Eurocode Example Load Combinations
Eurocode Example Load Combinations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 Characteristic permanent actions (G) ............................................................................. 4 Characteristic imposed loads (I)..................................................................................... 5 Characteristic wind actions (W) ..................................................................................... 8 Characteristic snow loads (S) ....................................................................................... 11 Combination of actions ................................................................................................ 12 Dimensioning combination of actions - STR ............................................................... 14 Loss of static equilibrium - EQU ................................................................................. 15
1.
Introduction
The present example illustrates the Eurocode actions on a six storey building. The characteristic actions and design actions on a six storey building are determined. The support reactions are calculated for the actions considered. These cover permanent actions, imposed loads, wind actions and snow loads. The building is indefinitely long and supported per 10 m along the building in the points A and B. The points A and B shown in figure 1.1 illustrate two points, for which the support reactions are calculated. The building includes residential and office areas as shown in figure 1.1. This indicates that medium Consequence Class CC2 may be assumed, see B3.1 in EN 1990:2002. The following recommended partial safety factors for permanent actions are applied, see table A1.2(A) and A.1.2(B) in EN 1990:2002. EQU: Gj ,sup =1,10 and Gj ,inf =0,90. STR 6.10a: Gj ,sup =1,35 and Gj ,inf =1,00. Permanent actions only in 6.10a. STR 6.10b: Gj ,sup =1,15 and Gj ,inf =1,00.
The recommended partial safety factor of 1.5 is applied for all variable actions, see table A1.2(A) and A.1.2(B) in EN 1990:2002. The reliability class RC3 with K FI =1,1 is assumed, see B3.3 in EN 1990:2002. The K FI factor of 1,1 is applied to the partial safety factors of the unfavourable actions.
2.
Line loads:
Figure 2.1 - Characteristic permanent action The above-mentioned permanent actions give the characteristic permanent support reactions specified in table 2.1. Table 2.1 - Support reactions from characteristic permanent actions Vertical support reactions RA [kN] RB [kN] [kN] 652 2356
3.
The characteristic imposed uniformly distributed loads q and the load combination factors 0 for residential areas and office areas are as follows: qres = 2,0 kN/m2
0, res = 0,7
qoff = 3,0 kN/m2
0, off = 0,7
The recommended floor reduction factor A is calculated by:
A = 0 +
5 7
A0 1,0 A
in which 0 is the above-mentioned load combination factor, the area A0 =10,0 m, and A is the loaded area. For the three cases shown below, the reduced imposed loads are given in table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 Reduced imposed loads Case no. 1 2 3
A
0,571 0,625 0,667
A qres
1,14 1,25 1,33
A qoff
1,71 1,88 2,00
n =
2 + ( n 2 ) 0 n
4 ,res = 2 ,off =
The imposed loads shall be classified as variable free actions, see 2.2 (1)P in EN 1991-11:2002. This gives the relevant load cases shown in figure 3.1, and the support reactions are given in tables 3.2 and 3.3. 6.2.2 (1) in EN 1991-1-1:2002 specifies: For the design of columns or walls, loaded from several storeys, the total imposed loads on the floor of each storey should be assumed to be distributed uniformly. This specification has not been applied in the present example.
Figure 3.1 Distribution of imposed loads Table 3.2 - Support reactions from reduced imposed loads for residential areas, see table 3.1
Support reactions RA [kN] RB [kN] Case 1 80 560 Case 2 200 200 Case 3 -120 440
Table 3.3 - Support reactions from reduced imposed loads for office areas, see table 3.1
Support reactions RA [kN] RB [kN] Case 1 60 420 Case 2 150 150 Case 3 -90 330
Figure 3.2 illustrates the reduction for multi storey in case 1. The load on the two middle storeys are reduced by 0, res . The loads on the rest of the storey are unchanged. The average reduction of the loads are expressed by n .
Figure 3.2 Distribution of imposed loads with reduction for multi storey, case 1
4.
The indefinitely long facades of the building are assumed to be orientated north-south.
z0 [m]
0,30 0,01
kr
qp [kN/m2]
0,810 0,939
0,2154 0,1698
10
The recommended reduction factor of 0,w =0,6 is applied, see table A1.1 in EN 1990:2002.
11
5.
The characteristic value of snow load on the ground is assumed to be sk = 0.9 kN/m. The shape coefficient for the snow load are given in figure 5 and the reactions for the characteristic snow load are given in table 5.1.
12
6.
Combination of actions
Examples of possible load combinations are listed in table 6.1. The following comments may clarify some of the load combinations: When the imposed load is an accompanying action, the load combination factor 0 is applied and not the multi storey reduction factor n , see 3.3.2 (2)P in EN 1991-11:2002. When the imposed loads act simultaneously with the other variable actions due to wind and / or snow, the total imposed loads considered in the load case shall be considered as a single action, see 3.3.1 (2)P in EN 1991-1-1: 2002. When the imposed loads are the only variable action present, one of the imposed load categories is dominating and the other is accompanying, see the load combinations STR (6.10b)-4 and STR (6.10b)-5.
STR load combinations for smallest RA (permanent action favourable) STR 6.10b-6: 1,0 G + 1,1 1,5 res I res + 1,1 1,5 off I off + 1,1 1,5 0,W W + 1,1 1,5 0, S S STR 6.10b-7: 1,0 G + 1,1 1,5 W + 1,1 1,5 0, res I res + 1,1 1,5 0, off I off + 1,1 1,5 0, S S STR 6.10b-8: 1,0 G + 1,1 1,5 S + 1,1 1,5 0, res I res + 1,1 1,5 0, off I off + 1,1 1,5 0,W W STR 6.10b-9: 1,0 G + 1,1 1,5 W STR load combinations for smallest RB (permanent action favourable) STR 6.10b-10: 1,0 G + 1,1 1,5 W
13
I res
I off
STR (6.10b)-1 STR (6.10b)-2 STR (6.10b)-3 STR (6.10b)-4 STR (6.10b)-5 STR (6.10b)-6 STR (6.10b)-7 STR (6.10b)-8 STR (6.10b)-9 STR (6.10a)
1,1 1,15
1,1 1,15 1,1 1,15
I
W
I res I off
I
W S
W
1,1 1,5
0 0
The design support reactions are given in table 6.2. The largest upward pointing reactions in points A and B occur for STR (6.10b) - 2 and STR (6.10b) 1, respectively. STR (6.10b) - 7 gives the smallest reaction in point A of 6 kN. Thus, an anchor in point A is not needed according to STR. The dimensioning support reactions are shown bold in table 6.2.
RB [kN]
4780
14
7.
1,1 1,15 G
"+"
1,1 1,5 n I
"+"
1,1 1,5 0, w W
1,1 1,15 G
"+"
1,1 1,5 W
"+"
1,1 1,5 0, s S
1,0 G
"+"
1,1 1,5 W
"+"
1,1 1,5 0, s S
18-20 February 2008
15
8.
The design support reaction in EQU is given in table 8.1. Table 8.1 Design support reaction - EQU RA [kN] EQU
-153
RB [kN] -
1,1 1,5 W
"+"
1,1 1,5 0, s S
6.4.1 (1)P in EN 1990:2002 specifies: EQU : Loss of static equilibrium of the structure or any part of it considered as a rigid body, where: minor variations in the value or the spatial distribution of actions from a single source are significant, and the strengths of construction materials or ground are generally not governing
Is EQU relevant in the present example? If yes, how should the anchor be designed? Give STR alone sufficient safety if an anchor is chosen in the first place?