Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 1 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 2 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2
GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Brief .................................................................................................................. 3 SNIP 2.01.07-75 LOADS AND EFFECTS ......................................................... 5 2.1 Classification of Loads according to SNIP ................................................. 5 2.2 SNIP Load Combinations ............................................................................. 6 2.3 Reliability Coefficients for Load Cases ....................................................... 6 EN 1990 AND EN1991 ACTIONS ON STRUCTURES ................................... 7 3.1 Classification of Actions according to EN 1991 ........................................ 7 3.2 Principles of Limit State Design according to EN 1990 ........................... 8 3.3 Design Values of Actions .............................................................................. 8 3.4 Design Values of Material............................................................................. 8 SNIP II-23-81 STEEL STRUCTURES .............................................................. 12 4.1 Design Characteristics of Material ............................................................ 12 4.2 Centric Tension and Compression Components .................................... 12 4.3 Bending in SNIP ........................................................................................... 13 EN 1993 DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES ............................................... 14 5.1 Partial Factors for Material ......................................................................... 16 5.2 Tension in EN 1993 ..................................................................................... 16 5.3 Compression in EN 1993 ............................................................................ 17 5.4 Bending in EN 1993..................................................................................... 17 5.5 Compression Buckling in EN 1993 ........................................................... 18 5.6 Flexural Buckling in EN 1993 ..................................................................... 21 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................. 23
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 3 of 24
1 GENERAL
1.1 Scope
This report has been prepared for a general comparison of SNIP codes and Eurocodes given below. SNIP 2.01.07-85 vs. EN 1990 and EN 1991 SNIP II-23-81 vs. EN 1993
1.2 Brief
PROBE engineers have been asked to prepare a report which will present a concise comparison of SNIP codes and European codes used in the design of structural steel buildings. In general, the two design codes which are used by engineers in structural steel building design are the codes SNIP 2.01.07-85 Loads and Effects and SNIP II-23-81 Structures that are design codes employed for loadings and design of structural steel systems respectively. Corresponding European codes for the above mentioned Russian design codes are EN 1990 Basis of Design, EN 1991 Actions on Structures and EN 1993 Design of Steel Structures. EN 1991 and EN 1993 are also recognised as Eurocode 1 and Eurocode 3 respectively. The whole list of European standards is presented below for a better understanding of the European norms. EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures EN 1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures EN 1993 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures EN 1994 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures EN 1995 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures EN 1996 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures EN 1997 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design EN 1998 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance EN 1999 Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 4 of 24
In the generation of the above European codes, general texts of each individual codes and their parts are published by CEN and it is acknowledged that these codes may be followed by National Annex documents of the countries who decide to implement these European norms. Therefore, it has to be noted by the designers that, in case a structural design is conducted for a country using these norms, the National Annex documents of the country of design also have to be followed in order to adopt the design correctly in accordance with the local requirements, parameters and limitations of that country. The details of the comparison of the codes mentioned will be presented in the following sections of the report. The comparison is conducted in order to present the differences of the two different approaches of the two types of codes to the structural steel design of buildings. The statements below are general comments obtained after the review of the two corresponding design codes. In order to have a more detailed comparison, it is recommended that some case studies are to be carried out.
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 5 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 6 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 7 of 24
As summary to the above discussion, EN 1990 is a generated for design of structures where the designer can find the load combinations corresponding load factors to use in the calculations, whereas in order to specify the characteristic values of the actual loadings, such as wind load or snow load acting on the structure under consideration, one has to refer to the corresponding parts of EN 1991.
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 8 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 9 of 24
including footings, piles, basement walls, etc., where the strength of construction materials of the structure governs ; c) GEO : Failure or excessive deformation of the ground where the strengths of soil or rock are significant in providing resistance ; d) FAT : Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members. In Annex A1 of EN 1990, the application of partial load factors to the buildings is presented in detail. Recommended values of factors for buildings are presented in Table A1.1 of the code and also presented below.
Table 1: Recommended values of factors for buildings
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 10 of 24
Design values of actions for EQU and Seismic cases are presented in the tables below. For the other cases such as STR or GEO, please refer to the Annex A1 of EN 1990.
Table 2: Design values of actions (EQU) (Set A)
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 11 of 24
Table 3: Design values of actions for use in accidental and seismic combinations of actions
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 12 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 13 of 24
Stability analysis of the solid-wall components subject to central compression by force N shall be conducted by the following formula. N / ( A) Ry / c Numerical values of are given in Table 72 of the code. Therefore, it can be said that in SNIP code the stability analysis (buckling) of a compression strut is carried out simply by reducing the tensile capacity of the profile by employing the coefficient .
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 14 of 24
EN 1993-1-1 presents the basic rules of the design of steel structures with material thicknesses t 3 mm. It also provides provisions for the structural design of steel buildings. Note that for cold formed thin gauge members and plate thicknesses t < 3 mm one has to refer to EN 1993-1-3. Nominal values of yield strength fy and ultimate tensile strength fu for hot rolled sections are presented in Table 3.1 of the code. The same table is presented also below.
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 15 of 24
Table 4: Nominal values of yield strength fy and ultimate tensile strength fu for hot rolled structural steel
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 16 of 24
Note that the partial factors Mi for buildings may be defined in the National Annex of the country of design. However, the following numerical values are also recommended for buildings in the code: M0 = 1,00 M1 = 1,00 M2 = 1,25
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 17 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 18 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 19 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 20 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 21 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 22 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 23 of 24
SUBJECT:
SNIP vs. Eurocode Comparison of EN1991 and EN1993 against SNIP 2.01.07-85 and SNIP II-23-81
PREPARED BY B.O.
CHECKED BY M.E.
REV 00
P# 24 of 24
project. It is acknowledged that, SNIP codes employ less partial load factors than European codes to be used in load combinations in general. However, it is noted also that SNIP codes employs also less member resistance values compared with European codes. Based on the experience on the design with European and SNIP codes and the comparison and discussions presented in this report, it is concluded that the structural design with SNIP codes would yield very slightly economic solutions in terms of material weight. Therefore, it can be said that, based on above discussions it is acknowledged here that Eurocode design gives slightly conservative results when compared against SNIP. However it has to be noted that, the above conclusion is an estimate based on the discussions presented in this report. It has to be also noted that, for a specific project, the opposite of the above may be concluded in accordance with the local parameters and requirements of the project. In order to have a better comparison a case study would be recommended.