Background Report

Reliability Part 1

to EN 13031-1: 2019
Commercial Production Greenhouses

Figure 1 (Photo KTBL): Roof Structure of a Commercial Production Greenhouse

Authors:
Dr.-Ing. I. Pertermann, IB Puthli, Schüttorf
Prof. Dr.-Ing. R. Puthli, KIT Karlsruhe February 8th, 2022
 Table of content

1. Classification of Greenhouses …………………………………..………..… 3

2. Partial Factors for Actions – Uncertainties ……………………………….. 5
3. Partial Factors – Variable Actions ………..………………………..…….... 6
3.1 Definitions ……………………………………………………………..… 6
3.2 Target Value for the Characteristic Level ………………………….……. 7
3.3 Review of the Target Values for the Design Level ……………………… 8
3.3.1 Reliability Basis …………………………………………………..... 8
3.3.2 Annual Target ………………………………………………..…….. 9
3.3.3 Lifetime Target ….………………………………..…………….… 11
3.3.4 Conclusions for EN 13031-1 ……………………………….…..….13
4. Calibration methods for the Partial Factors …………………………….. 14
4.1 Basic Principles …………………………………………………..…..… 14
4.2 Calibration based on Annual Target, Gumbel Distribution …………..…14
4.3 Influence of the type of distribution ………………………………….… 17
4.4 Calibration based on Lifetime Targets, Gumbel Distribution ………..… 19
4.5 Conclusion and Summery …………………………………………….… 23
5. Combination Factors for variable loads …………………….………….... 24
5.1 General and time-invariant load combinations ……….…..…………….. 24
5.2 Combination of time-variant variable loads ……………………...…….. 26
6. Force Importance Factors KFI (Consequence factor kF) ………….…….. 28
7. Partial factor and reduction factor for Permanent Actions …………..... 31
8. Importance Factor for Accidental Actions, Exceptional Snow and
Earthquake ……………………………………………………………..…. 34
9. Summary of the Regulations for EN 13031-1 ………………………...…. 34
References ………………………………………………………………….…. 35

Pretext
In comparison to earlier reliability background reports for the drafting of prEN 13031-1, this report
includes literature sources about further developments towards the second generation of the
Eurocode. The aim is, to show, which developments may concern the Euronorm EN 13031-1:
2019.

2
 Classification and
Calibration of Consequence Factors KFI
for the Consequence Classes of Greenhouses
1. Classification of greenhouses

Greenhouses exist in a variety of different categories, shapes and sizes. They can be used for the
sheltering of growing plants for the cultivation in warm climates, where no additional heating and
not much other technical equipment are required (low-tech greenhouse). On the other end, high-
tech greenhouses for the cultivation of plants in colder and darker climates may require additional
heating, ventilation, shading, lighting, irrigation, fertilization and other measures to enable crops to
grow sufficiently for a commercial use.
Parts of this technical equipment may also be used in greenhouses open to the public for the sale
and / or display of cultivated plants (retail greenhouses, greenhouses in botanical gardens).
Depending on the category, type and use greenhouses can be classified as shown in Table 1.

Greenhouse Category
Greenhouse Type Greenhouse open to public c Commercial Production Greenhouse d
(according to
cladding tolerance Greenhouse Class
to frame displacement) Design Working Life nd in years
50 years 30 years 15 years 10 years 5 years
Type A a A50 A30 A15 e
- -
Type B b - - B15 B10 f B5 g
Consequence Class CC2 CC1 CC0
a
Cladding system is not tolerant to frame displacement, e.g. glass or stiff plastic sheets with glazing bars of
aluminium and gutter, ridge or purlins of aluminium or steel on a steel frame. ULS and SLS checks required.
b
Cladding system is tolerant to frame displacement, e.g. plastic film. Only ULS check required.
c
Retail Greenhouses and other greenhouses for sale and / or display of plants with public access, e.g. in botanical
gardens or exhibitions, should be designed for a reference period of 50 years, as buildings with comparable use and
occupation. Nonetheless the cladding can have a design working life of 30 years.
d
In Commercial Production Greenhouses for the professional cultivation of plants the human occupancy is restricted
to low levels of authorized personnel. For different types of greenhouses, the design working life is optimized
between 15 years and 5 years as follows:
e
Commercial Production Greenhouses with a cladding of glass should have a design working life of at least 15 years.
f
Commercial Production Greenhouses with expensive crops and / or equipment should have a design working life of
at least 10 years. Technical areas of greenhouses B10 should be designed for a reference period of at least 15 years.
g
A design working life of 5 years may only be used for structures with a limited service life, such as small tunnels,
shade halls, fruit canopies etc.
Table 1: Greenhouse classification according to EN 13031
However, if a greenhouse-type structure is not used primarily for the growth of plants, as for
example in the conservatory of a private home, the atrium of a public building or the glasshouse in
the zoological garden, it is not a greenhouse. These buildings serve primarily the wellbeing of
humans or animals. Plants may or may not be present as well.
Crops can also be cultivated in production facilities without transparent cladding using artificial
light only. These facilities are also not greenhouses.
In the classification there are also no greenhouses for the private use in garden or house (mini-
greenhouse, hobby-greenhouse), because the building law does normally not cover them.

3
Definition of greenhouses in EN 13031:
“Greenhouse: Building structure that optimizes solar radiation transmission used for plants
requiring regulated climatic conditions.”
“Commercial production greenhouse: Greenhouse for professional production and/or protection
of plants and crops, where human occupancy is restricted to low levels of authorized personnel.
Other persons shall be accompanied by authorized personal.”
The technical equipment of greenhouses can be placed in the greenhouse building (technical area)
or in an annex to the building. Such an annex can be treated as part of the greenhouse, if it shares
the same restrictions concerning the occupancy and public access. Applications are the heating,
water supply e.g. in reservoirs, storages, control room and many other facilities.
The categories of greenhouse structures according to EN 13031 in Table 1 belong to different
consequence classes according to EN 1990. Retail greenhouses belong to the same consequence
class as other single-story retail facilities, at least to CC2. For the many classes of commercial
production greenhouses CC1 is not sufficient. CC1 is certainly suitable for high-tech, glass-covered
greenhouses A15. However, greenhouses with plastic film B10 and B5 are not covered by the
Eurocode and can be designated to a newly defined Consequence Class CC0, see Table 2.

Target for n = 50 years Annual Targets

Consequence Classes Reliability Failure Reliability Failure
Index Probability Index Probability
CC Typical Examples bT,50 pf,T,50 bT,1 pf,T,1
Hazardous facilities; structures for
4 4,9 (4,892) 5 ∙10-7 5,6 (5,612) 10-8
post-disaster function
3 Concert hall, high rise building
(large number of people)
4,3 (4,417) 5 ∙10-6 5,2 (5,199) 10-7
2 Residential, public, offices 3,8 (3,891) 5 ∙10-5 4,7 (4,753) 10-6
Agricultural structures, small
1 storage buildings (low occupancy)
3,3 (3,291) 5 ∙10-4 4,2 (4,265) 10-5
0b Consequences can be neglected 2,6 (2,576) 5 ∙10-3 3,7 (3,719) 10-4
0a No Consequences 1,6 (1,645) 5 ∙10-2 3,1 (3,090) 10-3
Notes: The failure probability pf refers to the whole design process, not to the action side alone. All values are targets
(Index T). For the reliability index bT the standard values according to EN 1990 are given (in blue), as well as the
exact values (in brackets) as they would result from the ideal failure probabilities using: bT = -F-1(pf,T) = F-1(1-pf,T).
The new values (in green) are chosen according to the ideal pf. It should be noted that the reference values of the
reliability index for CC2 and CC3 (bT,50 = 3,8 and 4,3) are a little too small.
Table 2: Target values of failure probability and the related reliability index according to EN 1990
with extension by two classes according to ISO 2394
Plastic film covered greenhouses are situated in closed and protected areas that are not accessible to
the public. Use, maintenance and repair are carried out by trained and skilled technical staff and
excluded during design relevant events such as storms or snowfall. These criteria do also apply to
greenhouses in CC1. However, the pre-stressed plastic film has large plastic reserves and can hold
the substructure together. Local loads can be distributed better. Also, the collapse of individual
components or even a total collapse of the structural system poses a smaller, negligible danger to
persons, because of the smaller weight. The removal or repair/rebuilding of a damaged greenhouse
is not that complicated, unlike the removal of broken glass.

4
The high-tech commercial production greenhouses, covered by EN 13031-1: 2001 now, are
assigned to Consequences Class CC1 and a design working life of 15 years (A15 and B15).
However, most low-tech greenhouses are plastic film tunnels and polytunnels with a design
working live of 5 to 10 years, also shade houses, fruit cages or movable canopies. They are
assigned to a safety level well below Consequences Class CC1 of the Eurocode because of
negligible risks or dangers to humans and negligible economic, social or environmental
consequences of failure. They are therefore not covered by the three-level-system of the Eurocode
according to EN 1990, Annex B, Tables B.1 and B.2, see the grey-blue shaded centre rows in
Table 2. It is expected that the current 3-class system in EN 1990 will be extended to the 5 classes
shown in Table 2. For earthquake loads according to EN 1998 a 4-class system with a higher
importance class IC4 exists already. The post-disaster class IC4 could be expressed in a higher
consequence class CC4 for other loads than earthquake. In the drafted new Eurocode for glass a
lower consequence class CC0 is introduced, see JRC Guidance for European Structural Design of
Glass Components (2014). This has already been outlined for so-called “infill panels” (“not
covered by the Eurocode”) in prEN 16612: 2019. The ISO 2396 with its four-level-system could
also provide a suitable safety class for such structures for a fifth class below CC1.

2. Partial Factors for actions - Uncertainties

Uncertainties of actions and action effects on the structure are considered by enlarging the
representative action value by a partial factor gF. The partial factors gF cover usually also model
uncertainties, e.g for the action side with:
gF = gSd ∙ gf
For the action effects in greenhouses, special load models are not specified. Model uncertainties
due to the estimation the ground snow loads, or basic wind loads, should be covered within the
characteristic values itself (by calibration). Uncertainties in connection with the calculation of the
action effect on the structure (model uncertainties) are covered within the specified coefficients
itself, by defining it far on the safe side. This is not a full probabilistic approach yet. However, in
case of a probabilistic consideration, the specified action effects on the structure would exhibit a
strong bias towards a conservative approach, so that variations can be covered.
For roof snow actions for example, this principle can be demonstrated assuming a remaining
coefficient of variation of the model uncertainties of Vq,E = 0,26 together with the bias of the
characteristic roof snow action effect of µq,E = 0,81 (Croce et al., 2020). These model uncertainties
are based on 1300 roof snow load measurements in Norway (Høibø, 1988). They cover the shape
coefficient µ for flat and saddle roofs (> 900 cold roofs with rough cladding) including the
exposure coefficient Ce.
According to Jacinto et al. (2020), assuming a lognormal distribution for the model
uncertainties, which are not dominating (aE = -0,28 and b = 3,8 for CC2) in comparison to the
variation of the ground snow load, the partial factor for the model uncertainties of roof snow loads
would result in:
gSd = µq,E / (1 + Vq,E2)0,5 ∙ exp (-aE ∙ b ∙ (ln(1+Vq,E2))0,5)
gSd = 0,81 / 1,033247 ∙ e0,2721286 = 0,81 ∙ 1,2705 = 1,029 ≈ 1

5
The thermal coefficient Ct according to ISO 4355, Annex D is based on Norwegian meteorological
data records together with the evaluation of a thermodynamic roof snow model with melting
conditions at the bottom (Sandvik, 1988). One year later the model has also been evaluated for the
snow climate in Sweden (Dalberg et al., 1988). In both evaluations the ratio of calculated values
Ct,m remain below 80 % of the Ct values according to ISO 4355, Annex D (Pertermann et al.,
2012). The Ct-value according to ISO 4355, Annex D is far on the safe side, if the limitations
concerning its application according to EN 13031-1 are observed, e.g. temperature range and
heating, heat transfer coefficient, maximum ground snow load and the minimum roof snow load
after melting as a robustness limit.
Furthermore, for roof structures as shown in Figure 1, there are large hidden reserves due to
sliding and drifting of roof snow on the very smooth cladding of glass or plastic film, which are
covered not at all by the Eurocode (Background Report to EN 13031-1: 2019, Annex C, Part I:
Melting and Part II-0: Sliding and Drift).
For wind loads, the bias must be even larger because of the larger number of coefficients, such as
force coefficient, pressure coefficient (external, internal, local, global), friction coefficient,
correlation coefficient, gust size factor, directional factor, seasonal factor, roughness factor,
orography factor, terrain factor, ground roughness etc. These coefficients are known to be very
conservative and are usually applied with caution or not at all by the designer. There are hidden
reserves not covered by the Eurocode due to a very smooth cladding (glass or plastic film) and the
flexibility of plastic film.
→ With further model uncertainties covered by gSd ≈ 1, the partial factor becomes gF = gf. This can
be assumed as far as no other values for gSd are defined in the Eurocode or related NAD*.
→ Model uncertainties would depend on the type of action. However, based on the effect on the
design, this is a minor problem in comparison to the influence of the calculation methods in
connection with the large variations of the climatic loads in Europe.
Note: * NAD – National application documents. This can be a National Annex to the Eurocode or
any other relevant regulation of the Building Authority.
The partial safety factor gF is related to the consequence classes. Design relevant combinations of
actions (persistent and transient design situations) are very often dominated by the variable actions
(Q), such as wind and snow, not by permanent actions (G) due to dead weight and installations.
Greenhouses are lightweight structures, see Figure 1.

3. Partial Factors – Variable Actions

3.1 Definition

For greenhouse roof structures two variable actions are of interest, snow and wind loads. For the
time-variant part of these variable actions (Q), which are also climatic actions, at a location directly
measured or calculated values (e.g. snow heights (SH) or snow water equivalents (SWE)), are used
to estimate representative characteristic values of these actions. With the characteristic value Qk
and the design value Qd of a climatic action the partial factor gF,Q can be written in a general form:
gF,Q = Qd / Qk

6
If the series of meteorological data (sample) follow a Gumbel distribution, the characteristic
value Qk and the design value Qd are determined as follows:
Qk = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-Pn)) })
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-Pd)) })
Where: µ is the mean value of the data series µ = 1/n · S (SHi or SWEi)
s is the standard deviation of the data series s = 1/(n -1) · S ((SHi or SWEi) - µ)2
V is the coefficient of variation of the sample V = µ/s
Pn is the annual probability of exceedance with the approximation Pn ≈ 1/n
Pd is the target value for the exceedance probability on the design level Pd,1 ≈ 1/Td,1
Td,1 is the target value of the return period for the design level
Such a simple calculation requires, that the mean value, the coefficient of variation, the probability
of exceedance on the characteristic level and the design level refer to the same reference period.
Note: If there is a lognormal distribution of the data series (sample), the characteristic value Qk
and the design value Qd are determined as follows:
Qk = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ { F-1(1-Pn) } ]
Qd = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ { F-1(1-Pd) } ]
Where: exp is the potential function with the basis e with exp [x] = e[x]
B is the shape parameter for the lognormal distribution B = (ln(1 + V2))0,5
F-1 is the inverse cumulative standard normal distribution (or the quantile value)
with: µ, s, V, Pn, Pd und Td,1 as for the Gumbel distribution
For these two probability distributions in EN 13031-1, equations for the adjustment factor fs(n) for
the characteristic snow load are given. Therefore, they are shown here. For wind loads, only the
adjustment factor fw(n) for the Gumbel distribution is given. For other distributions the expressions
would be different. A good introduction into the calibration of partial factors for different
probability distribution, targets and types of actions is given by Jacinto et al. 2020.

3.2 Target value for the characteristic level

Target values for variable actions are only given directly on the characteristic level. According to
EN 1990, 4.1.2 (7) P Note 2 the characteristic value of climatic actions is based upon the annual
probability of Pk,1 ≈ 1/50 = 0,02. This target applies to the consequence class CC2 and normal
structures designed for a reference period of n = 50 years.
“The characteristic value of climatic actions is based upon the probability of 0,02 of its time-
varying part being exceeded for a reference period of one year. This is equivalent to a mean
return period of 50 years for the time-varying part. However, in some cases the character of the
action and/or the selected design situation makes another fractile and/or return period more
appropriate.”
If the characteristic action value Qk remains constant, accumulated over a design working life of n
= 50 years, the probability of exceeding this characteristic action value Pn,50 is rising. Up to which
value the exceedance probability is rising, can be calculated quite differently using nothing else,
but the advice given in EN 1990:
• Simple accumulation (deterministic): Pk,50 = n ∙ Pk,1 = 50 ∙ 0,02 = 1
• Cumulative Density Function (CDF) of a Discrete Geometric Distribution (DGD) of n
independent Bernoulli trials: Pk,50 = 1 - (1 - Pk,1)n
Pk,50 = 1 - (1 - 0,02)n = 1 - (0,98)50 = 1 - 0,36417 = 0,63583

7
For a comparison, the conversion F (bn) = (F (b1))n according to EN 1990 using the Cumulative
Density Function (CFD) of the Standard Normal Distribution (SND) delivers:
b1 = -F-1(Pk,1) using the characteristic target Pk,1 = 0,02 gives: bk,1 = 2,05375
F (bn) = ( F (b1) )50 using F (bk,1) = 0,98 gives: F (bk,50) = 0,9850 = 0,364 (survival)
Pk,50 = 1 - F (bk,50) = 1 - 0,364 = 0,63583 (failure) with bk,50 = -0,3473354 < 0
Note: Because the probability Pk,50 for n = 50 years is larger than 0,5, the reliability index b of the
SND is negative. This can lead to problems within further calculations!
In general the relation between failure probability Pn, reference period n and return period TR is
calculated using TR = 1/(1 - (1-Pf,n)1/n) ≈ - n / ln(1 - Pn) ≈ n / Pn. In reverse this means:
Pn = 1 - exp(-n/TR,k) for TR,k - return period (Target) TR,k = 50 years
Pk,1 = 1 - exp(-1/50) = 1 - 0,9801987 = 0,0198 ≈ 1/50 = 0,02
Pk,50 = 1 - exp(-50/50) = 1 - 0,3678 = 0,63212 << 50/50 = 1
In contrast to the accumulation this exponential distribution works well for small values of the
design working life. Therefore, it is used in EN 13031-1 for the calculation of the exceedance
probability for the characteristic action values. Also, it allows to simplify the equations of the
Gumbel and lognormal distributions, see Part 2 of this reliability report.

3.3 Review of the Target values for the design level

3.3.1 Reliability Basis
Target values for the exceedance probability of actions on the design level are NOT given in EN
1990 but have to be estimated based on the failure reliability targets for the whole structure
according to Table 2. This method is not satisfactory, because the calculation is lengthy and the
advice according to EN 1990 can be and has been interpreted quite different by different users.
This could be avoided simply by giving target values for the probability of exceedance for actions
directly as done for example in ISO 4354: 2009 for wind actions, see Table 3.

Importance Level Target Values for the Design and Wind Action
Reliability Probability of Annual Probability
IL Type of Structure Index Failure of Exceedance
bT,n p f,T,n 1 : TR,T,d,1
Required for post-disaster recovery;
4 4,2 (4,265) 10-5 1 : 2000
hazardous facilities
3 Large number of people; high risk 3,7 (3,719) 10-4 1 : 1000
2 Normal occupancy 3,1 (3,090) 10-3 1 : 500
1 Low hazard to people and property 2,3 (2,326) 10-2 1 : 200
0 Hazard can be neglected 1,3 (1,282) 10-1 1 : 100
Note: The failure probability pf,T,n = F(-bT,n) refers to the reliability for the design under wind action. It is a lifetime
target value, not restricted to n = 50 years. The probability of failure remains constant for different reference periods,
as it should be. Instead of an annual target for the design, the annual probability of exceedances for the wind action,
expressed in terms of the return period, is given. It applies for each year of the design working life.
Table 3: Target values of failure probabilities and reliability index (lifetime) and annual
probability of exceedance with return period for wind actions according to ISO 4354: 2009
In contrast to such easy and clear targets EN 1990 suggests beside a full probabilistic method
(Level III) the estimation based on the target reliability index b, using FORM (Level II: First Order
8
Reliability Method) with standardized sensitivity factors a. This method is based on ISO 2394:
1989, Annex E. The problem is that there are two targets.
According to EN 1990, Annex C and FORM, the failure probability pf = F(-b) can be calculated
with the cumulative density function (CDF) of the standard normal distribution (SND) F. The SND
is a symmetric, continuous function with its location (modal value = median value = mean value) at
µ = 0 and the scale (standard deviation = square of the variance) at s = 1. Only the small “fractile”
area under its tail is used for the estimation of pf. It is also used as an approximation for other
distributions with different tails and does not always fit well, especially for larger pf. If the failure
probability is pf = F(-bT), for avoiding failure (survival) applies: (1 - pf) = 1 - F(-bT) = F(bT).
Introducing a sensitivity factor aE into the expression for (1 - pf) delivers the non-exceedance
probability of the action (1 - Pd). The sensitivity factor for the action side aE = -0,7 is a negative
value, therefore: (1 - Pd) = F(-aE ∙ bT). The exceedance probability is Pd = F(aE ∙ bT).
For a Gumbel distribution with the parameter µ and V the design value Qd can be expressed using
the target value for the non-exceedance probability (1 - Pd) or the target reliability index bT directly
(FORM):
Qd = gF,Q ∙ Qk = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (F(-aE ∙ bT))) })
Where: bT is the target value of the reliability index: bT = -F-1(pf) = F-1(1 - pf)
Pd is the exceedance probability for the design value of the action
aE is the sensitivity factor for the action side: aE = -0,7
F is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution
with the failure probability pf = F(-bT) = 1 - F(bT)
For a Lognormal distribution with the parameters µ and V the design value Qd can be expressed
using the target value for the non-exceedance probability (1 - Pd) or the target reliability index bT
directly (FORM):
Qd = gF,Q ∙ Qk = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ -aE ∙ bT ∙ ln(1 + V2))0,5 ]
Where: bT is the target value of the reliability index: bT = -F-1(pf) = F-1(1 - pf)
Pd is the exceedance probability for the design value of the action
aE is the sensitivity factor for the action side: aE = -0,7
F-1 is the inverse cumulative standard normal distribution (fractile value)

At the center of FORM is the sensitivity factor aE = -0,7. It allows to separate the action and the
resistance side. It can be used within a wide range of uncertainties: 0,16 < sE/sR < 7,6. If the
uncertainties on the action side are too large (sE/sR > 7,6): aE = -1. The factor itself is on the safe
side, because together with the sensitivity factor for the resistance side aR = 0,8, for the design
results: (-0,7)2 + 0,82 = 1,13 >, 1, providing some reserve for the design in total.

3.3.2 Annual Target

Using the given annual target value for the reliability index bT,1 = 4,7 and the sensitivity factor aE
= -0,7, the probability of exceedance related to the design level of CC2 is according to FORM:
Pf,T,1,d = F(aE ∙ bT,1) = F(-0,7 ∙ 4,7) = F(-3,29) = 5,009 ∙10-4 ≈ 5 ∙10-4.

9
This is the annual value. The return period would be: TR,d,1 ≈ 1/Pf,T,1,d = 1996 ≈ 2000 years. It
refers to importance level IL IV according to ISO 4354: 2009 (Table 3) for wind loads for
hazardous facilities and post-disaster functions and is quite large.
For a high risk and a large number of people, IL III and TR,d,1 = 1/Pf,T,1,d = 1000 years would be
sufficient. It would lead to Pf,T,1,d = 10-3 and bT,1 = -F-1(10-3) / 0,7 = 4,4146.

Would the calculation be based on the ideal values of the failure probability of pf,T,1 = 10-6 and the
resulting correct reliability index bT,1 = 4,7534… instead on the given, rounded values for the
reliability index, the result would differ and lead to TR,d,1 ≈ 1/Pf,T,1,d = 2282 years.

Pf,T,1,d = F(aE ∙ bT,1) = F(-0,7 ∙ 4,7534) = F(-3,274) = 4,383 ∙10-4.

→ The given values for the reliability index in EN 1990 are not precise, the estimation of the return
period is only an approximation. The influence on the results remains small (up to +14% for the
return period). Despite of that, they can be used, because they are well-established target values
known for decades.

EN 1990, C.6 (1) Note 2 implies that failure probabilities can be accumulated using: F(bn) =
(F(b1))n, an accumulation using the CDF of the SND. This can be expressed as: F(bn) = 1 - pf,n =
(1 - pf,1)n with: pf,n = 1 - (1 - pf,1)n. Using this equation, the annual probability of exceedance based
on bT,1 = 4,7 can be accumulated, here for n = 50 years:
Pf,T,n,d = 1 - (1 - Pf,T,1,d)n = 1 - (1 - 5,009369 ∙ 10-4)50 = 1 - 0,99949950 = 0,975258
Pf,T,n,d = 1 - 0,975258 = 2,47419 ∙ 10-2 ≈ 0,025.
This value seems large. However, it applies for a time period of n = 50 years. Divided equally over
the time period, the annual value for the return period can be approximated as follows:
TR,d,1 ≈ 1 / (Pf,T,n,d / 50) = n / PTf,n,d = 50 / 0,0247419 = 2021 years > 1996 years
TR,d,1 = - n / ln (1 - Pf,T,n,d) = -50 / ln(0,9752581) = 1995,76 years ≈ 1996 years
The approximated annual value is larger than at the starting point at Td,1 = 1996 years. However,
this is not a safety problem, but a problem with simplified calculations and limitations for the
formulae for different probabilities. The more calculation steps, the larger the unintended error.
Calculations with reliability values using b resulting from an accumulation may lead to very
different results if not used properly. The methods given in EN 1990 are obviously not to be taken
arbitrary. Pf = F(-b) as CDF of the SND (standard normal distribution) is continuous with a
maximum of Pf = F(0) = 0,5 in the middle. Other distributions are not symmetrical and may have
other maxima out of the median and mean value. The accumulation however represents a discrete
distribution with a maximum of up to Pf = 1 at the end, not in the middle. The failure probability
results from a CDF of a geometric distribution of results of n independent Bernoulli trials. It is a
special case of a discrete binominal distribution. By using discrete and continuous functions
together, continuity errors are made. The accumulation of probabilities calculated using the CDF of
the SND can lead to large total errors.

→ The CDF of the SND should not be mixed with other distributions, such as Gumbel or with a
discrete accumulation. For larger probabilities, continuity errors cannot be neglected any more.
Calculations should rather be based on the probabilities directly, avoiding the reliability index.

10
More important is, that annual targets and lifetime targets aim at different purposes and need to
be applied differently. Whereas the annual target serves the protection of human safety
requirements, the lifetime target is the result of an economical optimization, see ISO 2394. The
annual target applies to every single year during the design working life of a structure. Therefore,
the exceedance probability for such a target value rises with the time. But this is not relevant,
because the target value applies to single years, not the design working life.
The lifetime target remains the same, independent from the design working life of a structure, be it
nd = 50 years for usual structures or nd = 15 years for greenhouses Type A15 and B15. The
exceedance probability should not change with the design working life of a certain structure.
However, broken down to the annual level and assumed to be equally distributed over a certain
lifetime, it changes too, as shown in Table 5.
Applying the annual target value of bT,n = 4,7 to other reference periods would lead to a different
exceedance probability during the design working life, see Table 4.

Design working Annual exceedance Exceedance probability for Reliability

No. life probability Target the design working life index design
n in years Pf,1 Pf,n bn
1 50 2,474 ∙ 10-2 2,8
2 30 1,492 ∙ 10-2 3,1
3 25 1,245 ∙ 10-2 3,2
4 20 5 ∙ 10-4 9,971 ∙ 10-3 3,3
5 15 7,488 ∙ 10-3 3,5
6 10 4,998 ∙ 10-3 3,7
7 5 2,502 ∙ 10-3 4,0
8 1 5,009 ∙ 10-4 4,7
Note: The annual Target according to EN 1990 for CC2 is based on b1 = 4,7. Using FORM (aE = -0,7), the
exceedance probability is Pf,1 = F(aE ∙ b1). The annual target value applies to each single year. With each year the
exceedance probability rises: Pf,n = 1 - (1 - Pf,1)n with n as the number of years. The reliability index for the design
with reference to the design working life follows from the inverse cumulative distribution function of the standard
normal distribution corrected by the sensitivity factor aE = -0,7: bn = -F-1(Pf,n) / 0,7.
Table 4: Exceedance probability for actions and Reliability index for the design
using FORM (aE = -0,7) with the annual target value b1 = 4,7 according to EN 1990
Using the annual target value, the exceedance probability rises with increasing time. Calculated this
way, the reliability index would reach bn = 3,7 after about n = 10 years and b50 = 2,8 for n = 50
years. For normal structures this is not intended. Therefore, the Eurocode defined the lifetime target
value with bT,50 = 3,8 for n = 50 years.
However, for lower consequence classes, e.g. for commercial production greenhouses, lower
targets can be applied, such as bT,n = 3,3 for CC1 and bT,n = 2,6 for CC0, see Table 2.

3.3.3 Lifetime Target

Using the reliability index bT,n = 3,8 for n = 50 years as a basis, as described above, for the design
working life a small and realistic looking probability of exceedance seem to results:
Pf,T,n,d = F(aE ∙ bT,n) = F(-0,7 ∙ 3,8) = F(-2,66) = 3,907 ∙10-3 ≈ 0,0039

11
However, this value refers to a time period of n = 50 years in total. Divided into 50 equal parts and
distributed using the accumulation, the annual value for the return period can be calculated as
follows: TR,d,1 = 1 / (1 - (1 - Pf,T,n,d)1/n) = 1 / (1 - (0,996093)0,02) = 12 773 years
TR,d,1 ≈ -1 / ln((1-Pf,T,n,d)1/n) = -1 / ln((0,996093)0,02) = 12 772,5 years
TR,d,1 ≈ n / Pf,T,n,d = 50 / 3,907 ∙10-3 = 12 797,5 years ≈ 12 800 years
This does not look realistic anymore, because it is larger than the return periods for accidental or
exceptional loads. However, such a large annual probability is only created by dividing the lifetime
target equally into 50 single units. This is purely theoretical because the lifetime target applies for
the design working life in total. Divided in only one unit, the recurrence interval for the unit
(instead of the return period) would be:
TR,d,1 = n / Pf,T,n,d = 1 / 0,003907033 = 256 years
Applying the lifetime target value of bT,n = 3,8 to other reference periods than tref = 50 years, would
lead to the different annual exceedance probabilities and return periods in Table 5.

Note, that in Table 5 the term “n” has the character of a number, the number of repetitions of the
chosen basic reference period t0 with r = n = tref / t0. Is the time period tref not subdivided, the basic
reference period t0 is equal to the time period in total tref and r = 1 applies (case No. 9). This is the
case for permanent loads.

Basic Number of Exceedance Annual

Time period
reference repetitions of probability exceedance Return period
No in total
period t0 within tref Target probability
tref in years t0 in years r = n = tref/t0 Pf,n Pf,1 TRd,1 in years
1 50 1 50 7,829 ∙ 10-5 12773
2 30 1 30 1,305 ∙ 10-4 7664
3 25 1 25 1,566 ∙ 10-4 6387
4 20 1 20 1,957 ∙ 10-4 5109
5 15 1 15 3,907 ∙ 10-3 2,609 ∙ 10-4 3832
6 10 1 10 3,914 ∙ 10-4 2555
7 5 1 5 7,826 ∙ 10-4 1278
8 1 1 1 3,907 ∙ 10-3 256
9 50 50 1 3,907 ∙ 10-3 256
Note: The lifetime Target according to EN 1990 for CC2 is based on b50 = 3,8. Using FORM (aE = -0,7), the
exceedance probability is Pf,n = F(aE ∙ b50). The lifetime target value is not restricted to n = 50 years.
The annual exceedance probability results from: Pf,1 = 1 - (1 - Pf,n)1/n with the return period TR,d,1 = 1/(1 - (1-Pf,1)1/n) ≈
1/ Pf,1. These values can deviate slightly from a calculation using TR,d,1 ≈ n / Pf,n.
Table 5: Annual exceedance probability for actions and return period
using FORM (aE = -0,7) with the lifetime target value b50 = 3,8 according to EN 1990
However, such large annual probabilities with return periods larger than for the annual target at
2000 years (in red) are no target values according to EN 1990. This is not intended. The constant
lifetime probability based on bT,n = 3,8 for n = 50 years is the target.
How the annual exceedance probabilities are distributed during the lifetime should not be decisive
because of the annual target with a return period of TR,d,1 = 1996 ≈ 2000 years (or any other target
or exceedance probability for certain actions, countries may define, see ISO 4354: 2009 for wind
loads. For snow loads this is even more urgent because of naturally large coefficients of variation.)

12
3.3.4 Conclusion for EN 13031-1
For the characteristic level EN 1990, 4.1.2 (7) P, Note 2 provides an annual target value of Pk,1 ≈
1/50 = 0,02 for the climatic actions for structures of CC2 and nd = 50 years.
For structures not covered by the Eurocode, the target value of 0,02 can also be adapted. For
commercial production greenhouses the adaptation is carried out by using the partial factors,
combination factors and consequence factors on the action side and the whole resistance side
unchanged and adapting the characteristic values of the time-variant parts of the variable loads
instead, see Part 2 of this Reliability Report. This method is based on the suggestions found in EN
1990, EN 1991-1-3, EN 1991-1-4, EN 1991-1-5 and EN 1998-1 for snow, wind, temperature and
earthquake, see also Handbook 2: Reliability Backgrounds (2005).
For the design level, no target values for the actions are given. Instead, EN 1990, Annex C can be
used for calibration. FORM is based on given target reliability indexes for n = 1 (bT,1 = 4,7) or for n
= 50 years (bT,50 = 3,8). As shown, the underlying target reliabilities should be considered to
minimise errors. The analysis of the two targets in Table 4 and Table 5 show that a calibration
based on the annual target is justified for commercial production greenhouses in CC1 and CC0
according to EN 13031-1, especially for greenhouses Type B15, B10 and B5, which are not
covered by the existing system in the Eurocode at all. Therefore, EN 13031-1 has extended the
system by the consequence class CC0, as shown in Table 1 and 2.
A more differentiated system of annual and lifetime targets is offered by ISO 2394, which shows,
that the reference values of 3,8 and 4,7 in EN 1990 are quite large. Both targets could also be
differentiated for cases where the relative costs of higher safety measure to achieve a higher target
reliability would be inappropriate, e.g. due to a short design working life.
Relative costs of Consequences of failure
safety measures small some moderate great
High 0 1,5 2,3 3,1
Moderate 1,3 2,3 3,1 3,8
Low 2,3 3,1 3,8 4,3
Table 6a: Target values bn for the Reliability index (lifetime) acc. ISO 2394: 1998, Table E.2
The updated version ISO 2395: 2015 refers to this version. ISO 2394: 2015 incorporated a new
system of annual targets (Van Coil et al., 2017) for three of the 5 classes, see Table 6b.

Relative costs of Consequences of failure

safety measures minor (Class 2) Moderate (Class 3) Large (Class 4)
High 3,1 3,3 3,7
Moderate 3,7 4,2 4,4
Low 4,2 4,4 4,7
Table 6b: Annual target values b1 for the Reliability index (acc. ISO 2394: 2015, Table G.4)
Based on both systems ISO 4354: 2009 has defined target reliabilities for the design value of the
exceedance probability of actions due to wind, see Table 3. For commercial production
greenhouses CC1 the failure consequences are “some” to “small” in Table 6a or “minor” in Table
6b, the relative costs of higher safety measures “high”, leading to b1 = 3,1 and bn = 0 to 1,5.

13
4. Calibration methods for partial factors
4.1 Basic requirements
It should be emphasized, that the calibration and the resulting partial factors are always a national
choice, because the used method depends on the type of action, the climate, the available data
record and the evaluation and use in the past (local climate, data record and past experience).
The calculation according to EN 1990, Annex C using FORM is based on given target reliability
indexes for n = 1 (bT,1 = 4,7) or for n = 50 years (bT,50 = 3,8). Both targets should lead to a
comparable safety level if treated correctly, because: F(bT,n) ≈ (F(bT,1))n leading to 0,999928 ≈
0,999935 for CC2 and n = 50 years. However, this conversion should not be used without looking
at the calculated probabilities and their return periods or recurrence intervals. Meteorological
judgement is required too.
For good reasons Gulvanessian (2012) pointed out, that if the characteristic value of a type of
action is given for an annual probability, the calibration should be carried out with an annual target
value.
Note: It needs to be emphasized, that the Eurocode provides a target for the characteristic value of
climatic actions, expressed by a certain annual exceedance probability. However, it is
representative for the design working life of usual structures (n = 50 years). It does not suggest, that
for all measurement data an annual distribution must be considered and transformed to the design
working life of 50 years. As the data record is long enough, e.g. 50 years, the basic reference period
t0 can be extended to the length of the data record tref as well.
In terms of the statistically correct treatment of uncertainties, the general approach according to EN
1990 using annual and general distribution for the design working life is possible, but there are
more suitable methods to deal with uncertainties depending on the type of action! For snow loads
the draft version prEN 1991-1-3: 2020 gives appropriate advice for Europe in Annex A, A.3
“Treatment of ground snow load measurements”.

4.2 Calibration based on Annual Targets, using a Gumbel distribution

The calibration based on the annual target will be called Case A. The key points are:
Case A: b1 = 4,7; aE = -0,7: Pf,T,1,d = 5 ∙10-4
This method is presented first, because it is traditional and predates the development of the
Eurocode, see e.g. Grusibau-1981, where only one target value was used, the annual target
reliability index b = 4,7. Instead of a lifetime target, there was an additional serviceability limit.
For the statistical evaluation of certain climatic loads, recurrence intervals were fixed, e.g. TR,d =
1000 years for wind and snow loads. On the other hand, the characteristic values based on data
records from 30 years (1935-1968) and a non-exceedance probability of 95% (Pf,1 = 1/20 = 0,05).
No partial factors were used, but allowable stresses. Especially in high altitudes the snow loads
were assumed to be a lot smaller, the known “safety margins” as well. Most of the traditional
structures still stand and will continue to do so (hidden safety).
According to EN 1990, Annex C, C6 (1), Note 2 for actions with statistically independent maxima
in each year, it is allowed to adapt the reliability index for a different reference period using F(bn)
= (F(b1))n. This rule applies also for estimating b1 using the inverse relation F(b1) = (F(bn))1/n.

14
The reliability index b50 = 3,8 for the design working life (normally n = 50 years) leads to 1 - pf,1 =
F(4,7) ≈ (F(3,8))0,02 = 0,9999986 with a failure probability pf,1 = 1,45 ∙ 10-6 ≈ 10-6.
The annual value for the reliability index b1 = 4,7 leads to 1 - pf,1 = F(4,7) = 0,9999987 and the
failure probability pf,1 = F(-4,7) = 1,3 ∙ 10-6 ≈ 10-6.
For the annual distributions, the annual target b1 leads to a slightly smaller failure probability pf,1
and is on the safe side. The sensitivity factor aE = -0,7 might also be conservative. Therefore, the
calculation based on the annual target b1 = 4,7 is also representative for the appropriate lifetime
target bn = 3,8 (n = 50 years).
The condition for calculating with only one probability distribution is, that main uncertainties result
from the variations of measurement data of long-term records. The remaining uncertainties (quality
of the correlation) are estimated and addressed by calibration. For climatic actions, such as snow
loads, this is possible, see Final Report I (1998), chapter 4.2.2 Statistical Model:
“Pre-determined by the definition of the characteristic value (…) the analysis must not focus on the
probability distribution of the daily values, but on the distribution of the maximum values related to
a certain period of time. Unlike other climatic loads (…) snow has a very clear seasonal rhythm. …
This sample containing one value per year of observation may be considered as belonging to an
underlying extreme value distribution. The best fitting distribution describes the snow load on the
ground at the place of observation and allows its characteristic value to be calculated.”
A.1 For the annual values of the exceedance probabilities Pk,1 and Pd,1 the partial safety factor
gF,Q can be estimated as the ratio of both values Qd and Qk. The index “1” is used to identify
the annual targets as a basis.
Pk,1 = 1/50 = 0,02 (Tk,1 = 1/Pk,1 = 50 years):
Qk = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-0,02)) })
Qk = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 - 3,9019387 })
Qk = µ (1 + V ∙ (0,7796968 ∙ 3,3247187
Qk = µ (1 + V ∙ 2,5922725)
Pd,1 = Pf,T,1,d = 5,0094 ∙10-4 = F(-0,7 ∙ 4,7) (Td,1 = 1/Pd,1 = 1996 years):
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-0,00050094)) })
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 - 7,5987737 })
Qd = µ (1 + V ∙ (0,7796968 ∙ 7,021558)
Qd = µ (1 + V ∙ 5,4746911)
gF,Q = Qd,1 / Qk,1 = (1 + 5,4747 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,5923 ∙ V)

A.2 Using a chosen annual target directly, e.g. Td,1 = 2000 years, with Pf,T,1,d = 1/Td,1 = 5 ∙ 10-4 a
different, but very similar expression results:
gF,Q = Qd,1 / Qk,1 = (1 + 5,47614 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,5923 ∙ V).

A.3 For the traditional annual target value * of Td,1 = 1000 years, as suggested for wind loads
according to ISO 4354: 2009, Annex J (Kasperski & Geurts, 2005) and also proposed for
snow loads (Kasperski, 2012) with Pf,T,1,d = 1/T = 10-3 another expression results:
Pd,1 = Pf,T,1,d = 1 ∙10-3 (Td,1 = 1/Pd,1 = 1000 years):
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-0,001)) })
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 – 6,9072551 })

15
 Qd = µ (1 + V ∙ (0,7796968 ∙ 6,3300395)
Qd = µ (1 + V ∙ 4,9355115)
gF,Q = Qd,1 / Qk,1 = (1 + 4,9355 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,5923 ∙ V).

Note: * Such an assumption was also at the basis of calibrations for the first generation of the
Eurocode EN 1991-1-3. In the Background Report for snow loads (Final Report I (1998)), chapter
4.3.6 “Treatment of exceptional ground snow loads” the design level is revealed as: “For a return
period of 1000 years, the fractile value is 0,999 and retaining V = 0,6, results in k = 1,55 ≈ 1,6.
{For V = 0,5, k = 1,51 ≈ 1,5}” These approximations are in good agreement with Case A.3.
The relation in Case A.3 shows that the standard value of gE,Q = 1,5 for snow loads is based on a
Gumbel distribution and the mean value of all coefficients of variation known from older German
snow load standards being V = 0,45 (DIN 1055-5: 1975). The coefficient of variation V = 0,6
based on the evaluation of the SWE on only 331 locations in Germany with small sample sizes has
never been the basis of characteristic now loads in Germany, as claimed in the Final report (1999).
German snow loads are based on more than 1821 locations with snow heights (SH) and SWE for
the reliability-based conversion, because the data record of SH is much larger, the records are
longer and more reliable. Most coefficients of variation are smaller too.
In contrast, the English-speaking countries base the partial factor of gE,Q = 1,5 on the product of a
model uncertainty of gSd = 1,1 and a time-variant part gf = 1,35 (Gulvanessian, 2012). The value of
gf = 1,35 would be too small if the calculations would have been based on bT,1 = 4,7. A different
picture arises with the lifetime target of bT,n = 3,8, as will be demonstrated in Case B.4.
The partial safety factors gF for both design target values (2000 / 1000 years) is shown in Figure 2.

Influence of the variation coefficient on the partial factor

for variable loads with Gumbel distribution
2,0
1,9
1,8
1,7
Partial Factor

1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
Target Probability 10^(-3)
1,2
EN 1990 FORM
1,1
Limit
1,0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8
Variation Coefficient

Figure 2: Influence of the design target and the coefficient of variation on the partial factor for
climatic loads following a Gumbel Distribution (characteristic value Pn,1 = 1/50 = 0,02; n = 50
years; CC2 according to EN 1990 with different methods of calculation)

16
It is obvious, that the choice of a realistic target value for the design level can save a lot of
calibration time. Also, the probabilistic method (based on b1 or b50) and the approach towards
uncertainties has a large impact. This is a safety related issue and therefore a national choice!

4.3 Influence of the type of distribution

As stated in ISO 4355: 2013, Annex A, A.3.1 for snow loads the winter climate decides about the
treatment of basic data. Cold winter climates in Europe have a persistent snow cover with a well-
defined annual maximum as an appropriate basis for extreme value statistics. The snow loads can
be very large. Moderate and warm snow climates with more than one snow covers per season or
less than one per year should use a suitable peak-over threshold method to “stabilise the
parameters”, meaning to minimize variations. However, as stated: “Since confined ensembles
inevitably contain random information it is extremely difficult to identify the ‘true’ probability
distribution and the corresponding ‘true’ parameters. Therefore, it is recommended to use the Type
I extreme value distribution for the annual non-exceedance probabilities. “
Note: Type I extreme value distribution refers to the Gumbel distribution.
The European data record shows that in some locations the data rather follow Lognormal or
Weibull distributions. The influence of the chosen probability distribution on the partial factor is
also large and demonstrated by Jacinto et al. (2020) for Normal, Lognormal and Frechet
Distributions in comparison to the Gumbel Distribution already treated in this report.
For the Lognormal distribution as another two-parameter distribution, the influence on the partial
factor is shown for the Cases A.1 and A.3.

Case A: Calculations based on annual target: b1 = 4,7; aE = -0,7: Pf,T,1,d = 5 ∙10-4

A.1 For the annual values of the exceedance probabilities Pn,1 and Pd,1 the partial safety factor
gF,Q can be estimated as the ratio of both values Qd and Qk.
Pk,1 = 1/50 = 0,02 (Tk,1 = 1/Pk,1 = 50 years):
Qk = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ { F-1(1-0,02) } ]
Qk = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ 2,05375]
Pd,1 = Pf,T,1,d = 5,0094 ∙10-4 (Td,1 = 1/Pd,1 = 1996 years):
mit Pd,1 = Pf,T,1,d ≈ 5 ∙10-4:
Qd = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ F-1( F(-aE ∙ b) ]
Qd = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ { F-1(1-0,00050094) } ]
Qd = µ ∙ exp [- B2/2] ∙ exp [ B ∙ 3,289998]
gF = Qd,1 / Qk,1 = exp [ B ∙ (3,289998 - 2,05375) ] = exp [ 1,23625 ∙ (ln(1 + V2))0.5 ]
A.3 For the traditional annual target value of Td,1 = 1000 years, as suggested for wind loads
according to ISO 4354: 2009, Annex J (Kasperski & Geurts, 2005) and also proposed for
snow loads (Kasperski, 2012) with Pf,T,1,d = 1/T = 10-3 another expression results:
Pd,1 = Pf,T,1,d = 1 ∙10-3 (Td,1 = 1/Pd,1 = 1000 years):
Qd = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ { F-1(1-0,001) } ]
Qd = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ B ∙ 3,090232 ]
gF = Qd,1 / Qk,1 = exp [ 1,0365 ∙ (ln(1 + V2))0.5 ]

17
Figure 3 shows the different partial factors for different coefficients of variation for a Gumbel
distribution (blue) in comparison to a lognormal distribution (green).
The solid lines apply to the target reliability of Pf,1 (s > sd) = 0,001 per year, as they are the basis in
many countries in the past (Case A.3). The pointed lines apply for cases with the target reliability
of Pf,1 (s > sd) = 0,00050094 per year using b1 = 4,7 and FORM with the sensitivity factor of the
action side of aE = -0.7 (Case A.1).
Calibration is required if the coefficient of variation exceeds the red limit line for the partial safety
coefficient at gF,Q = 1,5 (standard value). When using FORM (Case A.1), the limit for Gumbel
distributions is at Vlim = 0,315, for lognormal distributions at Vlim = 0,337.

Influence of the Probability Distribution on Partial Factors of Time-variant Variable Actions

Gumbel Distribution - Lognormal Distribution
depending on the Coefficient of Variation and the Method of Calibration
2,9

2,8 Gumbel: ISO 4354 Annual Target Probability 1/1000

2,7 Gumbel: EN 1990 FORM beta 1 / Annual Target Probability 1/2000
2,6
Lognormal: ISO 4354 Annual Target Probability 1/1000
2,5
Lognormal: EN 1990 FORM Beta 1 / Annual Target Probability 1/2000
2,4
Standard Value EN 1990
2,3
Partial Safety Factor

2,2

2,1

1,9

1,8

1,7

1,6

1,5

1,4

1,3

1,2

1,1

1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Coefficient of Variation
Figure 3: Influence of the coefficients of variation, the distribution and the calculation method on
the partial factor for climatic influences
Should a country have chosen a design target at an annual probability of 1/1000 (Case A.3), the
limits are slightly higher and are closer to the existing coefficients of variation in the continental,
alpine and moderate climate. For Gumbel distributions, the limit is Vlim = 0,4775 ≈ 0,5, for
lognormal distributions at Vlim = 0,40665. Also, for coefficients of variation V > 0,5 the surcharge
due to calibration for lognormal distributions is considerably higher.
Note: The larger surcharge for lognormal distributions is intuitively not appropriate. Lognormal
distributions are often found in long data series and in continental, alpine and moderate climates.
Gumbel distributions are often used in Europe for maritime climates with short data series (often

18
only for a few SWE). The loads according to DIN 1055-5:1975 were also based on 30-year values
with Gumbel distributions and V = 0,45. Meanwhile, the measurement series of many DWD sites
exceed the 100-year limit. Lognormal distributions replace the older Gumbel and Weibull
distributions. The stability of these long data series is much better. However, suddenly larger
surcharges occur during calibration. In addition, the variability increases, because the climate has
not remained constant. This is a problem that can only be solved with fresh ideas in cooperation of
reliability experts and meteorologists. Unfortunately, this does not happen in Europe.

4.4 Calibration based on Lifetime Targets, using a Gumbel distribution

The calibration based on the lifetime target will be called Case B. The key points are:
Case B: b50 = 3,8; aE = -0,7: Pf,T,50,d = 3,9 ∙10-3
As already mentioned, whether the calibration of partial factors for variable loads is carried out
with annual or lifetime targets, is also based on national traditions and experience. Also, the
availability of meteorological data, especially the length of the records, has an impact.
In countries with moderate and cold winter climate the meteorological data record for snow
provides directly measured (or calculated) maximum values for many years. These maximum
values are uncertain itself. Therefore, long data records are used, not under 30 years, if possible,
more than 100 years. The number of data can be enlarged by looking at single snowfall events. In
case of a limited sample size, correction factors the can be introduced (Kasperski, 2012, 2016).
The calibration method is a national responsibility. The meteorological institutions of many
countries have developed elaborate methods to fit climatic data to probability distributions
(Sadovsky, 2015). The methods differ depending on the climate.
However, in all these cases, one probability distribution with the annual maxima is used. If this
function is fitted to the observation data and the correlation between distribution and data is
excellent, no further transformation or adaptation to another reference period is required because
the length of the data record, the observation time, is larger or equal to the reference period of n =
50 years for the design of the structure. In this case the fitting technics for data, the choice of
distribution and the calibration are of vital importance (Final Report I, 1998). From the chosen
distribution fitting the measurement data best, the characteristic value for tn = 50 years or any other
return period tn can be estimated directly. This allows the direct calculation of the partial safety
factor gQ,CC2 and any other coefficient (KFi; y0,1,2; fs(n); fw(n)), avoiding errors. Therefore, it is
important to define the return period for the design level target as discussed already.
However, in other cases, for mild winter climates with only a few snowfalls in a decade, the
uncertainty of the annual maximum values and a limited data record seem to have been addressed
in ways it is done for wind or imposed loads or for the resistance side, described in great detail in
the fib 80 Bulletin for the updating of existing concrete structures (2016).
In this method (Case B) two different probability distributions are considered, first the Gumbel
distribution of annual measurement values (t0 = 1 year) with the mean value of µ1, the standard
deviation s1 and the coefficient of variation V1 of the measurement data. In a second step the so
called “annual distribution” is transformed to the reference period of tn = tref = 50 years, with the
mean value µ50, the standard deviation s50 and the coefficient of variation V50. For the calculation
within a reference period of 50 years, the modal value (µ1 - s1 ∙ (√6)/p) ∙ 0,5772) of the annual

19
distribution is shifted by (s1 ∙ (√6)/p) ∙ ln 50) = (s1 ∙ 0,78 ln 50) = 3,05018 ∙ s1. This point
corresponds to the 2%-fractile value of the annual distribution, because [- s1 ∙ (√6)/p) ∙ ln(-ln(1-
1/50)) ] = s1 ∙ (√6)/p) ∙ ln 50. By this transformation the mean value µ1 is shifted to the new mean
value µ50:
µ50 = µ1 + s1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙ ln 50 = µ1 (1 + V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙ ln 50) = µ1 (1 + 3,05019 ∙ V1)
This value is larger than the characteristic value of the annual distribution with Qk,1 = µ1 (1 +
2,5922725 ∙ V1). For larger coefficients of variation as usual in the milder climate of Europe, this is
a large increase of the mean value. Unlike the characteristic value, the design value will also
increase and the partial factor because of that. The standard deviation of both distributions remains
the same: s1 = s50. Therefore, the coefficient of variation must be adapted as follows. This
adaptation is vital because the coefficient of variation becomes much smaller.
V50 = p / (p / V1 + (√6) ∙ ln 50) = V1 / (1 + V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙ ln 50)) ) = V1 / (1 + 3,05019 ∙ V1)

B.1 For the exceedance probabilities with reference to 50 years Pk,50 and Pd,50 the partial safety
factor gF,Q can be estimated as the ratio of both values Qd,50 and Qk,50. For this calculation
the characteristic value is transformed too, because during 50 years the probability of
exceedance of the annual target Pk,1 = 0,02 rises to the value Pk,50 = 1- (1 - 0,02)50 = 0,63583
> 0,5. This means, the characteristic value can be acceded one time in the reference period
of 50 years. The number of recurrences is rk,50 = 1. The return period per annum remains Tk,1
= 50 years.
Pk,50 = 1- (1 - 0,02)50 = 0,63583 (rk,50 = 1; Tk,1 = 50 years):
Qk,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-0,6358303)) })
Qk,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + 0,0100843 })
Qk,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ (0,7796968 ∙ 0,5872999)
Qk,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ 0,4579159)
Because the exceedance probability Pk,50 is larger than 50%, in the shifted distribution the
characteristic value Qk,50 is smaller than the mean value µ50.
The design target value Pd,50 = F(-0,7 ∙ 3,8) with reference to 50 years has 256 recurrences.
This means the return period per annum is Td,1 = 12 800 years.
Pd,50 = Pf,T,50,d = 3,907 ∙ 10-3 (rd,50 = 1/Pd,50 = 256; Td,1 = n/Pd,50 = 12 800 years):
Qd,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-0,003907)) })
Qd,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 - 5,5430288 })
Qd,50 = µ50 (1 + V50 ∙ (0,7796968 ∙ 4,9658132)
Qd,50 = µ50 (1 + V50 ∙ 3,8718286)
gF,Q = Qd,50 / Qk,50 = (1 + 3,8718 ∙ V50) / (1 - 0,4579 ∙ V50)
After the conversion of V50 back into the format of the Variation coefficient of the annual
distribution V, the partial safety factor for the design working life of tref = 50 years can be
calculated.
gF,Q = Qd,50 / Qk,50 = (1 + V ∙ (3,8718 + (√6)/p ∙ ln 50)) / (1 + V ∙ (-0,4579 + (√6)/p ∙ ln 50))
gF,Q = Qd,50 / Qk,50 = (1 + 6,9220 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,5923 ∙ V)

The equation shows that the level of the characteristic value remains the same as for the annual
calculation in Case A, only the exceedance probability has changed. Despite of a more complicated
calculation the characteristic values Qk,50 and Qk,1 are also equal. Because of the assumption of s1 =
20
s50, the mean value and the probability of exceedance increase by the same ratio the coefficient of
variation decreases. This can be shown in detail:
Qk,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{0,577 + ln(-ln (1- Pk,50))})
Qk,50 = µ50 (1 - V50 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577 + ln(-ln (1- (1- (1-0,02)50) )) })
Qk,50 = µ1 (1 + V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙ ln 50) ∙ (1 - V50 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577 + ln(-ln (1-0,02)50) })
with: V50 = V1 / (1 + V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙ ln 50)
Qk,50 = µ1 (1 + V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙ ln 50 - V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{0,577 + ln(-ln (1-0,02)50) })
Qk,50 = µ1 (1 + V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ln 50 - 0,577 - ln(-ln (1-0,02)50)})
Qk,50 = µ1 (1 - V1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙{0,577 + ln (-ln (1-0,02)50) - ln 50})
Because for the probability term ln (-ln (1-0,02)50) - ln 50 = ln (-ln (1-0,02)) = - 3,9019 applies, the
characteristic values Qk,50 = Qk,1 are also equal. This means, that the calculation can be simplified.
B.2 Because of the identical values for Qk,50 and Qk,1 the same partial factor can be derived,
when the characteristic value Qk from the annual distribution is used and the design value
Qd,50 from the shifted distribution, a method used on snow loads in the fib 80 Bulletin
(2016) for the updating of existing concrete structures.
Using Qk = Qk,1 = µ (1 + V ∙ 2,5922725) instead of Qk,50 leads to the result as in Case B.1:
gF,Q = Qd,50 / Qk,1 = (1 + 6,922 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,5923 ∙ V)

In this equation the difference to the calculation with the annual target can be clearly recognised.
The introduction of the term (V1 ∙ (√6)/p) ∙ ln 50) into the numerator Qd,50, but not into the
denominator Qk,1 does not only increase the design value and the partial factor, but it also creates a
strong dependence on the ratio of different reference periods tref / t0. The transformation from 1
year to 50 years has an especially large impact. From this expression an adjustment factor for the
influence of the remaining design working life on the partial factor could be calculated. This is not
done here, because of the different approach for greenhouses, see Part 2 of this reliability report.
gF,Q = Qd,50 / Qk,1 = (1 + V ∙ (3,8718 + (√6)/p ∙ ln tref/t0)) / (1 + 2,5923 ∙ V))
Note: If t0 = 1 year and tref = 50 years is introduced into the last equation, the partial factor
for CC2 and n = 50 years can be calculated, as given in Case B.1.

B.3 With the equations of the infinite Gumbel distribution, it is not possible to calculate Qk,50
introducing the deterministic value of the probability of exceedance Pk,50 = 50 ∙ 0,02 = 1.
However, if it is assumed, that the probability is 100%, the instead of the characteristic
value the mean value Qk,50,determ. = µ50 = µ1 + s1 ∙ (√6)/p ∙ ln 50 can be used. In this case,
the partial factor would be estimated slightly different:
gF,Q = Qd,50 / Qk,50,determ. = (1 + 6,9220 ∙ V) / (1 + 3,05019 ∙ V)

Such a simple deterministic approach leads to a much smaller partial factor (black points) as in the
fib 80 bulletin, as can be seen in in Figure 4.

B.4 In early Background Reports to the first generation of the Eurocode (e.g. Implementation of
the Eurocode: Handbooks 1, 2 and 3), the calibration of partial factors was carried out using
the target for the characteristic value Qk (Pf,k,1 = 0,02) as for any other target value together
with a design value Qd for the lifetime target b50 = 3,8. This is based on the fact, that the

21
 lifetime target value applies to any design working life and remains constant, see Table 5.
With the assumption of t0 = tref and ln (tref/t0) = ln (1) = 0, the lowest partial factors are
calculated. For the annual values of the exceedance probabilities Pk,1 and Pd,n the partial
safety factor gF,Q can be estimated as the ratio of both values Qd and Qk.
Pk,1 = 1/50 = 0,02 (Tk,1 = 1/Pk,1 = 50 years):
Qk = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-0,02)) })
Qk = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 - 3,9019387 })
Qk = µ (1 + V ∙ (0,7796968 ∙ 3,3247187
Qk = µ (1 + V ∙ 2,5922725)
Pd,n = Pf,T,n,d = 3,907 ∙10-3 = F(-0,7 ∙ 3,8) (Td,n,1 = 1/Pd,n = 256 years):
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (1-0,003907)) })
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 - 5,5430288 })
Qd = µ (1 + V ∙ (0,7796968 ∙ 4,9658132)
Qd = µ (1 + V ∙ 3,8718286)
gF,Q = Qd,n / Qk,1 = (1 + 3,8718 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,5923 ∙ V)

Using the method in Case B.4, the coefficient of variation V can be very large without increase
above the level of the standard value of gQ,CC2 = 1,5, see Figure 4. No calibration of the
characteristic value is required. This is also the reason for safety factors g = 1,3 to 1,4 for snow or
wind loads in some very old standards of the last century. Even the partial factor of gf = 1,35
according to Gulvanessian (2012) could be based on such a calibration method. It is not true, that
these factors were just “made up”.

Influence of the variation coefficient on the partial factor for different evaluation methods
for time-variant, variable loads with Gumbel distribution
2,5

2,4

2,3

2,2

2,1

2,0

1,9
Partial Factor

1,8

1,7

1,6
Standard Value EN 1990
1,5 A.3: ISO 2394 Annual Target Probability 1/1000

A.2: EN 1990 Annual Target Probability 1/2000

1,4
A.1: EN 1990 FORM beta 1; Qd,1/Qk,1
1,3
B.1: EN 1990 FORM beta 50; Qd,50/Qk,50

1,2 B.2: EN 1990 FORM beta 50; Qd,50/Qk,1

B.3: EN 1990 FORM beta 50; Qd,50/Qk,50,determ.

1,1
B.4: EN 1990 FORM beta 50; Qd,n/Qk,1
1,0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2
Variation Coefficient

Figure 4: Influence of the coefficient of variation on the partial factor for time-variant climatic
loads following a Gumbel Distribution (characteristic value Pn,1 = 1/50 = 0,02; n = 50 years; CC2
according to EN 1990 with different methods of calculation)
22
4.5 Conclusions and Summary
By transforming (upscaling) the so called “annual distribution” and “disqualifying” the
characteristic value Qk for n = 50 years to Qk,1 for t0 = 1 year (Case B.1, B.2 and B.3), as it can be
done for wind loads or imposed loads with small sample sizes or with different reference periods,
very large and impractical partial factors result from the calculation when applied to climatic loads
based on a solid and long-term data record of annual maxima with large coefficients of variation
due to the climate. These variations are natural and no uncertainties of unknown origin in a
probabilistic sense. Despite of this they are treated equally.
Partial factors calculated like this refer to an annual return period of 12 800 years, far above the
level of accidental or exceptional loads. Also, return periods like this are without meaning for
climatic variations.
This method uses similar expressions as EN 1990: 2001, Table C.4 for the combination of two
independent variable actions with different reference periods, see chapter 5 of this report. The
Formulae include the term (√6)/p ∙ ln N1. There the number N1 represents the ratio T/T1 of the
reference period and the larger of the return periods of two time-variant actions. The term ln N1
becomes zero for T = T1. However, for T = 50 years and T1 = 1 year, the term 0,7797 ∙ ln 50 =
3,0502 would reduce the design value of the accompanying action.
However, when calculating partial factors there are not two actions to be combined, there is only
one action and its characteristic value. It seems the climatic variation is used for both distributions.
Therefore, it has such a large impact. In the traditional method there are two types of variations to
be addressed, first the natural variation of the climatic data, second the variation between the ideal
probability distribution (e.g. Gumbel) and the fitted data. The second variation, based on the
correlation, is much smaller than the first. The second can be improved by a better simulation, the
first can’t. A calibration using a defined confidence interval based on a normal distribution would
be a more economical way to address remaining uncertainties of the characteristic value based on
the climatic variations. For snow loads this strategy will be outlined in more detail in prEN 1991-
1-3: 2020, A.3. (1) to (10) than it is in the existing standard.
The calculation using the transformed annual distribution is not considering the quality of the
correlation at all. It assumes, that the countries and their meteorological institutions have not
addressed uncertainties already in their estimation of characteristic values for climatic loads. There
are many ways to do that. Should they have done it, they are punished with partial factors
considering these uncertainties a second time. This method might be tolerable in countries with
warmer winter climates with small and unreliable data records or no snow at all leading to very
small characteristic snow loads or for heavy concrete structures in need of an update for a
remaining working life, where climatic loads are not dominating the design and therefore of not
much interest, but it is not suited for the code-based design of new structures. Partial factors larger
than 1,5 are not acceptable for the already very large snow loads in the Alpine or other
mountainous regions or in Scandinavia.
Summary
The differences between the calibrations based on the annual and the lifetime targets are due to the
vague inconsistency of these very often misinterpreted targets. A further influence is the character

23
of the input data (measurement records) and how the terms “reference period”, annual maxima”
and “annual distribution” are interpreted, and their uncertainties are treated.
Generally, more complicated calculations for n = 50 years with too many adaptations, mixing
formulae from the Standard Normal Distribution (SND), Gumbel Distribution (GD) and Discrete
Binomial Accumulation with different maxima introduce more errors. Also, the probabilities are
much larger, especially for the characteristic value. Deterministic probabilities create problems.
Only for the small tail of each of these three distributions possible errors are small enough to be
neglected. Therefore, calculations based on annual targets are less complicated and more reliable!
For the design of commercial production greenhouses according to EN 13031-1 with a reduced
design working life in no need of updating, a different approach has been chosen. As far as
possible, the constant reference values for partial factors, combination factors (also x) and KFi-
factors according to EN 1990 can be used. Therefore, EN 13031-1 needs no correction should the
second generation of the Eurocode or the National Annex of a country introduce larger partial
factors. Also, the KFi-factors for CC1 and CC0 as a ratio between two design values, calculated in
the same way, are not influenced much by changes of the partial factors.
For the time-variant parts of the variable loads, instead of adapting partial factors, special
adjustment factors for the characteristic loads are specified in EN 13031-1, see Part 2 of this
reliability report. The type of distribution and the variation coefficient can be chosen nationally. As
in the Eurocode, the estimation of characteristic actions due to wind, snow and temperature is a
national choice, the selection of suitable partial factors for the actions as well.

5. Combination factors
5.1 General and time-invariant loads combinations
For the combination of actions, the Eurocode parts and their background documents contain as
many different approaches as for the partial factors.
In the absence of alternative target values, the combination coefficients are determined in
accordance with EN 1990, Annex C (FORM), see also Final Report (1999). The basis for this is the
target value of the reliability index b50 = 3,8 for CC2 and n = 50 years, see Table 2. With the
sensitivity coefficient for the action side of aE = -0,7, the design value of the variable action as a
dominating action in the combination is calculated with the probability of exceeding Pf = F(aE ∙ b)
= F(-0,7 ∙ b50) = 3,907 ∙ 10-3. On the other hand, if the action is only accompanying, a lower level
applies, for which a factor of a = 0,4 is used for the reliability index. The corresponding
probability of exceeding the variable influence as an accompanying action is then Pf,0 = F(0,4 ∙ aE
∙ b50) = F(-0,28 ∙ b50) = 1,4366 ∙ 10-1. This equation applies for the time-invariant case (Case A),
where at least one of the loads is constant in time, e.g. permanent loads, installations, plant loads in
combination with another load. Both actions have the same reference period tref = n = 50 years. The
non-exceedance probabilities of the actions are:
Case A: Dominating action: 1 - Pf = F(-aE ∙ b) = F(0,7 ∙ b50) = 0,99609297
Accompanying action: 1 - Pf,0 = F(-0,4 ∙ aE ∙ b) = F(0,28 ∙ b50) = 0,85633565
For the combination of two time-variant variable loads, e.g. wind and snow, the difference in the
fluctuation of the actions can be included, leading to different equations and combination
coefficients depending on the actions to be combined, see chapter 5.2.

24
The combination coefficient y0 is the ratio of accompanying and dominating influences in the
design values and is derived as follows for the distributions of interest here. It is assumed, the two
combined actions are completely independent, and the same reference period applies (tref = 50
years; r = 1).
y0 = Qd,0 / Qd with: Qd = f (1 - Pf) and Qd,0 = f (1 - Pf,0)
Case A: Gumbel distribution: For CC2, FORM with b50 = 3,8, aE = -0,7 and a = 0,4:
Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,5772156649 + ln(-ln (F(-(-0,7) ∙ 3,8))) })
Qd,0 = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,5772156649 + ln(-ln (F(-(-0,7) ∙ 0,4 ∙ 3,8))) })
y0 = Qd,0 / Qd = (1 + 1,0031 ∙ V) / (1 + 3,87182 ∙ V)
Lognormal distribution: For CC2, FORM with b50 = 3,8, aE = -0,7 and a = 0,4:
Qd = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ (ln(1 + V2))0,5 ∙ F-1( F(-(-0,7) ∙ 3,8) ) ]
Qd,0 = µ / (1 + V2)0,5 ∙ exp [ (ln(1 + V2))0,5 ∙ F-1( F(-(-0,7) ∙ 0,4 ∙ 3,8) ) ]
y0 = Qd,0 / Qd = exp [ -1,596 ∙ (ln(1 + V2))0,5 ]

Influence of the Coefficient of Variation on Combination Coefficients for Variable Actions

using Gumbel or Lognormal Distribution
1
Gumbel Distribution
0,9
Lognormal Distribution

0,8

0,7
Combination Coefficient

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Coefficient of Variation

Figure 5: Influence of the coefficients of variation on the combined coefficient of time-invariant

variable loads and time-variant variable loads with r = 1
From these relationships it becomes apparent that the combination coefficient is also a function of
the coefficient of variation and the statistical distribution, as the partial factor but with the opposite
tendencies. The combination factors decrease for higher coefficients of variation, and they decrease
more for lognormal than for Gumbel distributions. The influences are shown in Figure 5.

25
5.2 Combination of time-variant variable loads
If two independent time-variant actions are to be combined, it is most unlikely that both actions
reach their design value at the same time. Therefore, the combination coefficients should be
smaller than in the time-invariant case according to chapter 5.1.
The combination of two time-variant actions was described by rectangular pulse models with
changes in the amplitude occurring at equal intervals first by Ferry Borges, J. & Castanheta, M.
(1971). Therefore, it is called FBC-Model with Rackwitz-Fiessler algorithm for a solution. As an
approximation, Turkstra, C.J. (1970) proposed the combination rules with dominating (maximum
action) and accompanying actions.
The combination is complex because with the transformation into another return period, every
parameter changes, also the target reliability index itself (bc) and therefore the dominating action.
With aE = -0,7, bref = 3,8 as the target reliability index and r as the number of intervals in the
reference period tref = 50 years for the slowest fluctuating load or the load with the largest return
period t0 (r = tref / t0 > 1) the non-exceedance probabilities follow (Vrowenvelder, 2002):
Case B.1: Combination of time-variant variable actions according to FBC and Turkstra
Dominating action: 1 - Pf = (F(F-1(F(-aE ∙ bref)1/r)))r = (F(bc))r
Accompanying action: 1 - Pf,0 = (F(0,4 ∙ F-1(F(-aE ∙ bref)1/r)))r = (F(0,4 ∙ bc))r
where: bc = F-1(F(-aE ∙ bref)1/r) = F-1((1-Pf )1/r) ≈ -F-1(Pf /r)
with Pf = 3,907 ∙ 10-3 (bref = 3,8) and aE = -0,7
Since the last decade such calculations are no problem anymore. Before 1990, by the time the
Eurocode has been developed, it seems that different possibilities to simplify have been used and
partly calibrated, which found their way into the Eurocode. They are more or less “accurate”. Also,
some printing mistakes may persist.
For snow loads, the number of independent load repetitions r per year (instead of the number of
intervals during the reference period of 50 years) has been introduced for this purpose (Final
Report, 1999), maybe because of the basic return period of 1 year. It is a simplified method. The
target reliability index is not adapted, and the dominating action not changed.
For r > 1 the non-exceedance probabilities for the accompanying actions would get smaller. With
the assumption, that the target value b50 remains unchanged, and r remains small, the probabilities
are approximated according to Turkstra`s rule.
Case B.2: Combination coefficients according to Final Report Snow 1999
Dominating action: 1 - Pf = F(-aE ∙ b) = F(0,7 ∙ b50)
Accompanying action: 1 - Pf,0 = (F(-0,4 ∙ aE ∙ b))r = (F(0,28 ∙ b50))r
However, the number of independent load repetitions r per year seems to remain difficult to pin
down. For snow loads it is most likely the number of independent snow covers on the ground with
the potential to develop the annual maximum snow load on a structure. Not every small snowfall
event has this potential. Therefore, the countries have reported very different r, ranging from 0,8 to
6. For the estimation of combination factors the lowest possible r is of interest giving the highest
y0. The lowest possible r in any snow climate is r = 1. In this case, Case A applies.
Of course, the number r (per year) can be understood as a probabilistic parameter and estimated
based on the meteorological data of the locations. Values r < 1 are possible. Some countries with

26
Mediterranean or maritime climate seem to have done it to be able to define lower combination
factors than suggested in the Eurocode.
In the Final Report 1999, Annex 2 the influence of the number of repetitions and the coefficient of
variation on y0 is shown for Gumbel, Lognormal and Weibull distributions for different r (1 < r <
10). For r > 1, the combination factor y0 decreases, e.g. for Gumbel distribution, V = 0,3 from y0 =
0,6 (r = 1, see also Figure 4) to y0 = 0,2 to 0,3 (r = 10), depending on the exact method of
calibration. As far as no different assumptions are made, r = 1 applies.
However, both methods Case B.1 and Case B.2 can only be found in the special Background
reports for the reliability (Case 1) or for snow (Case 2). For the Eurocode itself, some more
simplifications have been developed and calibrated.
In EN 1990, Annex C, Table C.4 formulae for the direct calculation of combination coefficients y0
are given, the general expression for the probability function, the approximation for large N1 and
further approximations for the Normal and the Gumbel distribution.
Case B.3: Combination coefficient y0 in EN 1990, Annex C, Table C.4
General: With aE = -0,7 according to FORM, the factor a = 0,4 for the accompanying
action, b as the target reliability index, bc as the adapted reliability index and N1 as the
number of intervals in the reference period T (N1 = T / T1 > 1) the non-exceedance
probabilities are:
Dominating action: 1 - Pf = F(0,7 ∙ b)N1
Accompanying action: 1 - Pf,0 = F(0,4 ∙ bc)N1
where: bc = -F-1(F(-0,7 ∙ b) / N1) = -F-1(Pf /N1)
with Pf = 3,907 ∙ 10-3
Approximation for large N1:
Dominating action: 1 - Pf = F(0,7 ∙ b)
Accompanying action: 1 - Pf,0 = exp (-N1 ∙ F(-0,4 ∙ bc))
where: bc = -F-1(F(-0,7 ∙ b) / N1) = -F-1(Pf /N1)
with Pf = 3,907 ∙ 10-3
Further Approximations for certain distributions: (no adaptation of b required)
Gumbel distribution: For CC2, FORM with b50 = 3,8, aE = -0,7 and a = 0,4:
Qd = µ (1 - 0,78 V ∙ {0,58 + ln(-ln (F(0,7 ∙ b))) })
Qd,0 = µ (1 - 0,78 V ∙ {0,58 + ln(-ln (F(0,28 ∙ b))) + ln N1) })
y0 = Qd,0 / Qd = (1 + V ∙ (1,0031 - 0,78 ∙ ln N1)) / (1 + 3,87182 ∙ V)
The number N1 is the ratio between reference period T and the greater of the basic return periods
for the two independent, time-variant actions with T1 > T2 (< T). The number N1 = T/T1 is
approximated to the nearest integer (N1 > 0). In the Eurocode, the differences of these formulae, the
definition and application and T and T1 are not sufficiently explained, so that misconceptions
occurred. The largest of them is, to use these methods for all combinations, also when case A can
be applied, because the greater of the basic return periods T1 is 50 years and N1 = 1.
Case B.4: Corrections: For a better agreement with the exact solution, a calibration factor of
0,7 has been introduced recently. Also, in the general expression, the target
reliability value b for the dominant action is also adapted to bc:

27
 Dominating action: 1 - Pf = F(0,7 ∙ bc)N1
Accompanying action: 1 - Pf,0 = F(0,4 ∙ bc)N1
where: bc = -F-1(F(-0,7 ∙ b) / N1) = -F-1(Pf /N1)
with Pf = 3,907 ∙ 10-3
Gumbel distribution: For CC2, FORM with b = b50 = 3,8, aE = -0,7 and a = 0,4:
Qd = µ (1 - 0,78 V ∙ {0,58 + ln(-ln (F(0,7 ∙ b))) })
Qd,0 = µ (1 - 0,78 V ∙ {0,58 + ln(-ln (F(0,28 ∙ b)) + 0,7 ln N1) })
y0 = Qd,0 / Qd = (1 + V ∙ (1,0031 - 0,5458 ∙ ln N1)) / (1 + 3,87182 ∙ V)
Conclusion: The combination coefficient in EN 1990, Annex A, Table A1.1 of y0 = 0,5 (or 0,7)
for snow loads (according to Case B.2) and of y0 = 0,6 for wind loads according to similar
considerations are obviously based on very rough assumptions about the independence of load
repetitions and the coefficients of variation of these effects. In their National Annexes some
countries may have chosen other values, based on representative coefficients of variation V and
repetitions r per year, see Part 2 of this report.
In the reality the combination coefficients of climatic influences are as different as the climate. The
standard values according to EN 1990, Annex A, Table A1.1 apply to the Scandinavian, Alpine and
mixed climate. In the maritime and Mediterranean climate for snow with Vsnow > 1, y0 = 0,4
applies more to Gumbel distribution and y0 = 0,25 to Lognormal distribution. The number of load
repetitions r > 1 may lead to even lower combination coefficients. A more precise determination is
always possible within the framework of a single project.
However, it should be borne in mind that no climatic correlation between maximum snow load
and associated wind load or maximal wind load and associated snow load has yet been considered
in this calculation. Rather, the combination coefficient y0 is based on the statistical independence
of the combined effects – pure statistics. These basic assumptions rarely apply to climatic
influences. More “Meteorology” and less “Reliability” would be better.
Statistical evaluations of climate data required to calculate the missing climatic correlation, as they
were suggested in Czwikla & Kasperski (2016 b), are unfortunately not in sight in Europe.
For commercial production greenhouses with transparent cladding (e.g. 4 mm glass) and controlled
heating, a thermal coefficient Ct << 1 may be applied. In practice, on greenhouse roofs in Europe
under controlled heating conditions, the snow remains not longer than a few hours. Under heavy
snowfall in snowy regions of the Alpine countries the roof snow is removed during the snowfall
and in the day after. Three days without light would be deadly for most greenhouse cultures. The
reduced roof snow load under controlled heating conditions on greenhouse roofs is therefore a rare
effect during heavier snowfall events. The heaviest snowfall events are often combined with air
temperatures around 0°C and lower wind speeds. Therefore, in the design of heated production
greenhouses (Ct << 1) for the combination of design snow loads with design wind loads it is
recommended to apply y0 ≈ 0.
This is different in other parts of Europe and therefore a national choice!

6. Force Importance Factor KFi (prEN 1999: 20020: Consequence Factor kF)
The following calculation of KFI-factors for greenhouse structures with the help of FORM is based
on the target probabilities for CC2 and n = 50 years with b1 = 4,7 leading to a probability of

28
exceedance for the design value of the variable action of Pf,T,1,d = 5 ∙ 10-4 per year with a return
period of 2000 years. A calculation based on b50 = 3,8 leading to a probability of exceedance of
Pf,T,50,d = 3,907 ∙ 10-3 per 50 years with a recurrence interval of 265 years leads to comparable KFI-
values.
Despite of large variations, variable partial factors would not be practical for design. Therefore, for
all variable actions the partial factors are oriented at a fixed reference value for consequence class
CC2 and structures with a design working life of 50 years. For n = 50 years and CC2 the standard
partial factor for variable actions is: gF,Q,CC2 = 1,5.
For the standard value of 1,5 the variations are limited to the variation coefficient, which would
lead to gF,Q,CC2 = 1,5. For the Gumbel distribution, CC2 with bT,1 = 4,7 (Pf,T,1,d = 5,009 ∙ 10-4 per
year with a return period of ~2000 years), this limit is Vlim = 0,315.
For the Gumbel distribution, CC2 with bT,50 = 3,8 (Pf,T,50,d = 3,907 ∙ 10-3 per 50 years with a return
period of ~12800 years), this limit is Vlim = 0,165.
It must be noted that many countries indicated that their variation coefficients for climatic loads,
such as wind, snow and temperature are larger, see also Part 2 of this reliability report. That is why
attempts were made to increase and vary the partial factors. Also, model uncertainties and time-
invariant parts are to be introduced leading to ever larger partial factors. However, it is also
possible and to prefer, to leave gF,Q,CC2 = 1,5 unchanged and increase the characteristic values
instead, as far as required. Every country can do this in its own responsibility, tradition, urgency,
speed. To agree about new partial factors would be a common task.
For other consequence classes than CC2 the partial factors can be adapted based on the given
reliability index, see Table 2. It is possible to calculate different partial factors for each of the
consequence classes. However, EN 1990 uses an adaptation factor KFI to be multiplied to the
standard partial factor gF,Q = 1,5. Note: Index “FI” means probably: “force importance”. In prEN
1990: 2020 the adaptation factor is called “consequence factor” with the symbol kF. For clarity the
use of KFI (= kF) is shown.
gF,Q = KFI,Q ∙ gF,Q,CC2
where: KFI,Q is the force importance factor for the consequence class according to Table 2
gF,Q is the partial factor for variable actions for other consequence classes
gF,CC2 is the partial factor for variable actions for the reference consequence class CC2, see
EN 1990, A1.1.3.1 and any National Application Documents (NAD) with the
relevant partial factors
The force importance factor KFI,Q (consequence factor kF) can be calculated from the ratio of the
design value Qd for the required consequence class and the design value Qd,CC2 for the reference
class CC2. The design working life is kept constant (n = 50 years) and has no influence on KFI,Q.
KFI,Q = Qd / Qd,CC2
where: Qd = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (F(-aE ∙ bT))) })
Qd,CC2 = µ (1 - V ∙ (√6)/p ∙{ 0,577215665 + ln(-ln (F(-aE ∙ bT,CC2))) })
The design value for the annual target CC2 is based on: bT,1,CC2 = 4,7; FORM: aE = -0,7; Gumbel:
Qd,CC2 = µ (1 + V ∙ 5,47469) and Qd,CC2 (Vlim= 0,315) = µ ∙ 2,7256
For the lifetime target CC2 the design value is based on: bT,50,CC2 = 3,8; FORM: aE = -0,7; Gumbel:
Qd,CC2 = µ (1 + V ∙ 6,92201) and Qd,CC2 (Vlim= 0,165) = µ ∙ 2,1409

29
The influence of the coefficient of variation on the consequence factor kF (or KFI) is shown in
Figure 6 for the two consequence classes CC1 and CC0a used for commercial production
greenhouses.

Influence of the Variation Coefficient on the Consequence Factor kF

for Variable Loads with Gumbel Distribution
1,00
Standard Value CC1
Standard Value CC0a
0,95 CC1 based on annual target
CC1 based on lifetime target
CC0a based on annual target
Consequence Factor kF

0,90
CC0a based on lifetime target

0,85

0,80

0,75

0,70
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5
Variation Coefficient

Figure 6: Influence of the coefficient of variation on the KFI- or kF-factors of greenhouses

In Table 7a and 7b the partial factors and force importance factors KFI (consequence factors kF) for
all consequence classes according to Table 2 based on the assumptions above are summarized.
As can be seen in Figure 6 and Table 7a and 7b, the suggested KFI-values of 1,1 for CC3 and 0,9
for CC1 according to EN 1990: 2002, Annex B, B3.3, Table B.3 (prEN 1990: 2020; Annex A,
A.1.6 (1) Note 3, Table A.1.9) can be confirmed, especially for calculations based on the annual
target as snow and wind loads (Case A in chapter 4).

Class Target Action Exceedance Return Results 4 Partial F. I.

Index Part 1 Probability2 Period 3 for Denominator Factor Factor
bT,1 aE ∙ bT,1 Pf,T,1,d TR,d x 1-V∙x gF,Q KFI,Q
CC4 5,6 -3,92
4,427 ∙10-5 -7,36647 225863,32193 1,828 1,219
CC3 5,2 -3,64
1,363 ∙10-4
7336
-6,489595 3,045536 1,676 1,117
CC2 4,7 -3,29
5,009 ∙10-4
-5,47469 1996
2,725636 1,5 1
CC1 4,2 -2,94
1,641 ∙10-3 -4,54904 6092,43387 1,339 0,893
CC0a 3,7 -2,59
4,799 ∙10-3
-3,71118 2082,16977 1,194 0,796
CC0b 3,1 -2,17
1,500 ∙10-2 -2,81838 661,88836 1,039 0,693
1
Sensitivity factor for dominating actions according to FORM: aE = -0,7
2
Exceedance probability calculated via CDF for SND: Pf,T,1,d = F(aE ∙ bT,1)
3
Return period: TR,d =1/(1 - (1-Pf,n)1/n)
4
Gumbel distribution for the action with a coefficient of variation for covering gF,Q = 1,5: V = Vlim = 0,3152
Table 7a: Calculation results for partial factors gF,Q and force importance factors KFI,Q based on the
annual target bT,1 = 4,7
For a calculation based on the lifetime target (Case B in chapter 4), the KFI-values are closer
together because of the small coefficient of variation of Vlim = 0,1648 to match the standard partial
factor of gF,Q,CC2 = 1,5. This is not realistic for wind and snow.

30
 Class Target Action Exceedance Return Results 4 Partial F. I.
Index Part 1 Probability2 Period 3 for Denominator Factor Factor
bT,50 aE ∙ bT,50 Pf,T,50,d TR,d x 1-V∙x gF,Q KFI,Q
CC4 4,9 -3,43 -4
3,018 ∙10 165653 -8,92007 2,470206 1,731 1,154
CC3 4,3 -3,01 1,306 ∙10-3 38253 -7,77729 2,81852 1,599 1,066
CC2 3,8 -2,66 3,907 ∙10-3
12773 -6,92201 2,14106 1,5 1
CC1 3,3 -2,31 1,044 ∙10-2
4763 -6,15281 2,014106 1,411 0,941
CC0a 2,6 -1,82 3,438 ∙10-2 1430 -5,21435 1,85943 1,309 0,869
CC0b 1,6 -1,12 1,314 ∙10-1
356 -4,12854 1,68044 1,177 0,785
1
Sensitivity factor for dominating actions according to FORM: aE = -0,7
2
Exceedance probability calculated via CDF for SND: Pf,T,50,d = F(aE ∙ bT,50)
3
Return Period: TR,d =1/(1 - (1-Pf,n)1/n)
3
Gumbel distribution for the action with a coefficient of variation for covering gF,Q = 1,5: V = Vlim = 0,1648
Table 7b: Calculation results for partial factors gF,Q and force importance factors KFI,Q based on the
lifetime target bT,50 = 3,8

It can also be recognised, that the old partial factor in EN 13031-1: 2001 for CC1 of gF,Q = 1,2 was
too small. It is better suited for CC0 (gF,Q = 1,5 ∙ 0,8 = 1,2). For CC1 gF,Q = 1,5 ∙ 0,9 = 1,35 will be
better.

Therefore, the suggestion in EN 13031-1 is: KFI;Q,CC1 = 0,9 > 0,893 and KFI,Q,CC0 = 0,8 > 0,796.

7. Partial Factor and Reduction Factor for unfavourable Permanent Actions

Permanent actions do normally not dominate a combination of actions on greenhouses. Despite of
it, both cases, permanent dominant and permanent non-dominant actions, will be considered.
Permanent actions in greenhouses are the self-weight of the structure, cladding and permanently
present installations. Self-weights can be estimated very precise. Variation coefficients between V
= 0,01 and V = 0,15 have been reported for usual building materials. For steel, aluminium and glass
the variation coefficients are rather small: for the weight itself: Vm < 0,01 (< 0,03 for aluminium),
for metal sections: Vg < 0,05 and for plates of glass: Vg = 0,05. For the uncertainty of the model, a
coefficient of variation of VSd = 0,05 to 0,1 can be assumed. Larger variation coefficients are
typical for concrete, bricks and exposed timber.
For a greenhouse made of steel, aluminium and glass the uncertainties (worst case) can be
summoned to:
Vtotal = (Vm2 + Vg2 + VSd2)1/2 = (0,032 + 0,052 + 0,12)1/2 = 0,116.
The self-weight has usually a normal (Gaussian) distribution (ND).
Dependent on the coefficient of variation, and whether it can be neglected or must be considered,
permanent or quasi-permanent actions can be described generally:
Characteristic value:
Variability taken into account: Gk,sup = µ (1 + 1,64 ∙ V) 95% fractile value
Gk,inf = µ (1 - 1,64 ∙ V) 5% fractile value
Variability can be neglected: Gk = Gmean = µ

The design value can be estimated using the lifetime target reliability index of bT,50 according to
Table 2.

31
Design value: Gd = µ (1 - aE ∙ bT,50 ∙ V)
Where: aE is the sensitivity coefficient for the action, according to FORM:
for dominant loads: aE = -0,7
for non-dominant loads: aE,c = -0,28
bT is the target value for the reliability index; see Table 2
µ is the mean value of the permanent load, normal distribution (ND)
V is the coefficient of variation V = s/µ
The partial factor for the permanent action is the ratio of characteristic value and design value gF,G
= Gd / Gk. If the variability can be neglected, gF,G can be calculated directly.
For dominant loads: gF,G = 1 - aE ∙ bT,50 ∙ V with: aE = -0,7
For non-dominant loads: gF,G,c = 1 - aE,c ∙ bT,50 ∙ V with: aE,c = -0,28
In case of the permanent action not dominating the load combination, a combination coefficient x
for permanent actions can be used, which represents the ratio of the partial factors:
x = (1 + 0,28 ∙ bT,50 ∙ V) / (1 + 0,7 ∙ bT,50 ∙ V)

As an example, for CC2 using bT,50 = 3,8 and Vtotal = 0,116 the partial factor gF,G and the
combination coefficient for a non-dominant permanent load x can be derived as follows:
For dominant actions: gF,G = 1 - aE ∙ bT,50 ∙ V = 1 + 0,7 ∙ 3,8 ∙ 0,116 = 1,30856 ≈ 1,3
For non-dominant actions: gF,G,c = 1 - aE,c ∙ bT,50 ∙ V = 1 + 0,28 ∙ 3,8 ∙ 0,116 = 1,1234 ≈ 1,1
x = 1,1234 / 1,3056 = 0,8585 ≈ 0,85
Here can be seen, that for many structure the standard partial coefficient for permanent actions
according to EN 1990 of gF,G = 1,35 is too large. Such a partial factor could cover a total variation
coefficient of up to Vtot = Vlim = 0,131579. Concrete is only used in the foundations of
greenhouses. However, not all variation coefficients are known for greenhouse claddings and other
permanent loads, e.g. installations. If there is no further information available, the standard value
for CC2 gF,G = 1,35 should be accepted as a basis.
The calculation also confirms that the load combinations according to EN 1990, 6.4.3.2 (3), and
Table A1.2 (B), equation 6.10a and 6.10b with the combination coefficient x are a safe option for
greenhouses. Because of the small self-weight of the greenhouse structure, except for the
foundations, equation 6.10b with the permanent load non-dominant with x < 1will be relevant.
For other consequence classes than CC2 the partial factors can be adapted as already shown for
variable loads. Partial factors and KFI,G-factors can be calculated directly:
For dominant loads: gF,G = gF,G,CC2 ∙ KFI,G = 1,35 ∙ KFI,G
KFI,G = (1 + 0,7 ∙ bT,50 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,66 ∙ V)
For non-dominant loads: gF,G,c = gF,G,CC2 ∙ KFI,G ∙ x = 1,35 ∙ KFI,G ∙ x
x = (1 + 0,28 ∙ bT,50 ∙ V) / (1 + 0,7 ∙ bT,50 ∙ V)
KFI,G,c = (1 + 0,7 ∙ bT,50 ∙ V) / (1 + 2,66 ∙ V)
with: Target CC2: bT,50,CC2 = 3,8; FORM: aE = -0,7; aE,c = -0,28;
The assumptions and results are shown in Table 8 and Table 9 for the two variation coefficients V
= Vlim = 0,131579 (gF,G,CC2 = 1,35) and V = 0,116 (gF,G,CC2 = 1,3). The KFI,G-values and x-
coefficients vary, therefore for design purposes a further approximation should be used.

32
 Class FORM: Action side 1 Non-dominant 2 Dominant 2
Target
Partial KFI Comb. Partial KFI
Index aE = -0,7 aE,c = -0,28
Factor Factor Coefficient Factor Factor
bT,50 aE ∙ bT,50 aE,c ∙ bT,50 gF,G,c KFI,G x gF,G KFI,G
CC4 4,9 -3,43 -1,372 1,159 1,068 0,829 1,398 1,068
CC3 4,3 -3,01 -1,204 1,1397 1,031 0,845 1,349 1,031
CC2 3,8 -2,66 -1,064 1,123 1 0,8585 1,3086 1
CC1 3,3 -2,31 -0,924 1,107 0,969 0,873 1,278 0,969
CC0a 2,6 -1,82 -0,728 1,084 0,9255 0,895 1,211 0,9255
1
Sensitivity factor for dominating actions according to FORM: dominant aE = -0,7; non-dominant:aE = -0,28 2
Normal distribution for the action with a coefficient of variation Vtot = 0,116 leading to gF,G = 1,3086 = 0,9693 ∙1,35.
Table 8: Calculation results for partial factors gF,G, force importance factors KFI,G and combination
coefficients x for light-weight structures with V = 0,116

It can be seen, that the proposed KFI = 0,9 for CC1 and x = 0,85 for non-dominant permanent loads
according to EN 1990, B.3.3 are not sufficiently differentiated. It can also be seen, that the partial
factor in EN 13031-1: 2001 for CC1 of gF,G = 1,2 was on the safe side for non-dominant permanent
loads. For dominant permanent loads gF,Q = 1,3 would have been better. As a simplification for EN
13031-1 it was suggested to use the same KFI as for variable loads, following EN 1990, B3.3.
Note: In usual load combinations for greenhouses, permanent loads are non-dominant. If this is not
the case, the partial factors should be adapted as follows. For the comparison see also Table 8.
For non-dominant permanent actions:
CC2: KFI,G = 1 (x = 0,85) gF,G = 1,35 (∙ 0,85 = 1,1475) s. Table 5 (EN 1990)
CC1: KFI,G = 0,9 gF,G = 0,9 ∙ 1,35 = 1,215 > 1,107
CC0a: KFI,G = 0,8 gF,G = 0,8 ∙ 1,35 = 1,08 ≈ 1,084
For dominant permanent actions:
CC2: KFI,G = 1 gF,G = 1,35 s. Table 5 (EN 1990)
CC1: KFI,G = 0,95 gF,G = 0,95 ∙ 1,35 = 1,2825 > 1,278
CC0a: KFI,G = 0,9 gF,G = 0,9 ∙ 1,35 = 1,215 > 1,211

Class FORM: Action side 1 Non-dominant 2 Dominant 2

Target
Partial KFI Comb. Partial KFI
Index aE = -0,7 aE,c = -0,28
Factor Factor Coefficient Factor Factor
bT,50 aE ∙ bT,50 aE,c ∙ bT,50 gF,G,c KFI,G x gF,G KFI,G
CC4 4,9 -3,43 -1,372 1,1805 1,075 0,813 1,451 1,075
CC3 4,3 -3,01 -1,204 1,158 1,034 0,83 1,396 1,034
CC2 3,8 -2,66 -1,064 1,14 1 0,844 1,35 1
CC1 3,3 -2,31 -0,924 1,1216 0,966 0,86 1,304 0,966
CC0a 2,6 -1,82 -0,728 1,096 0,918 0,884 1,239 0,918
1
Sensitivity factor for dominating and non-dominating actions according to FORM:
aE = -0,7 for dominant loads; aE = -0,28 for non-dominant loads
2
Normal distribution for the action with a coefficient of variation for covering gF,G = 1,35: Vtot = 0,131579
Table 9: Calculation results for partial factors gF,G, force importance factors KFI,G and combination
coefficients x for Vlim = 0,131579

33
8. Importance Factor for Accidental Action, Exceptional Snow and Earthquake
Most accidental actions do not occur or can be neglected for commercial production greenhouses in
CC1 or CC0, because EN 1991-1-7, 3.4 (2) rules for the treatment of accidental actions:
“- CC1: no specific consideration is necessary for accidental actions except to ensure that the
robustness and stability rules given in EN 1990 to EN 1999, as applicable, are met;”
Despite of this clear statement, in some countries, accidental actions, such as impact loads,
exceptional snowfall and earthquake are to be considered for all greenhouses.
Therefore, earthquake actions are treated in separate Background Documents: Design of
Greenhouses: Part 1 to Part 5, available online. Based on the Poisson distribution according to EN
1998-1 for this exceptional action with a rare occurrence, importance factors gI have been derived,
which can also be used as importance factors KFI,A for other rare, accidental actions:
CC2: KFI,A = gI = 1
CC1: KFI,A = gI = 0,8
CC0a: KFI,A = gI = 0,6
The importance factor gI = 0,8 for CC1 = IC1 is also recommended in EN 1998-1, 4.2.5 (5)P.

9. Summary of the Regulations for EN 13031-1

Partial factors or KFI-factors in the Eurocode are suggestions, not normative. They can be chosen
nationally (NAD or NCI). As a result, in the Euronorm EN 13031-1 these factors can also not be
given normative, because their basis, the partial factors for CC2 according to EN 1990, A.1.3 and
the underlying reliability according to EN 1990, Annex B and C could have been altered by a NAD
or NCI in the National Annex to the Eurocode by a country.
Therefore, no partial factors are given any more in EN 13031, only suggestions for the KFI-factors
especially for the newly defined consequence class CC0 (refers to CC0a); see Table 10.

Persistent, transient and accidental design situations Consequence Class

ULS CC2 1 CC1 CC0
Target value of probability of failure for n = 50 years pT,50 5 ∙ 10-5 5 ∙ 10-4 5 ∙ 10-3
(Target value of reliability index bT,50) (3,8) (3,3) (2,6)
Target value of annual failure probability pT,1 10-6 10-5 10-4
(Target value of reliability index bT,1) (4,7) (4,2) (3,7)
KFI,G and KFI,Q 3 for permanent and variable actions
2
1 0,9 0,8
KFI,A for accidental actions (without earthquake) 1 0,8 0,6
1
Basic reference values for n = 50 years, consequence class CC2 according to EN 1990, A1.
2
For permanent actions KFI,G includes the combination coefficient x for non-dominant permanent loads. The
reference value is gF,G,CC2 = 1,35. For dominant permanent actions take KFI,G,CC1 = 0,95 and KFI,G,CC0 = 0,9.
3
For variable actions the reference value is gF,Q,CC2 = 1,5.
Table 10: Recommendations for the calculation of partial factors by using KFI-factors for
greenhouses according to EN 13031-1
A country can follow the recommendations in EN 13031-1, 5.3 (KFI; gI) or make any other
(qualified!) choice. If no choice is made, the recommendations apply. For a qualified choice the
target probabilities (annual and for the lifetime n) are also given. This is important, because CC0
has not yet been included into EN 1990. Also, targets for the exceedance probabilities of climatic

34
or other variable actions are not given in EN 1990, only two slightly inconsistent reliability indices
for the total design. This can lead to misconceptions, as explained in this report.

References

- EN 1990 Eurocode - Basis of structural design. CEN 2002

- prEN 1990 draft Eurocode - Basis of structural design. CEN 2020
- EN 1991-1-3 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures – Part 1-3: Snow loads. CEN 2003.
- prEN 1991-1-3 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures – Part 1-3: Snow loads. CEN 2020.
- EN 1991-1-4 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures – Part 1-4: Wind actions. CEN 2004.
- EN 1991-1-5 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures – Part 1-5: Temperature actions. Cen 2005.
- EN 1991-1-7 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures – Part 1-7: Accidental actions. CEN 2006.
- FprEN 16612: 2019: Glass in building – Determination of the lateral load resistance of glass
panes by calculation. CEN 2019.
- ISO 2394: General principles on reliability for structures. ISO 1998.
- ISO 2394: General principles on reliability for structures. ISO 2014.
- ISO 4354: Wind actions on structures. ISO 2009.
- ISO 4355: Bases for deign of structures - Determination of snow loads on roofs. ISO 2013.
- JRC Guidance for European Structural Design of Glass Components. JRC Scientific and Policy
Reports, Support for the implementation, harmonization and further development of the
Eurocode. JRC 86637, EUR 26439 EN, 2014.
- Final Report I (Sanpaolesi, L. et al.: 1998): Commission of the European Communities DGIII-
D3, Scientific Support Activity in the Field of Structural Stability of Civil Engineering Works:
Snow Loads, Pisa, IT, 54 p.
- Final Report II (Sanpaolesi, L. et al.: 1999a): Commission of the European Communities
DGIII-D3, Scientific Support Activity in the Field of Structural Stability of Civil Engineering
Works: Snow Loads, Pisa, IT, 172 p. + Annex 1-13, p. 175-341.
- Annex B to the Final Report (Sanpaolesi, L. et al.: 1999b): Commission of the European
Communities DGIII-D3, Scientific Support Activity in the Field of Structural Stability of Civil
Engineering Works: Snow Loads, Pisa, IT, 41 p.
- GRUSIBAU (Grundlagen zur Festlegung von Sicherheitsanforderungen für bauliche Anlagen),
1st Edition in English 1981, DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung): General Principles on the
Specification of Safety Requirements for Structures. Beuth Verlag, Berlin 1982, Germany.
- Implementation of Eurocodes: Handbook 1: Basis of Structural Design. Guide to Interpretative
Documents for Essential Requirements, to EN 1990 and to application and use of Eurocodes,
Garston Watford, UK, 2004.
- Implementation of Eurocodes: Handbook 2: Reliability Backgrounds. Guide to basis of
structural reliability and risk engineering related to Eurocodes supplemented by practical
examples, Prague 2005.
- Implementation of Eurocodes: Handbook 3: Action Effects for Buildings. Guide to basis of
structural reliability and risk engineering related to Eurocodes supplemented by practical
examples, Aachen 2005.
- Vrouwenvelder, T. (2000): Probabilistic model code, Part 1 - Basis of design, Joint Committee
on Structural Safety, JCSS-Publications 2000 (available online).
35
- Vrouwenvelder, T. (2001): Probabilistic model code, Part 2 - Load models, Joint Committee on
Structural Safety, JCSS-Publications 2001 (available online).
- Gulvanessian, H., Calgaro, J., Holicky, M. (2012): Designers` Guide to Eurocode: Basis of
structural design EN 1990. Second Edition, ICE publication, Thomas Telford, London, UK.
- fib Bulletin 80, CEB-FIP (2016): Partial factor methods for existing concrete structures.
Recommendation Task Group 3.1.
- Background Snow EN 13031 Part I: Melting. In: www.greenhousecodes.com.
- Background Snow EN 13031 Part II: Sliding and Drift. In: www.greenhousecodes.com.
- Background Reliability EN 13031 Part 2: Adjustment factors for the reference period related of
the design working life. In: www.greenhousecodes.com.
- Croce, P., Formichi, P., Landi, F. (2020): Reliability of roof structures subjected to snow loads.
In: Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference and the 15th
Probabilistic Safety and Management Conference. Edited by Baraldi, P., Di Maio, F., Zio, E.;
Published by Research Publishing Singapore, ISBN: 978-981-14-8593-0, doi: 10.385/978-981-
14-8593-0, pp. 4765-4770.
- Croce, P., Formichi, P., Landi, F. (2021): Probabilistic Assessment of Roof Snow Load and the
Calibration of Shape Coefficients in the Eurocodes. In: Applied Sciences 2021, 11, 2984,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app110782984, 16 pp.
- Czwikla, B., Kasperski, M. (2016 a): Specification of oft the design value of the ground snow
load considering measurements of the snow height – Part 1: Single stations. In: 8th International
Conference on Snow Engineering, Nantes, France, pp. 93-100.
- Czwikla, B., Kasperski, M. (2016 b): Specification of oft the design value of the ground snow
load considering measurements of the snow height – Part 2: Regional approach. In: In: 8th
International Conference on Snow Engineering, Nantes, France, pp. 152-159.
- Dahlberg, M., Hansson, L., Lindt, T. (1988): Snölast pa Glastak. Examensarbede, Lund
Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Sweden.
- Diamantidis, D., Holicky, M. (2010): Reliability differentiation in the Eurocode. In: Research
Gate, Conference paper, SEMC International Conference at Cape Town, South Africa.
- Ferry Borges, J. & Castanheta, M. (FBC 1971): Structural Safety, Laboratorio Nacional de
Engenharta Civil, Lisboa, Portugal.
- Gulvanessian, H., Holicky, M. (2005): Eurocodes: Using reliability analysis to combine action
effects. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings 158,
August 2005, pp. 243-252.
- Høibø, H. (1988): Snow Load on Gable roofs - Results from Snow Load Measurements on
Farm Building in Norway. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Snow
Engineering, Santa Barbara, California, USA, CRREL Special Report No. 89-6, pp. 95-104.
- Jacinto, L., Santos, L.O., Neves, L. C. (2020): Calibration of partial safety factors using FORM.
In: rpee, Series III, no. 14, novembro de 2020, https://.
- Kasperski, M., Geurts, C. (2005): Reliability and code level. In: Wind and Structures, Vol. 8,
No. 4, pp. 295-307.
- Kasperski, M. (2012): A consistent approach for estimating the design value of the snow load
on the ground from confined ensembles. In: ICSE 2012: 7th International Conference on Snow
Engineering, June 6-8, Fukui, Japan, pp. 216-230.

36
- Kasperski, M. (2016): Probabilistic concepts in snow engineering – from observations to
specifications of consistent design values including climate change. In: In: 8th International
Conference on Snow Engineering, Nantes, France, pp. 53-72.
- Pertermann, I., Puthli, R., Ummenhofer, T. Vrouwenvelder, T. (2012a): Risikoorientierte
Bemessung von Tragstrukturen – Bedeutungsbeiwerte bei der Differenzierung der
Zuverlässigkeit für unterschiedliche Schadens- bzw. Versagensfolgeklassen. In: Stahlbau 81
(2012), No. 3, pp. 212-218.
- Pertermann, I., Puthli, R., Ummenhofer, T. Vrouwenvelder, T. (2012b): Risikoorientierte
Bemessung von Tragstrukturen – Geplante Nutzungsdauer. In: Stahlbau 81 (2012), No. 7, pp.
530-538.
- Pertermann, I., Puthli, R., Ummenhofer, T. (2012c): Risikoorientierte Bemessung von
Tragstrukturen – Kombinationsbeiwerte für ständige Lasten. In: Stahlbau 81 (2012), No. 10,
pp. 780-784.
- Pertermann, I., Puthli, R., Ummenhofer, T. (2014): Temperatureinfluss auf Dachschneelasten
von Gewächshäusern - Abtauen von Schnee über wärmedurchlässigen Dacheindeckungen. In:
Stahlbau 83 (2014), No. 12, pp. 860-872.
- Sandvik, R. (1988): Calculation of Maximum Snow Load on Roofs with High Thermal
Transmittance. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Snow Engineering, Cold
Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Report 89-6, pp. 317-324.
- Sadovsky, Z. (2006): Climatic load and reliability of light roof industrial buildings. In: Safety
and Reliability for Managing Risk – Guedes Soares & Zio (eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London 2006, pp. 1535-1539.
- Sadovsky, Z. (2008): Collection and analysis of climatic measurements for the assessment of
snow loads on structures. In: R&ATA #2 (Vol. 1), 2008.
- Sadovsky, Z., Fasko P., Mikulova, K., Pecho, J. (2012): Exceptional snowfalls and the
assessment of accidental loads for structural design. In: Cold Regions Science and Technology
72 (2014), pp. 17-22.
- Sadovsky,Z. (2015): Response to discussion on “Exceptional snowfalls and the assessment of
accidental loads for structural design. From M. Kasperski (Cold Regions Science and
Technology 101 (2014)” In: Cold Regions and Technology 110 (2015), pp. 67-69.
- Turkstra, C.J. (1970): Theory of Structural Design Decisions. Study No. 2 Ontario, Canada.
Solid Mechanics Division, University of Waterloo, Canada.
- Van Coile, R., Hopkin, D., Bisby, l., Caspeele, R. (2017): The meaning of Beta: background
and applicability of the target reliability index for normal conditions to structural fire
engineering. In: 6th International Workshop on Performance, Protection & Strengthening of
Structures under Extreme Loading. Protect2017, Guangzhou, China; In: Procedia Engineering
210 (2017) pp. 528-536.
- Vrowenvelder, T. (2002): Reliability Based Code Calibration. The use of the JCSS
Probabilistic Model Code. Joint Committee of Structural Safety Workshop on Code
Calibration, March 21/22, Zürich, Schweiz.
- Vrowenvelder, T. (2008): Treatment of risk and reliability in the Eurocodes. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings 161, August 2008, pp.209-214.

37
- Vrowenvelder, T. (2012): Target reliabilities as a function of the design working life. In:
Proceedings of the International Forum on Engineering Decisions Making (6th IFED Forum),
Lake Louis, Canada.

38