Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation 6.1 General 6.1(1)P No change 6.1(2) No change 6.1(3) No change 6.1(4) No change 6.1(5)P No change
6.1(6) Where first or second order non-linear finite
element analyses are used in analyses to simulate both load effects and ultimate resistance the concept of a global factor covering both
uncertainties on the action side and the material side may be used as an alternative to the use of design values directly. The global factor shall take due account of the behaviour of the various materials involved in the failure modes
investigated, as well as differences in the material factors. Details for the various construction materials are given in EN 1992 to EN 1999. NOTE: the rules according to 6.4.3(4) should be taken into account.
New clause, to implement rules specific to non linear analysis.
6.1(7) Where non-linear finite element analyses are used to predict the ultimate capacity of a
structure the reliability of all individual structural members shall as a minimum meet the required level. The ultimate capacity of the structure failing as a system should show an adequate additional degree of robustness, covered by a robustness factor γRRd. This factor depends on the
system characteristics. Further information is given in Annex A.
NOTE 1 The required reliability index and the calibration of safety factors is primarily done based on previous experience. This implies that system reliability normally can be expected to be higher than the reliability of each individual member. This is also consistent with the assumptions for robustness and the required ability of structures to sustain localised damage from accidental loads or unknown causes without total collapse.
NOTE 2 The National Annex may allow for yielding or buckling of individual members at a
New clause, to implement rules specific to non linear analysis.
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation
6.1(8) Where non-linear analyses are used to document
the load bearing capacity to be in accordance with the Eurocode, the material models with the limitations of the Eurocodes and the detailing rules of the relevant Eurocodes shall be applied. Particular rules may be given where the analyses are performed to document the capacity of existing structures. Details for the various
construction materials are given in EN 1992 to EN 1999.
NOTE Software codes that deviate from the Eurocodes cannot be used to document adequate capacity in accordance with the Eurocodes, even if the results are in reasonable agreement.
New clause, to implement rules specific to non linear analysis.
6.2 Limitations
6.2(1) No change
6.3 Design values
6.3.1 Design values of actions
6.3.1(1) No change
December 2008 and April 2010 and notice of future possible changes to Clause recommendation 6.3.2 Design values of the effects of actions
6.3.2(1) No change
6.3.2(2) No change
6.3.2(3)P No change
6.3.2(4) No change
6.3.2(5) No change
6.3.3 Design values of materials or product properties
6.3.3(1) No change
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation 6.3.4 Design values of geometrical data
6.3.4(1) No change 6.3.4(2)P No change 6.3.4(3) No change 6.3.5 Design resistance 6.3.5(1) No change 6.3.5(2) No change 6.3.5(3) No change 6.3.5(4) No change
6.4 Ultimate limit states
December 2008 and April 2010 and notice of future possible changes to Clause recommendation
6.4.1(1)P ……
d) FAT : Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members.
NOTE For fatigue design, the combinations of actions are given in EN 1992 to EN 1995, EN 1998 and EN 1999.
……
……
d) FAT : Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members.
NOTE For fatigue design, the combinations of actions, where relevant, are given in EN 1991 to EN1999.
……
Editorial
6.4.1(2)P No change
6.4.2 Verification of static equilibrium and resistance
6.4.2(1)P No change
6.4.2(2) No change
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation 6.4.3 Combination of actions (fatigue verifications excluded)
6.4.3.1 General 6.4.3.1(1)P No change 6.4.3.1(2) No change 6.4.3.1(3) No change 6.4.3.1(4)P No change 6.4.3.1(5) No change 6.4.3.1(6) No change
6.4.3.2 Combinations of actions for persistent or transient design situations (fundamental combinations)
6.4.3.2(1) No change
6.4.3.2(2) No change
6.4.3.2(3) No change
6.4.3.2(4) No change
6.4.3.3 Combinations of actions for accidental design situations
6.4.3.3(2) No change
6.4.3.3(3) No change
6.4.3.3(4) No change
6.4.3.4 Combinations of actions for seismic design situations
6.4.3.4(1) No change
6.4.3.4(2) No change
6.4.4 Partial factors for actions and combination of actions
6.4.4(1) No change
6.4.5 Partial factors for materials and products
6.4.5(1) No change
6.5 Serviceability limit states
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation 6.5.3(1) No change 6.5.3(2) No change 6.5.3(3) No change 6.5.3(4)P No change
6.5.4 Partial factors for materials
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation
A1.1 Field of application
A1.1(1) This annex A1 gives rules and methods for establishing combinations of actions for buildings. It also gives the recommended design values of permanent, variable and accidental actions and ψ factors to be used in the design of buildings.
NOTE Guidance may be given in the National annex with regard to the use of Table 2.1 (design working life).
This annex A1 gives rules and methods for establishing combinations of actions for buildings. It also gives the recommended partial factors to be applied to the
characteristic values of permanent, variable and accidental actions giving their design values, and ψ factors to be used in the design of buildings.
NOTE Guidance may be given in the National annex with regard to the use of Table 2.1 (design working life).
The proposed formulation focuses on partial factors (which are given here) rather than design values of actions.
A1.2 Combination of actions
A1.2.1 General
A1.2.1(1) No change
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation
A1.2.1(4) No change
A1.2.2 Values of ψ factors A1.2.2(1)
Table A1.1 To clarify roof
loads Ψ factors other than when snow is dominating, move construction loads Ψ factors from EN 1991-1- 6, specify Ψ values for ice and water actions
December 2008 and April 2010 of future possible changes to Clause recommendation A1.3.1 Design values of actions in persistent and transient design situations
A1.3.1(1) The design values of actions for ultimate limit states in the persistent and transient design situations
expressions 6.9a to 6.10b) should be in accordance with Tables A1.2(A) to (C).
NOTE The values in Tables A1.2 ((A) to (C)) can be altered e.g. for different reliability levels in the National annex (see Section 2 and Annex B).
The design values of actions for ultimate limit states in the persistent and transient design situations expressions 6.9a to 6.10b) should be in accordance with Tables A1.2(A) to (C).
NOTE The values in Tables A1.2 ((A) to (C)) correspond, in general, to RC2 with a 50 year standard reliability index β=3.8 (see Section 2 and Annex B). They can be altered, e.g. for different reliability levels, in the National annex.
A1.3.1(2) No change
A1.3.1(3) No change
A1.3.1(4) No change
A1.3.1(5) No change
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation
Table A1.2(A) The present
formulation of EQU verifications, in those cases where a structural member is needed to guarantee equilibrium, may lead to contradictory results. The modification to the combined verification factors, in NOTE 2, is intended to achieve consistency.
December 2008 and April 2010 of future possible changes to Clause recommendation A1.3.2 Design values of actions in the accidental and seismic design situations
A1.3.2(1) No change
A1.4 Serviceability limit states
A1.4.1 Partial factors for actions
A1.4.1(1) No change
A1.4.2 Serviceability criteria
A1.4.2(1) No change
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation A1.4.2(3)P The serviceability criteria for deformations and
vibrations shall be defined : – depending on the intended use ;
– in relation to the serviceability requirements in accordance with 3.4 ;
– independently of the materials used for supporting structural member.
The serviceability criteria for deformations and vibrations shall be defined :
– depending on the intended use ;
– in relation to the serviceability requirements in accordance with 3.4 ;
– independently of the materials used for supporting structural member.
NOTE Unless otherwise specified, recommended limiting design values of the serviceability criteria for deformations and vibrations are given in Table A1.7 and Table A1.8.
Give guidance on the limit design values of serviceability criteria A1.4.3 Deformations and horizontal displacements
December 2008 and April 2010 of future possible changes to Clause recommendation A1.4.3(2)
Vertical deflections are represented schematically
in Figure. A1.1.
Figure A1.1 - Definitions of vertical deflections
Key :
w
cPrecamber in the unloaded structural
member
w
1Initial part of the deflection under
permanent loads of the relevant
combination of actions according to
expressions (6.14a) to (6.16b)
w
2Long-term part of the deflection under
permanent loads
w
3Additional part of the deflection due to
the variable actions of the relevant
Vertical deflections are represented schematically in
Figure. A1.1.
Figure A1.1 - Definitions of vertical deflections
The limiting design values of calculated vertical deflections depend on the serviceability requirements.NOTE Recommended limiting design values of static calculated vertical deflections wmax are given in Table A1.6.”
Table A1.6 : Recommended limiting values of static calculated deflection wmax as a function of L, the span or twice the length of a cantilever Serviceabili ty requiremen Functioning of structure Comfort of users Appearance of structure
See also National Annexes : • Belgium : NA to EN 1990 • Finland : NA to EN 1993-1-1, EN 1994-1-1 & EN 1995-1-
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation A1.4.3(3) If the functioning or damage of the structure or to
finishes, or to non-structural members (e.g. partition walls, claddings) is being considered, the verification for deflection should take account of those effects of permanent and variable actions that occur after the execution of the member or finish concerned. NOTE Guidance on which expression (6.14a) to (6.16b) to use is given in 6.5.3 and EN 1992 to EN 1999.
If the functioning or damage of the structure or to finishes, or to non-structural members (e.g. partition walls,
claddings) is being considered, the verification for deflection should take account of those effects of permanent and variable actions that occur after the execution of the member or finish concerned.
NOTE 1 Guidance on which expression (6.14a) to (6.16b) to use is given in 6.5.3 and EN 1992 to EN 1999.
NOTE 2 The recommended limiting design values of static deflections apply only to structures or structural
components without brittle partitions walls. If partitions walls prone to cracking are used, appropriate detailing should be adopted or more severe limiting design values of deflection defined. Make recommended values of static deflections consistent with requirements of functioning of brittle partition walls. A1.4.3(4) No change A1.4.3(5) No change A1.4.3(6) No change
A1.4.3(7) Horizontal displacements are represented schematically in Figure A1.2.
Figure A1.2 - Definition of horizontal
displacements
Key :
u Overall horizontal displacement over the building height H
Horizontal displacements are represented schematically in Figure A1.2.
Figure A1.2 - Definition of horizontal displacements
Key :u Overall horizontal displacement over the building height H
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation A1.4.3(7)
(continue)
NOTE Limiting design values of horizontal deflections are recommended in Table A1.7.”
Table A1.7 : Recommended limiting design values of horizontal deflections as a function of height H of building or storey height Hi Serviceability requirement Functioning of structure Comfort of users Appearance of structure Combination of actions to be considered Characteristic, expressions (6.14a/b) Frequent, expression (6.15a/b) Quasi- permanent, expression (6.16a/b) Single-storey buildings H/400 Multi-storey buildings: -in general Hi/200 -with brittle partition walls Hi/500
See also National Annexes : • Belgium : NA to EN 1990 • Finland : NA to EN 1993-1- 1, EN 1994-1- 1 & EN 1995- 1-1 A1.4.4 Vibrations A1.4.4(1) No change
to vibrations, the natural frequency of vibrations of the structure or structural member should be kept above appropriate values which depend upon the function of the building and the source of the vibration, and agreed with the client and/or the relevant authority.
the natural frequency of vibrations of the structure or structural member should be kept above appropriate values which depend upon the function of the building and the source of the vibration, and agreed with the client and/or the relevant authority.
NOTE Appropriate values of natural frequencies of vibration are recommended in Table A1.8.”
Table A1.8 : Appropriate values of natural frequencies
Structures Critical frequency
Gymnasia and sport halls 8,0 Hz Dance rooms
Concert halls without permanent seating
7,0 Hz
Concert halls with permanent seating
3,4 Hz
Table from the DK National Annex
• Belgium : NA to EN 1991-1- 4 §6.3.2 Values to be further discussed in detail.
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation
A1.4.4(3) No change
Clause EN 1990:2002 + A1:2004 incorporating corrigenda December 2008 and April 2010
Recommendations for the evolution of EN 1990 and notice of future possible changes to Clause
Background for recommendation
B1 Scope and field of application
(1) This annex provides additional guidance to 2.2 (Reliability management) and to appropriate clauses in EN 1991 to EN 1999.
NOTE Reliability differentiation rules have been specified for particular aspects in the design Euro- codes, e.g. in EN 1992, EN 1993, EN 1996, EN 1997 and EN 1998.
(1) This annex provides additional guidance to 2.2 (Reliability management), 2.5 (Quality management) and to appropriate clauses in EN 1991 to EN 1999. The Annex is applicable to the design and execution of new construction works. The provisions related to quality management may also be applied in case of retrofitting of existing structures.
NOTE 1 : Reliability differentiation rules and quality management measures have been specified for
particular aspects in EN 1990 Annexes A(3) and A(4) and where relevant in the design Eurocodes, e.g. in EN 1992 to EN 1999.
NOTE 2: This annex is provided as guidance to the writers of the national annex to EN 1990 and national annexes to EN 1991 to 1999. This annex is intended to provide the basis for a consistent system across the complete suite of Eurocodes.
(2) It is assumed that the Quality management requirements for both design and execution are applied
Reliability is often referred to as the probability of failure due to the statistical variation of the
parameters involved in design and execution, assuming all to be in accordance with the standards for materials, design and execution.
This is however only one part of the reliability that society expects from the built environment. Society is interested in the actual reliability of the structures, with due regard to errors and flaws in design, materials and execution.
For the Eurocodes to give society an adequate level of safety the Eurocodes must in addition to the
(2) The approach given in this Annex recommends the following procedures for the management of structural reliability for construction works (with regard to ULSs, ex- cluding fatigue) :
a) In relation to 2.2(5)b, classes are introduced and are based on the assumed consequences of failure and the exposure of the construction works to hazard. A procedure for allowing moderate differentiation in the partial factors for actions and resistances corresponding to the classes is given in B3.
NOTE Reliability classification can be represented by � indexes (see Annex C) which takes account of accepted or assumed statistical variability in action effects and resistances and model uncertainties.
b) In relation to 2.2(5)c and 2.2(5)d, a procedure for allowing differentiation between various types of construction works in the requirements for quality levels of the design and execution process are givenin B4 and B5
.
NOTE Those quality management and control measures in design, detailing and execution which are given in B4 and B5 aim to eliminate failures due to gross errors, and ensure the resistances assumed in the design.
(3) The procedure has been formulated in such a way so as to produce a framework to al- low different reliability levels to be used, if desired.
(3) The approach given in this Annex recommends the following procedures for the management of structural reliability for construction works:
a) In relation to 2.2(5)b, classes are introduced and are based on the assumed consequences of failure and the exposure of the construction works to hazard. A procedure for allowing moderate differentiation in the partial factors for actions and resistances corresponding to the classes is given in B2.
NOTE Reliability classification can be represented by
differentiation of target levels of β indexes (see Annex C) which takes account of accepted or assumed statistical variability in action effects and resistances and model uncertainties.
b) In relation to 2.2(5)c and 2.2(5)d, a procedure for allowing differentiation between various types of construction works in the requirements for quality levels of the design and execution process including control/verification are given in B3 and recommendations for a complete system is given in B4.
NOTE Those quality management and control measures in design, detailing and execution which are given in B3.1 and B3.2 aim to eliminate failures due to gross errors, and avoid errors in design and execution and thereby ensure a structure with the intended performance.
(4) The procedure in this Annex has been formulated in such a way so as to produce a framework for EN 1990 and EN 1992 to EN 1999 and the relevant product and
all structures or structural elements designed to comply with the Eurocodes, see (2).
In table B1 it is assumed a one-to- one relationship between quality management class, design quality level, design supervision level, execution class and inspection level, this may however be differentiated.
This system must be consistent with ISO 9000 in accordance with CEN Directives §6.8, but it must be detailed in the Eurocodes and underlying standards (for execution and materials) to give coherent and technically adequate requirements in a way that is adequate for the way design and execution is conducted in the construction industry.
Table B1 – Recommended system of quality management classes (QM)
NOTE The system of Quality management classes to be used in a Country and the detailed requirements for the various classes may be given in the National Annex. The recommended system is as given in Table B1.
B2 Symbols In this annex the following symbols apply.
KFI Factor applicable to actions for reliability differentiation
β Reliability index
Delete.
Symbols are not neededB3 Reliability
B2 Reliability management Edit reliability related clauses in separate chapter B2.
Table B1 - Definition of consequences classes Table B2 - Definition of consequences classes Add structures that are vital to the function of society such as hospitals and fire stations to CC3.
The way single family houses will fail represents a very little risk to lives, and these buildings may therefore be allowed in CC1.
(2) The criterion for classification of consequences is the importance, in terms of consequences of failure, of the structure or structural member concerned. See B3.3
(3) Depending on the structural form and decisions made during design, particular members of the structure may be designated in the same, higher or lower consequences class than for the entire structure.
NOTE At the present time the requirements for reliability are related to the structural members of the construction works.
(2) The criterion for classification of consequences is the importance, in terms of consequences of failure, of the structure or structural member concerned. See B2.3
(3) Depending on the structural form and decisions made during design, particular members of the structure may