x
g F y ,F y , ,F y
h y ,y , ,y

L
K
L
(C-48)

h (y) = 0 is a hyper-area, generally of a curved shape, which divides
the n-dimensional y-space into a safe and an unsafe part. The failure
probability results from the integral of the n-dimensional distribution
density over the unsafe part.
Compare comments to C5 (1)
The approximation applying FORM stands for substituting the curved
hyper-area h (y) = 0 by the tangential area I (y) = 0 touching h (y) in
the design point y
d
.
See Fig. 15

Fig. 15: Linearization of the limit state equation in the design point
The design point y
d
is that point on the curved hyper-area h (y) = 0
which is located most closely to the coordinate origin and, therefore,
is characterized by the maximum distribution density in the failure
part of the y-space.

y
2

y
1

Failure part:
( )
{ }
y h y < 0 ; convex
Design point: y
d
Linearized limit state:
l (y) = 0
d =
y
d2
= a
2

y
d1
= a
1

h (y) = 0
y y
d
y
1
y
2
1
h
y

2
h
y


The integration over the failure part
( ) { }
0 y h y < is substituted by
the integration over the approximated failure part
( ) { }
0 y l y < .

The limit state equation describing the tangential area I (y) = 0 is
found by developing h (y) = 0 into a Taylor series, but only
considering the linear terms:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
T
d d d
l y h y y y h y + (C-49)

( )
d
h y is the vector of the differential quotients of the transformed
performance function h (y) at the design point y
d
. Therefore, equation
(C-49) may be rewritten in components:

( )
( ) ( )
d
1 2 n
n
T
d1 d2 dn i di
i 1 i
y y
l y , y , , y
h
h y , y , , y y y
y

K
K
(C-50)

Thereby, h (y) is assumed able to be differentiated in the surrounding
of the design point y
d
.

Equation (C-49) is transferred into the Hesse normalized format:
( )
T
l y y + (C-51)
with the sensibility factors
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
d
T
d d
h y
h y h y

(C-52)
and the shortest distance
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
T
d d d
T
d d
h y y h y
h y h y

(C-53)
Equations (C-46) to (C-53) are used for determining the design point
approximately by an iteration process based on FORM.

Target values of reliability index
[EN 1990 02], C6
Target values of reliability index
Target values for the reliability index for various design situations,
and for reference periods of 1 year and 50 years, are indicated in
Table 8. The values of in Table C2 correspond to levels of safety for
reliability class RC2 structural members.
Clause (1)
See [EN 1990 02], Table C2
RC2: see Annex B
For these evaluations of
Lognormal or Weibull distributions have usually been used for
material and structural resistance parameters and model
uncertainties;
Normal distributions have usually been used for self-weight;
For simplicity, when considering non-fatigue verifications,
Normal distributions have been used for variable actions.
Extreme value distributions would be more appropriate.
Clause (1) NOTE 1
Design values according to the distributions mentioned above are
processed in section C.7
See [EN 1990 02], C7

When the main uncertainty comes from actions that have
statistically independent maxima in each year, the values of for a
different reference period can be calculated using the following
expression:
Clause (1) NOTE 2
[ ]
n 1
n
( ) ( ) (C-54)
where
n
is the reliability index for a reference period of n years,

1
is the reliability index for one year.
EN [1990 02], equation (C.3)
Table 8: Target reliability index
for Class RC2 structural members
1)

Limit state Target reliability index
1 year 50 years
Ultimate 4,7 3,8
Fatigue 1,5 to 3,8
2)

Serviceability (irreversible) 2,9 1,5
1)
See Annex B
2)
Depends on degree of inspectability,
reparability and damage tolerance.

The failure probability depends on the observation period if one
certain basic variable is time dependent while all the other basic
variables are time invariant.
The observation period is limited to existing values observed and,
therefore, generally is shorter than the reference period for limit
state verification (e.g. n years).
If the single observation periods are sufficiently long, so that
stochastical independency may be assumed between adjacent
extreme values, then the reference period may be interpreted as a
random sequence of these observation periods.

The conversion of reliability probabilities from an observation period
(m years) to the reference period (n years) follows from the
multiplication rule of probability theory, considering equ. (C-54):

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
f,n f,m m
m n f,m
1 1 1 1
1 1
k k
k
P P
k P

(C-55)
where k n / m

Especially, the conversion from a reference period of 1year to a
reference period of n years may be derived from equation (C-55):

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
f,n f,1 1
1 n f,1
1 1 1 1
1 1
n n
n
P P
n P

(C-56)
Equation (C-54) above directly results from equation (C-56)!


Considering the conditions as described above while assuming an
asymptotic extreme value distribution, e.g. a Gumbel distribution, as
stochastical model for a time dependent action with a reference
period of m years, its conversion to the reference period of n years
follows from equation (C-56):

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Xn Xm
m
m
m
k
k
F x F x
exp exp a x u
exp k exp a x u
exp exp a x u l n k
1
]

+
(C-57)

Therefore, the Gumbel distribution referred to m years is converted
to the Gumbel distribution referred to n years by a displacement
along the x-axis of the value (ln x)

/

a.
See examples C.6 and C.7
Accordingly, also the modal value u as well as the mean value
X
are
increased in case of conversion, while the standard deviation
X
does
keep its value constant. From equation (C-57) follows:

n m m X
6 l n k
u u u l n k
a

+ + (C-58)

Xn Xm Xm X
6 l n k
l n k
a

+ + (C-59)

The equations (C-57) to (C-59) express, that
the Gumbel distribution is time dependent with respect to the
reference period considered,
and larger extreme values occur more frequently with respect to
a longer reference period.

The actual frequency of failure is significantly dependent upon
human error, which are not considered in partial factor design (See
Annex B). Thus does not necessarily provide an indication of the
actual frequency of structural failure.
[EN 1990-02], C6
Clause (2)
See comment to C4 (3) NOTE
Approach for calibration of design values
[EN 1990 02], C7 Approach
for calibration of design values
In the design value method of reliability verification (see Fig. 10),
design values need to be defined for all the basic variables.
A design is considered to be sufficient if the limit states are not
reached when the design values are introduced into the analysis
models. In symbolic notation this is expressed as:
Clause (1)
see Figure C1
E
d
< R
d
(C-60)
where the subscript d refers to design values. This is the practical
way to ensure that the reliability index is equal to or larger than the
target value. E
d
and R
d
can be expressed in partly symbolic form as:
[EN 1990 02], equation (C.4)
E
d
= E {F
d1
, F
d2
, ... a
d1
, a
d2
, ...
d1
,
d2
, ...} (C-61) [EN 1990 02], equation (C.5a)
R
d
= R {X
d1
, X
d2
, ... a
d1
, a
d2
, ...
d1
,
d2
, ...} (C-62) [EN 1990 02], equation (C.5b)
where E is the action effect; R is the resistance;
F is an action ; X is a material property;
a is a geometrical property; is a model uncertainty.


For particular limit states (e.g. fatigue) a more general formulation
may be necessary to express a limit state.

The equations (C-60) to (C-62) are equivalent to the equations (6.8),
(6.2) and (6.6) in the main text of this Eurocode. The only difference
is that the model uncertainties are introduced as basic variables ,
instead of a certain factor
Ed
.
See [EN 1990 02],
6.4.2, 6.3.2 and 6.3.5
Design values should be based on the values of the basic variables
at the FORM design point, which can be defined as the point on the
failure surface (g = 0) closest to the average point in the space of
normalised variables (as diagrammatically indicated in Fig. 11).
[EN 1990 02], C7
Clause (2)

See [EN 1990 02], Fig. C2
The design point x
d
as well as the reliability index can be
determined approximately applying the First Order Reliability Method
(FORM) by means of the Normal-Tail-Approximation (or Rackwitz-
Fieler-Algorithm):
[Spaethe 92];
[Grnberg 04]
The basic variables X
i
, as they are distributed, e.g.
Gumbel distributed according to variable actions or
Lognormal distributed according to material strengths,
are transformed into stochastically independent and standard
normally distributed variables Y
i
.

This transformation is controlled by equivalent values of the
cumulative distribution functions as well as of the distribution density
functions at the design point x
di
(y
di
).
See Fig. 16

Fig. 16: Gumbel distribution, at the design point x
d
(y
d
)
approximated by a Standard Normal Distribution
Cumulative distribution functions:
( ) ( ) ( )
di
i
di
di
di di i
X
X
X
x
F x y
_

,
(C-63)
[Grnberg 04]
Distribution density function:
( )
( ) ( )
di
i
di di di di
di di i
di
1
X
X
X X X X
x y
f x

_

,
(C-64)

x
di
(y
di
)
f
Xi
(x
di
) = (y
di
)
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
i d
i i
id
di
di
x
X X
y
F x f x dx
y dy y

x (y)
f (x) (y)

where the design values are related by

di di di di
di di i X X X X
x y + (C-65)

In general, the design value according to a target reliability index
follows from equation (C-63) by inversion:
( ) ( )
X
x F

i
1
di i
(C-66)

The mean values
Xdi
as well as the standard deviations
Xdi
of the
approximated Standard Normal Distributions in the equations
(C-63) to (C-65) are not yet known (and the design point
coordinates x
di
depending on the sensibility factors
i
either).
Detailed information concerning
the Rackwitz-Fieler-Algorithm
see example C.8.
To avoid large time-consuming iterative calculations in practical
design, the following simplifications are performed:
See Fig. 17
1. The limit state equation is separated into two parts,
summarizing all actions to one resulting action effect E
d
, and all
material strengths to one resulting structural resistance R
d
.
2. The remaining sensibility factors
E
and
R
, according to E
d

and R
d
respectively are assessed by fixed values.
See comment to C5 (2):
R-E-Model

Fig. 17: Sensibility factors fixed with respect to the limit state
expressed in standardized y-coordinates
d
and resistances R
d
should be
defined such that the probability of having a more unfavourable value
is as follows:
[EN 1990-02], C7
Clause (3)
P (E > E
d
) = (+
E

) (C-67) [EN 1990-02], equation (C.6a)
P (R R
d
) = (
R

) (C-68) [EN 1990-02], equation (C.6b)

E
E
e

Survival part:
Z > 0
Failure part: Z < 0
Limit state straight line:
( )
1 2
0

h r,e r e + + with
( )
1 R 2 E
min max +
R
R
r

d R
r

d E
e

Design point: y
d

for
E E E
R R R
min max

u
1

min

max
E
R
max

E
R
min


where: is the target reliability index (see C6).

E
and
R
, with ||

1, are the values of the FORM
sensitivity factors. The value of is negative for
unfavourable actions and action effects, and positive for
resistances.

E
and
R
may be taken as 0,7 and + 0,8, respectively, provided
0,16 <
E
/

R
< 7,6 (C-69) [EN 1990-02], equation (C.7)
where
E
and
R
are the standard deviations of the action effect and
resistance, respectively, in expressions (C-67) and (C-68). This
gives:

P (E > E
d
) = ( 0,7

) (C-70) [EN 1990-02], equation (C.8a)
P (R R
d
) = ( 0,8

) (C-71) [EN 1990-02], equation (C.8b)
Assuming the fixed sensibility factors
E
= 0,7 and
R
= + 0,8, the
reliability index according to the design point y
d
is raised up to

2 2
max 0 8 0 7 1063 , , , + (C-72)

and the reliability index varies within certain limit values:
min max (C-73)
See Fig. 17
Establishing a minimum target value
min 0 90 , , (C-74)

and turning the limit state straight lines around the fixed
design point y
d
, all ratios of standard deviations between the
following boundaries are allowed, without falling below min :
( ) ( )
E R E R E R
min / / max / (C-75)
where ( ) ( )
E R
min / tan min , 0 16 (C-76)
( ) ( )
E R
max / tan max , 334 (C-77)
min 9036 ,
with max
1
= cos (min ) = 0,9876
and min
2
= sin (min ) = 0,1571
max 73336 , +
with min
1
= cos (max ) = 0,2868
and max
2
= sin (max ) = 0,9580

E
R
0 7
41186
0 8
,
arctan arctan ,
,
_ _

+
, ,

with
1
= cos = 0,7526
and
2
= sin = 0,6585

min 0 90
32150
max 1063
,
arccos arccos ,
,
_ _

, ,

[EN 1990 02], equation (C.7)
even allows for a maximum limit
value extended to
max (
E
/

R
) = 7,60
(see equation (69))
Assuming the R-E-Model with sensibility factors
E
and
R
fixed, the
limit state analysis is reduced to a semi-probabilistic approach. This
means that the design values E
d
and R
d
can be determined directly,
depending on the target reliability index .


Therefore, from equation (C-66) follows:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1
d d E E E
0 7 E e F F ,

+ A (C-78)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
-1 1
d d R R R
0 8 R r F F ,
A (C-79)

The design values resulting from equations (C-78) and (C-79) are
exceeded with the failure probabilities expressed by equations
(C-70) and (C-71).
Determination of structural
reliability applying design values
based on fixed sensibility factors,
see example C.9.
Where condition (C-69) is not satisfied = 1,0 should be used for
the variable with the larger standard deviation, and

= 0,4 for the
variable with the smaller standard deviation.
[EN 1990 02], C7
Clause (4)
These special limit states may occur, for example, in case of
prevailing climatic action (e.g. snow:
E
= 1,0) on a light-
weight steel structure (
R
= + 0,4), or
prevailing subsoil resistance (
R
= + 1,0) of a foundation
subjected mainly to permanent loads (
E
= 0,4).

When the action model contains several basic variables, expression
(C.8a) should be used for the leading variable only. For the
accompanying actions the design values may be defined by:
Clause (5)
P (E > E
d
) = ( 0,4

0,7

) = ( 0,28

) (C-80) [EN 1990 02], equation (C.9)
For = 3,8 the values defined by expression (C-80) correspond
approximately to the 0,90 fractile.
Clause (5) NOTE

Fig. 18: Sensibility factors in case of two simultaneous actions

1
1
1
1
E
E
e
e

Survival part:
Z > 0
Failure part: Z < 0
2
2
2
2
E
E
e
e

d2,i
028 e ,

d1i
028
,
e ,

Design points: e
d1
; e
d2

0,7

u
1

= 22,5
= 22,5
1,077

0,7

d1
0 7 e , =
d2
0 7 e ,
Limit state straight line for
1 2
0 / 1
E E
:
( )
1 2 E e1 1 e2 2
0

h e ,e e e with
( )
E e1 e2
0 7 0 4 0 7 1077 0 7 , , , , , +
E

The design values of the leading basic variables, i.e. leading action
effect E
1d
or leading resistance R
1d
, are determined by means of
equations (C-78) and (C-79), respectively.

The design values of the accompanying basic variables can be
derived from equation (C-66), inserting Equation (C-80):

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
i i i
1 1
di di
0 28
E E E E
E e F F ,

+ A (C-81)

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
i i i
1 1
di di
032
R R R R
R r F F ,

A (C-82)

The combination rules written in the main text this Eurocode are
based on equation (C-81) while the leading and accompanying
variables are exchanged with each other.
See [EN 1990 029, section 6
Turning the limit state straight lines around the fixed design
points, either e
d1
or e
d2
, all limit states within the relevant
coordinate quadrant are covered!
See Fig. 18
The values of the additional sensibility factors used in equations (C-
81) and (C-82) can be derived as follows:

i i
22 5 04142 0 4
E R
tan , , , (C-83)
The limit state straight line, as shown in Fig. 18, turns around the
design point e
d2
which is characterized by the following sensibility
factors:

e1
= cos 22,5 = 0,9239 and

e2
= sin 22,5 = 0,3827
Note: In case of turning the limit state straight line around the design
point e
d1
, the sensibility factors change into
e1
= sin 22,5 and
e2
= cos 22,5.

The expressions provided in Table 9 should be used for deriving the
design values of variables with the given probability distribution.
[EN 1990 02], C7
Clause (6)
see [EN 1990 02], Table C3

Table 9: Design values for various distribution functions
Distribution Design values
Normal
Lognormal exp( V ) for V =

/

< 0,2
Gumbel 1
u ln{ ln ( )}
a

where
0 577
6
,
u ; a
a

In these expressions , and V are, respectively, the mean value,
the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation of a given
variable. For variable actions, these should be based on the same
reference period as for .
Clause (6) NOTE
One method of obtaining the relevant partial factor is to divide the
design value of a variable action by its representative or
characteristic value.
Clause (7)

Partial factors required for semi-probabilistic verification can be
determined on the basis of the design values given in Table 9 in
connection with the according characteristic values.

Generally, the partial factor for actions (F
i
) is determined by means
of equation (6.1a) given in the main text of this Eurocode. Hence
follows:

di
Fi Ed f Ed
rep,i
i
F
F
(C-84)
where
Ed
is the partial factor considering model uncertainties
of actions, and

fi
is the partial factor taking into account the
unfavourable deviations of the single action F
i
.
See [EN 1990 02], 6.3 (1)
a) Permanent actions G
The design values for a standard normally distributed
permanent action G, with the prevailing influence due to
stochastic deviation (variation coefficient V
G
), can be written
with respect to equations (C-78) and (C-79):
in case of unfavourable effect on the limit state
(action effect):
G
d,sup
=
G

(1 + 0,7

V
G
) (C-85)
in case of favourable effect on the limit state (resistance):
G
d,inf
=
G

(1 0,8

V
G
) (C-86)

The characteristic value G
k
normally is the mean value.
Therefore, the partial factors referred to the mean value are
in case of unfavourable effect:

g,sup
= 1 + 0,7

V
G
(C-87)
in case of favourable effect:

g,inf
= 1 0,8

V
G
(C-88)
See [EN 1990 02], 4.1.2 (1 3)
The partial load factor
g
takes the unfavourable deviations of
permanent actions into account. Normally, the variation
coefficient for permanent actions is V
G
0,10.
[BoD-doc 96]
However, if the variation coefficient is V
G
> 0,10 or if the
structure is very sensitive against variations of permanent
loads, the following characteristic values should be used:
1. the 95% fractile in case of unfavourable effect,
2. the 5% fractile in case of favourable effect.
See [EN 1990 02], 4.1.2 (2; 4)
p-fractile of a standard normally distributed permanent action:

1
k G G
1
100
p
G V

_
_
t

, ,
(C-89)


Therefore, the partial factors referred to the characteristic values
are

( )
d,sup
G G
g,sup 1
k,sup G G
1 0 7 1 0 7
1 1645 1 0 95
G , V , V
G , V , V

+ +

+ +
(C-90)

( )
d,inf G G
g,inf 1
k,inf G G
1 0 8 1 0 8
1 1645 1 005
G , V , V
G , V , V

+
(C-91)

If a permanent action does not predominate due to stochastic
deviation, the partial factors referred to the mean value result
considering equations (C-81) and (C-82):

j,sup
g,sup
= 1 + 0,28

V
G
(C-92)

j,inf
g,inf
= 1 0,32

V
G
(C-93)

j,sup
and
j,inf
are combination values due to permanent actions
expressing the ratios for referring equations (C-92) and (C-93) to
equations (C-87) and (C-88), respectively.
See [EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.2 (3)
The partial factor
G
includes not only the load factor
g
but
additionally the model factor
Ed
which is determined by an
average variation coefficient V
Ed
0,10 of its own.
In case of unfavourable effects of both components, the total
variation coefficient results:

( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
G,sup g Ed
010 010 014 V V V , , , + + (C-94)
[BoD-doc 96]
In case of overall unfavourable effect, the following partial factors
result with respect to a reliability index = 3,8 (reference period
50 years):

g,sup
= 1 + 0,73,80,10 = 1,27 (C-95)

G,sup
= 1 + 0,73,80,14 = 1,37 1,35 (C-96)

Ed
=
G,sup
/
g,sup
= 1,37 / 1,27 = 1,08 1,10 (C-97)

In case of favourable effect the permanent actions G i.e.
accompanying the structural resistance the following partial
factors result:

g,inf
= 1 0,32

3,8

0,10 = 0,88 (C-98)

Ed
= 1 + 0,28

3,8

0,10 = 1,11 1,10 (C-99)

G,inf
=
g,inf

Ed
= 0,88

1,11 = 0,97 1,00 (C-100)

Comment: The model uncertainty furthermore induces
unfavourable effects, together with the predominating variable
actions, but is not prevailing in connection with the permanent
loads.

The partial factors
G,sup
and
G,inf
according to ultimate limit
state of structural design (STR), as given in Annex A of this
Eurocode, correspond to the partial factors highlighted in
equations (C-96) and (C-100).
[EN 1990 02], Table A1.2(B)

The limit state of static equilibrium (EQU) has to be
considered separately.

Determining the variation coefficient, only the deviations of
permanent actions within one certain structure (internal
deviation) have to be considered which may be estimated by
V
G
= 0,04 including model uncertainties.
[BoD-doc 96]
The action sensibility factor
E
= 0,7 is attached to the
destabilizing permanent action G
sup
, while the resistance
sensibility factor
R
= + 0,8 is attached to the stabilizing
permanent loads G
inf
. The structural strength is irrelevant in
case of static equilibrium, so that both basic variables have to
be classified as predominant. Hence follow the partial factors
with respect to = 3,8:

G,sup
= 1 + 0,7

3,8

0,04 = 1,11 1,10 (C-101)

G,inf
= 1 0,8

3,8

0,04 = 0,88 0,90 (C-102)

The partial factors
G,sup
and
G,inf
according to ultimate limit
state of static equilibrium (EQU), as given in Annex A of this
Eurocode, correspond to the partial factors highlighted in
equations (C-101) and (C-102).
[EN 1990 02], Table A1.2(A)
b) Variable actions Q
The design value for a Gumbel distributed variable action Q with
the prevailing influence due to stochastic deviation (variation
coefficient V
Q
) in case of unfavourable effect can be written
with respect to equation (C-78):

( ) ( )
1
0 7
d
Q u ln ln ,
a
(C-103)

Inserting

Q
= u + 0,5772 / a;

Q
= 1,28255 / a and
V
Q
=
Q
/

Q
,
[Spaethe 92]
the following relation is valid: (C-104)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) d Q Q
1 07797 05772 0 7 Q , V , ln ln , +

with the modal value u =
Q

(1 0,45

V
Q
) (C-105) [Spaethe 92]
Generally, the mean values
Q
are referred to the design
working life, i.e.
Q,50
referred to 50 years.
[BoD-doc 96]
The standard deviations
Q
of Gumbel distributions are
independent of the reference period, as is generally known.
[Schuller 81]; [Schobbe 82]
Hence it follows from equation (C-104), with respect to the
reliabilty index = 3,8 according to structural failure during the
reference period of 50 years:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
d
Q,50 Q,50
Q,50 Q,50
50 50
1 0 7797 05772 0 7 3 8
1 0 7797 0 5772 0 9961
1 07797 0 5772 5 5448
+
+

Q, Q,
Q
, V , ln ln , ,
, V , ln ln ,
, V , ,

(C-106)


Finally, the design value for a variable action Q results from the
previous relation:
Q
d
=
Q,50

(1 + 3,87

V
Q,50
) (C-107)
[BoD-doc 96]
The characteristic value for a variable action usually is defined
as the 98%-fractile referred to 1 year:
( ) ( ) ( ) k Q,1 Q,1
1 07797 0 5772 0 98 Q , V , ln ln , +

(C-108)
See [EN 1990 029, 4.1.2 (7)
with the mean value
Q,1
referred to 1 year
and the according modal value
u
1
=
Q,1

(1 0,45

V
Q,1
) (C-109)

Transformation into the reference period 50 years: (C-110)

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
50
Q,1 Q,1
Q,50 Q,50
Q,50 Q,50
Q,50 Q,50
1 07797 05772 0 98 50
1 0 7797 05772 0 364
1 0 7797 05772 00101
1 0 458
k
Q
, V , ln ln , ln
, V , ln ln ,
, V , ,
, V
+
+
+

with the shifted mean value

Q,50
=
Q,1
+ 3,05

Q

and the likewise shifted modal value
u
50
=
Q,50

(1 0,45

V
Q,50
) (C-111)

Obviously, the 98%-fractile referred to 1 year approximately
corresponds to the modal value referred to 50 years.

These values are introduced as characteristic values for
climatic actions, e.g. wind actions Q
W
or snow loads Q
S
:
Q
W,k
=
W,50

(1 0,45

V
W,50
) (C-112)
Q
S,k
=
S,50

(1 0,45

V
S,50
) (C-113)
[BoD-doc 96]
In contrast, the characteristic values for imposed loads are
defined as 95%-fractiles referred to the design working life of
50 years:
[BoD-doc 96]

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
N,k
N,50 N,50
N,50 N,50
1 0 7797 05772 095
1 07797 05772 29702
Q
, V , ln ln ,
, V , ,
+

(C-114)

Finally, the characteristic value for imposed loads Q
N
results
from the previous relation:
Q
N,k
=
N,50

(1 + 1,87

V
N,50
) (C-115)
[BoD-doc 96]
Considering the model factor
Ed
= 1,10 as before,
the following partial factors result from equations (C-107),
(C-112), (C-113) and (C-115), respectively:


Wind actions or snow loads:

W(S),d W(S),50
W(S)
W(S),k W(S),50
1 387
110
1 0 45
Q , V
,
Q , V
+

(C-116)

Imposed loads :

N,d N,50
N
N,k N,50
1 3 87
110
1 187
Q , V
,
Q , V
+

+
(C-117)

The partial factors written in Table 10 are derived from these
equations.
Determination of partial factors for
variable actions,
see Examples C-10 to C-12
Reliability verification formats in Eurocodes
[EN 1990 02], C8 Reliability
verification formats in Eurocodes
In EN 1990 to EN 1999, the design values of the basic variables, X
d

and F
d
, are usually not introduced directly into the partial factor
design equations. They are introduced in terms of their
representative values X
rep
and F
rep
, which may be:
characteristic values, i.e. values with a prescribed or intended
probability of being exceeded, e.g. for actions, material
properties and geometrical properties (see 1.5.3.14, 1.5.4.1 and
1.5.5.1, respectively) ;
nominal values, which are treated as characteristic values for
material properties (see 1.5.4.3) and as design values for
geometrical properties (see 1.5.5.2).
Clause (1)
with according comments
The representative values X
rep
and F
rep
, should be divided and/or
multiplied, respectively, by the appropriate partial factors to obtain
the design values X
d
and F
d
.
Clause (2)
See also Expression (C.10). Clause (2) NOTE
Design values of actions F, material properties X and geometrical
properties a are given in expressions (6.1), (6.3) and (6.4),
respectively.
Clause (3)
Where an upper value for design resistance is used (see 6.3.3), the
expression (6.3) takes the form:
For using an upper value of
design resistance, also see
comments to [EN 1990 02], 4.2
X
d
=

fM

X
k,sup
(C-118)
where
fM
is an appropriate factor greater than 1.
[EN 1990 02], equation (C.10)
Expression (C.10) may be used for capacity design. Clause (3) - NOTE
Design values for model uncertainties may be incorporated into the
design expressions through the partial factors
Ed
and
Rd
applied on
the total model, such that:
Clause (4)
See comments to [EN 1990 02],
6.3.2 and 6.3.5

{ } d Ed gj kj P q1 k1 qi 0i ki d
; ; ; E E G ; P Q Q a ... (C-119)
[EN 1990 02], equation (C.11)
{ }
d k m d Rd
/ ; / R R X a ... (C-120)
[EN 1990 02], equation (C.12)
The coefficient which takes account of reductions in the design
values of variable actions, is applied as
0
,
1
or
2
to
simultaneously occurring, accompanying variable actions.
Clause (5)
See [EN 1990 02], A1.2.2 with
according comments
The following simplifications may be made to expression (C.11) and
(C.12), when required:
Clause (6)
6.3.2 and 6.3.5

a) On the loading side (for a single action or where linearity of
action effects exists):

E
d
= E {
F,i

F
rep,i
, a
d
} (C-121) [EN 1990 029, equation (C.13)
b) On the resistance side the general format is given in
expressions (6.6), and further simplifi cations may be given in
the relevant material Eurocode. The simplifications should only
be made if the level of reliability is not reduced.

Nonlinear resistance and actions models, and multi-variable action
or resistance models, are commonly encountered in Eurocodes. In
such instances, the above relations become more complex.
Clause (6) - NOTE
Partial factors in EN 1990
[EN 1990 02], C9
Partial factors in EN 1990
The different partial factors available in EN 1990 are defined in 1.6. Clause (1)
6.3.1 and 6.3.3 referring to Fig. 6
(corresponding to Fig. C3)
The relation between individual partial factors in Eurocodes is
schematically shown Figure C3.
Clause (2)
See Fig. 6
Detailed derivations of partial
factors for actions see comments
to C7 (7).
Depending on the same variation coefficient, the design values and
the partial factors for climatic actions, e.g. for snow loads Q
S
as well
as for wind loads Q
W
, are larger than those according to imposed
loads Q
N
, see Fig. 19:
Compare equations (C-116) and
(C-117)

0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40
Wind and Snow Loads
Imposed Loads

Fig. 19: Partial factors for variable actions
This effect follows from the different levels of the characteristic
values, referred to a 50 year period, i.e. modal values Q
S,k
and Q
W,k

but 95% fractile values Q
N,k
.
Compare equations (C-112),
(C-113) and (C-115)
On the other hand, the design values Q
d
correspond to the same
reliability level
E

= 0,7

3,8 = 2,66.
The partial factors for variable actions
Q
specified in Table 10 follow
from equations (C-116) and (C-117).
[BoD-doc 96]
Q
V
Q
(V
N
; V
S
; V
W
)
S
;
W
N

Table 10: Partial factors depending on the variation coefficients [BoD-doc 96]

Variable action V
Q
(T = 50 years)
Q
Wind actions V
W
= 0,16
Q,W
= 1,92
Snow loads

V
S
= 0,25
Q,S
= 2,44
Imposed loads V
N
= 0,30
Q,N
= 1,52

Comments to Table 10:
The variation coefficients given for wind (V
W
) and snow (V
S
) are
average values on the basis of meteorological data evaluated for
several locations in Germany by means of Gumbel distributions. The
partial factors
Q,W
and
Q,S
result from equation (C-116).
[Scheuermann 02]
The partial factors for climatic actions are significantly lower than the
unique value
Q
= 1,50, recommended in this Eurocode for
application to buildings, on the basis of empirical calibration.
[EN 1990 02], Tables A1.2(A)
and A1.2(B)
[BoD-doc 96]
In view of the recent failure events in correlation to heavy snow falls
in Germany and Poland, the partial factors for climatic actions
should be reviewed on the basis of probabilistic analysis.
!!!
In case of a realistic variation coefficient V
N
= 0,30, the partial factor
for imposed loads
Q,N
, resulting from equation (C-117), corresponds
very well to the recommended value
Q
= 1,50.
[BoD-doc 96]
0
factors
[EN 1990 02], C10
0
factors
Table 11 gives expressions for obtaining the
0
factors (see Section
6) in the case of two variable actions.
Clause (1)
Table 11: Expressions for
o
in case of two variable actions [EN 1990 02], Table C4

Distribution
o
= F
accompanying
/ F
leading

General
{ }
1
1
1
1
0 4
0 7
N
s
N
s
F ( , ')
F ( , )

{ }
with { }
1
1
0 7 / ' ( , ) N

Approximation for very large N
1

[ ] { }
{ }
1
1
1
0 4
0 7
s
s
F exp N ( , ')
F ( , )

with { }
1
1
0 7 / ' ( , ) N

Normal (approximation)
( )
1
1 0 28 0 7
1 0 7
, , lnN V
, V
+
+

Gumbel (approximation)
( ) ( )
( )
1
1 078 0 58 028
1 0 7 8 0 58 0 7
, V , ln ln , l nN
, V , ln ln ( , )

1
+ +
]
1 +
]

F
s
(.) is the probability distribution function of the extreme value of the accompanying action
in the reference period T;
(.) is the standard Normal distribution function ;
T is the reference period ;
T
1
is the greater of the basic periods for actions to be combined ;
N
1
is the ratio T

/

T
1
, approximated to the nearest integer ;
1 is the reliability index ;
V is the coefficient of variation of the accompanying action for the reference period.

The combination of two single variable actions Q
1
(t) and Q
2
(t) shall
be considered, assuming that their variations in time may be
modelled by rectangular processes. Therefore,

The expressions in Table 11 have been derived by using the following
assumptions and conditions:
the two actions to be combined are independent of each other;
the basic period (T
1
or T
2
) for each action is constant;
T
1
is the greater basic period;
the action values within respective basic periods are constant;
the intensities of an action within basic periods are
uncorrelated;
the two actions belong to ergodic processes.
Clause (2)
These assumptions are required for describing the processes
mentioned before by means of the Borges-Castanheta-Model.
[BoD-doc 96]
Additionally the following assumptions should be valid with respect
to both of the time dependent processes:
the corresponding basic time intervals T
1
and T
2
should be
equally long;
T
1
> T
2
;
The ratios N
1
= T

/

T
1
and N
2
= T

/

T
2
are whole-numbered with
respect to the reference period T.
[Grnberg 04]
Especially, it has to be considered that Q
1
may represent a
permanent action G, corresponding to T
1
= T and N
1
= 1.

Fig. 20: Borges-Castanheta-Model
The time dependent rectangular processes Q
1
(t) and Q
2
(t) are
presented in Fig. 20, exemplarily for N
1
= 4 and N
2
= 24 and
consequently for N
2
/

N
1
= 6.

Three significant values are defined for each of both actions Q
i
:
1. The basic values Q
i
* result from the distribution functions F
Qi*
,
corresponding to the basic time interval T
i
.

Q
1
, Q
2

t
T
T
2
T
1


2. The combination values Q
ic
are the (maximum) values occurring
during the basic time interval T
1
, resulting from the following
distribution functions
( ) ( )
2 1
2 2
2 2
c
N N
Q Q *
F Q F Q 1
]
(C-122)
( ) ( )
1 1
1 1
c
Q Q *
F Q F Q (C-123)
The combination value Q
1c
is equal to the basic variable Q
1
*.
3. The maximum values Q
i,max
result from the distribution functions
corresponding to the reference period T:
( ) ( ) ( )
1 i
i,max i ic
N N
Q i Q * i Q i
F Q F Q F Q 1 1
] ]
(C-124)
These three different values can be illustrated considering as
example for the stochastic time dependent process with the
according distribution densities (Fig. 21).

Fig. 21: Distribution densities of a single variable action Q
2
,
in accordance to the significant time intervals

Fig. 22: Determination of the maximum value E
max

Q
2

t
T
T
2

T
1

Q
2,max

Q
2c

Q
2
*
Q
1
, Q
2

t
T
T
2
T
1

E
max
E (Q
1c
; Q
2c
)
Q
1,max
Q
2,max

The maximum effect E
max
resulting from Q
1
and Q
2
during the
reference period T can be written, as follows:
{ }
1 2 max c c
E maxE Q ; Q

(C-125)
[Grnberg 04]
The maximum value E
max
should be selected out of the maximum
basic time intervals T
1
within the reference period (Fig. 22).

The design value of action effects is allowed to be exceeded within
the reference period T with the following (failure) probability:
( ) ( )
f max max,d E
P E E > +

(C-126)

where
E
= 0,7. Fixed sensibility factor acc. To C7
In view of the assumptions with respect to the actions Q
1
and Q
2
, the
design value of action effects is allowed to be exceeded within the
basic time interval T
1
with the following probability:

( ) ( )
1
f , T c c,d
P E E ' >

(C-127)

The reliability index

is associated to the basic time interval T
1
.
Its relation to the action reliability index
E

can be found
applying the multiplication rule of probability theory corresponding to
equation (C-54):
( ) ( ) ( )
1
E
0 7
N
, ' 1
]
(C-128)
See comments to C6 (1)
The following transformation
(+
E

) = 1 (
E

) =
1 (1 (

) )
N1
N
1

(

)
explicitly leads to
( ) ( )
1
1 1 c E
' N
+ (C-129)
Compare Table 11
The distribution functions Q
ic
(Q
i
) are valid for each basic time
interval T
1
. Therefore, the design values

ic,d Q,i k, i
Q Q
and
0
ic,d, Q,i 0,i k,i
Q Q

can be derived from equations (C-78) and (C-81) substituting the
reliability indices by each other, i.e.
E

= 0,7

by

:
( )
i c
-1
ic,d Q,i k,i Q
Q Q F ' 1
]
(C-130)
( )
0 ic
-1
ic,d, 0,i
0 4
Q,i k,i Q
Q Q F , '
1
]
(C-131)
See comments to C7 (3) ; (5)
The combination factor
0,I
according to extreme values of actions
results as the ratio of the equations (c-130) and (C-131):

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
i c
ic
1
0, i
1
0 4
Q
Q
F , '
F '

(C-132)


Alternatively,
0,I
can be expressed using the distribution functions
for Q
i,max
(equation (C-124)) in connection with equation (C-128):
Compare Table 11

( ) ( )
{ }
( ) ( )
{ }
( ) ( )
{ }
( ) ( )
1
i,max
1
i,max
1
i,max
i,max
1
0, i
1
1
1
0 4
0 4
0 7
N
Q
N
Q
N
Q
Q
F , '
F '
F , '
F ,

(C-133)
Please note that there is a
mistake in the second row of
Table 11 !
Conclusion:
The combination values of actions are evaluated with reference
to the largest basic time interval T
1
of both according to the two
actions to be combined.
The combination factor
0,I
decreases depending on T
1

decreasing. This can be seen from equation (C-133) because
the exponent N
1
= T

/

T
1
> 1 is applied to (0,4

) < 1.

Note: In certain cases, especially according to climatic or
accidental actions, N
1
can account for a very large value.
Then the numerator in equation (C-133) should be
transformed:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1
1 1
0 4 1 0 4
1 0 4 0 4
N N
, ' , '
N , ' exp N , '

(C-134)
Compare Table 11, third row
Examples for the basic time interval T
1
are given in Table 12.

Table 12: Basic time intervals T
1
for single actions
Single action T
1

Permanent action 50 years
Imposed load, enduring 5 years
Snow
load
Continental climate
Maritime climate
3 months (0,25 years)
2 weeks (0,04 years)
Wind load 1 to 3 days ( 0,003 to 0,008 years)
Accidental action 1 hour
Compare
[BoD-doc 96];
[Spaethe 92];
[Schobbe 82])

The distribution functions in Table 11 refer to the maxima within the
reference period T. These distribution functions are total functions
which consider the probability that an action value is zero during
certain periods.
[EN 1990 02], C10
Clause (3); Table C4
The Borges-Castanheta-Model is perfectly applicable to cover those
actions, e.g. accidental actions.

Generally, the reference period is chosen equally to the design
working life amounting for T = 50 years (see Table 1) in case of
building structures and other common structures.
See [EN 1990 02], 2.3: Table 2.1
Therefore, the load alternation number results to
N
1
= T / T
1
= 50 / T
1
(C-135).


Applying the basic time intervals given in Table 12 to equation
(C-135) the following combination factors
0
result according to the
ultimate limit state (reliability index: = 3,8):
[Grnberg 04]
a) Basic time interval T
1
= 50 years (equal to T)
Equation (C-129) yields:

= 0,7

Equation (C-135) yields: N
1
= 1
Inserting the values into equation (C-133), it follows:

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
max max
max max
1 1
Q Q
050
1 1
Q Q
0 28 1064
0 7 2 66
,
F , F ,
F , F ,

(C-136)

Assuming a Gumbel-distributed variable action Q (5
th
row of
Table 11), the expression (C-136) can be transformed into
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1
Q50
Q
050 1
Q
Q50
1 0 78 0 577 08563
0 8563
0 9961
1 0 78 0577 09961
max
max
,
,
,
, V , ln ln ,
F ,
F ,
, V , ln ln ,
+

+

[EN 1990 02], Table C4
The evaluation yields:
Q,50
050
Q50
1 100
1 3,87
,
,
, V
V
+
(C-137)

Assuming standard normally distributed permanent actions G,
the expression (C-136) can be transformed analogously:

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1
G
0 5 0 j,
1
G
G G
G G
0 4 0 7
0 7
1 0 28 1 1064
1 0 7 1 266
, sup
F , ,
F ,
, V , V
, V , V

+ +
+ +

(C-138)
b) Basic time interval T
1
= 5 years
1
= 10

( ) ( ) ( )
1 1
1
0 7 0 0003907 3 36 ' , / N , ,


( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
N N
1 1
Q Q
0 5
1 1
Q Q
0 4 1344
0 7 2 66
max max
max max
,
F , ' F ,
F , F ,

(C-139)

th
row of
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1 10
Q50 Q
0 5 1
Q
Q50
1 078 0577 03916 09105
09961
1 078 0577 09961
max
max
,
,
,
, V , ln ln , F ,
F ,
, V , ln ln ,
+

+

[EN 1990 02], Table C4
Q,50
0 5
Q50
1 0 40
1 3,87
,
,
, V
V
+
(C-140)


c) Basic time interval T
1
= 0,25 years (i.e. 3 months)
1
= 50

/

0,25 = 200

( ) ( ) ( )
1 1
1
0 7 0 00001954 412 ' , / N , ,


( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
N N
1 1
Q Q
0 0 2 5
1 1
Q Q
0 4 1648
0 7 2 66
max max
max max
; ,
F , ' F ,
F , F ,

(C-141)

th
row of

( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1 200
Q
0 0 2 5 1
Q
Q50
Q50
09503
0 9961
1 078 0577 000003734
1 078 0577 09961
max
max
; ,
,
,
F ,
F ,
, V , ln ln ,
, V , ln ln ,

+
+

[EN 1990 02], Table C4
Q,50
0 0 2 5
Q50
1 226
1 3,87
; ,
,
, V
V
+
(C-142)

The different curves for combination factors
0,i
(Fig. 23) are
obtained evaluating equation (C-133) with respect to different
variation coefficients V
Q
, assuming Gumbel distributed variable
actions Q.
Fractile values due to Gumbel
distribution see [EN 1990 02],
Table C4

Fig. 23: Combination factors
0,i
for variable actions Q
i
Combination factors
0,i
decrease if variation coefficients V
Q

increase. If
0,i
falls down below zero, the corresponding action Q
i
is
not considered any longer for combination of actions.

0,i
V
Q
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60
50 years
5 years
3 months
1 month
12 days
3 days

The matrix of combination factors
0,i
(Table 13) is obtained
evaluating the equations (C-138), (C-137), (C-140) and (C-142) for
j,sup
,
0,50
,
0,5
and
0;0,25
, respectively, as well as the corresponding
equations for
0;0,125
and
0;0,008
.
[Grnberg 04]
Calculation of factors, see
examples C.11 to C.14.

Table 13: Assembly of combination factors
0,i

Variation coefficient 0,10 0,40 0,15 0,30 0,20 -
Prevailing action N
1

j,sup
0,N
0,S1
0,S2
0,W
0,A
Permanent action G 1 2,66 - 0,55 0,73 0,60 0,68 0
Imposed action, enduring Q
N
10 3,36 0,87 - 0,59 0,41 0,52 0
Snow load, continental climate Q
S1
200 4,12 0,87 0,33 - 0,15 0,31 0
Snow load, maritime climate Q
S2
1000 4,27 0,87 0,33 0,44 - 0,19 0
Wind load Q
W
6000 4,77 0,87 0,33 0,44 0,01 - 0
Fundamental combination (Table 4) (0,85) 0,70 0,70 0,50 0,60 0
Accidental action A 360000 5,60 0,87 0,33 0,44 0,01 0,06 -
Accidental combination 0,74 0,33 0,33 0,13 0,33 0
Comments:
1. The boxes right and above of the main diagonal are associated to the basic time interval according
to the prevailing action given in the respective row.
2. The boxes left and below of the main diagonal are associated to the basic time interval according
to the prevailing action given in the respective column.
3. The combination factors
0,i
given in Table 4 are shown for comparison. These factors have been
established independently of the different basic time intervals and, therefore, with respect to an
upper bound for combination of variable actions.
4. The combination factors due to accidental combinations correspond to equations (6.11) given in
[EN 1990 02], 6.4.3.3 (2), in connection with [EN 1990 02], Tables A.1.1 (Table 4) and A.1.2(B)
(see comments to A1.2.2 and A1.3), i.e.:

j,A
= 1 /
G
= 1 / 1,35;
0,A
=
1
/
Q
=
1
/ 1,50.

Note 1: The combination factors
0,i
of Table 13 were calculated
considering the variation coefficients V
Q
and basic time
intervals T
1
given in Table 10 and Table 12, respectively.
See also [BoD-doc 96]
Note 2: Applying the combination factors
o,i
of Table 13 instead of
Table 4, the design values of resulting action effects E
d

would be economically advantageous.
On the other hand, the
0,i
factors of Table 13 correspond
to the partial factors of Table 10 which are larger than the
recommended values of [EN 1990 02], A1.3 !
Furthermore, more complex combination rules would
result, than those established in [EN 1990 02], 6.4, if the
0,i
factors of Table 13 might be used.
[EN 1990 02], Tables A.1.1


Examples due to the Basis of Reliability Analysis
Example C-1: Calculation of the failure probability
by numerical integration
A concentrated load F= X
2
is acting on a steel cantilever beam
characterized by its yielding strength f
y
= X
1
.
The bending capacity of this cantilever beam shall be investigated
assuming the concentrated load F = X
2
Gumbel-distributed but the
yielding strength f
y
= X
1
lognormally distributed and limited by a
minimum value x
0
.
The deviations of the other quantities are negligible, especially of the
area resistance moment W and the cantilever length L.
Parameter of the basic variable distributions
(caution: equal dimensions have to be used, here: kN, m !!):
Basic variable
Xi
= E [X
i
]
Xi
= (Var [X
i
])
1/2
x
0i
Type of distribution
1. Yielding Strength X
1
265.000 kPa 25.000 kPa 160.000 kPa Lognormal
2: Concentrated load X
2
18 kN 2 kN - Gumbel (EX )

Type of beam (profile): 200
Cross section parameters: W
el
= 214

10
-6
m
3
; W
pl
= 250

10
-6
m
3
Structural model:

a) The probability for yielding at the constraint support shall be
determined.

This problem can be solved by numerical integration.
Yielding occurs if E > R, i.e. X
2

L > W

X
1
. Therefore, the limit
state equation with respect to yielding is the following:
g (x) = r e = W

x
1
L

x
2
= 0

Parameter of the lognormal distribution:
1
1 1
2
2
X
u
X 0
25
ln 1 ln 1
x 265 160
_
_ _
_

+ +

,
, ,
,
= 0,2348
( )
( )
1 1
2
u X 0 u
2
ln x 0,5
ln 265.000 160.000 0,5 0,2348 11,534

[Spaethe 92]
Parameter of the Gumbel distribution:
a = 1,28255

/

X2
= 0,6413
u =
X2
0,57722

/

a = 17,100
[Spaethe 92]
L = 2,00 m
f
y
= X
1

200
F = X
2


The failure probability, corresponding to equation (C-7), is
obtained by integrating the distribution density over the failure
area 0 x
1
L

x
2
/ W:

( ) ( )
( ) { }
( ) ( )
1 2
1 2
1 2
f X 1 X 2 1 2
x g x 0
x L x / W
X 1 X 2 1 2
P f x f x dx dx
f x f x dx dx
<
+

Integration over dx
1
yields: ( )
1 2
f X 2 X 2 2
L
P F x f x dx
W
+
_

,

Distribution function of the Lognormal distribution F
X1
:

1 1
X 2 2 0 u
u
L 1 L
F x ln x x
W W

_
_ _ _

, ,
, ,

Distribution density of the Gumbel distribution f
X2
:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
X 2 2 2
f x a exp a x u exp a x u

Now the numerical integration can be performed applying the
Simpson-rule to the function values of F
X1
and f
X2
within the
numerically relevant range 20 kN x
2
36 kN:

x
2
F
X1
f
X2
Factor F
X1
*f
X2
*Factor Dimension Value
20 6,777E-09 8,546E-02 1 5,791E-10 L 2,00
22 2,980E-04 2,652E-02 4 3,162E-05 W
el
0,000214
24 2,438E-02 7,588E-03 2 3,700E-04 min f
yk
160000
26 1,884E-01 2,123E-03 4 1,600E-03 m
u
11,534
28 4,925E-01 5,900E-04 2 5,812E-04 s
u
0,2348
30 7,580E-01 1,637E-04 4 4,965E-04
32 9,057E-01 4,541E-05 2 8,226E-05 a 0,6413
34 9,680E-01 1,259E-05 4 4,876E-05 u 17,100
36 9,901E-01 3,493E-06 1 3,458E-06
Summary 3,213E-03
?x
2
/ 3: 2 / 3 = 2,142E-03

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

Concentrated load [kN]
0,0E+00
5,0E-05
1,0E-04
1,5E-04
2,0E-04
2,5E-04
3,0E-04
3,5E-04
4,0E-04
4,5E-04
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Wel = 0,000214
Wpl = 0,000250

The failure probability accounts for P
f
=2,142

10
-3

b) The probability for full plastification (occurrence of a plastic
hinge) at the constraint support shall be determined.

An analogous calculation, considering
W
pl
= 0,000.250 m
3
,
leads to an decreased failure probability: P
f
=1,398

10
-4

Increasing the cross area resistance by utilization of the plastic
capacity, i.e. from 214 cm
3
to 250 cm
3
, and that is only 17%,
the failure probability decreases to 1/

15 !

of a reinforced concrete joist
The Joist of a reinforced concrete slab is given, subjected by a
distributed load of F = X
2
.
The reinforcement is characterized by its yielding strength f
y
= X
1
.
The bending capacity of the joist shall be investigated assuming
Standard Normal Distributions for both random variables X
1
and X
2
,
with the parameters written in the following table (caution: equal
dimensions have to be used, here: kN, m !!):
X
i
Xi
= E [X
i
]
Xi
= (Var [X
i
])
1/2
1 580.000 kPa 50.000 kPa
2 40 kN/m 5 kN/m

The deviations of all other quantities are neglected, especially of the
cross area dimensions d
s
, d
p
, A
s
and of the span length L.
Structural model:

The bearing capacity of the joist shall be determined, characterized
by the reliability index and the design point x
d
with its components
(x
d1
; x
d2
), i.e. the design values of the basic variables X
1
and X
2
.

The joist is able to support loads if E < R, i.e.:

( )
2
Ed 2 1 s B p Rd
L
M x x A d d / 2 M
8
<
This can be verified performing the following procedure:

1. Establishing the limit state equation g(x) = 0 referred to the
standardized y-space, applying equation (C-9) to the limit state
of reinforcement yielding:

L = 6,00
F = X
2

A
s
= 14 cm
2

f
y
= X
1

0,30
d
B
= 0,46
d
p
= 0,16
0,04

( )
( )
0 1 1 2 2
2
Rd Ed 1 s B p 2
g x c c x c x
L
M M x A d d / 2 x 0
8
+ +

where c
0
= 0

( )
( )
1 s B p
3
c A d d / 2
0,0014 0,46 0, 16/ 2 0,000532m

2 2 2
2
c L / 8 6,00 / 8 4, 50m

2. Determination of the reliabilty index applying equ. (C-15):
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 2
1 2
1 X 2 X
2 2
1 X 2 X
2 2
c m c m
c c
0,532 580 4,50 40,0 128,56
34,84
0,532 50 4,50 5,0

+

+

+
3,69

3. Calculation of the failure probability by means of the
distribution function for the Standard Normal Distribution
applying equation (C-23):
See Table 7
( ) ( )
f
P 3,69 1,1 10
-4

4. Determination of the sensibility factors applying equ. (C-14):
( ) ( )

+
1
1 2
1 X
1
2 2
1 X 2 X
c
0,532 50
34,84
c c

= + 0,7635
( ) ( )
2
1 2
2 X
2
2 2
1 X 2 X
c
4,50 5,0
34,84
c c

+
= 0,6485

5. Determination of the design point in the standardized y-space

y
d1
= (+ 0,7635

3,69) = 2,82
y
d2
= ( 0,6458

3,69) = +2,38

6. Determination of the design point in the original x-space

x
d1
= 580 50

2,82 = 439 MPa
x
d2
= 40 + 5,0

2,38 = 51,9 kN/m

7. Design values of the basic variables referred to the ultimate
limit state:

Ed d
L ,
M x ,
2 2
2
6 0
519
8 8
= 233,5 kNm
( )
( )
Rd d1 s B p
M x A d d / 2
43,9 14,0 0,46 0, 16/ 2 ,

233 5 kNm
(= M
Ed
)


of a steel beam
The bending capacity of the cantilever beam introduced in Example
C-1 shall be investigated once more, but now assuming both
random variables X
1
and X
2
standard normally distributed, with the
parameters written in the following table (caution: equal dimensions
have to be used, here: kN, m !!):
Basic variable
Xi
= E [X
i
]
Xi
= (Var [X
i
])
1/2

1. Yielding strength X
1
265.000 kPa 25.000 kPa
2. Concentrated load X
2
18 kN 2 kN
The deviations of all other quantities are negligible again, especially
of the area resistance moment W and the cantilever length L.
Type of beam (profile): 200
Cross section parameters: W
el
= 214

10
-6
m
3
; W
pl
= 250

10
-6
m
3
Structural model:

Once more, the probability for yielding at the constraint support shall
be determined.

1. Establishing the limit state equation g(x) = 0 referred to the
standardized y-space, applying equation (C-9) to the limit state
of reinforcement yielding:

g (x) = c
0
+ c
1

x
1
+ c
2

x
2
= W
el

x
1
L

x
2
= 0
mit c
0
= 0,
c
1
= W,
c
2
= L.

2. Determination of the reliabilty index applying equ. (C-15):
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 2
1 2
el X X
el
2 2
el X X
2 2
W m L m
W L
0,214 265 2,00 18,0 20,71
6,68
0,214 25 2,00 2,0

+

+
3,10

3. Calculation of the failure probability by means of the
distribution function for the Standard Normal Distribution
See Table 7
( ) ( )
f , el el
P 3,10 9,7 10
-4

L = 2,00 m
f
y
= X
1

200
F = X
2


4. Determination of the sensibility factors applying equ. (C-14):
( ) ( )
1
1 2
el X
1,el
2 2
el X X
W
0,214 25
6,68
W L

+
= +0,801
( ) ( )
2
1 2
X
2,el
2 2
el X X
L
2,00 2,0
6,68
W L

+
= 0,599

5. Determination of the design point in the standardized y-space

y
d1,el
= (+ 0,801

3,10) = 2,48
y
d2,el
= ( 0,599

3,10) = +1,86

6. Determination of the design point in the original x-space

x
d1,el
= 265 25

2,48 = 203 MPa
x
d2,el
= 18 + 2,0

1,857 = 21,7 kN

7. Design values of the basic variables referred to the ultimate
limit state:

M
Ed,el
= L

x
d2,el
= 2,0

21,7 = 43,4 kNm
M
Rd,el
= W
el

x
d1,el
= 0,214

203 = 43,4 kNm
(= M
Ed,el
)

Additionally, the probability for full plastification (occurrence of a
plastic hinge) at the constraint support shall be determined.

1. g (x) = c
0
+ c
1

x
1
+ c
2

x
2
= W
pl

x
1
L

x
2
= 0
2.
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 2
1 2
pl X X
pl
2 2
pl X X
2 2
W m L m
W L
0,250 265 2,00 18,0 30,25
,
7,42
0,250 25 2,00 2,0

+

+
408

3. ( ) ( )
f , pl pl
P 4,08 = 0,23 10
-4

4.
( ) ( )
1
1 2
pl X
1,pl
2 2
pl X X
W
0,250 25
7,42
W L

+
= +0,842
( ) ( )
2
1 2
X
2,pl
2 2
pl X X
L
2,00 2,0
7,42
W L

+
= 0,539
5. y
d1,pl
= (+ 0,842

4,08) = 3,44
y
d2,pl
= ( 0,539 4,08) = +2,20
6. x
d1,pl
= 265 25

3,44 = 179 MPa

x
d2,pl
= 18 + 2,0

2,20 = 22,4 kN
7. M
Ed,pl
= L

x
d2,pl
= 2,0

22,4 = 44,8 kNm
M
Rd,pl
= W
el

x
d1,pl
= 0,250

179 = 44,8 kNm
(= M
Ed,pl
)


The central reliability zone is limited by the mean values of action
effect and structural resistance,
ME
and
MR
.

The distribution densities for M
E
and M
R,pl
overlap less then those of
M
E
and M
R,el
. The occurrence of the limit state M
Ed
= M
Rd,pl
is
significantly less frequently than that of the limit state M
Ed
= M
Rd,el
.

Therefore, the limit state of plastic failure is characterized by a
higher level of reliability than the limit state of elastic failure, at the
beginning of yielding
pl
= 4,08 > 3,10 =
el
.

Comment:
The differing results of the failure probabilities calculated in the
Examples C-1 and C-3 are to be attributed to the differing stochastic
models applied.

0,00
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Density
Bending moment M [kNm]
M
Ed,el
= M
Rd,el M
Ed,pl
= M
Rd,pl
Central reliability zone
Distribution of M
R,el
Distribution of M
E
Distribution of M
R,pl
Presentation of the bending moment distribution densities

Example C-4: Log Normal Distribution
applied to material strengths
Evaluating the yielding strengths of numerous structural steel
specimens, a mean value of f
ym
= 265 MPa, a lower limit value of
f
y,min
= 160 MPa and a standard deviation of
fy
= 25 MPa have been
found.
The fractile value not falling below with a probability of 5% is
searched for, based on the according lognormal distribution.
[Spaethe 92]
Parameter of the lognormal distribution:
2
2
f y
U
ym y,min
25
ln 1 ln 1
f f 265 160
_
_ _
_

+ +

,
, ,
,
= 0,2348

f
ym
=
fy
f
y,min
= x
0,fy
( )
( )
2
U ym y,min U
2
ln f f 0,5
ln 265 160 0,5 0,2348 4,6264

f
y;0,05
= f
y,min
+ exp (
U
+
U

-1
(0,05)) =
160 + exp (4,6264 + 0,2348 ( 1,645)) = 229 MPa

0
0,002
0,004
0,006
0,008
0,01
0,012
0,014
0,016
0,018
1
6
0
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
3
4
0
3
6
0
3
8
0
Lognormal distribution density
Density
f
y
[MPa]
f
ym
( )
( )
( )
X y
y y,min U
U U y y,min
f x f
ln f f m
1
f f

_

,
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
1
6
0
1
8
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
2
6
0
2
8
0
3
0
0
3
2
0
3
4
0
3
6
0
3
8
0
Lognormal distribution function
f
y
[MPa]
Probability
0,05
f
y;0,05
= 229 MPa
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
y y,min U
X y
U
1 1
y,min U U
ln f f m
F x f
F q f exp m q

_

,
+ +

f
ym
= 265 MPa


Example C-5: Gumbel Distribution applied to
variable actions
Meteorological observations of many years showed that the annual
maximum snow load on the ground in the middle and eastern parts
of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg can be described by
a Gumbel distribution where a mean value of
S,1
= 0,30 kPa and a
standard deviation of
S
= 0,29 kPa have been found.
a) The probability of not exceeding Q
S
= 0,75 kPa is searched for:
Distribution function: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) U
F x exp exp a x u
[Spaethe 92]
Distribution density:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) U

Fractile value:
( ) ( ) ( )
1
U
1
F q u ln ln q
a

Distribution parameters:

S
/ 6 1,28255
a
0,29
= 4,4226 kPa
1

S
0,577216 0,577216
u 0,30
a 4,4226
= 0,1695 kPa

Probability of not exceeding the value of 0,75 kPa:
F
U
(0,75) = exp (exp ( 4,4226

(0,75 0,1695))) = 0,926

b) The 95% and 98% fractiles of the snow load are searched for:
Q
S;0,95
= F
U
-1
(0,95) =u ln

(ln

(0,95))

/

a =
0,17 ln

( ln

(0,95))

/

4,42 = 0,84 kN/m
2

Q
S;0,98
= F
U
-1
(0,98) =u ln

(ln

(0,98))

/

a =
0,17 ln

( ln

(0,98))

/

4,42 = 1,05 kN/m
2

0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
-0,25 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50
F
U
(0,75) = 0,926
F
U
(1,05) = 0,98
F
U
(0,84) = 0,95
0,84 1,05
Q
S
]kPa]
Probability
Distribution
function for
snow loads

Example C-6: Gumbel Distributions referred to
different reference periods
The loading of the cantilever beam introduced in Example C-1 shall
be analysed with respect to different reference periods.
Initially, a Gumbel distribution referred to the observation period of
m = 1 year is given for a concentrated load F = Q, characterized by
the following parameters:
Reference period
Q,1
= E [X
i
]
Q
= (Var [X
i
])
1/2
m = 1 Jahr 18 kN 2 kN
Structural model: see Example C-1.
a) The 98% fractile of the extreme values within the observation
period of m = 1 year (annual extreme values) is searched for:

Distribution parameters:

Q
/ 6 1,28255
a
2,0
= 0,6413 kN
1

1 Q,1
0,577216 0,5772
u 18,0
a 0,6413
= 17,100 kN
Compare Example C-5
Fractile value:
Q
1;0.98
= u
1
ln ( ln (0,98))

/

a =
17,1 ln ( ln (0,98))

/

0,6413 = 23,2 kN

b) The distribution parameters for the extreme values with respect
to the reference period of n = 50 years are searched for:

k = n / m = 50 / 1 = 50
u
50
= u
1
+ ln k / a = 17,1 + ln 50 / 0,6413 = 23,2 kN Equation (C-58)

Q,50
=
Q,1
+ ln k / a = 18,0 + 6,1 = 24,1 kN Equation (C-59)
The 98% fractile referred to 1 year (Q
1;0,98
) is identical with the
modal value referred to 50 years (u
50
).

The probability of not exceeding u
50
accounts for
P
f,50
= (P
f,1
)
k
= 0,98
50
= 0,364

0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
ln(50) / a
F
Q,1
(Q)
f
Q,1
(Q)
F
Q,50
(Q)
f
Q,50
(Q)
P
f,1
P
f,50
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

n
o
t

e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

Concentrated load Q

Example C-7: Snow load referred to different
reference periods
The snow load introduced in Example C-5 shall be analysed with
respect to different reference periods.
Initially, the Gumbel distribution referred to the observation period of
m = 1 year is taken over from Example C-5 as follows:
Mean value:
S,1
= 0,30 kPa
Modal value: u
1
= 0,17 kPa
Standard deviation:
S
= 0,29 kPa
a = 4,42 kPa
1

The probability of not exceeding Q
S
= 0,75 kPa within the reference
period of n = 50 years is searched for:

Shifted modal value (equivalent to characteristic value):
50 1
u u l n 5 0 / a + = 0,17 + 3,912

/

4,42 = 1,05 kPa
Compare Example C-5:
u
50
= Q
S;0,98
Gumbel distribution referred to the reference period n = 50 years:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) S,50 50
F x exp exp a x u

Probability of not exceeding u
50
:
F
S,50
(1,05) = exp ( exp ( 4,42

(1,05 1,05))) = exp ( 1) = 0,368
Compare Example C-6:
0,98
50
= 0,364
Probability of not exceeding Q
S
= 0,75 kPa:
F
S,50
(0,75) = exp ( exp ( 4,42

(0,75 1,05))) = 0,023

Shifted mean value:
S,50 S,1
l n 5 0 / a + = 0,30 + 3,912

/

4,42 = 1,18 kPa
Variation coefficient: V
S,50
=
S
/

S,50
= 0,29

/

1,18 = 0,25

Design value: Q
S,d
= 1,10

1,18

(1 + 3,87

0,25) = 2,55 kPa See equation (C-107);
including model factor
Ed
= 1,10
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50
u
50
= Q
S;0,98
= 1,05 kPa
F
S,1
(1,05) =0,98
F
S,50
(1,05) = 0,368
F
S,50
(0,75) = 0,023
Distribution densities referred to 1 year and to 50 years
Snow load Q
S
[kPa]
Densities
Q
S,d
= 2,55 kPa

Example C-8: Determination of the design point
applying the Rackwitz-Fieler-Algorithm

General description of the iteration procedure
1. Choose the starting vector x
(k)
, setting k = 0
The vector of mean values is suitable being chosen, but the
vector of design values according to the codes is best!

2. Approache all random variables not standard normally
distributed by means of standard normal distributions such,
that the distribution densities as well as the distribution
probabilities coincide at the point x
(k)
.

The standard deviation of the approximate standard normal
distribution follows from equation (C-64) after transformation by
means equation (C-47):
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
i i
i i
( k ) ( k ) 1 ( k )
X i X i
( k ) ( k )
X i X i
1 1
y F x
f x f x

See comments to C7 (2)
The according mean value follows from equation (C-65)
likewise:
( ) ( )
i i i
( k ) ( k ) ( k ) 1 ( k )
X i X X i
x F x ; i 1,2, , m
K

3. Calculate the standardized vector y
(k)
according to x
(k)
:
i
i
( k ) ( k )
i X ( k )
i ( k )
X
x m
y ; i 1, 2, , m
K

4. Calculate the values of the limit state function and its derivates
at the point y
(k)
:
( ) ( )
( k ) ( k )
h y g x
( k ) ( k ) ( k )
( k ) i
i
y y x x x x
i i i i
x h g g
y x y x

5. Determine the coefficients of the tangential hyper-area I (y) = 0
touching the curved hyper-area h (y) = 0 in the point y
(k)
applying
the equations (C-52) and (C-53) expressed in components:
( k )
( k )
y y
( k ) i
i
2
m
y y
j 1 j
h
y
; i 1, 2, , m
h
y
L
( )
( k )
( k )
m
( k ) ( k )
j
y y
j 1 j ( k )
2
m
y y
j 1 j
h
h y y
y
h
y

6. A better approach to the design vector x
d
is the following
vector:
i i
( k 1 ) ( k ) ( k ) ( k ) ( k )
i X X i
x ; i 1,2, , m
+
+ L


If the differences from step to step become sufficiently small,
i.e.
(k 1) ( k )
i i
x x
+
for i = 1, 2, ..., m,
then the solution is found, and the reliability index results:
( ) fr h 0 0 >
Otherwise, the vector x
(k+1)
is the new starting, i.e. k has to be
substituted by k + 1, and the iteration has to be continued by
next cycle starting from step 2.

The sequence x
(0)
, x
(1)
, , x
(k)
, is konvergent in direction to the
design point x
d

in case of problems with distributions not differing to much from
a standard normal distribution, and
if the limit state conditions are sufficiently steady near to the
design point x
d
.

Application example
For comparison, the structure introduced in Example C-1 is
investigated once more.

1. The mean values
1
2
X
( 0 )
X
265.000 kPa
x
18 kN
,

are chosen for components of the starting vector:
X
1
yielding strength
X
2
concentrated beam load
( )
( )
( )
( )
1
1
( 0 )
1 0 u
( 0 )
X 1
u
ln x x
F x
ln 265.000 160.000 11,534
0,11804 0,5470
0,2348

_

,
_

,

Lognormal distribution
according to X
1

U
= 11,534
U
= 0,2348
( )
( )
( )
1
1
1
( 0 )
1 0 u
( 0)
X 1
( 0 )
u u 1 0
ln x x
1
f x
x x

,

( )
( )
5
0,11804
0,39617
1,607 10
0,2348 265.000 160.000 24.654

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
2
( 0 ) ( 0 )
X 2 2
F x exp exp a x u
exp exp 0,6413 18,0 17,1
exp exp 0,57717 0,5704

Gumbel distribution
according to X
2

u = 17,1
a = 0,6413
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
2
( 0) ( 0 ) ( 0 )
X 2 2 2
0,6413 exp 0,57717 exp 0,57717 0,2054

2.
( ) ( ) ( )
1
1
( 0 )
X
5 5 5
0,5470
0,118085
0,39617
24.653
1,607 10 1,607 10 1,607 10

approaching lognormal
distribution
( )
1
( 0 ) 1
X
265.000 24.653 0,5470
265.000 24.653 0,118085 265.000 2.911 262.088


( ) ( ) ( )
2
1
( 0)
X
0,5704
0,17739
0,3927
1,91188
0,2054 0,2054 0,2054

approaching Gumbel distribution
( )
2
( 0) 1
X
18,0 1,912 0,5704
18,0 1,912 0,17739 18,0 0,339 17,661

3. y
1
(0)
= (265.000 262.088) / 24.653 = 0,1181
y
2
(0
= (18,0 17,661) / 1,912 = 0,1773
Approaching the design point in
the standardized y-space
4. h (y
(0)
) = g (x
(0)
) = W
el

x
1
(0)
L

x
2
(0)
=
0,214

265 2,00

18,0 = 20,71 kNm
( 0 ) ( 0 ) 1 1
( 0 ) ( 0 )
X el X
y x
1 1
h g
W
y x
0,214 24,653 5,2757 kNm

+

( 0 ) ( 0 ) 2 2
( 0 ) ( 0)
X X
y x
2 2
h g
L
y x
2,00 1,91188 3,8238kNm

Limit state function:
Difference values to limit state
and derivates
5.
( 0 )
1
2 2
5,2757 5,2757
0,8097
6,5157
5,2757 3,8238
+ +
+
+

( 0 )
2
2 2
3,8238 3,8238
0,5869
6,5157
5,2757 3,8238

+

Sensibility factors
( )
( 0 )
2 2
20,71 0,1181 5,2757 0,1773 3,8238
5,2757 3,8238
20,765
3,187
6,5157

Distance of tangential hyper-area
to the origin of the y-space
6. x
1
(1)
= 262.088 24.653

0,8097

3,187 = 198.471 kPa
x
2
(1)
= 17,661 1,91188

( 0,5869)

3,187 = 21,237 kN
Approaching the design point in
the original x-space
Here the first iteration cycle is finished. The complete calculation
including all iteration cycles is presented in the table at the end.

Approximate value of the probability for yielding at the constraint
support of the cantilever beam:
P
f
= F ( 2,8417) = 2,242

10
-3

Design point (see table): x
d1,el
= 238,4 MPa
x
d2,el
= 25,51 kN

Design values in the ultimate limit state:
M
Ed,el
= L

x
d2,el
= 2,0

25,51 =
M
Rd,el
= W
el

x
d1,el
= 0,214

238,4 = 51,02 kNm


k 0 1 2 3 4 5
x
1
265.000 198.480 229.224 238.721 238.383 238.416
F
X1
0,5470 0,0000 0,0488 0,1338 0,1299 0,1302
f
X1
1,607E-05 7,801E-09 6,226E-06 1,167E-05 1,149E-05 1,150E-05
F
-1
(F
X1
) 0,1180 4,1537 1,6563 1,1087 1,1271 1,1253
s
X1
24.654 9.169 16.254 18.484 18.404 18.412
X1
262.090 236.563 256.145 259.215 259.126 259.135
y
1
0,1180 4,1537 1,6563 1,1087 1,1271 1,1253
x
2
18,00 21,237 24,527 25,543 25,507 25,511
F
X2
0,5704 0,9320 0,9915 0,9956 0,9955 0,9955
f
X2
0,2054 0,0421 0,0054 0,0028 0,0029 0,0029
F
-1
(F
X2
) 0,1773 1,4909 2,3865 2,6165 2,6086 2,6094
s
X2
1,9122 3,1195 4,2589 4,5778 4,5666 4,5678
X2
17,661 16,587 14,363 13,565 13,594 13,591
y
2
0,1773 1,4909 2,3865 2,6165 2,6086 2,6094
g(x) = h(y) 20,71 0 0 0 0 0
dh/dy
1
+ 5,2760 + 1,9621 + 3,4783 + 3,9555 + 3,9385 + 3,9402
dh/dy
2
3,8244 6,2390 8,5179 9,1556 9,1333 9,1356
a
1
+ 0,8097 + 0,3000 + 0,3780 + 0,3966 + 0,3960 +0,3960
a
2
0,5869 0,9539 0,9258 0,9180 0,9183 0,9182
d 3,1867 2,6683 2,8356 2,8417 2,8417 2,8417

The failure probability calculated by means of the Rackwitz-Fieler-
Algorithm according to First Order Reliabilty Method (FORM) is in
good coincidence with the value found by numerical integration
(P
f
=2,142

10
-3
, see Example C-1).

For comparison, the results of Example C-3 are repeated:
P
f
= F ( 3,10) = 0,97

10
-3

M
Ed,el
= L

x
d2,el
= 2,0

21,7=
M
Rd,el
= W
el

x
d1,el
= 0,214

203 = 43,4 kNm

This comparison shows that the choice of the stochastical model is
most important. So the influence of the Gumbel distribution, as
chosen in Example C-1, increases the sensibility factor
2
on the
action side, and the design values are higher than resulting from the
standard normal distributions chosen in Example C-3 .


Example C-9: Design values of a reinforced concrete joist
applying fixed sensitivity factors
The joist from Example C-2 is investigated once more, but assuming
random variables distributed not standard normally!
[Spaethe 92]
The design values are searched for, under the condition of fixed
sensitivity factors.

Stress resistance assuming a lognormal distribution: Compare Example C-4
( )
1
i i
1
X 2
u X X
X
50
ln 1 V V 0,086
m 580
+

Considering
1
2
u X u
ln 0,5 the fractile value is the following:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) [ ]
1 1 i i
1 1 1 2
X u u X X X
1
F q exp q exp q V 0,5 V
580 exp q 0,086 0,0037 MPa

+

Distributed action assuming a Gumbel distribution: Compare Example C-5
a = 1,28255 /
X2
= 1,28255 / 5,0 = 0,2565
u =
X2
0,57722 / a = 40 0,57722 / 0,2565 = 37,75
Fractile value:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
1
X2
1 1
F q u ln l nq 37,75 ln l nq k N/ m
a 0,2565

Structural model:

The following reliability index was determined in Example C-2:
= 3,69 (P
f
1,110
-4
)
Design value of the stress resistance: according to equation (C-79)
( ) ( )
1
1
d X R
r F

= + 0,8

3,69 = + 2,952
F
X1
-1
( (
R

) ) = 580 exp ((
R

0,086 0,0037) =
580

exp (( 2,952)

0,086 0,0037) = 580

0,773 = 448 MPa

Design value of the action: according to equation (C-78)
( ) ( )
2
1
d X E
e F

(
E

) = (+ 0,7

3,69) = (2,583) = 0,9951
F
X2
-1
(0,9951) = 37,75 (ln ( ln 0,9951))

/

0,2565 =
37,75 + 20,73 = 58,48 kN/m

L = 6,00
F = X
2

A
s
= 14 cm
2

f
y
= X
1

0,30
d
B
= 0,46
d
p
= 0,16
0,04

Checking the limit state equation for reinforcement yielding: Compare Example C-2
g (x) = c
1
x
1d
c
2
x
2d
= 0,532 448 4,50 58,48 =
238,3 263,2 = 24,9 kNm

The reliability resulting from this calculation is estimated to low
because of the application of fixed sensibilty factors:
2 2 2 2
R E
0,8 0,7 1,063 1,0 + + >

The resistance required for the given action effect on the basis of
the limit state equation would result to
g (x) = c
1

x
1d
c
2

x
2d
= c
1

448 4,50

58,48 = 0
c
1
= 4,50

58,48

/

448.000 = 0,000587 m
3

The parameter c
1
is related to the cross area resistance as follows: See Example C-2
( )
( )
1 s B p
3
s s
c A d d / 2
A 0,46 0, 16/ 2 A 0,38 0,000587m

So the reinforcement required for bending tension results to
A
s,requ
= 0,000587 / 0,38 = 0,00154 m
2
= 15,4 cm
2

In Example C-2, the reinforcement area was A
s
= 14 cm
2
.
The difference accounts for 10% round about.
Therefore, the design procedure applying fixed sensibility factors is
conservative with respect to this example (but not in every case!).
Furthermore of course, the differing stochastic models of Example
C-2 and this calculation influence the stochastic results.

Example C-10: Design value and partial factor
for a snow load
The characteristic value for a snow load has been established as
98% fractile referred to 1 year accounting for Q
S,k
=0,75 kPa.
Assuming a Gumbel distribution, the standard deviation is
S
=0,12 kPa.
a) The design value shall be determined for a reliability index
50
= 3,8 (referred to 50 years) assuming a fixed senitivity factor
E
= 0,7.

Mean value during working life (50 years):
S,50
= Q
S,k
+ 0,45

S
= 0,75 + 0,45

0,12 = 0,80 kPa
Derived from equation (C-113)
Variation coefficient:
V
S,50
=
S
/
S,50
= 0,12 / 0,80 = 0,15

Design value:
Q
S,d
=
S,50

(1 + 3,87

V
S,50
) =
0,80

(1 + 3,87

0,15) = 0,80 1,58 = 1,27 kPa
See equation (C-107)
b) Resulting partial factor
S
:
S
=
Ed
Q
d,S
/ Q
k,S
= 1,10 1,27 / 0,75 = 1,86 See equation (C-116)


The relations between the characteristic value Q
S,k
, referred to the
1 year distribution, and the design value Q
S,d
, referred to the 50 year
distribution, are presented in the following diagram:

a snow load
The characteristic value for an imposed load has been established
as 95% fractile referred to 50 years accounting for Q
N,k
=5,0 kPa.
N
=1,15 kPa.
50
= 3,8 (referred to 50 years) assuming
E
= 0,7.

Mean value during the design working life:
N,50
= Q
N,k
1,87

N
= 5,00 1,87

1,15 = 2,85 kPa
N,50
=
N
/
N,50
= 1,15 / 2,85 = 0,40
Design value:
Q
N,d
=
N,50

(1 + 3,87

V
N,50
) = 2,85

(1 + 3,87

0,40) = 7,26 kPa
N
:
N
=
Ed
Q
N,d
/ Q
N,k
= 1,10

7,26

/

5,00 = 1,60 See equation (C-117)
c) The snow load Q
S
analyzed in Example C-10 and the imposed
load Q
N
shall act simultaneously. The according combination
factors
0,S
and
0,N
are searched for, assuming the basic time
intervals T
S
= 3 months and T
N
= 5 years respectively.

The largest basic time interval is decisive: T
1
= T
N
= 5 years
Sicherheitselemente fr eine Schneelast
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50
Schneelast [kPa]
V
e
r
t
e
i
l
u
n
g
s
d
i
c
h
t
e
n

f
(
x
)

/

1
0
;

V
e
r
t
e
i
l
u
n
g
s
f
u
n
k
t
i
o
n
e
n

F
(
x
)
Q
S,k
= 0,75 Q
S,d
= 1,27
1
= 1
1
= 50
Snow load [kPa]
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

d
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s

f

(
x
S
)

/

1
0

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

F

(
x
S
)

Safety elements according to a snow load


The combination factor due to the snow load results to:
S,50
0,S;5
S,50
1 0,40 V 1 0,40 0,15 0,94
1 3,87 V 1 3,87 0,15 1,58

+ +
0,59
The combination factor due to the imposed load results to:
N,50
0, N; 5
N,50
1 0,40 V 1 0,40 0,40 0,84
,
1 3,87 V 1 3,87 0,40 2,55

+ +
0 33
The safety elements for the snow load shall be completed
considering the results of Example C-10.

Design value of accompanying snow load, assuming T
1
=5 years:
0,S; 5

Q
S,d
= 0,59

1,27 = 0,75 kPa

Alternative calculation:
0,S; 5

Q
S,d
=
S,50

(1 0,40

V
S,50
) =
0,80

(1 0,40

0,15) = 0,75 kPa
Shifted mean value according to T
1
= 5 years:
( ) Xn Xm X
l nk 6 / + ; k = n

/

m
( )
( ) S,5 S,50 S
ln 5 / 50 6 / + =
0,80 + 0,12

( 2,30)

0,78 = 0,58 kPa
See equation (C-59)
Design value of accompanying snow load, T
1
=50 years:
0,S; 50

Q
S,d
=
S,50

(1 + 1,00

V
S,50
) =
0,80

(1 + 1.00

0,15) = 0,92 kPa

Safety elements according to a snow load - completed
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

d
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s

f

(
x
S
)

/

1
0

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

F

(
x
S
)

Snow load [kPa]

Sicherheitselemente fr eine Schneelast
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50
Schneelast [kPa]
V
e
r
t
e
i
l
u
n
g
s
d
i
c
h
t
e
n

f
(
x
)

/

1
0
;

V
e
r
t
e
i
l
u
n
g
s
f
u
n
k
t
i
o
n
e
n

F
(
x
)
0,S; 5

Q
S,d
= 0,75
Mean values
S,50
= 0,80
S,5
= 0,58
1
= 1
1
= 50
1
= 5
0,S; 50

Q
S,d
= 0,92 Q
S,d
= 1,27
Snow load [kPa]
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

d
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s

f

(
x
S
)

/

1
0

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

F

(
x
S
)

Safety elements according to a snow load


a snow load
The characteristic value for a wind load has been established as
98% fractile referred to 1 year accounting for Q
W,k
=1,00 kPa.
W
=0,22 kPa.
50
= 3,8 (referred to 50 years) assuming
E
= 0,7.

Mean value during the design working life:
W,50
= Q
W,k
+ 0,45

W
= 1,00 + 0,45

0,22 = 1,10 kPa
W,50
=
W
/
W,50
= 0,22 / 1,10 = 0,20
Design value: Q
W,d
=
W,50

(1 + 3,87

V
W,50
) =
1,10

(1 + 3,87

0,20) = 1,95 kPa
W
:
W
=
Ed

Q
W,d
/

Q
W,k
= 1,10

1,95

/

1,00 = 2,15 See equation (C-116)
c) The snow load Q
S
analyzed in Example C-10 and the wind load
Q
W
shall act simultaneously. The according combination
factors
0,S
and
0,W
are searched for, assuming the basic
time intervals T
S
= 3 months and T
W
= 3 days respectively.

1
= T
S
= 3 months
The combination factor due to the snow load results to:
S,50
0,S;0,25
S,50
1 2,26 V 1 2,26 0,15 0,66
1 3,87 V 1 3,87 0,15 1,58

+ +
0,42
The combination factor due to the wind load results to:

+ +
W, 50
0,W;0,25
W,50
1 2,26 V 1 2,26 0,20 0,55
1 3,87 V 1 3,87 0,20 1,77
0,31

an imposed load
The imposed load Q
N
analyzed in Example C-11 and the wind load
Q
W
analyzed in Example C-12 shall act simultaneously. The
according combination factors
0,N
and
0,W
are searched for,
assuming the basic time intervals T
N
= 5 years and T
W
= 3 days
respectively.

1
= T
N
= 5 years

+ +
N,50
0, N; 5
N,50
1 0,40 V 1 0,40 0,40 0,84
1 3,87 V 1 3,87 0,40 2,55
0,33
The combination factor due to the wind load results to:

+ +
W,50
0, W; 5
W, 50
1 0,40 V 1 0,40 0,20 0,92
1 3,87 V 1 3,87 0,20 1,77
0,52


a permanent load
The imposed load Q
N
analyzed in Example C-11 and a permanent
load G shall act simultaneously. The according combination
factors
0,N
and
0,G
are searched for, assuming the basic time
interval T
N
= 5 years with respect to the imposed load while the
permanent load is time independent with a variation coefficient
V
G
= 0,10.

In case of combining a permanent action, the largest basic
time interval is the design working life: T
1
= T = 50 years

N,50
0,N;50
N,50
1 1,00 V 1 1,00 0,40 1,40
1 3,87 V 1 3,87 0,40 2,55
+ +

+ +
0,55
The combination factor due to the permanent load results to:
G
0,G G,sup
G
1 1,064 V 1,11
1 2,66 V 1,27

+

+
0,87

BS 1990 Basis For Structural Designsdvgfdsvxcvxreuyoi8uy3465u86798okj, Lkjbmngcggdfgqewgfrthhfgh

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BS 1990 Basis For Structural Designsdvgfdsvxcvxreuyoi8uy3465u86798okj, Lkjbmngcggdfgqewgfrthhfgh

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Twinning Latvia EN 1990: Basis of Structural Design 1

Twinning Latvia EN 1990: Basis of Structural Design 16

,Ed G,j ,Gk,j p ,Pk

3,44 = 179 MPa

Potrebbero piacerti anche