Eurocode Load

Com binations
for Ste el S truct ure s

B C S A P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 5 3/ 10
Euro code Loa d
Comb inations
for S te el S tructure s

B C S A P u b l i c a t i on N o . 5 3 / 1 0
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
T h e B r it is h Co n s t r u ct i o n a l
Ste e l wo rk Asso c i ati o n L i mi te d
Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private
study or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright
Design and Patents Act 1988, this publication may not be
reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form by any means
without the prior permission of the publishers or in the case of
reprographic reproduction only in accordance with the terms of the
licences issued by the UK Copyright Licensing Agency, or in
accordance with the terms of licences issued by the appropriate
Reproduction Rights Organisation outside the UK.
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here
should be sent to the publishers, The British Constructional
Steelwork Association Ltd. at the address given below.
Although care has been taken to ensure, to the best of our
knowledge, that all data and information contained herein are
accurate to the extent that they relate to either matters of fact or
accepted practice or matters of opinion at the time of publication,
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited, the
authors and the reviewers assume no responsibility for any errors
in or misinterpretations of such data and/or information of any loss
or damages arising or related to their use.
Publications supplied to members of the BCSA at a discount are
not for resale by them.
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd.
4, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London SW1A 2ES
Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
Email: postroom@steelconstruction.org
Website: www.steelconstruction.org
Publication Number 53/10
First Edition December 2010
ISBN-10 1-85073-063-6
ISBN-13 978-1-85073-063-7
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
© The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd
2
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited (BCSA)
is the national organisation for the steel construction industry: its
Member companies undertake the design, fabrication and erection
of steelwork for all forms of construction in building and civil
engineering. Associate Members are those principal companies
involved in the direct supply to all or some Members of
components, materials or products. Corporate Members are
clients, professional offices, educational establishments etc.,
which support the development of national specifications, quality,
fabrication and erection techniques, overall industry efficiency and
good practice.
The principal objectives of the Association are to promote the use
of structural steelwork; to assist specifiers and clients; to ensure
that the capabilities and activities of the industry are widely
understood and to provide members with professional services in
technical, commercial, contractual, quality assurance and health
and safety matters. The Association’s aim is to influence the
trading environment in which member companies have to operate
in order to improve their profitability.
A current list of members and a list of current publications and
further membership details can be obtained from:
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited
4, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London SW1A 2ES
Tel: +44(0)20 7839 8566, Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
Email: postroom@steelconstruction.org
Website: www.steelconstruction.org
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

F or e wo r d
One of the most challenging aspects of the Eurocodes is gaining a
thorough understanding of the loading and load combination for
practical buildings. This challenge is not technical but primarily one
related to the way the information is presented and the terminology
used in the Eurocodes. The presentation and terminology used in
the Eurocodes are very different to that found in British Standards
such as BS 5950. The Eurocodes have a preference for
mathematical formulae over tables and graphs and some of the
explanations are brief.
The principal aim of this publication is to provide the reader with
straightforward guidance on the loading and load combinations for
both the serviceability and ultimate limit states for the following
building types:
• Multi-storey buildings – Simple construction
• Multi-storey buildings – Continuous construction
• Portal frames without cranes
• Portal frames with cranes
Chapter 6 is a list of references where further guidance on
applying the Eurocodes to steel and composite structures is given.
It is intended to update this publication and BCSA would
appreciate any observations, particularly on inaccuracies and
ambiguities, or proposals on alternative approaches or on any
other matters which should be included in future editions.
The British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd.
4, Whitehall Court, Westminster, London SW1A 2ES
Telephone: +44(0)20 7839 8566 Fax: +44(0)20 7976 1634
Email: postroom@steelconstruction.org
Website: www.steelconstruction.org
This publication was prepared by:
Dr L. Gardner Imperial College
Mr. P. J. Grubb Consultant

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

and EN 1991 Actions on structures together with simple
explanations of the design situations presented in EN 1990.
Chapter 2 is a list of abbreviations, definitions and symbols and
again simple, easy to understand explanations are given. Chapter
3 gives a comprehensive description of the load combinations for
both the Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States, together with a
list of the load combination factors which are used to account for
the reduced probability of the simultaneous occurrence of two or
more variable loads. These values are based on the
recommendations given in the UK National Annex for EN 1990.

Chapter 4 sets out the load combinations for both simple and
moment resisting frames. Information is given on frame
classification (i.e. braced or unbraced), frame imperfections and
the use of the equivalent horizontal force (EHF) (a general
approach that replaces imperfections with a system of notional
horizontal forces). Reduction factors for the number of storeys and
floor area are also described together with pattern loading and
overturning. Section 4.2 concentrates on the load combinations for
simple construction while section 4.3 identifies the differences
between simple and continuous construction. Chapter 4 concludes
with a worked example that illustrates the application of the load
combinations equations given in EN 1990 for a three storey high,
simple braced frame.

Chapter 5 sets out the application of EN 1990 to industrial

buildings with and without crane loads and illustrates the approach
with the following examples:

• Serviceability Limit State – Single span portal frame

• Ultimate Limit State – Single span portal frame
• Serviceability Limit State – Single span portal frame with
overhead crane
• Ultimate Limit State – Single span portal frame with
overhead crane

3
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

4
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

C on t e n t s
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Introduction to EN 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Introduction to EN 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

2.1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Symbols (Greek letters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. COMBINATIONS OF ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Ultimate limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Serviceability limit states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1 Classification of frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal forces (EHF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3 Second order (P-∆) effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (αn) and floor area (αA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.5 Pattern loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.6 Dead loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.7 Overturning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 Braced frames (simple construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with αcr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with αcr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.3 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a and 6.10b with αcr > 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.4 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a and 6.10b with αcr < 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.5 SLS load combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Moment resisting frames (continuous construction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5. INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 - Snow loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P-Δ effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2 Portal frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2 SLS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3 Portal frames with cranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3.4 ULS design example for a single span portal with overhead crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

1 . I n t ro d u ct i o n
1.1 Background
Implementation of the structural Eurocodes is underway. The
primary challenges are perceived to be related not to the technical
content, but rather to the presentation and terminology of the
documents, since this is very different to that found in existing UK
structural design codes. Immediate differences may be observed
in the preference for mathematical formulae over tables and
graphs, brevity of explanations and axis conventions. The
intention of this guide is to provide straightforward guidance on
combinations of actions (load combinations) for the two principal
types of steel structure – multi-storey buildings and industrial
buildings. Further guidance on applying the Eurocodes to steel
and composite structures is given in [1], [2], [3].
Each Eurocode document is accompanied by a National Annex.
The National Annex contains nationally determined parameters
(NDPs), which are values left open by the Eurocode for definition
by the country in which the building is to be constructed.
Equation numbers employed in this guide, unless prefixed by the
letter D, follow the equation numbering of EN 1990.
• Seismic design situations, which refer to conditions where the
structure is subjected to seismic events.
In Clause 4.1.1(1) of EN 1990, actions (imposed loads and
deformations) are classified by their variation with time, as
permanent, variable or accidental. Permanent actions (G) are
those that essentially do not vary with time, such as the self-weight
of a structure and fixed equipment; these have generally been
referred to as dead loads in previous British Standards. Variable
actions (Q) are those that can vary with time, such as imposed
loads, wind loads and snow loads; these have generally been
referred to as live loads in previous British Standards. Accidental
actions (A) are usually of short duration, but high magnitude, such
as explosions and impacts. Classification by variation with time is
important for the establishment of combinations of actions.
1.3 Introduction to EN 1991
EN 1991 Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures comprises four parts,
as given in Table 1.1. EN 1991-2 and EN 1991-4 are not relevant
to this publication.

Table 1.1: Parts of EN 1991

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

6
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

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

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

7
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

2 . A b b re v i at i o n s , de f i n i t io n s a n d s ym b o l s
The terminology adopted in the Eurocodes will be unfamiliar to the Characteristic:
majority of designers and may prove an obstacle to the rapid The typical value of a parameter to be used in design.
uptake of the Eurocodes. Most of the definitions given in the
Co-existence:
Eurocodes derive from:
Eurocodes being in force in parallel with national codes.

• ISO 2394 (1998) General principles on reliability for structures Combinations of actions:
• ISO 3898 (1997) Basis for design of structures – Notations – The combination of different sources of load acting
General symbols simultaneously for the verification of structural reliability for a
• ISO 8930 (1987) General principles on reliability for structures – given limit state.
List of equivalent terms
Conformity:
Compliance with standards.
EN 1990 provides a basic list of terms and definitions which are
applicable to all the other Eurocode parts, thus ensuring a Design resistance:
common basis for the structural Eurocodes. This section has been The capacity of the structure or element to resist the design load.
provided to help to explain some of the key abbreviations,
Effects of actions:
definitions and symbols used in the structural Eurocodes.
Internal moments and forces, bending moments, shear forces
and deformations caused by actions.
2.1 Abbreviations Execution:
All activities carried out for the physical completion of the work
B Rules applicable only to buildings including procurement, the inspection and documentation thereof.
EHF Equivalent Horizontal Force The term covers work on site; it may also signify the fabrication
EN European Standard of components off site and their subsequent erection on site.
EQU Associated with the loss of static equilibrium
Fatigue:
FAT Associated with fatigue failure of the structure or
A mode of failure in which a member ruptures after many
structural members
applications of load.
GEO Associated with failure or excessive deformation of the
ground Fundamental combinations:
I Informative Combinations of actions for the persistent or transient design
N Normative situations.
NA National Annex
NCCI Non-Conflicting Complementary Information Frequent:
P Principles Likely to occur often, but for a short duration on each occasion.
STR Associated with internal failure or excessive deformation Informative:
of the structure or structural members For information, not a mandatory requirement – see normative.

Load arrangement:
2.2 Definitions Identification of the position, magnitude and direction of the loads
(loading pattern).
Attention is drawn to the following key definitions, which may be Load case:
different from current national practice: Compatible loading arrangements considered simultaneously

Accidental action: Load combination:

An exceptional loading condition usually of high magnitude but See ‘Combinations of actions’.
short duration such as an explosion or impact. National Annex:
Action: The document containing nationally determined parameters
A load, or imposed deformation to which a structure is subjected (NDPs). This is an essential supplement without which the
(e.g. temperature effects or settlement). Eurocode cannot be used.

Application rules: NDPs:

Clauses marked ‘P’ in the Eurocodes are principles, which must
be followed. Clauses not marked ‘P’ are application rules which,
when followed, satisfy the principles. Alternative design rules
may be adopted. Application rules make up the bulk of the
codes and give the values and formulae to be used in the design.
Capacity:
The ability to conform to a limit state, e.g. bearing capacity.
Values left open in a Eurocode for definition in the country
concerned.
Non-Contradictory Complementary Information:
Permitted additional information and guidance.
Normative:
Mandatory, having the force of a Standard.
Persistent:
Likely to be present for most of the design life.

8
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Principles:
Clauses marked ‘P’ define structural performance that must be
achieved.

Quasi-:
Being partly or almost.

Quasi-permanent action:
An action that applies for a large fraction of the design life.

Quasi-static:
The static equivalent of a dynamic action.

Reference period:
Any chosen period, but generally the design life.

Reliability:
The mathematical probability of a structure fulfilling the design
requirements.

Transient:
Likely to be present for a period much shorter than the design life
but with a high probability of occurring.

Verify:
Check the design output to make sure it complies.

2.3 Symbols (Greek letters)

The following Greek letters are used in EN 1990 and this document:

α (alpha)
αA Reduction factor for area
αn Reduction factor for number of storeys
αcr Factor by which the design loads FEd would have
to be increased to cause global elastic instability at
the load Fcr (i.e. αcr = Fcr/FEd)

γ (gamma) Partial factor

γG Partial factor for permanent actions
γQ Partial factor for variable actions

ψ (psi)
ψ0 Factor for combination value of a variable action
ψ1 Factor for frequent value of a variable action
ψ2 Factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable
action

ξ (xi) Reduction factor

Σ (sigma) Summation

9
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
3 . C om bi n at i o n s o f a ct i o n s
Combinations of actions, generally referred to as load
combinations, are set out for all structures in Clause 6.4.3.2 of EN
1990. They are presented not simply as a series of multiplication
factors to be applied to the various loading components, but
instead in an unfamiliar algebraic format, which requires
explanation. In Sections 4 and 5 of this guide, the provisions of the
code are explained and presented in a format that is more familiar
to UK engineers.
3.1 Ultimate limit states
Combinations of actions are defined in Clause 6.4.3 of EN 1990 for
the four design situations: persistent, transient, accidental and
seismic. Combinations of actions for the persistent (i.e. final usage
of complete structure) and transient (e.g. construction) design
situations are referred to as fundamental combinations. This guide
focuses on the fundamental combinations, though combinations of
actions for accidental design situations are also considered in
Section 5 for portal frames.
For each of the selected design situations, combinations of actions
for persistent or transient design situations (fundamental
combinations) at ultimate limit states (other than fatigue) may be
derived either from Equation 6.10 of EN 1990 or from Equations
6.10a and 6.10b. The UK National Annex has elected to allow the
use of either approach, though it should be noted that Equations
6.10a and 6.10b will provide more favourable combinations of
actions (i.e. lower load factors). Furthermore, unless there is an
unusually high ratio of dead load Gk to imposed load Qk (i.e. Gk >
4.5Qk), only Equation 6.10b need be considered for strength (STR)
verifications. For verifying equilibrium (e.g. assessing sliding or
overturning as a rigid body), only Equation 6.10 may be applied.
The load combination expressions, as they appear in Eurocode,
are provided below:
Σ γG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i (6.10)
j≥1 i>1
Σ γG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1 ψ0,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i (6.10a)
j≥1 i>1
Σ
j≥1
ξγG,jGk,j “+” γPP “+” γQ,1Qk,1 “+” Σ γQ,iψ0,iQk,i
i>1
(6.10b)
where “+” implies ‘to be combined with’
Σ implies ‘the combined effect of’
ψ0 is a combination factor, discussed below
ξ is a reduction factor for unfavourable permanent
actions G, discussed below
γG is a partial factor for permanent actions
γP is a partial factor for prestressing actions
γQ is a partial factor for variable actions
P represents actions due to prestressing
Ignoring prestressing actions, which are generally absent in
conventional steel structures, each of the combination expressions
contains:
10
• Permanent actions Gk,1, Gk,2, …
• A leading variable action Qk,1
• Accompanying variable actions Qk,2, Qk,3, …
The latter may be characterised as either ‘main’ or ‘other’
accompanying variable actions; main accompanying variable
actions being factored by γQ,1 and other accompanying variable
actions being factored by γQ,i. However, since the recommended
value (Eurocode and UK National Annex) of both γQ,1 and γQ,i is
1.5, no distinction is needed in practice, and no further distinction
will be made in this guide.
In general, unless it is clearly not a critical combination, each
variable action should be considered as the leading variable
action, in turn. Clause 6.1 (2) of EN 1990 states that actions that
cannot occur simultaneously, for example due to physical reasons,
should not be considered together in combination.
Tables 3.1 to 3.3 set out values for the partial factors (γG and γQ)
for permanent and variable actions. These tables are based on
Tables NA.A1.2(A) and (B) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990.
Note that Table NA.A1.2(A) of the UK National Annex to EN 1990
applies to verification of static equilibrium (EQU) of building
structures, Table NA.A1.2(B) applies to the verification of structural
members (STR) in buildings, and Table NA.A1.2(C) relates to any
verifications involving geotechnical actions, such as piles and
footings (which are not considered in this guide).
In clause 6.4.3.1(4) of EN 1990 a distinction is made between
favourable and unfavourable actions. For permanent actions, the
upper characteristic (superior) value Gkj,sup should be used when
that action is unfavourable, and the lower characteristic (inferior)
value Gkj,inf should be used when that action is favourable. This
clause allows the designer to consider a permanent action as
either favourable or unfavourable, in separate load combinations.
As stated in EN 1990, this approach is only necessary where the
results of verification are sensitive to variations in the magnitude of
a permanent action from place to place in a structure. This idea is
considered in more detail in Reference [7] with a continuous beam
example. All variable actions should generally be present within a
load combination unless they have a favourable influence, in which
case they are assigned a partial factor γQ of zero, effectively
excluding them.
Table 3.1: Design values of actions for equilibrium (EQU)
Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying
transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable
situations action actions
Eq. 6.10 1.10 Gkj,sup 0.9 Gkj,inf 1.5 Qk,1 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
(0 when favourable)
Table 3.2: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using
Equation 6.10
Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying
transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable
situations action actions
Eq. 6.10 1.35 Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf 1.5 Qk,1 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Table 3.3: Design values of actions for strength (STR) using 3.2 Serviceability limit states
Equations 6.10a and 6.10b
For serviceability limit states, guidance on combinations of actions
Persistent and Permanent actions Leading Accompanying is given in Clauses 6.5.3 and A1.4 of EN 1990. Three groups of
transient design Unfavourable Favourable variable variable combinations are identified: characteristic, frequent and quasi-
situations action actions permanent.
Eq. 6.10a 1.35 Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
ξ×1.35Gkj,sup 1.0 Gkj,inf 1.5 Qk,1 1.5ψ0,i Qk,i
The characteristic combination is given by Equation 6.14b of EN
Eq. 6.10b
1990 and is normally used for irreversible limit states, such as
permanent local damage or permanent unacceptable
The ξ factor that appears in Equation 6.10b of EN 1990 is a deformations.
reduction factor for unfavourable permanent actions G. The UK
National Annex sets the ξ factor equal to 0.925. When combined
with γG in Equation 6.10b the effect is to reduce the overall factor
Σ
j≥1
Gk, j “+” P “+” Qk,1 “+” Σ ψ0,iQk,i
i>1
(6.14b)

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

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

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

Σ
j≥1
Gk, j “+” P “+” ψ1,1Qk,1 “+” Σ ψ2,iQk,i
i>1
(6.15b)

6.10a and 6.10b is one of three ψ factors (ψ0, ψ1 and ψ2) used in
EN 1990. The purpose of ψ0 is to take account of the reduced The quasi-permanent combination is given by Equation 6.16b of
probability of the simultaneous occurrence of two or more variable EN 1990 and is normally used for reversible limit states where long
actions. ψ factors are discussed in Section 4.1.3 of EN 1990. term effects are important (e.g. shrinkage, relaxation or creep).
Values for ψ factors for buildings in the UK are given in Table This is rarely applicable for steel structures.
NA.A1.1 of BS EN 1990. In general, these factors are the same
as those recommended in Table A1.1 of EN 1990, but with some
exceptions. For example, ψ0 is 0 for imposed loading on roofs and
Σ
j≥1
Gk, j “+” P “+” Σ ψ2,iQk,i
i>1
(6.16b)

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

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

11
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
4 . M u l t i - s t or e y b u i l di n g s
In this section, Eurocode load combinations for multi-storey
buildings are set out. General guidance for both simple and
moment resisting frames is given in Section 4.1, since, in principle,
load combinations are the same for both types of structure.
However, differences in treatment often arise due to differences in
sway stiffness, member interaction etc. and hence, specific
guidance and examples for simple and moment resisting frames is
provided in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively.
4.1 General
4.1.1 Classification of frames
Structural frames may be classified with regards to their lateral
load resisting system and sway stiffness. Concerning the lateral
load resisting system, a frame may be regarded as either braced
or unbraced. As a guide, for a frame to be classified as ‘braced’,
it should contain a bracing system with lateral stiffness of at least
five times that of the unbraced frame [8], which will be the case in
braced simple construction. Bracing systems using wire ties (as
opposed to open or hollow sections) may result in the frame being
classified as ‘unbraced’.
Sway stiffness is commonly achieved through the provision of a
suitable bracing system or by utilising the inherent bending
resistance of a rigid frame. Adequate sway stiffness is important
because it limits the lateral deflections of the frame and hence
controls second order (P-Δ) effects. Sway stiffness is assessed in
EN 1993-1-1 in a similar way as it is in BS 5950, through the αcr
parameter (equivalent to λcr in BS 5950), which represents the
factor by which the vertical design loading would have to be
increased to cause overall elastic buckling of the frame (Clause
5.2.1(3) of EN 1993-1-1). A simplified means of determining αcr for
regular frames is also given in Equation 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1.
Regardless of the frame type, if αcr is greater than 10, the sway
stiffness is deemed sufficiently large for second order effects to be
ignored. Conversely, if αcr is less than 10, second order effects
may no longer be ignored. Second order effects are discussed
further in Section 4.1.3.
4.1.2 Frame imperfections and equivalent horizontal
forces (EHF)
Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the
structural analysis by defining an initial sway for the frame.
However, the more general approach is to replace this geometric
imperfection with a system of equivalent horizontal forces (EHF),
referred to as notional horizontal loads in BS 5950. Whereas in BS
5950, equivalent horizontal forces were only required in the
vertical load case, in the Eurocodes it is deemed that since frame
imperfections are inherently present, they should be included in all
ULS load combinations. This appears entirely rational. EHF are
not required in SLS load combinations. The EHF should be
determined separately for each load combination since they
depend on the level of design vertical loads. For each storey, the
EHF may be calculated as the design vertical load for that storey
(not the cumulative vertical load) multiplied by 1/200 (i.e. 0.5%).
Depending on the height of the structure and the number of
columns in a row, reductions to this basic value of 1/200 are
possible, as detailed in Clause 5.3.2(3) of EN 1993-1-1. If
horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads (VEd) these
12
sway imperfections may be disregarded, and EHF ignored – this
would more oftern apply to low rise buildings.
4.1.3 Second order (P-Δ) effects
Second order effects relate to the increase in member forces and
moments that occur as a result of deformation of the structure
under load. As outlined in Section 4.1.1, second order (P-Δ)
effects need not be considered provided the frame is sufficiently
stiff (i.e. sway deformation under the design loading is relatively
small) – this is deemed to be the case for elastic analysis when αcr
> 10, and similarly, according to the UK National Annex, for plastic
analysis of clad frames when the additional stiffening effect of the
cladding has been neglected. In cases where αcr is less than 10,
the designer is presented with a number of options. These include
enhancement of the stability system such that αcr is raised above
10 and hence second order effects may be ignored, making
allowance for second order effects by approximate means
(amplified sway method or effective length method, both of which
were allowed in BS 5950), or making allowance for second order
effects by performing a second order structural analysis enabling
and accounting for deformation of the structure under load. It
should be noted that if αcr is less than 3, then an accurate second
order analysis must be performed (Clause 5.2.2(5) of EN 1993-1-
1). The aforementioned is summarised in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Summary of analysis methods and treatment of
second order effects
Limits on αcr Analysis method Result
αcr > 10 First order analysis Second order
effects ignored
10 > αcr > 3 First order analysis plus Second order effects
amplified sway method or allowed for by
effective length method approximate means
αcr < 3 Second order analysis Second order effects
allowed for more
accurately
The most common approximate treatment of second order effects
in multi-storey buildings, which may be applied provided that αcr
>3, is the so called ‘amplified sway method’. In this method,
account for second order effects is made by amplifying all lateral
loading on the structure (typically wind loads and EHF) by a factor,
referred to in the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 as kr, which
is related to the sway stiffness of the structure through Equation
D4.1 (Equation 5.4 of EN 1993-1-1).
1
kr = (D4.1)
1-1/αcr
4.1.4 Reduction factors for number of storeys (αn) and
floor area (αA)
As the number of storeys in a building increase, the likelihood that
all floors will be loaded to the full design level decreases. Similarly,
large floor areas will seldom be subjected to the full design loading
uniformly. To reflect this, reduction factors for imposed loads may
be applied for the design of floors, beams and roofs and for the
design of columns and walls. For the design of individual floors,
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
beams and roofs, the area reduction factor αA may be applied. For
the design of columns and walls, the reduction factor αn for the
number of storeys may be applied. The reduction factor αn relates
to the number of floors supported by the column section under
consideration, and may be applied to the total imposed load being
carried. If, for a given column or wall, αA < αn, then αA may be
used in place of αn, but αA and αn may not be used together
(Clause NA.2.6).
Reduction factors αA for imposed loads on floors and accessible
roofs are provided in Clause NA.2.5 of the UK National Annex to
EN 1991-1-1 (see Equation D4.2), and replace those given in
Clause 6.3.1.2(10) of EN 1991-1-1.
αA = 1.0 – A/1000 ≥ 0.75 (D4.2)
where A is the area (m2) supported.
Reduction factors αn for imposed loads from several storeys used
for calculating column forces are defined in Clause 6.3.1.2(11) and
by Equation 6.2 of EN 1991-1-1. Revised expressions are
provided in the UK National Annex (Clause NA.2.6 and Equation
NA.2), as given by Equations D4.3 to D4.5 below. These reduction
factors may be applied to the total imposed load experienced by a
given column, but may only be employed when the imposed load
is the leading variable action in a load combination. When the
imposed load is an accompanying action, either ψ0 or αn may be
applied, but not both.
αn = 1.1 – n/10 for 1 ≤ n ≤ 5 (D4.3)
αn = 0.6 for 5 < n ≤ 10 (D4.4)
αn = 0.5 for n > 10 (D4.5)
4.1.5 Pattern loading
For the design of floors within one storey and for the design of
roofs, EN 1991-1-1 Clause 6.2.1(1) states that pattern loading
should be considered for continuous construction, though the
storeys other than the one under consideration may be assumed
to be uniformly loaded (Clause 6.2.1 of EN 1991-1-1). Pattern
loading need not be considered for simple construction. The two
loading patterns indentified in Clause AB.2 of EN 1993-1-1 for
continuous floor beams to assess (a) the span moments and (b)
support moments for the storey under consideration are shown in
Figures 4.1(a) and (b), respectively. In Figure 4.1(a), alternative
spans carry the design permanent and variable load (γGGk + γQQk)
while other spans carry only the design permanent load ( γGGk). In
Figure 4.1(b), two adjacent spans carry the design permanent and
variable load (γGGk + γQQk) while all other spans carry only the
design permanent load ( γGGk).
Figure 4.1: Pattern loading for continuous floor beams
γGGk γGGk + γQQk
Storey under consideration
(a) Applies to span (sagging) moments
γGGk γGGk + γQQk
Storey under consideration
(b) Applies to support (hogging) moments
For the design of columns or walls loaded from several storeys (2 or
more) the total imposed floor load on each storey should be assumed
to be uniformly distributed (Clause 6.2.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1).
4.1.6 Dead loads
In load combinations, the total self-weight of the structure and non-
structural components should be taken as a single action (Clause
3.2(1) of EN 1991-1-1). Permanent roof loads and floor loads may
therefore be treated as a single action Gk in load combinations.
4.1.7 Overturning
Overturning of a structure as a rigid body is independent of its
lateral load resisting system and sway stiffness. It is solely a
matter of equilibrium (EQU), for which only Equation 6.10 of EN
1990 should be applied. The critical load combination for general
multi-storey buildings emerges on the basis of maximising the
overturning moment due to the horizontal loading (wind and EHF)
and minimising the restoring moment due to the vertical loading. It
is generally appropriate to consider only a single value for dead
loading, but the concept of upper (superior) Gk,sup and lower
(inferior) Gk,inf characteristic values should be considered where
sensitivity to variability in dead loads is very high (Clause A1.3.1 of
EN 1990). For the overturning load case, a factor of 0.9 is applied
to the dead load (where it is contributing to the restoring moment)
and factor of 1.5 is applied to the wind load, as the leading variable
action. The wind load has been denoted Wk in this document.
Equivalent horizontal forces are included, as in all ULS
combinations, but these are not factored (again) since they are
already based on factored loading. Thus, the overturning load
combination is given by Equation D4.6.
13
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
0.9Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.6)
As noted in Section 4.1.2, the EHF may be calculated as 0.5%
(with some scope for reduction) of the load on each storey, and are
thus dependant upon the load combination being considered.
4.2 Braced frames (simple construction)
In terms of ease of analysis and design, there are a number of
advantages associated with simple construction. The structural
members can, largely, be designed in isolation, with the beams
considered as simply-supported members carrying the vertical
loading and the columns as pin ended compression members with
a nominal moment arising from the eccentric beam reactions. A
bracing system will typically be employed to resist the horizontal
loading, though note that columns forming part of the bracing
system will also attract axial forces arising from the horizontal
loading (wind loads and EHF), as described in Reference [5].
4.2.1 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with
αcr > 10
For frames with αcr > 10, second order effects need not be
considered. Assuming all loads to be always unfavourable (i.e.
causing an increase in member forces or moments), two basic
load combinations, given by Equations D4.7 and D4.8, arise from
Equation 6.10. In Equation D4.7, imposed load is assumed to be
the leading variable action and hence attracts a load factor of 1.5,
whilst the wind load is reduced by a combination factor ψ0 of 0.5
(to give a load factor = 0.5 × 1.5 = 0.75). In Equation D4.8, wind
load is considered as the leading variable action with a load factor
of 1.5, thus the imposed load is reduced by a combination factor
ψ0 of 0.7 (applicable in all cases except for storage areas), to give
a load factor = 0.7 × 1.5 = 1.05). It is assumed throughout this
section that imposed loading on the roofs of multi-storey buildings
will be greater than the snow loading, thus attracting a combination
factor ψ0 = 0.7, rather than ψ0 = 0.5, which applies to snow loading
(at altitudes of less than 1000 m). Note, as discussed in Section
4.1.2 of this guide, that the EHF should be determined separately
for each load combination.
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.7)
1.35Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.8)
Equation D4.7 would generally govern the design of the beams
and columns, whilst Equation D4.8 would be expected to be more
critical for the bracing members. The imposed load in Equation
D4.7 may be reduced by the area reduction factor αA, given by
Equation D4.2, for the design of the beams. For column design,
the imposed load may be reduced by the reduction factor for
number of storeys αn (that the column under consideration is
supporting) or the reduction factor for area αA, whichever is the
more beneficial. Note that the imposed load reduction factors may
only be applied in combinations where the imposed loading is the
leading variable action (Equation D4.7). Pattern loading need not
be considered for column design (see Section 4.1.5).
Other load combinations arise by considering that the variable
actions may be favourable (i.e. causing a reduction in member
14
forces or moments). A good example of this is the uplift case,
where imposed load is clearly favourable since it opposes the
uplift. The imposed load therefore has a load factor of zero for the
uplift case, whilst the dead load has a load factor of 1.0. This
results in Equation D4.9.
1.00Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.9)
The wind load itself may also be favourable, for example where
uplift results in reduced columns loads. Assuming wind load to be
favourable leads to the load combination given by Equation D4.10.
1.35Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” EHF (D4.10)
4.2.2 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10 with
αcr < 10
For frames with αcr < 10, second order effects must be considered.
This may be avoided by appropriate reconfiguration of the bracing
system in order to increase the sway stiffness of the structure and
hence ensure αcr ≥ 10, though this may be uneconomical.
Otherwise, account must be made of second order effects. For
αcr < 3, an accurate second order analysis is required, whilst for
regular frames with αcr ≥ 3 approximate methods to allow for
second order effects may be employed, the most common of
which is the amplified sway method. In this case, load
combinations will be the same as those defined in Section 4.2.1,
except that all horizontal loads (Wk + EHF) and other possible sway
effects (e.g. arising from asymmetric loading) will be multiplied by
kr (Equation D4.1). Note that kr is derived from αcr, which is in turn
dependant on the loading FEd on the structure, so, as for EHF, kr
should be determined separately for each load combination.
4.2.3 ULS load combinations based on Equation 6.10a and
6.10b with αcr > 10
Employing Equations 6.10a and 6.10b of EN 1990, and adopting
the same approach as described in Section 4.1.1, three load
combinations arise when all loads are assumed to be
unfavourable, as given by Equations D4.11 to D4.13. Note that
Equation D4.11 arises from Equation 6.10a where all variable
actions are reduced by the combination factor ψ0, while Equations
D4.12 and D4.13 emerge from Equation 6.10b, and have a lower
dead load factor of 1.25 due to the introduction of the ξ factor (see
Section 3.1).
1.35Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.11)
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF (D4.12)
1.25Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF (D4.13)
Of the above three combinations, Equation D4.11 will only govern
on the rare occasions where the dead load is significantly larger
than the imposed load. For the uplift combination, given by
Equation D4.14, the wind load is the leading variable action,
attracting a load factor of 1.5, and the imposed load is absent since
it is favourable. Note that Equation D4.14 is the same as D4.9,
showing that the uplift load combination is the same whether
derived from Equation 6.10 or Equations 6.10a and 6.10b.
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES
1.00Gk “+” 1.5 Wk “+” EHF (D4.14)
Similarly, the wind favourable case results in Equation D4.15.
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” EHF (D4.15)
Equations D4.12 to D4.15 represent the four basic load
combinations for multi-storey frames. For economy, it is
recommended that these load combinations (Equations D4.11 to
D4.15 all emerging from Equation 6.10b) be used in preference to
those arising from Equation 6.10 (Equations D4.7 to D4.10).
4.2.4 ULS load combinations based on Equations 6.10a
and 6.10b with αcr < 10
As described in Section 4.2.2, when αcr < 10, second order effects
must be considered. If the amplified sway method is employed,
load combinations will be the same as those given in Equations
D4.11 to D4.15, except that all horizontal loads (wind and
equivalent horizontal forces) and other sway effects are multiplied
by the factor kr, which, as noted in Section 4.2.2 is load
combination dependant.
4.2.5 SLS load combinations
As outlined in Section 3.2, the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1
states that vertical and horizontal deflections may be checked
using the characteristic combination with variable loads only (i.e.
permanent loads should not be included). The characteristic
combination is defined by Equation 6.14b of EN 1990, where the
leading variable action is unfactored (i.e. taken as its characteristic
value) and all accompanying variable actions are reduced by the
combination factor ψ0.
Assuming all loads to be unfavourable, the resulting SLS
combinations are given by Equations D4.16 (where imposed load
is taken as the leading variable action) and D4.17 (where wind
load is taken as the leading variable action).
1.00Qk “+” 0.50Wk (D4.16)
1.00Wk “+” 0.70Qk (D4.17)
For cases where the influence of horizontal loading on vertical
deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where wind load is
favourable (e.g. suction on a roof may reduce deflections),
Equation D4.16 reduces simply to Equation D4.18 (i.e. checking
vertical deflections under unfactored imposed loading only).
1.00Qk (D4.18)
For cases where the influence of vertical loading on horizontal
deflections is deemed insignificant, or for cases where vertical
loading is favourable, Equation D4.17 reduces to Equation D4.19
(i.e. checking horizontal deflections under unfactored wind loading
only).
1.00Wk (D4.19)
Deflection limits are also provided in the National Annex to EN
1993-1-1 in Clauses NA.2.23 and NA.2.24. The deflection limits of
relevance to multi-storey buildings, which are the same as those
given in BS 5950, are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Table 4.2: Vertical deflection limits
Vertical deflection Limit
Cantilevers Length/180
Beam carrying plaster or other brittle finish Span/360
Other beams (except purlins and sheeting rails) Span/200
Table 4.3: Horizontal deflection limits
Horizontal deflection Limit
In each storey of a building with more Height of
than one storey that storey/300
As 4.1.2 if horizontal loads (HEd) exceed 15% of vertical loads
(VEd) the EHF can be ignored. This is most likely to be the case in
Equations D4.17 and D4.19.
4.3 Moment resisting frames (continuous
construction)
For the case of simple braced frames, the members can
essentially be designed in isolation. For moment resisting frames,
the structure is not statically determinate, there is interaction
between the members and this simplification may not generally be
made. Unbraced (moment resisting) frames are also generally less
stiff laterally than braced frames, and are therefore more likely to
require consideration of second order effects. However, the basic
load combinations derived for simple frames in Section 4.2 are
equally applicable to moment resisting frames.
It is therefore recommended that, as for simple frames, the ULS
load combinations for moment resisting frames be based on
Equations 6.10a and 6.10b. This results in five load combinations
given by Equations D4.11 to D4.15, of which D4.11 is unlikely to
govern except in cases of an unusually high ratio of dead to
imposed loading. SLS load combinations are given by Equations
D4.16 to D4.19.
4.4 Example
The following example illustrates application of the above load
combinations (from Equations 6.10a and 6.10b) to a simple braced
frame. The general case considered is set out in Figure 4.2, where
the loads shown are unfactored (characteristic values). The
following notation is used: Gkr = permanent actions on roof; Gkf =
permanent actions on floors; Qkr = imposed load on roof; Qkf =
imposed load on floors; Wk = wind loads. Frames are spaced at 6
m centres and every third frame is braced (in the configuration
shown in Figure 4.2). For the equilibrium check only, lateral forces,
together with overturning and restoring moments, are shown per
frame. Throughout the remainder of the example, lateral forces are
shown per braced frame. It is assumed that αcr > 10, so second
order effects are neglected. Imposed load reduction factors have
not been considered. EHF have been calculated on the basis of
1/200 of the total vertical load for each storey.
15
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Figure 4.2: Unfactored loading on example frame Figure 4.4: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation
D4.12
Gkr = 3.5 kN/m2
EHF = 10.0 kN qEd = 36.9 kN/m
Qkr = 1.5 kN/m2
Wk = 0.63 kN/m2 Wind = 21.9 kN

qEd = 71.3 kN/m

EHF = 19.2 kN
Gkf = 3.5 kN/m2 Wind = 43.7 kN
Qkf = 5 kN/m2 3.6 m

qEd = 71.3 kN/m

EHF = 19.2 kN
Gkf = 3.5 kN/m2 Wind = 43.7 kN
Qkf = 5 kN/m2
Wk = 0.7 kN/m2

Wk = 0.2 kN/m2
3.6 m

qEd = 71.3 kN/m Bracing FEd

EHF = 19.2 kN
Gkf = 3.5 kN/m2 Wind = 43.7 kN
Qkf = 5 kN/m2 3.6 m

External Internal
column FEd column FEd
3.6 m
6m 6m 6m Design loading in key members:
1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF
Roof design UDL qEd = 36.9 kN/m
Figures 4.3 to 4.7 present the total factored design loading on the
structure arising from the five load combinations defined by Floor design UDL qEd = 71.3 kN/m
Equations D4.11 to D4.15, respectively. External column FEd = 752.0 kN
Bracing FEd = 257.5 kN (tension)
Internal column (unbraced frame) FEd = 1504.0 kN
Internal column (braced frame) FEd = 1807.1 kN

Figure 4.3: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation Figure 4.5: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation
D4.11 D4.13
EHF = 9.4 kN qEd = 35.0 kN/m EHF = 8.1 kN qEd = 30.0 kN/m
Wind = 21.9 kN Wind = 43.7 kN

qEd = 59.9 kN/m qEd = 57.8 kN/m

EHF = 16.2 kN EHF = 15.6 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN Wind = 87.5 kN

qEd = 59.9 kN/m qEd = 57.8 kN/m

EHF = 16.2 kN EHF = 15.6 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN Wind = 87.5 kN

qEd = 59.9 kN/m Bracing FEd qEd = 57.8 kN/m Bracing FEd
EHF = 16.2 kN EHF = 15.6 kN
Wind = 43.7 kN Wind = 87.5 kN

External Internal External Internal

column FEd column FEd column FEd column FEd

Design loading in key members: Design loading in key members:

1.35Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 0.75Wk “+” EHF 1.25Gk “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF
Roof design UDL qEd = 35.0 kN/m Roof design UDL qEd = 30.0 kN/m
Floor design UDL qEd = 59.9 kN/m Floor design UDL qEd = 57.8 kN/m
External column FEd = 643.5 kN External column FEd = 609.8 kN
Bracing FEd = 246.1 kN (tension) Bracing FEd = 421.1 kN (tension)
Internal column (unbraced frame) FEd = 1287.1 kN Internal column (unbraced frame) FEd = 1219.7 kN
Internal column (braced frame) FEd = 1577.9 kN Internal column (braced frame) FEd = 1715.2 kN

16
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Figure 4.6: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation From Figures 4.3 to 4.7, it may be seen that the maximum loadings
D4.14 in different members often arise from different load combinations.
EHF = 4.1 kN qEd = 15.3 kN/m
For the case considered (Figure 4.2), the maximum design UDL on
Wind = 43.7 kN the roof and floors arise from Equation D4.15 (1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+”
EHF), as does the maximum external column load and the
qEd = 21.0 kN/m maximum internal column load (for the unbraced frames in the
EHF = 5.7 kN structure). The maximum force in the bracing members results
Wind = 87.5 kN from Equation D4.13 (1.25Gk“+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF), while
the maximum internal column load (for the braced frames in the
qEd = 21.0 kN/m
EHF = 5.7 kN
structure) arises from Equation D4.12 (1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+”
Wind = 87.5 kN 0.75Wk “+” EHF).

Serviceability load combinations, as defined by Equations D4.16 to

qEd = 21.0 kN/m Bracing FEd
EHF = 5.7 kN D4.19, are shown in Figures 4.8 to 4.11, respectively.
Wind = 87.5 kN

External Internal Figure 4.8: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.16
column FEd column FEd
qEd = 7.1 kN/m
Wind = 14.6 kN
Design loading in key members:
1.00Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” EHF qEd = 30.0 kN/m

Roof design UDL qEd = 15.3 kN/m Wind = 29.2 kN

Floor design UDL qEd = 21.0 kN/m
qEd = 30.0 kN/m
External column FEd = 235.0 kN
Bracing FEd = 381.7 kN (tension) Wind = 29.2 kN

Internal column (unbraced frame) FEd = 470.0 kN

qEd = 30.0 kN/m
Internal column (braced frame) FEd = 920.2 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN

Figure 4.7: Total factored ULS loading arising from Equation

D4.15
EHF = 10.7 kN qEd = 39.8 kN/m
Wind = 0.0 kN
Summary of SLS loading:
qEd = 71.3 kN/m 1.00Qk “+” 0.5Wk
EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN Roof SLS UDL qEd = 7.1 kN/m
Floor SLS UDL qEd = 30.0 kN/m
qEd = 71.3 kN/m HEd = 14.6 kN
EHF = 19.2 kN Lateral SLS load at roof level
Wind = 0.0 kN Lateral SLS load at levels 1, 2 and 3 HEd = 29.2 kN

qEd = 71.3 kN/m Bracing FEd

EHF = 19.2 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN

External Internal
column FEd column FEd

Design loading in key members:

1.25Gk “+” 1.5Qk “+” EHF
Roof design UDL qEd = 39.8 kN/m
Floor design UDL qEd = 71.3 kN/m
External column FEd = 760.5 kN
Bracing FEd = 79.8 kN (tension)
Internal column (unbraced frame) FEd = 1521.0 kN
Internal column (braced frame) FEd = 1616.0 kN

17
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Figure 4.9: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.17 Figure 4.11: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.19

qEd = 2.5 kN/m qEd = -3.8 kN/m

Wind = 29.2 kN Wind = 29.2 kN

qEd = 21.0 kN/m qEd = 0.0 kN/m

Wind = 58.3 kN Wind = 58.3 kN

qEd = 21.0 kN/m qEd = 0.0 kN/m

Wind = 58.3 kN Wind = 58.3 kN

qEd = 21.0 kN/m qEd = 0.0 kN/m

Wind = 58.3 kN Wind = 58.3 kN

Summary of SLS loading: Summary of SLS loading:

1.00Qk “+” 0.7Qk 1.00Wk
Roof SLS UDL qEd = 2.5 kN/m Roof SLS UDL qEd = -3.8 kN/m
Floor SLS UDL qEd = 21.0 kN/m Floor SLS UDL qEd = 0.0 kN/m
Lateral SLS load at roof level HEd = 29.2 kN Lateral SLS load at roof level HEd = 29.2 kN
Lateral SLS load at levels 1, 2 and 3 HEd = 58.3 kN Lateral SLS load at levels 1, 2 and 3 HEd = 58.3 kN

From Figures 4.8 to 4.11 it may be observed that Equation D4.18

(1.00Qk “+” EHF) is critical for vertical deflections of the beams,
Figure 4.10: SLS loading arising from Equation D4.18 and Equation D4.17 (1.00Wk “+” 0.7Qk “+” EHF) governs for
horizontal deflections of the frame at levels 1, 2 and 3 but at roof
qEd = 9.0 kN/m
Wind = 0.0 kN level Equation D4.19 (1.00Wk “+” EHF) governs.

qEd = 30.0 kN/m For checking against overturning (EQU), only Equation 6.10 may
be applied, resulting in the load combination given by Equation
Wind = 0.0 kN
D4.6, illustrated for the example frame in Figure 4.12. Note that
loads, together with the overturning and restoring moments, are
qEd = 30.0 kN/m shown per frame in Figure 4.12.
Wind = 0.0 kN
Figure 4.12: Loading per frame for EQU overturning check
qEd = 30.0 kN/m EHF = 1.2 kN qEd = 13.2 kN/m
Wind = 14.6 kN
Wind = 0.0 kN
qEd = 18.9 kN/m
EHF = 1.7 kN
Wind = 29.2 kN

qEd = 18.9 kN/m

Summary of SLS loading: EHF = 1.7 kN
1.00Qk Wind = 29.2 kN
Roof SLS UDL qEd = 9.0 kN/m
qEd = 30.0 kN/m qEd = 18.9 kN/m
Floor SLS UDL EHF = 1.7 kN
Lateral SLS load at roof level HEd = 0.0 kN Wind = 29.2 kN
Lateral SLS load at levels 1, 2 and 3 HEd = 0.0 kN

Equilibrium assessment:
0.9Gk “+” 1.5Wk “+” EHF
Overturning moment per frame M = 893.7 kNm
Restoring moment per frame M = 11330 kNm

18
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

5 . In d u s t r i al bu i l d i n gs
5.1 General Table 5.1: ψ factors relevant to portal frame structures

Although industrial buildings can be designed to support ψ0 ψ1 ψ2

mezzanine floors and cranes, they are primarily loaded by their Imposed loads on roofs 0.7 0.0 0.0
self weight, service loads, imposed loads or snow loads and wind
Snow loads at altitude less than
loads. Service loads tend to be ‘project specific’ but a nominal
or equal to 1000 m 0.5 0.2 0.0
value of around 0.05 kN/m2 should always be considered in
structural design to allow for loads from nominal lighting. This Wind loads 0.5 0.2 0.0
value will increase if more substantial services such as sprinkler Crane loads 1.0 0.9 Gkc/(Gkc+Qkc)
systems or air-conditioning are incorporated. The self weights of
false ceilings over intermediate floors are often also treated as
5.1.1 EN 1991-1-3: 2003 - Snow loading
service loads. Snow loads and wind loads are site specific and are
In Section 2 of EN 1991-1-3, ‘Classification of actions’, snow loads
influenced by the geometry of the structure and its orientation.
are classified as variable fixed actions unless otherwise specified in
Snow loads are determined by reference to EN 1991-1-3 and its
the code. In this section it also states that exceptional snow loads
UK National Annex. Wind loads are determined by reference to
and exceptional snow drifts may be treated as accidental actions,
EN 1991-1-4 and its UK National Annex, but designers might also
depending on geographical locations. The UK National Annex
like to refer to Reference [5].
confirms this in clauses NA.2.4 and NA.2.5 and also states that
Annex B should be used to determine the drifted snow load case.
Clause 3.3.2 (1) of EN 1991-1-1 states that on roofs, imposed
This approach is consistent with current UK practice for designers
loads and snow loads or wind loads should not be applied together
using BS 6399-3 and BRE Digest 439 [9] to determine uniform
simultaneously. This implies (1) that snow load and imposed load
snow loads and the loads caused by the build up of drifted snow.
should not appear together in any given load combination, and (2)
that imposed load and wind load should not appear together in any
5.1.2 EN 1991-1-4: 2003 - Wind loading
given load combination. The basis for this clause is that it would be
Wind actions are defined as variable fixed actions. The process
unreasonable to consider that maintenance would be undertaken
for determining wind pressures is based on a 10-minute mean
in severe weather conditions. The first implication is in line with
wind velocity and a new map has been provided in the UK National
current practice in the UK, where, for roofs that are not accessible
Annex. Designers who have been working with BS 6399-2 will find
except for normal maintenance and repair, the loading would
the approach for determining wind pressures very similar although
typically be taken as the larger of an imposed load of 0.6 kN/m2 or
some terminology has changed. The publication “Designers’
the snow load (i.e. the imposed loads and snow loads are not
Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, general
applied simultaneously). The same value of 0.6 kN/m2 is also
actions part 1-4. Wind actions” [2] is very important in explaining
recommended for roof slopes less than 30º in Table NA.7 of the UK
the limitations of the new European Standard.
National Annex to EN 1991-1-1. The second implication is that for
cases where the snow load is less than 0.6 kN/m2, then it is only
Although wind pressures vary depending on site location, altitude,
this lesser value that would be applied in combination with the wind
orientation etc, the pressure and force coefficients depend only on
load, which, coupled with the fact that the combination factor for
the external shape of the structure. By looking at the overall
snow loading (ψ0 = 0.5) is lower than that for imposed loading (ψ0
pressure coefficients, irrespective of the actual site wind
= 0.7), may result in significantly lower roof loading (in combination
pressures, it is possible to determine the critical load cases. The
with wind) than is used in current UK practice. It is recommended
majority of portal frames have roof pitches of 5°, 6° or 10°. Figures
in this guide that imposed loads and wind loads continue to be
5.1c, 5.1d and 5.1e have been produced for portal frames with
considered in combination for the design of portal frames in the
these roof pitches and present overall pressure coefficients.
UK. Given the different combination factors for snow and imposed
Figures 5.1a and 5.1b have been included to show the
loading, the snow load would have to be greater than 1.4 times the
intermediate steps required to arrive at the figures in 5.1c. Similar
imposed load (i.e. greater than 0.84 kN/m2) to be critical in the
intermediate steps have not been included for Figures 5.1d and
wind (leading) plus imposed or snow load combination. Where the
5.1e, although some extended expressions have been shown.
imposed load or snow load is the leading variable action, the snow
load simply needs to exceed the imposed load to become critical.
External pressure coefficients for the walls have been extracted
from Table 7.1 of EN 1991-1-4 assuming an h/d ratio ≤ 0.25. Table
The concept of ψ factors was introduced in Section 3 and Table 5.1
7.4a of EN 1991-1-4 cannot be used for roof coefficients; instead,
presents the ψ factors that are relevant to portal frame design. In
the UK National Annex directs us to use Table 10 of BS 6399-2.
Table 5.1, Gkc = permanent crane action and Gkc + Qkc = total crane
Once the basic external coefficients have been established, to
action (from Clause A.2.3 of EN 1991-3 Annex A).
comply with the requirements of Clauses 5.3 and 7.2.2 of EN
1991-1-4 two addition factors must be applied to the external force
coefficients:
1. The structural factor cscd – for the majority of portal frames the
height will be less than 15 m and the value of cscd is taken as 1.
2. For buildings with h/d ≤1, most portal frames, the external wind
forces on the windward and leeward faces are multiplied by 0.85.

19
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

In recent years internal pressures of -0.3 / +0.0 have been adopted
by many portal frame designers. This may still be appropriate for
large storage buildings with no windows and doors primarily in one
face. However, the internal pressure coefficients are now derived
from Figure 7.13 of EN 1991-1-4 and are based on relative wall
porosity. Within the range of coefficients are the values -0.3 / +0.2
used traditionally by UK engineers. These values have been used
in the derivation of the overall force coefficients.
The resulting diagrams show that, for the range of roof pitches
considered, the primary condition for wind loading on the roof is
suction. If dominant openings are regarded as closed in a storm
(elective dominant openings) the maximum uplift for ULS design is
always for longitudinal wind (wind blowing directly onto the gable
causing suction on all external faces of the portal) with internal
pressure as is common with current practice.

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

Longitudinal Wind 1 Longitudinal Wind 1

-0.6 0.3 -0.4 -0.51 -0.255 -0.34

-1.2 -1.02

0.7 -0.3 0.595 -0.255

Transverse Wind 1 Transverse Wind 1

0.0 0.3 -0.4 0.0 -0.255 -0.34

0.7 -0.3 0.595 -0.255

Transverse Wind 2 Transverse Wind 2

Figure 5.1a: External Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame Figure 5.1b: Modified External Pressure Coefficients – Portal
with 5° roof pitch frame with 5° roof pitch
The above coefficients are now modified by the 0.85 and cscd
factors to give:

Key
Overall coefficients shown thus:
Pressure shown as positive values
Suction shown as negative values

20
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

The same process can be applied to a portal with 6° roof pitch to give:

-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8
-1.0 Internal -1.0 -1.0 Internal -1.0
pressure 0.2 pressure 0.2

Longitudinal Wind 1 Longitudinal Wind 1

-0.58 x 0.85 -0.36 x 0.85

-0.51 0.255 -0.41 x 0.85
-1.02 -0.34 -1.16 x 0.85

-0.71 -0.455 -0.693 -0.506

-1.22 -0.54 -1.186 -0.589
0.595 -0.255 0.7 x 0.85 -0.3 x 0.85
0.395 Internal 0.395 Internal -0.455
-0.455
pressure 0.2 pressure 0.2

Transverse Wind 1 Transverse Wind 1

-0.51 0.255 -0.493 -0.306

-1.02 -0.34 -0.986 -0.389

-0.21 0.045 -0.193 -0.006

-0.72 -0.04 -0.686 -0.089
0.595 -0.3 0.595 -0.255
0.895 Internal 0.895 Internal 0.045
0.0
suction -0.3 suction -0.3

Transverse Wind 1a Transverse Wind 1a

-0.255 -0.36 x 0.85

0.0 -0.34 0.02 x 0.85 -0.41 x 0.85

0.2 -0.055 -0.183 -0.506

-0.14 -0.489
0.595 -0.3 0.595 -0.255
0.395 Internal -0.5 0.395 Internal -0.455
pressure 0.2 pressure 0.2

Transverse Wind 2 Transverse Wind 2

-0.255 -0.306
0.0 -0.34 0.017 -0.389

0.3 0.045 0.317 -0.006

-0.04 -0.089
0.595 -0.3 0.595 -0.255
0.895 Internal 0.0 0.895 Internal 0.045
suction -0.3 suction -0.3

Transverse Wind 2a Transverse Wind 2a

Figure 5.1c: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 5° Figure 5.1d: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with 6°
roof pitch roof pitch
Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof. Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof.
Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction. Transverse wind 2a Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction. Transverse wind 2a
causes maximum sidesway. causes maximum sidesway.
The above coefficients are typical for internal transverse portal
frames in a building. Towards the ends of the structure more
onerous coefficients are applicable. However, the intention of
these diagrams is purely to eliminate less onerous combinations Key
for later analysis and the overall pattern is similar for the areas with Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.3
higher coefficients. For final design, local effects must be included, Pressure shown as positive values
not only for the design of frames, but also for the design of Suction shown as negative values
secondary components such as purlins, side rails and claddings.

21
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

-0.65 -0.65 more general approach is to apply equivalent horizontal forces

(EHF). For more information on this and P-∆ effects refer to
Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of this publication. Subject to a number of
-0.85 -0.85
-0.8 -0.8 geometrical restraints, the UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1
-1.0 Internal -1.0
pressure 0.2 (Clause NA.2.9) allows that second order effects may be ignored
in the plastic design of portal frames under gravity loading only
Longitudinal Wind 1 provided αcr ≥ 5.

-0.5 x 0.85 -0.6 x 0.85 5.2 Portal frames

-1.00 x 0.85 -0.45 x 0.85

-0.625 -0.71 Combinations of actions for portal frames are considered in this
-1.05 -0.583 Section. Additional considerations for cranes are introduced in
0.7 x 0.85 -0.3 x 0.85
0.395 Internal -0.455 Section 5.3. The serviceability limit state is treated first since this
pressure 0.2
is likely to govern the design of this form of construction.

Transverse Wind 1
5.2.1 Serviceability limit state design
For the serviceability limit state, the UK National Annex to EN
1993-1-1 states that deflections may be checked using the
-0.425 -0.51
-0.85 -0.383 characteristic combination of loading and considering variable
loads only, as discussed in Section 3.2.
-0.125 -0.21
-0.55 -0.083
0.595 -0.255 Assuming that for steel portal frame structures the dead load can
0.895 Internal 0.045
suction -0.3 be accurately determined and that the combined dead and service
loads can be treated as one dead load:
Transverse Wind 1a
Gksup = Dead load + Service load
Gkinf = Dead load
0.1 x 0.85
-0.51
-0.383 Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than
0.6 kN/m2)
-0.115 -0.71
-0.583 Wk = Wind load - three load cases as identified earlier
0.595 -0.255 Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load
0.395 Internal -0.455
pressure 0.2 condition)

Transverse Wind 2 6.14b 1.00Qk “+” 0.50Wk (pressure) “+” EHF

0.70Qk “+” 1.00Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
0.00Qk “+” 1.00Wk (suction) “+” EHF
-0.51
0.085 -0.383
5.2.2 SLS design example for a single span portal
0.385 -0.21 Consider a 25 m span portal frame, 6 m to eaves and in 6 m bays
-0.083
0.595 -0.255 with a 6° roof pitch. The structure is assumed to be clad with
Internal
0.895 0.045 composite sheeting supported by purlins and side rails at 1.8 m
suction -0.3
maximum centres.
Transverse Wind 2a

Key
Overall coefficients shown thus: -0.15
Pressure shown as positive values
Suction shown as negative values

Figure 5.1e: Wind Pressure Coefficients – Portal frame with Figure 5.2: Typical clear span portal frame
10° roof pitch
Dead load: Cladding 0.150 kN/m2
Note: Longitudinal wind 1 gives the maximum overall suction on the roof.
Purlins (0.046 × 1.25/1.8) 0.032 kN/m2
Transverse wind 2 gives maximum local suction. Transverse wind 2a
(1.25 factor to allow for purlin sleeves)
causes maximum sidesway.
Rafter (0.54 × 1.1 / 6.0) 0.099 kN/m2
(1.10 factor to allow for rafter haunches)
5.1.3 Frame imperfections and second order P-∆ effects Dead load on slope 0.281 kN/m2
Frame imperfections may be incorporated directly into the Slope factor (6° slope) 1.0055
structural analysis by defining an initial sway for the frame. The Dead load on plan 0.283 kN/m2

22
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Gksup = Dead + Service load 3. Identify the wind case that results in the maximum eaves
= 0.283 + 0.150 displacement (side sway). This is likely to be transverse wind
= 0.433 kN/m2 with pressure on the windward slope and suction on the
Gkinf = Dead leeward slope.
= 0.283 kN/m2 4. Use the wind load cases identified in steps 2 and 3 of this
procedure in equation 6.14b to identify maximum
Qk = Imposed load
displacements.
= 0.600 kN/m2
5. If frame is unsymmetrical in any way the designer should apply
Wk = Wind load: the wind load in the direction to maximise the sway effect.
Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2;
Wind suction = -0.800 kN/m2 5.2.3 Ultimate limit state design (STR)
Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift For the ultimate limit state, Equations 6.10 or 6.10a and 6.10b from
= 0.550 kN/m2 EN 1990 are to be considered, as introduced in Section 3.1.

Applying the loads for the example to the set of serviceability The relevant ψ factors are given in Table 5.1 above.
equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.2. The
values of the EHF will vary with the load combination and may, With the following loading,
when HEd ≥ 0.15 VEd, be ignored. The bold figures identify the
critical load combinations. Gksup = Dead load + Service load
Gkinf = Dead load
Table 5.2: Load combinations for the serviceability limit state Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.6
kN/m2)
Load (kN/m2) Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design load
Wk = Wind load – 5 load cases, 2 of which can be discarded
0.600 = +0.500 0.550 (kN/m2)
after SLS analysis
Wk (suction)
= -0.800 Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition)
Equation 6.14b 0.600 0.250 0.000 0.850
0.420 0.500 0.000 0.920 if the typical load cases that were considered for the serviceability
0.000 -0.800 0.000 -0.800 limit state are now considered for ultimate limit state with the
following possible load combinations result:
The normal roof pitch for portal frame structures in the UK is in the
range 5-15°. In this range it is unlikely that the roof will be 6.10 1.35Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.00Qk + EHF
subjected to wind pressure throughout the span. Hence, all three 1.35Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
combinations to Equation 6.14b must be considered. 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Wk (pressure) + EHF
1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 1.50Wk (suction) + EHF
Now consider the same example, but removing the load condition
of pressure on the roof – the load combinations of Table 5.2a 6.10a 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 0.00Wk + EHF
emerge. 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.75Wk (suction) + EHF
Table 5.2a: Load combinations for the serviceability limit
state (no uniform roof pressure) 6.10b 1.25Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.00Wk + EHF
1.25Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) + EHF
Load (kN/m2) Qk = Wk (suction) Ad = Design load 1.25Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Wk (pressure) + EHF
0.600 = -0.800 0.550 (kN/m2) 1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 1.50Wk (suction) + EHF
Equation 6.14b 0.600 0.000 0.000 0.600
0.000 -0.800 0.000 -0.800 Accidental
6.11b 1.00Gksup “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.00Wk “+” 1.00Ad “+” EHF
The designer must be aware of the possible number of wind load
Note that, as recommended in Section 5.1 of this guide, imposed load is
cases to be considered, the above matrix simply presents these as
being considered in combination with wind, and that if the snow load were
uniform suction or pressure on the roof. In reality the loading to exceed 1.4 times the imposed loading, then the factor of 1.05 (with ψ0 =
pattern is more complex than this and the following procedure may 0.7) currently applying to the imposed loading would become 0.75 (with ψ0
be of use. = 0.5) applying to the snow loading. Each of the above load combinations
should be analysed with the relevant equivalent horizontal force, noting that
the equivalent horizontal force is 0.5% of the vertical reaction at the column
Suggested procedure: base and therefore includes the self weight of any cladding carried by the
1. Carry out an elastic analysis for each individual serviceability column, as well as the effects of the wind. The above ultimate limit state
load case. load combinations are implemented in the design example started earlier for
2. Identify the wind case for maximum suction on the rafter. (This the serviceability limit state. Substituting the loadings for the example into
these equations yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.3. The
is generally longitudinal wind with internal pressure)
bold figures identify the critical load combinations, assuming that the
designer will opt for Equations 6.10a and 6.10b at ULS.

23
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

5.2.4 ULS design example for a single span portal Table 5.3a: Simplified ULS load combinations (no uniform
roof pressure)
Gksup = Dead + Service load = 0.283 + 0.150
= 0.433 kN/m2 Load Gksup = Qk = Wk (suction) Ad = Design
Gkinf = Dead (kN/m2) 0.433 0.600 = - 0.800 0.55 load
= 0.283 kN/m2 Gkinf = (kN/m2)
0.283
Qk = Imposed
= 0.600 kN/m2 Equation 6.10b 0.541 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.921
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917
Wk = Wind load:
Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2; Equation 6.11b 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.550 0.983
Wind suction = -0.800 kN/m2
Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift
= 0.550 kN/m2
5.3 Portal frames with cranes
Table 5.3: ULS load combinations The inclusion of one additional imposed load type increases the
number of possible load combinations since each imposed load
Load Gksup = Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design type has to be considered as the leading or main accompanying
(kN/m2) 0.433 0.600 = +0.500 0.550 load variable action in turn. The introduction of a crane also increases
Gkinf = Wk (suction) (kN/m2) the horizontal loads (both transverse and longitudinally) to be
0.283 = -0.800 carried by the structure as the crane will generate horizontal surge
Equation 6.10 0.585 0.900 0.000 0.000 1.485 loads as it lifts and moves loads around. The crane’s load Qkc
0.585 0.900 0.375 0.000 1.860 considered below may therefore have both vertical and horizontal
0.585 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.965 components. The vertical loads are modified by dynamic factors
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917 taken from Table 2.2 of EN 1991-3:2006.
Equation 6.10a 0.585 0.630 0.000 0.000 1.215
0.585 0.630 0.375 0.000 1.590 5.3.1 Serviceability limit state design
0.283 0.000 -0.600 0.000 -0.317 Gksup = Dead load + Service load

Equation 6.10b 0.541 0.900 0.000 0.000 1.441 Gkinf = Dead load
0.541 0.900 0.375 0.000 1.816 Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than
0.541 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.921 0.6 kN/m2)
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917 Qkc = Crane load (vertical load (including crane self weight)
Equation 6.11b 0.433 0.000 0.100 0.550 1.083 and horizontal surge load)
Wk = Wind load (generally suction) - three load cases
BS5950-1: 1.40 Gk + 1.60 Qk = 1.566 kN/m2 Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift
1.00 Gk - 1.40 Wk = -0.837 kN/m2 (accidental load condition)
1.20 (Gk + Qk + Wk) = 1.840 kN/m2

Other combinations are possible, but those that are most likely to
Notes:
1. No reduction in loading can be applied on the basis of area since such
provide the critical design condition are as follows:
reduction only applies to roofs with access.
2. For shallow pitched portals there is no pressure on the whole rafter and 6.14b 1.00Qk “+” 1.00Qkc “+” 0.50Wk (pressure)
since suction will reduce the total load it must not be included if the most 0.70Qk “+” 1.00Qkc “+” 0.50Wk (pressure)
onerous design combination is to be considered. 0.70Qk “+” 1.00Qkc “+” 1.00Wk (pressure)
0.00Qk “+” 0.00Qkc “+” 1.00Wk (suction)
Portal frame designers will generally set out to provide the most
economic frame solution and, given the choice of 6.10 or 6.10a 5.3.2 SLS design example for a single span portal with
and 6.10b the design loads to be considered in 6.10 are more overhead crane
onerous and therefore are likely to be ignored. It would appear Consider the 25 m span portal frame of the previous example with
that there are more combinations to consider if we apply 6.10a and a 24 m span, 5 tonne electric overhead crane. Maximum wheel
6.10b but, by observation, 6.10b combinations are more onerous loads = 40 kN, minimum wheel loads = 12.5 kN. The derivation of
than those of 6.10a, other than for a high ratio of dead to imposed the maximum and minimum reactions is shown for vertical loads,
load (see Section 3.1) which is particularly unlikely for this form of but is also applicable to the horizontal loads. How the horizontal
construction. loads are transferred to the main structure is dependent on the
number of flanges to the wheels supported by the crane rail. If the
As shown in Figures 5.1, positive pressure on the whole roof does wheels are double flanged, the horizontal load may be shared
not occur for normal portal frame roof pitches. If this pressure is between the two crane rails; if the wheels are single flanged, then
removed from the example, the design loads in Table 5.3a result. the horizontal loads are applied to just a single crane beam. The

24
 TYPICAL WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEELWORK

magnitude of the horizontal load is dependent on factors particular 5.3.3 Ultimate limit state (STR)
to each project. The number of load combinations again increases because of the
addition of the load from the crane. The individual load cases are
Assume that the crane is supported centrally on bogies with a as follows:
3.6m wheel base. If one wheel is positioned directly on the line
of the portal, the second wheel is 3.6m into the span and hence Gksup = Dead load + Service load
the maximum reaction to the portal is 1+2.4/6.0 = 1.4 times the Gkinf = Dead load
wheel load.
Qk = Imposed load (or uniform snow load if greater than 0.6
Maximum reaction to portal from simply supported crane beams =
kN/m2)
1.4 x 40 = 56 kN,
Minimum coincident reaction = 1.4 x 12.5 = 17.5 kN. Qkc = Crane load (vertical load on columns with horizontal
surge loads)
Wk = Wind load (generally suction) – three load cases, at least
one of which can be discarded after SLS design
Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift (accidental load condition)

When each load combination is considered with respect to

Equations 6.10, 6.10a, 6.10b and the accidental condition the
following combinations result:
[For the accidental combinations, ψ2 = ratio of the permanent
Figure 5.3: Typical clear span portal frame with travelling
crane action and the total crane action = 50/125 = 0.40 (Clause
overhead crane
A.2.3 from EN 1991-3 Annex A)].
Gksup = Dead + Service load
6.10
= 0.283 + 0.150
1.35Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.00Wk (suction) “+” EHF
= 0.433 kN/m2
1.35Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
Gkinf = Dead 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
= 0.283 kN/m2 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 1.50Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
Qk = Imposed load 1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.00Qkc “+” 1.50Wk (suction) “+” EHF
= 0.600 kN/m2
Qkc = Max / min crane wheel loads 6.10a
= 56.0 / 17.5 kN 1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.00Wk (suction) “+” EHF
1.35Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
Wk = Wind load: Wind pressure = 0.500 kN/m2;
1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.00Qkc “+” 0.75Wk (suction) “+” EHF
Wind suction = -0.800 kN/m2
Ad = Load from snow build-up or drift 6.10b
= 0.550 kN/m2 1.25Gksup “+” 1.50Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.00Wk (suction) “+” EHF
1.25Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 0.75Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
Substituting the loadings for the example into these equations 1.25Gksup “+” 1.05Qk “+” 1.50Qkc “+” 1.50Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.4. The bold and 1.00Gkinf “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.00Qkc “+” 1.50Wk (suction) “+” EHF
shaded figures identify the critical load combinations.
Accidental 6.11b
Gksup “+” 1.00Ad “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.40Qkc “+” 0.00Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
Table 5.4: SLS load combinations Gksup “+” 1.00Ad “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.90Qkc “+” 0.00Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
Gksup “+” 1.00Ad “+” 0.00Qk “+” 0.40Qkc “+” 0.20Wk (pressure) “+” EHF
Load Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design Qkc =
(kN/m2) 0.600 = +0.500 0.550 load 56.0/
Wk (suction) (kN/m2) 17.5kN 5.3.4 ULS design example for a single span portal with
= -0.800 overhead crane
Equation 6.14b 0.600 0.250 0.000 0.850 56.0 / 17.5 Substituting the loadings for the example into these equations
0.420 0.250 0.000 0.670 56.0 / 17.5 yields the design loads as summarised in Table 5.5. The bold
0.420 0.500 0.000 0.920 56.0 / 17.5 figures identify the critical load combinations.
0.000 -0.800 0.000 -0.800 0.000

25
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

Table 5.5: ULS load combinations

Load Gksup = Qk = Wk (pressure) Ad = Design Qkc =

(kN/m2) 0.433 0.600 = +0.500 0.550 load 56.0/
Gkinf = Wk (suction) (kN/m2) 17.5kN
0.283 = -0.800
Equation 6.10 0.585 0.900 0.000 0.000 1.485 84.0 / 26.25
0.585 0.900 0.375 0.000 1.860 84.0 / 26.25
0.585 0.630 0.375 0.000 1.590 84.0 / 26.25
0.585 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.965 84.0 / 26.25
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917 0.00
Equation 6.10a 0.585 0.630 0.000 0.000 1.215 84.0 / 26.25
0.585 0.630 0.375 0.000 1.590 84.0 / 26.25
0.283 0.000 -0.600 0.000 -0.317 0.000
Equation 6.10b 0.541 0.900 0.000 0.000 1.441 84.0 / 26.25
0.541 0.630 0.375 0.000 1.546 84.0 / 26.25
0.541 0.630 0.750 0.000 1.921 84.0 / 26.25
0.283 0.000 -1.200 0.000 -0.917 0.00
Equation 6.11b 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.550 0.983 50.4 / 15.75
0.433 0.000 0.100 0.550 1.083 22.4 / 7.0

Notes:
1. Transverse wind load cases will cause suction on the roof but will also cause the portal
to sway. SLS will identify the load case for maximum sway.
2. EHF to be applied in the same direction as the horizontal surge.
3. Frame may naturally sway therefore important to ensure that the surge load is applied
in two alternative directions to find the natural sway and ensure that the EHF does not
‘prop’ the frame.

26
 EUROCODE LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STEEL STRUCTURES

6 . Re fe r e n ce s
[1] Steel Building Design: Introduction to the Eurocodes, SCI
Publication P361, The Steel Construction Institute, 2009.

[2] Steel Building Design: Concise Eurocodes, SCI Publication

P362, The Steel Construction Institute, 2009.

[3] Brown, D. G., King, C. M., Rackham, J. W. and Way, A.

(2004).Steel Building Design: Medium Rise Braced Frames.
SCI Publication P365. The Steel Construction Institute, 2004.

[4] Brettle, M., Currie, D.M. (2002) Snow loading in the UK and
Eire: Ground snow load map. The Structural Engineer (Vol;
80, Issue: 12).

[5] Cook, N. (2007). Designers’ Guide to EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode

1: Actions on structures, general actions - Part 1-4. Wind
actions. Thomas Telford Ltd.

[6] Wind loading on buildings, BRE, Digest 436, The Building

Research Establishment, 1999.

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

Designers’ Guide to EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Structural
Design. Thomas Telford Publishing.

[8] Boissonnade, N., Greiner, R., Jaspart, J. P. and Lindner, J.

(2006). Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1 –
Background documentation and design guidelines. ECCS
Publication No. 119. ECCS Technical Committee 8 – Stability.

[9] Roof loads due to local drifting of snow, BRE Digest 439, The
Building Research Establishment, 1999.

[10] Guide to evaluating design wind loads to BS 6399-2: 1997,

SCI Publication P286, The Steel Construction Institute, 2003.

27
Eurocode Load Combinations
for Steel Structures
B C S A P u b l i c a t i o n N o . 5 3 /1 0