Structural Safety, 13 (1993) 113-135 113

Elsevier

Combination of actions for codified design *

Janusz W. Murzewski

Pofitechnika Krakowska, Civil Engineering, 31-155 Krak6w, Poland

Abstract. Linear cases are considered for the action-effect combinations. Coordinates of an ultimate limit point in
the action space are proportional to combination values of actions. The asymptotic Gauss distribution is supposed
for permanent load and the Gumbel distribution for extreme variable actions. The moment and collocation methods
are used for conversion of the Gumbel parameters to the Gauss-normal ones. Combination values of simultaneous
actions are reduced according to the Ferry-Borges and Castanheta's rule. Design values are enhanced due to
variations of actions in the ensemble of typical realizations. A constant hazard ratio is derived for exceeding the
ultimate limit of actions. Equivalent load-effect indices and factors are variable with the variance of action effects.
New safety elements are calibrated in conformity with the European partial factors and they are close to the
American combination values.

Key words: characteristic value; design value; limit states; load combination; load effect; safety optimization;
structural safety; probability of failure

1. Introduction

C o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f this p a p e r are limited to l i n e a r cases o f r a n d o m l o a d i n g at u l t i m a t e l i m i t

states such that:
- a n y p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t Sij o f l o a d o r o t h e r a c t i o n Pi e n d a n g e r i n g a s t r u c t u r a l e l e m e n t
(cross-section, m e m b e r o r c o n n e c t i o n ) is p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e action,

Sij = aijP i, (1)

- simple s u p e r p o s i t i o n o f effects o f m o r e actions: P0, P 1 , . . . , P , gives a n i n t e r n a l f o r c e o r

m o m e n t o r o t h e r c o m p o n e n t e f f e c t S j,
n
Sj = E Sij' (2)
i=0
-- a scalar l o a d e f f e c t S is d e f i n e d as a linear c o m b i n a t i o n o f m c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e v e c t o r i a l
effect S,
FR

S = ~, bySj. (3)
j=l

* Discussion is open until June 1994 (please submit your discussion paper to the Editor, Ross B. Corotis).

0167-4730/93/$06.00 © 1993 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

114

The load effect S is criterion of safety of the checked structural element

S ~< R d / T E (4)
where R d is the design value of resistance d e t e r m i n e d either before the structure is constructed
or after, and TE is the a c o m p o n e n t safety factor which would cover model uncertainties; it is
called model factor [1] or professional factor [2].
Combinations of actions are presented in an apparently linear form in codified partial factor
design

Sjo = max i~=oaijTi~OiPikv (5)

where Yi = Pid/Pik are partial factors specified for particular actions at the ultimate limit states,
and O0i are combination factors - - applied to action effects in various arrangements; they
make the effects Sja nonlinear and more exactly piece-wise linear in relation to characteristic
values Pik"
A variety of combination rules are r e c o m m e n d e d in national codes. Their c o m p e n d i u m may
be found in Refs. [3] and [4]. The combination factors O0i d e p e n d on one or more items:
- the kind of the load Pi, i = O, 1, 2 , . . . , n,
- the n u m b e r n of combined variable loads Q1, Q 2 , . . . , Qn,
- significance of the load effect c i P ~,
or its value in relation to other load effects.
W h e n an extreme action effect Sjd is determined, accompanying components Sj,d, j ' ~ j ,
shall be calculated for the same sequence of combination factors. Such calculations are
repeated for each structural element and usually for more than one failure mode.
coo
European prestandards EC [1], [5] etc. called Eurocodes EC1, EC3 etc., contain simplified
rules for combination of p e r m a n e n t loads G i and variable actions a i in persistent and transient
design situations. The loads G i a r e constant in time but they are variable in the ensemble of
typical realizations. The actions Qg are variable both in time and the ensemble.
American specifications [2], referred as LRFD - - Load and Resistance Factor Design,
introduce explicit loads: D - G - - dead load, L - Qa - - live load, Sn - - snow (or other roof
loads), W - wind and E - - earthquake. Several load combinations have to be verified in such
a way that the loads are multiplied by specified companion factors. These factors have
meanings of joint load and combination factors 3@o. They may be decomposed in order to
compare them with the E u r o p e a n values. They are shown on Table 1 for non-seismic zones.

TABLE 1
European and American partial factors
Design format EC LRFD
Load symbol G al Sn W D L Sn W
Load factor "/i 1,35 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,6 1,6 1,3
1 1 0,6 0,6 0,86 1 0,31 0
Combination 1 0,7 1 0,6 0,86 0,31 1 0
factor ~o 1 0,7 0,6 1 0,86 0,31 0,31 1
. . . . 0,86 0 1 0,62

000
 115

Statistical calibration procedures and the Turkstra's rule have been applied to specify the
LRFD factors [2]. The proposed EC factors [2] have also some justification. But the discrepan-
cies of results do not allow to accept them as granted. A more fundamental reassessment would
be helpful. Asymptotic probability distribution theory [6], the Ferry-Borges and Castanheta's
model [7] of simultaneous actions and a concept of hazard ratio [8] may give more clarity about
load combinations. This matter will be presented in next sections in terms of a probabilistic
approach (Level 2). Applications to the semi-probabilistic format of partial factor design (Level
1) will be also discussed.
The loads and other actions Pi are considered as independent and non-exclusive random
variables, so are their effects Siy. The influence coefficients aij (1) are involved in structural
analysis and the interaction coefficients by (3) in element proportioning. The coefficients agy
and by are supposed n o n r a n d o m however some of them may be unknown and their determina-
tion is the task of design. The model uncertainty due to neglecting random variations of the
coefficients aij , bj and random resistance R shall be considered separately.
C o m p o n e n t action effects Sy, j = 1, 2 , . . . , m are often correlated one to another because any
random action Pi may influence more than one variable Sy. A rearrangement of the linear
combination is an easy way to make new components uncorrelated

S = by aije i = ciP i (6)

j=l i i=

with c i = E jm.= l a i j b j -
load effect coefficients.
by rearrangement of the linear combination is the first principle of the
D e c o r r e l a t i o n

proposed combination model. The second principle is that a design value S d of the equivalent
load effect S is proportional to its combination value S c and this one is a linear function of
combination values Pic
n
Sd = 3'sSc = "rs ~-, ciPic (7)
i=0

with ~/s > 1 - - load-effect factor for the structural element. It covers hazards in use of the
structure.
Colinearity principle (7) gives invariant design results. Other rules may give non-unique
solutions because:
- a non-simple loading path would allow to reduce the design action Pnd due to an anticipated
extra action Pn +1 although the characteristic value of the latter is zero (Fig. 1) and then due
to random actions - - Pn+2, Pn +3,''', depending on designer's imagination,
- a question would arrise how to split the load-effect factor ~/s into partial factors ~/i Sid/Sik
-~-

and different solutions are feasible (Fig. 2),

- straight lines only are defined in a vector space of actions P0, PI, P 2 , . . . , where units of the
coordinates are not necessarily the same.
The load-effect factor ~/s depends on a coefficient of variation v s of the load effect of a
checked element of the structure. It will be shown how in Section 5. This makes the new
approach different from a conventional safety factor format. The principle (7) should not be
interpreted as a proportional action increase in time. It is the probabilistic space of extreme
actions Pi where the loading paths are linear. A combination value P~ defined as the most
probable maximum or minimum which can happen in the intended lifetime t u of typical
116

-- Trfrr~,.~f, ° unsafe

safe ~/'~/~ ~-- reduced POd

.,<A kli' . .
0L '
Fig. 1. Alleged reduction of a design value of load effect S O because of an extra load P, + a with zero mean and
positive standard deviation or, + a.

structures. The typical structures are understood as an ensemble of possible realizations of the
same design and destination. The combination value of a p e r m a n e n t load P0 = G is always
equal to its specified (characteristic) value G k. The combination value of a single variable load
Pic is equal to its specified (characteristic) value Pik provided that the lifetime t, is equal to a
standard reference time t,. The value Pie may be different when more variable loads Q i , i = 1,
2 . . . . , n, are applied to the structure.

2. Effect of sole permanent loads

A n equivalent load-effect S of p e r m a n e n t action P0 = G = E,~=1G~ is usually due to superpo-

sition of many component effects of i n d e p e n d e n t r a n d o m action G,: weights of construction
materials and non-structural elements of different origin and production etc.,

S = coG = ~ c,G,. (8)

rTTTTTI~,g, unsafe

safe "/~

Fig. 2. Non-unique design values S d because of various rules of split partial indices: I./31 =/32, II./3i = ~3so~i, and III.
/3i = 0,5/3s/Cti for a]/31 + 0/2/32 = /3S and ~ + 0/2 = 1.
 117

The central limit t h e o r e m of probability says [9] that the Gauss-normal distribution can be
taken as the asymptotic distribution for the composition of probability functions of i n d e p e n d e n t
r a n d o m components. Cumulative probability function F(S), i.e. probability that the r a n d o m
load effect (3) does not exceed its design value S O is
F(Sd) = ~ ( f l s ) (9)
and hazard function h(S) i.e. relative risk of exceeding the design value S d
h(Sd) + ~b(fls)/O s (lO)
where
=
- the Mills function,
q~(~) = exp( - s¢ z/2)/2v~-~-~ - the Gauss function,

=
dx - the Laplace function
--oo

and the l o a d - e f f e c t i n d e x
(11)
The formulae (9), (10) would be exact if there was u ~ o% no m a t t e r what are the
distributions of G, = G1, G a , . . . , G v [9]. A few i n d e p e n d e n t components G~ are already
sufficient for a fair convergence of probability of the linear combination (8) to the Gauss-nor-
mal distribution. That is why no special normalization procedure is necessary. Two empirical
moments, m~ and s 2 may be taken as the estimates of two distribution parameters of
L '

p e r m a n e n t loads G,. Parameters of the load-effect are

S-~ ~-~.c,m~ - m e a n value, O's2-~ ~ c~s2~ -variance (12)

~=1 ~=1
and the coefficient of variation (c.o.v.)
v s = O-s/~.
000
Table 2 presents recent s t a t i s t i c a l e s t i m a t e s [10] of coefficients of variation v, of p e r m a n e n t
loads of bridges. A large c.o.v, of non-structural materials is remarkable.
E.g. if the factory-made m e m b e r s give 15% of the weight of a building and cast-in-place
elements 10%, the c.o.v, of the total action S on its foundations will be
v s = ~/(0,08" 0,15) 2 + (0,10" 0,10) 2 + (0,25" 0,75) 2 = 0,19.

TABLE 2
C.o.v. of permanent loads estimated by Nowak [10]
G, Components v~
G1 Factory-made members 0,08
G2 Cast-in-place elements 0,10
G3 Non-structural materials (asphalt etc.) 0,25
OOQ
118

The mean value G- of a Gauss-normal random variable G is equal to its median (~, i.e. the
50% fractile, and it is equal also to its mode (~, i.e. the most probable value [9],

= G -- 6 . (13)
The specified characteristic value G k may be identified with the modal value (~ what is
non-contradictive to the common definition of the G k as the mean value G. A combination
value P0c = Gc from the proportional loading principle (7) can be interpreted as the modal
value

Gc=Gk=G. (14)
Weight factors w, = c , G / S help to define the c.o.v, of equivalent load effect (3)

Vs=~/fw~ev~',=l ~=l~W~=l" (15)

The design value S d of permanent load effect according to the principle (7) must be equal to
a value derived from the definition (11) of the load-effect index /3s,

S d = y s S k = g +/3sO-s (16)
thence the load-effect factor for sole permanent loads is
Ys = 1 +/3sVs .
Partial factors 7~ are used in semi-probabilistic analysis of ultimate limit states. They allow to
define each design load G,d separately and to combine their effects thereafter,

~=1 L=I

Differentiated load factors y, may be found e.g. in standard specifications of Central- and
East-European countries. They increase with v~ for a specified value of partial index/3 c (I on
Fig. 2),
3', = 1 +/3,v~ for/3, =/36 = const(~). (18)
But a unique value Yc = 1,35 has been accepted for permanent loads by the European
regional standards. A constant value may be attributed also to American LRFD specifications
(Table 1). It means that an inverse proportionality rule has been accepted for the partial
indices/3, (II on Fig. 2)
Y, = Yc = const(Q for/3, = (Yc - 1)/v,. (19)
The semi-probabilistic design value (17) is higher than the probabilistic one (16) if/3, =/3s
for two or more loads G,. because always Ew, v, > ~ . However it is possible to harmonize
the load-effect index /3s and partial indices /3, so that the two definitions (16) and (17) give
equal values S d in each particular case. Namely

/3s = ~ a , / 3 , , ~a~=l, (20)

~=1 r=l

a, = w , v , / v s - - sensitivity factors, so called in reliability.

 119

~Q(t)

t
I
,_,e'l . L ~
I
.1+~ J-, iI I r
.e, J -

Fig. 3. A realization Q(t) of random square wave process with time intervals 0i in the reference time t r .

There are v - 1 degrees of f r e e d o m in calibration of partial indices /3+ which would satisfy
equations (20). A rule/3+ = a+/3s has been usually r e c o m m e n d e d in probabilistic considerations
(III on Fig. 2) in order to make the results unique but such rule is not coincident with the
simple loading path (7) (point S d on Fig. 2).

3. Effect of a single variable action

Four parameters at least are necessary to characterize the Poisson stochastic process of
action Q(t) [11]:
Q* - point-in-time m e a n value,
tr~ - point-in-time standard deviation,
t* - m e a n time interval when Q :~ 0 occurs,
p* - probability of occurrence.
The Ferry-Borges and Castanheta's model needs only three parameters. A n u m b e r r of
action renewals is the third p a r a m e t e r

r =P'tit* (21)
where
t = t r - - reference period or t = t u - - lifetime unless t , = t r.

Assumptions for the 3-parameter square wave model (Fig. 3) are as follows:
- Q(t) is a stationary ergodic continuous stochastic process,
- any realization Q(t) of the action is a step function of t,
- r a n d o m variable Q is constant during each interval 0 -- t J r ,
- r a n d o m variables Q are i n d e p e n d e n t at different intervals 0,
- F(Q) satisfies requirements of the 1-st type in sense of [6],
- the renewal n u m b e r r = tr/O in the reference time t r is large.
The time interval 0 of positive autocorrelation is equal to the scale of fluctuation of
stochastic process Q(t) and it may be estimated from statistical data in two ways (Fig. 4):
oo

= 2J0 p ( t ) d t where p(t) is the autocorrelation function, (22)

= rrs(to) for to ~ 0, s(to) is the spectral density function.

120

,6 s(~)
£(t)

03
,.--
-6 2 ~rl~, A.~rl,6"

Fig. 4. Autocorrelation function p(t)and spectral density function s(to) of a supposed stationary stochastic process
Q(t).
A n extreme value Qmax is relevant for the structural safety. The Fisher-Tippett t h e o r e m says
that there are 3 and only 3 asymptotic distributions of extreme values [6]. A double exponential
function, known as the Gumbel distribution, is one of the three. It characterizes the r a n d o m
maxima amax = max[Q(t)] for t ~ [0, tr]. The cumulative probability and hazard function are
for t r --~ oo:

f(Qmax; tr)___>exp(_expQ-Omax
u
) and h(Qmax,• tr) = -u1 exp Q - Qum a x (23)

The m o d e 0 is the most probable maximum in the ensemble of typical realizations and u is a
characteristic deviation of r a n d o m values amax from their m o d e Q. Probability of nonexceeding
0 in the reference time t r is determined from (23)

q=Fmax(Q;tr)=e-1. (24)

Probability q0 = e-1 is attributed [6] to any rare event that a characteristic maximum 0 is
not exceeded during a time interval t c provided that the sequence of upcrossings obeys the
Poisson law and an upcrossing happens once in average during t c. Probability Pl that Q will be
exceeded exactly once during t c is also e-a. Thus the modal and characteristic values of the
Gumbel distribution (23) are equal

Q=0. (25)
A characteristic value Qk in standard specifications is understood as the mode of maximal
value Qmax in the reference time t r. The two characteristic values 0 and Qk will be identical if
their periods are equal t c = tr,

0=Qk. (26)
The specified characteristic value Qk is taken equal to the combination value (7), P~c = Qc, if
only one variable action Q is combined with the p e r m a n e n t load G
Qk = Qc. (27)
Sometimes the specified value Qk is defined in an apparently different way: it should be a
fractile of the r a n d o m variable Qmax for a probability qr and a reference time tr. If even the
probability qr is different from e -1 --- 36%, the characteristic value Qk may be easily recalcu-
lated on the basis of extreme value properties. E.g. if Qk is defined as the 98%-fractile of
 121

1-year's maxima, it will be equal to the ~ 36%-fractile for 50-year's reference period. The
probability qr of exceeding Qk becomes almost time-invariant for some longer reference
periods
qr = (1 -- 1 / 5 0 ) 50 = 0,364... for t = 50,
qr=(1 - 1/t)t~e-1=0,367... for t ---, oo. (28)
The G u m b e l function (23) remain stable for any reference period alterations. The Gumbel
deviation u does not change either. The modal value Q will change only. E.g. if t c is assumed
instead of t r, the G u m b e l parameters are:

Qc=0+uln(tc/tr), U c = U = c o n s t ( t ), (29)
for

F(Qm,~; to)-- exp - e x p ~ - Q m ~ --exp -expQcuQma~ ,

u

but the G u m b e l c.o.v, is t i m e - d e p e n d e n t

Oc=U/O.~=v/[1 + v ln(tc/tr) ] (30)
where v is for the reference time t r
v =u/0.
OQO

Some empirical values v 0 = S o / m o of variable actions for an observation period t o = 1 year

are listed on Table 3. The 1-year estimates m 0' s o are due to Pottharst (TH Darmstadt) and
they have been published elsewhere [13]. The 1-year data of climatic actions are related now to
the asymptotic distribution of extreme values (23). A longer elementary time interval # = 10
years is taken for occupancy loads. The m o m e n t s m, s 2 and the G u m b e l parameters Q, u
(Table 3) of snow and wind actions for 50-years's reference period are derived from the
equation (30) with the known formulae for the first and second m o m e n t s of the G u m b e l
distribution [6]. T h e r e f o r e the standard deviation does not change and indirect estimates for 50
years are:
m = m 0 + u In 50, Q = m - 0,450s --- Qk,
s = s o, u = s v ~ / ~ r = 0,780s 0.

TABLE 3
Empirical moments m0, s 2 of variable actions [13] and the Gumbel parameters Q, u in a dimensionless
representation

Action s/m o m/m o s/m O./m u / O.

L imposed 1,00 * 4,050 0,247 0,889 0,217
Sn snow 0,45 2,373 0,190 0,915 0,162
W wind 0,25 1,763 0,142 0,936 0,118
• c.o.v, for residential buildings but 0,6 .... ,1,2 for official buildings and 0,7 ..... 1,7 for commercial buildings
122

No conversion of empirical moments m, s 2 into Q, u would be necessary if the empirical

data were processed by direct measures:
- an analytical method of maximum likelihood [9] where two equations are solved with two
G u m b e l parameters Q, u as the unknowns or
- a graphical method of collocation [12] where a straight line is interpolated through empirical
points in a regular and double-logarithmic coordinate system. The abscissae e -1 and
exp( - e - 1) define the Q and Q + u values.
QOO

The double definition (16) of the design value S d is actual also in the case of single variable
action Q~. Conversion of the G u m b e l parameters Qs, u~ of the single variable action Qi into the
Gauss parameters Q~, ~ will be necessary if the design value is defined with use of the
load-effect index /3s

Sd=co(O__.i + ~SsO'i) =Ce(l~iO_. i + flsAiUi) (31)

hence ~/s = S a / C o Q k = 1£i + ~S~tiUic - - load-effect factor with/x~ = Qi/Qi, h i ~- O ' i / U i - conver-
sion factors, Id,iui = i~iU i. TWO methods may be applied for the Gumbel-to-Gauss conversion:
- the well known moment method such that the first and second moments, m i and s 2, of the
G u m b e l distribution are supposed equal to respective moments of the Gauss distribution [8],
[141

mi=Oi-l-fui=O, s2=u2rr2/6=oi: (32)

hence /~i = q'l'/V/-~ = 1,282, /~i = 1 + cl)ic

with C = 0,5772... - - Euler's constant.

collocation m e t h o d (Fig. 5) such that the cumulative probabilities F ( Q d ) and hazard
functions h(Qd) of the G u m b e l and the Gauss distributions must be equal at the limit point
Qid = "YsQic

(
exp - exp
ioi ) (oid0/) 1
-- = ~ - , - - exp
Qi-oi 1 (o/d_o,)
= --4' - - (33)
Ui O'i /gi ui o-i ~

h(O)

0,5"
e-1.

"-T -6 ~. *6" ad

Fig. 5. The Gumbel and Gauss distribution functions F(Q) and h(Q) collocated at the design point Od-
 123

--Jp(fli)/ln t~(fli),
h e n c e Ai --

with f l i = ~ - l ( q i ) and qi=exp

(l,s)
IJ'i = "~S -- [~it~il)ic

-exp--
1Jic
.

Iteration procedure may be applied unless Ys is known in advance.

Upper-tail values of the Gauss and the Gumbel probability curves of random maxima Qmax
differ too much in result of the m o m e n t method. The collocation method makes the probability
curves almost coincident in vicinity of the collocation point Q d that is why a better accuracy
may be expected. The collocation m e t h o d [12] has been developed since the 1970-th indepen-
dently from similar algorithms. This m e t h o d is applicable not necessarily to the 2-parameter
probability functions and the Gauss function must not be one of the collocated distributions.
A load-effect factor "/s of the probabilistic design is attributed to each structural element.
Load factors "~i of the semiprobabilistic design are specified for each kind of variable actions.
Differentiated load factors Yi may be found in national design standards but a uniform value
yQ = 1,5 is r e c o m m e n d e d by the Eurocodes (Table 1).

4. Effect of combined actions

Variable actions Q i = Q1, Q 2 , . . . , Q n are ordered according to increasing renewal numbers

r 1 <~ r E <~ ... <~ r n. One action Qt is dominant. Its combination value is equal to the characteris-
tic value, Qlc = Qlk" Combination values Qic of other variable actions are reduced as it was
derived (29),
Qi~ = Q i k - ui In ric. (34)
Relative renewal numbers r~c of all other variable actions Q~, i 4: l, would be equal to the
renewal numbers, ric = r~, if Turkstra rule was applied. It would mean that the modal values in
elementary time intervals 0 i were taken as the combination values Qic. There are n combina-
tions within the Turkstra model since one action Q~ after another is tried as dominant Qt and
this combination of actions which gives maximal load effect S~ is selected. But the Turkstra
rule leads to unsafe lower bounds of combined load effects. Therefore a more exact Ferry-Borges
and Castanheta's rule ( F B & C ) will be applied. One has to try 2 n - 1 combinations. New
definitions of subdominant actions of the second, third order etc. are introduced now and they
are applied to the Gumbel random variables Q~. The dominant action Qt with a renewal
number r I obeys the rule (34) too for its relative renewal number is rio -- 1. A secondary action
Qm is defined as such subdominant action that its modal maximal value Qm~ is taken in the
elementary time interval of the dominant action 0 t < t r (Fig. 3), the tertiary action is the modal
maximum in 0 m < 0z etc. It is useful to number the combinations, c = 1, 2, . . . . 2 i - 1, in such a
way that the action Qn is dominant for the last combination, in a cycle of 2 i - 1 combination.
The relative renewal numbers ric of the sub-dominant actions are:
ri_ -- for the first 2 i-2 combinations ]
ri c = {ri_ 2 -- for the next 2 i-3 combinations /f°r C < 2 i-1
(35)
/ . o o

~r 1 -- for the last combination, when c = 2 i-1 - 1

and the dominant action with ric = 1 - f o r c = 2 i-1.
124

TABLE 4
Relative renewal numbers ric of subdominant and dominant actions
i ¢
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ...
1 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 *
2 r1 1 * * r1 1 * * r I 1 * * rI 1 * *
3 r2 r2 r1 1 * * * * r2 r2 r I 1 * * * *
4 r3 r3 r3 r3 r2 r2 rI 1 * * * * * * * *
5 F4 r4 r4 r4 r4 r4 F4 F4 F3 F3 r3 r3 r2 F2 rI 1

* ric = r i for non-dominant actions

W h e n 2 i - 1 < C < 2 i the variable action Qi is nondominant. Its combination value Qic is
equal to its instantaneous modal value and its relative renewal number and the renewal number
are equal,
ric= r i for c > 2 i-1 in the cycle of 2 i combinations. (36)
There are 2 i-1 combinations where the Qi are subdominant or dominant and then 2 i
combination where the actions Qi are nondominant. Such sequence is repeated periodically
(Table 4). The relative renewal numbers (36) of non-dominant actions are replaced by bars on
Table 4 for a better clarity.
Combination factors 0i, i ~<n, which have been defined in partial factor design for the
ultimate limit states, are extended now,
[[tic = Qic/Qik = 1 - u i In ric. (37)
The combination value S c of the random load effect S is

Sc = S, cie c = CLa k + c OicQik (38)

i=0 L=I i=1

where ~ c~G~k = CoPok = coG k

L=I
and the Gauss parameters

S= ci~i~c = c~GL -~- E ci]-£ifflicOi , o" S = cio'i) 2 = ( c o-L) 2 -Jr- E (ci~tileli) 2

i=o t=l i=1 i ~=1 i=l
(39)

where conversion factors of a particular action Qi are:

txi = Q i / Q i , Ai = ~ / u i .

The Gumbel-to-Gauss conversion factors /x i, Ai for particular variable actions Qi may be

determined from equations (32) or (33) with consideration of the Gumbel c.o.v, augmented for
the time t c = t r / r i c of simultaneous combined action (30)
vic = v J ( 1 - vi In ric ) = vJOic. (40)
 125

The design value S o of the equivalent load effect S is defined for the combination of
Gauss-normal p e r m a n e n t load and normalized variable actions
S d = y s S c = S +/3sO-s =/~s(1 +/3svs)Sc (41)
w h e r e / z s = S / S c is the conversion factor for m e a n load effect; and v s = O-s/S is the Gauss-nor-
mal c.o.v, of the load effect.
The p r o c e d u r e of load effect S O calculation is summarized in Table 5 for given parameters
G, v 0 and Qi, ui, ri provided that the load-effect index fls is determined. Its optimal value will
be defined in the next chapter. Formulae (37), (38); (32), (33); (39), (41) are referred.
coo
A p e r m a n e n t load plus 3 i n d e p e n d e n t and non-exclusive variable actions Qi are perhaps
sufficient for most loading cases: L - - occupancy load, W - - wind action, $ - - other full year's
climatic action i.e. either snow Sn - - in winter or elevated t e m p e r a t u r e T - - in summer.
The renewal numbers in 50 years have been estimated as follows:
r E = r 1 = 5, rs = r E = 50, r w = r 3 = 50

and relative renewal numbers tic may be d e t e r m i n e d for the first 4 combinations from Table 4.
The tic numbers and combination factors qJic= 1 - v i In tic are presented on Table 6 for the
Gumbel coefficients of variation v i from Table 3.
eee
If a uniform standard deviation of p e r m a n e n t loads o-G = const is taken instead of differenti-
ated values tr to the probabilistic design, the load effect S O will be usually higher with a benefit
for safety but with a loss for economy of design. A uniform value UQ for variable loads Qi will
also simplify the calculation, but their variance is always calculated as a sum of squares with
consideration of formula (40).
The combination factors and combination value S~ of load effect may be the same in the
partial factor design as they are in the probabilistic load evaluation. But the semi-probabilistic
design value S~ will be higher than the probabilistic one S O in most cases although ~Oi = ~Oic,
Sj = max I c0Y0G k + c l y t Q t k + ~ ciYidJiQik > S d. (42)
i4,l

The semi-probabilistic design values S~ could be equal to the probabilistic values S a if an

additional combination factor 00c < 1 is applied to all actions Pi or some of them. The factor
00c would d e p e n d on weight factors w i = ci~bi~Pik/S c.

5. Load-effect index

A joint safety index /3 is defined by the E u r o p e a n codes [1] as follows

/3 = _ ~ - l ( p ~ ) (43)
where qb-l(.) is the inverse function of the normal probability; and p~ is the conventional
probability of failure.
The failure is understood formally as a r a n d o m event R < S or R - S < 0 for the coordinates
of state S, R or m o r e generally O(X1, X 2. . . . , AN) < 0 for basic variables X i.
The index /3 for R > 0, S > 0 of the American L R F D is apparently different
/3 = - l n ( S / l ~ ) / ~ / v 2 + u~. (44)
126

T h e two definitions (43) and (44) will be equivalent if lognormal distributions are taken into
account for the i n d e p e n d e n t coordinates of state: R - - mechanical resistance, S - - load effect
and E - - model uncertainty. T h e multiplicative form, R z / E S < 1, is preferred for definition of
the safety index (44). T h e central parameters R, F = E S are the median values and vn, v F
= ~ + v 2 are the logarithmic coefficients of variation.
T h e joint safety index/3 has been defined in theoretical reliability [15] as the formal measure
for probabilistic design and calibration of semi-probabilistic partial factors. Its target v a l u e / 3 "
at ultimate limit state is:
- constant,/3" -- 3,8 for middle safety class of structures during their life time - - according to
the EC,
- differentiated, /3" = 3 for design of steel m e m b e r s u n d e r combined dead plus live a n d / o r
snow loading,/3" = 2,5 for m e m b e r s u n d e r dead plus live plus wind loading and other values
for connections - - according to the L R F D .
Serious difficulties would arrise if the joint index 13 was accepted to practical design. The
design values would be unnecessary and they still are important for safety control. If the design
values R a and S a were additionally defined for a constant target value /3", they would be
coupled so that load standards had to be specified separately for any kind of construction
materials and vice versa - - the design strengths should d e p e n d on future actions on the
structure. That is why i n d e p e n d e n t split safety i n d i c e s /3s, /3n are r e c o m m e n d e d for practical
design by the regional design standards [1], [2] and [5]:
/3s -= 0 , 7 . 3 , 8 = 2,66 and /3n = 0 , 8 . 3 , 8 = 3,04 - - EC;

/3s = l , 6 5 f o r G + L + S n or /3s = I , 4 f o r G + L + w - L R F D

for/3 s =/3E =/3n = / 3 / 7 3 --- 0,55/3.

TABLE 5
Probabilistic p r o c e d u r e of c o m b i n e d load effect S a for actions G a n d Q~, i = 1, 2 . . . . . n, a n d c o m b i n a t i o n s
c = 1 , 2 .... ,2 i - I

0ic = 1 - 13i In ric(ri~ from T a b l e 4) C o m b i n a t i o n factors

S c = c o G k + En= lCil~icaik C o m b i n e d action effect
W0 = c o G k / S c , w i = c i ~ i c Q i k / / S c W e i g h t factors of actions

T h e G u m b e l - t o - G a u s s conversion:
A i = 1,283, ]-/~i= 1 + 0,577v i / ~ i t h e m o m e n t m e t h o d or

ex 1 - Ys 1 fli= qb-l(qi)
qi=exp - p - - ,
collocation m e t h o d
A i = -- ~ i ( [ 3 i ) / ( q i In q i ) , ]'1~i = ")IS -- [~i)tiOi // ~lic

/'£S= W0+ ~ ~iWi M e a n load-effect conversion factor

i~l

1 / 2 :
v s = _ _ ~ / v o Wo +
~ (w,,~,~,,/¢,~)2 Load effect c.o.v.
/'£s V /=1
Ys =/Xs(1 + 13sVs) Load-effect factor
S d = YsSc Load-effect design value
 127

TABLE 6
Relative renewal numbers rie and combination factors I]/ic for occupancy, snow or temperature and wind actions
Action L $ W
Combination r1¢ ff]~ rzc I//2c r3c i//3c
c= 1 1 1 5 0,74 50 0,54
c=2 5 0,65 1 1 50 0,54
c=3 1 1 50 0,37 5 0,81
c=4 5 0,65 50 0,37 1 1

Proportionality coefficients, 0,7 and 0,8 (EC) or 0,55 ( L R F D ) , find a practical use when the
target v a l u e / 3 " is altered what may h a p p e n in the case of an abnormal safety class, T h e n the
split indices /3n, /3s shall be altered proportionally and t h e load and resistance factors yf, Ym
will change accordingly. H o w e v e r the partial factors yf, Ym will not change if an additional
factor Yn is introduced to cover unusual safety requirements [16].
Analytical geometry helps to understand the meaning of the joint safety index and split
safety indices /3s,/3n (Fig. 6). The index /3 is interpreted as the distance from the point O to
the hyperplane a of limit states in the N-dimensional space of standardized basic variables
~i = ( X i - - S i ) / ° ' x . A versor a defines a family of parallel hyperplanes. The c o m p o n e n t s o~i of
the versor are equal to the direction cosines. They have b e e n introduced already as sensitivity
factors (20),

Oli = ciori C20"i2 • (45)

yi=l

A distance /3" defines the limit state hyperplane a * . Any point B on the hyperplane a *
with coordinates/3i satisfies the equation of limit states
N

E Oli/3i = / 3 " " (46)

i=1

An arbitrary point B can be taken as the checking or design point and the conventional

~R
IKI= ~ '~s
uns~~

safe
4_
<~ TO v
Fig. 6. Geometrical interpretation of the joint safety index/3 and split indices/3s,/34 in the standardized coordinate
system ~s = ( S - S ) / o , s , gR = ( R - R ) / t r R.
128

3
l _S

2-

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,/+

Fig. 7. Load effect index /3s versus the c.o.v, according to the EC, LRFD, formal index /3 postulate (increasing
curve), and optimal split index/3s (decreasing curve).

probability of failure p~ will remain the same. It must not be the point B* nearest to the origin
O although it is usually recognized as the exact design point. Coordinates of the point B* are

~*=ai¢i* hence ~ai~*= 2=/3* (47)

i=l l 1

The highest probability density at the point B* of hyperplane ~* is not convincing as an

optimization criterion and there are serious shortcomings of the rule (47). Namely, the mean
load-effect factor S d / S = 1 + ~sVs would excessively increase (Fig. 7) with v s in contradiction
to verified standards (18) and engineer's judgment. Determination of the B*-point is cumber-
some and sometimes ambiguous (Fig. 1) because it does not follow the simple loading path (7),
commonly supposed by designers in stability and carrying capacity problems.
The minimum value of overall probability of failure pf is taken now as the optimization
criterion of design values of the coordinates of state S, E, R. More exactly there are two
optimization problems [8], [12] where objective functions are:
- minimum probability of failure with consideration of reliability control,
- minimal costs of execution, maintenance, insurance and demolition.
The conclusions of the two problems are coincident. The solution of the first optimization
problem is in brief as follows.
First, the overall probability of failure is defined
pf =p~(1 - ¢) +p~'q~ (48)
with p~ = Prob(SE > R) - - probability of a serious damage or collapse under condition of no
reliability control. Probability functions f(S), f ( E ) , f ( R ) are not censored, p~'= 1 - Prob(S <
Sd, E < Ed, R > R d) - - probability of non-acceptance or decomissioning under condition that
random variables S, E, R are under control. The probability distributions are censored, q~ - -
efficiency of safety control undertaken by responsible units: designer, contractor and tenant.
Then, the objective function (48) is minimized, pf = min, with an additional condition of
ultimate limit state, R - ES = 0, and a Lagrange multiplier A:

Opfass=sd + ASd = 0, apfaE E=Ed + AEd = 0, apfORR=R~ -- A = 0. (49)

 129

The solution is that a h a z a r d ratio 1/k = Xdh(X d) should be equal for the three coordinates of
state at their limits
Sdhs(S0) + EohE(Eo) = gdhR(gd). (50)
The hazard function h(x) is defined [8,12,15] for any probability functions F ( X ) and f ( X ) =
dF(X)/dX,
h(S)=f(S)/F(S), h(E)=f(E)/F(E), h(R) = f ( R ) / [ 1 - F ( R ) ] . (51)
This is the fourth principle of the non-conventional probabilistic approach.
Optimal index fls is defined now for a hazard function (10) of the Gauss-normal distribution
of load effect S. The Gumbel-to-Gauss conversion (31) of parameters of variable actions should
be p e r f o r m e d in order to combine them with distribution parameters of p e r m a m e n t loads (39)
(1/Vs + ~s)4J(fls) = 1//< = const ~ Bs(Vs) (52)
and relative load-effect factor
Ys =/~s( 1 + ~sVs) • (53)
The Gumbel hazard function (23) may be applied directly in the particular case of a single
variable Qi action
Ys 1 - Ys 1
--exp-- - ,ys(Vi) (54)
Ui 13i k
and the optimal load-effect index

~S = (I)- 1 exp -- e 131 ~--- ~- /exp-- . (55)

k~'s
QOQ

The value 1 / k may be specified not necessarily from structural load consideration. The well
recognized case of steel m e m b e r resistance R in tension is taken from [12]. Log-normal
parameters f , /.If of plastic strength f = R / A have been estimated from representative statisti-
cal tests. The value for Fe360 steel pieces have been reduced to comparative values for 5 m m
plates by means of empirical conversion factors r/. The maximum likelihood estimates are:
]~= 300 MPa, vf = 0,08.
The conversion factor r / a r e applied now again to specify the median value for rolled shapes of
max 40 m m wall thickness in conformity with the standard [5],
r / = 1,03 e x p ( - 40/300) = 0,96.
The logarithmic c.o.v, of the resistance R is e n h a n c e d with consideration of uA = 0,06 for
variations of area A,
/"R = ]//0' 082 -1- 0, 062 = 0,10.

The resistance index ~ g = 2 is supposed for the design strength fd:

fd = / ~ d / ~ = 0,96" 300 e x p ( - 2-0,10) = 235 MPa

and the hazard ratio: 1/k = ~b(2)/0,10 = 1/1,8.
130

Professional error E due to model uncertainty is supposed to be a log-normal variable with

parameters /~ = 1, v E = 0,04. The split index fie is determined for the same hazard ratio:
~b(/3e)/0,04 = 1 / 1 , 8 ~ / 3 E = 2,5
and the model factor Ye = exp(2,5 • 0,04) = 1,10.
The limit strength 235 M P a and the factor 1,10 are exactly equal to the values fy and YM of
the E u r o c o d e 3, respectively. H o w e v e r their interpretation is different: fy is the nominal value
of yield strength and YM is the material factor of the EC3 [5].
Ne
The equation (52) completes the principles of new probabilistic format of action combina-
tion. It enables to specify safety elements fls or Ys for each structural element. Attention must
be paid to scale effects. Not only the safety class but also the size of structure are important. It
is a conclusion of the second optimization problem [12]. The time scale of the intended service
time was already mentioned in context of design values of actions (29). Numerical solutions of
the second optimization problem could deliver optimal values of hazard ratio 1/k in a direct
way if necessary econometric data were available. But now the above inverse method of
calibration had to be advised. The hazard ratio 1/k = 1 / 1 , 8 for common structures, which has
been determined from comparisons with material specifications, is accepted for action effects.

6. Examples of calibration and verification

6.1. Uniform factor approach

C a l i b r a t i o n of safety elements for actions has been accomplished in conformity with the EC1
partial factors [1]. There are two uniform partial factors: Yc = 1,35 for permanent loads G, and
yQ = 1,50 for variable actions Qi. The same values shall appear as the load-effect factors of the
probabilistic design in particular cases: Ys = 1,35 for sole permanent loads G = Y'.G, and
Ys = 1,50 for a single variable action Q r The conclusion is that only two values shall
characterize random variations of actions: v G - - a uniform Gauss c.o.v, for overall permanent
loads and V Q - a uniform G u m b e l c.o.v, for any extreme variable action. The values v c and vQ
should take average values of the empirical data (Table 2 and 3), representative for structures
of the middle safety class and 50 years reference period. The same hazard ratio 1/k = 1 / 1 , 8
has to be confirmed for actions as it has been specified for resistance R.
ooo
In the case of p e r m a n e n t load G = EG, and Q = 0 the load-effect factor Ys (16) is equal to
the E C value Yc for an average value vc = 0,192 and k = 1 / 1 , 8 in (52);
(/3 s + 1/0,192)th(/3s) = 1 / 1 , 8 -~/3 s = 1,82,
Ys = 1 + 1,82- 0,192 = 1,35 = y~.
In the case of a single variable action Qi and G = 0 the load-effect factor Ys is equal to the
E C value TQ for an average value v c = 0,187 and k = 1 / 1 , 8 in (54);
(ys/O,187) exp[(1 - ys)/0,187] -- 1 / 1 , 8 -~ Ys -- 1,50 -- yQ,
/3s = O - l [ e x p ( - 0 , 1 8 7 / 1 , 8 " 1,50)] = 1,50.
000
 131

1,6.

1,5q

1,L+.

1,3-
0,2 0,4 0,6 0~ 1,0
Fig. 8. Joint load-effect factor Ys versus weight factor w 0 of permanent loads G according to collocation method
(full line) and moment method (intermittent line).

If the renewal numbers are r i = 5, 50, 50 for 3 variable actions L, S, W as they are on Table
6 but with uniform c.o.v, v a = 0,187, the formula (37) gives only 3 different combination factors:
0re -- 1,0 for dominant value Sl,
ffmc = 1 - 0,187 In 5 -- 0,70 for secondary value S m ,
0no = 1 - 0,187 In 50 = 0,27 for non-dominant value S n.
The sequence of characteristic values of action effects should be Stk >/Sink >t Snk. The interpre-
tation of indices l, m, n according to F B & C combination model is such that: S , , k =
m i n ( c w W k, cs$ k) and C L L k is never on the third position.
Checking of safety for a structural element, resistance of which is R d, has to be done for the
most unfavourable combination of r a n d o m actions Pi = G, L, $, W. Maximum max Sc shall be
selected from 4 combinations:
c = 1 S c = c G G k + C L L k + 0,70cs$ k + 0,27CwWk,
C= 2 S c = c G G k + 0,70CLL k + c s $ k + 0,27CwWk,
c = 3 S c = c G G k + c G L k + 0,27cs$ k + 0,70CwWk,
c = 4 Sc = CGGk + 0,70CLLk + 0,27C$$k + C w W k " (56)
If 1 / k = 1/1,8 and the ratio R d / ( T E S c ) exceeds ~ 1,6 the structural element is safe but it is
overdimensioned. It can be concluded from Fig. 8. If the ratio is less than ~ 1,3, the element is
unsafe. M o r e calculation are necessary in intermediate cases 1,3 < Ys < 1,6: the design load
effect S d has to be d e t e r m i n e d and c o m p a r e d with the reduced resistance
Sd = S + flsO's <<-R d / ' Y E. (57)
D e t e r m i n a t i o n of the m e a n value S and standard deviation o-s, as well as the load-effect
index/3 s and factor Ys is summarized on Table 7. The Gumbel-to-Gauss conversion factors/~i,
~i for variable actions a i (Fig. 9) are given in the second part of the Table 7. T h e y are helpful
in the iteration procedure. The factors may be taken in the first step of iteration according to
the m o m e n t m e t h o d (32) for v i = 0,187:
/z i = 1,108, /~i = 1,283 = const. (58)
The characteristic values Pig may be taken from standard specifications and the coefficients
ci from structural analysis. The decorrelation principle (6) is helpfull.
132

2,0 T L

1,&,.Z ~ O ~'~--~.~: 1,2

1,o• - I- ~ "~T ~ - -; ,~- ~Z.~~¥\ or..7- o- -~. ~ I 'o

0,8~ ]-~2.~ 0,9 .
1,3 1,k, 1,5 1,6 1"s
Fig. 9. Particular Gumbel-to-Gauss conversion factors for A i = u i / ~ i (left scale) and/~i = (~i/(~i (right scale) versus
the load-effect factor Ys.

TABLE 7
Probabilistic procedure of combined load effect harmonized with EC1

O's = ~/0,1922S2k +0,1872 ~ (l~iSik) 2

(39t i= l i = 1, 2, 3 for Q, $, W
3 Load effect c.o.v.
= Sok + ~ #~4~icSik ~ US = O's/S
i=1
(52) (1/Cs+fls)6(fls)=l/1,8~s Load effect index
3
(411 S c = S o k + y" O i c S i k - - * y s = ( S + f l s O ' s ) / S c Load effect factor
i-1

[ 1-~. ) I]//c = 1, Dmc = 0,7,~/nc = 0 , 2 7

(33) qi = exp [ - e x p O,187/~bic
- - - - , fli = dP-l(qi) 1, m = 1,2 or 3; n = 2 o r 3
Ai = - 6 ( f l i ) / I n qi, t~i = Ys -0,187/3iA~/~0ic conversion factors

000

Possible values of load effect i n d e x / 3 s and factor Ys are s h o w n o n Fig. 10. T h e y d e p e n d o n a

w e i g h t factor of p e r m a n e n t loads w 0 = Sok/S c and p r o p o r t i o n s of variable actions Slk : S2k : S3k.
If 1 / k = 1 / 1 , 8 and v 1 = v 2 = 133 = 0,187, there are:
u p p e r values Ys for Sak = 0,70S2k = 0,27S3k and max Ys = 1,60; lower values Ys for Slk =
$ 2 k / 0 , 7 0 = $ 3 k / 0 , 2 7 and min Ys = 1,45.

6.2. Differentiated factors approach

Empirical coefficients o f variation may be i n t r o d u c e d to the level-2 probabilistic design with

the same hazard ratio 1 / k = 1 / 1 , 8 for the m i d d l e safety class. D i f f e r e n t i a t e d p e r m a n e n t loads
from Table 2 and variable actions from Table 3 are taken into account. T h e algorithm from
 133

1,6 ~S
~ Z,O
"o~

1,5 1,9
1,8
1,7
1,6

0 0,2 0,t~ 0,6 0,8 1,0 W0

Fig. 10. U p p e r a n d l o w e r b o u n d s o f t h e l o a d - e f f e c t f a c t o r Ys (left s c a l e ) a n d i n d e x fls ( r i g h t scale) v e r s u s t h e w e i g h t

f a c t o r w 0 = coG k / S c.

Table 5 is applicable for the action-effect factor 7s in a general case. The action-effect factors
Ys (Table 8) for particular p e r m a n e n t loads G i have been derived from the formula (16)
relative to the Gauss distributions and 7s for a single variable action Qi has been derived from
formula (54) relative to the G u m b e l distribution.
eee
Extreme cases of p e r m a n e n t loading may give an idea about quantitative differences of 7s
factors w h e n the r a n d o m loads G~ are independent. The design value of sole p e r m a n e n t loads
G a + G 2 -t- G 3 (Table 2) is:

sd = + a2 + + s /0,082 1 + 0,102 + 0,25 a

and the load-effect factor Ys -- Sa/Sc relative to the constant hazard ratio 1 / k = 1/1,8 takes
values:
Ys = 1,14 w h e n G 1 = 0,564G, G 2 = 0,361G, G 3 = 0,075G,
Ys = 1,39 w h e n G 1 = G 2 -- 0, G 3 = G > 0.
0OO
The differentiated partial factors ")/Gi and Yoi from Table 8 and combination factors from
Table 6 may be introduced to the level-1 design. It would give m o r e rational and economic
results than the design with uniform partial factors YG = 1,35, Yo = 1,50 and combination
factors 00i r e c o m m e n d e d by the Eurocodes. The level-2 design would be still m o r e economic
because concave lines (Fig. 8) define the safety factor Ys instead of values resulting from a
piece-wise linear combination of particular factors.

TABLE 8

D i f f e r e n t i a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t s o f v a r i a t i o n a n d l o a d - e f f e c t f a c t o r s f o r a n e x t e n d e d level-1 m e t h o d

Permanent load Variable actions

vG1 = 0,08 3%1 = 1,17 v L = 0,22 YL = 1,56
VG2 = 0,10 7C2 = 1,21 v$ = 0,16 y , = 1,45
V~3 = 0,25 3%3 = 1,39 v w = 0,12 "/W = 1,36
134

7. Summary and conclusions

There are 4 principles of the proposed probabilistic combination of actions:

I. Load effect components Sj may be decorrelated by rearrangement of the linear combina-
tion which defines a scalar load effect S(P) necessary for safety checking: S <~Rd/TE.
II. Coordinates Pid of a design point Pd in space of actions are colinear with the combination
values Pc. The load-effect factor Ys = P/d/P/c is the proportionality coefficient.
III. Combination value Pic is the most probable maximum value Pmax in the ensemble of
typical structures. Pic is equal to the specified reference value P~k in cases of permanent
loads, as well as a dominating variable action. Other combination values Qic are modal in
time intervals lesser than the reference period.
IV. A hazard ratio Sdh(S d) = 1/k, where h ( S ) = f ( S ) / F ( S ) is the hazard function, has
apperared as the optimal safety measure for actions if the overall probability of failure is
taken into consideration.
The principles of new probability-based approach are different from the conventional level-2
design rules. The principle I replaces the cumbersome rotation of coordinate system as a
method of decorrelation. The principle II eliminates the needless calculations of beta-point in
linear cases. The new g a m m a - p o i n t determination is easy what will be especially important for
nonlinear problems. The results are really invariant and conformable to the usual rule of
proportional loading of deterministic limit analysis. A uniform and clear definition of character-
istic values of actions is introduced according to the principle III. New combination factors 6ic
are based on an extended Ferry-Borges and Castanheta's model and they are related to
parameters of stochastic process of loading. The principle IV replaces the formally split safety
index for load effects (/3s -- 0,7/3 in the Eurocodes and/3 s = 0,55/3 in the LRFD) by an optimal
value 13s(Vs) depending on the coefficient of variation v s relative to the structural element.
No strictly defined probability functions are assumed for particular actions but asymptotic
distribution functions are used for the load effects:
- the Gauss-normal for permanent action effect coG,
- the Gumbel distribution for any variable action effect ciQ i.
The Gumbel parameters Q, u o are converted into the mean value Q and standard deviation
tro by means of:
- the conventional method of probability moment equations or
- a new method of probability function collocation.
An exemplary calibration of safety elements is harmonized with the European partial safety
factors 7G, Yo so that uniform coefficients of variation have been specified: v~ for the
permanent load G and v o for any variable action Qi. Results of probabilistic design will be
idemical with EC results in simple cases. They will be different for combined actions and for
life times t u different than the reference time t r e f = 50 years of the characteristic variable
actions Qik. The level-2 design with differentiated coefficients of variation vl, v2, v 3 and vl, v2,
v 3 can give a more uniform reliability level and economical effects. Similarly to the probabilistic
design an extended level-1 combination format is possible such that 6 partial factors 7i are
defined: 3 for permanent loads (7, and 3 for variable actions Qi (Table 8). The extended format
can give considerable reductions of design values S d in comparison with the European partial
factors format [1]. The combination factor matrix q6c (Table 4) man be used for dominant,
sub-dominant and nondominant action effects ciQ i, provided that the repetition numbers rz
 135

have b e e n specified. T h e d o m i n a n t v a l u e s Q~ m a y b e easily c h a n g e d (29) in cases o f life p e r i o d s

different than the reference period.

Acknowledgements

T h e w o r k p r e s e n t e d in this p a p e r has b e e n s u p p o r t e d by t h e Polish C o m m i t t e e for Scientific

R e s e a r c h u n d e r G r a n t 7.1035.91.01 ( P B 6 1 9 / 7 / 9 1 ) . Dr. A n d r z e j M a c h o w s k i c o n t r i b u t e d to
discussions o n action c o m b i n a t i o n s . Mr. M a r i u s z Ma~lak a n d Mr. Pawe~ C z e p i e c assisted in
c o m p u t e r - a i d e d v e r i f i c a t i o n o f n u m e r i c a l results.

References
[1] ENV 1991-1, Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures. Part 1: Basis of design, CEN/TC250, 5-th
Draft-Oct. 1992.
[2] Load and Resistance Factor Design specification for structural steel buildings, AISC, Chicago, IL, Sept. 1986.
[3] H. Mathieu and J. Murzewski, Report on the international harmonization of the combination of actions (rev.
ed.) ISO/TC98, 1989.
[4] Load combinations. A world view, in: L.S. Beedle (Ed. in Chief), Stability of Metal Structures, World View, NSF
and USTDP, 1991.
[5] ENV 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, CEN,
Brussels 1992.
[6] E. Gumbel, Statistics of Extremes, Columbia Univ. Press, New York, NY, 1962.
[7] J. Ferry-Borges and M. Castanheta, Structural safety (2-nd ed.) LNEC, Lisbon 1971.
[8] J. Murzewski, Bezpieczefistwo konstrukcji budowlanych, Arkady, Warszawa 1970 (Sicherheit der Baukonstruktio-
nen, Verlag Bauwesen, Berlin, 1974).
[9] M. Fisz, Probability Theory and mathematical Statistics (transl. from Polish ed.), Wiley, New York 1963.
[10] A.S. Nowak, Calibration of LRFD bridge design code, NCHRP Project 12-33 Final Report, Univ. of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, May 1992.
[11] J. Murzewski, The Poisson processes of actions and their combinations, Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 73 (1) (1993)
27-33.
[12] J. Murzewski, Niezawodno~6 konstrukcji inL,ynierskich, Arkady, Warszawa, 1989.
[13] W. Grasse, Zur Lastkombinationsregel nach DIN 18800 Teil 1, Stahlbau, 61 (1992), H.5, 143-149.
[14] J.R. Benjamin and C.A. Cornell, Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1970.
[15] H.O. Madsen, S. Krenk and N.C. Lind, Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
[16] ISO 2394, General principles on reliability for structures, 2-nd ed., 1986-10-15, International Standard.