1. ------IND- 2012 0496 I-- EN- ------ 20121002 --- --- PROJET
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
in concert with
The Minister for the Interior
The Head of the Department for Civil Protection
and with
Having regard to Law No 1086 of 5 November 1971: "Standards for the regulation of works of
reinforced, normal and prestressed concrete and steel frameworks";
Having regard to Law No 64 of 2 February 1974: "Provisions for constructions with particular
requirements for seismic zones";
Having regard to Law No 317 of 21 June 1986: "Information procedure in standards and technical
regulations and of rules relating to services of the information society in implementation of
Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 June 1009, amended by
Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 July 1998";
Having regard to Articles 54 and 93 of legislative Degree No 112 of 21 March 1998: "Concession
of administrative functions and tasks of the State to regions and local authorities, in implementation
of chapter I of Law No 59 of 15 March 1997";
Having regard to the single Text detailing provisions and regulations on construction, as given in
Presidential Decree No 380 of 6 June 2001, and in particular Articles 52, 60 and 83;
Having regard to the Minister for Infrastructure, in concert with the Minister for Home Affairs and
with the Departmental Head of Civil Protection of 15 January 2008: "Approval of the new technical
standards for construction", published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic No 29 Ordinary
Supplement No 30 of 4 February 2008, as amended by the decree from the Minister of
Infrastructure and Transport, in concert with the Minister for Home Affairs and with the
Departmental Head of Civil Protection of 15 November 2011, published in the Official Journal of
the Italian Republic No 270 of 19 November 2011;
Having regard to ministerial memorandum No 617 of 2 February 2009 as above Public Works
bears: "Instructions for the application of "New technical standards for construction" as stated in the
Ministerial Decree of 14 January 2008", published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic,
No 47 Ordinary Supplement No 27 of 26 February 2009;
Having regard to Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding construction products;
Having regard to Presidential Decree No 246 of 21 April 1993: "Regulation implementing directive
89/106/EEC relating to construction products";
1/6
Having regard to (EC) Regulation No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council which
laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing
Directive 89/106/EEC of the Council;
Having regard to Presidential Decree No 151 of 1 August 2011: "Rules laying down simplification
of regulation of procedures relating to prevention of fires, in accordance with Article 49(4c), of
decree-law No 78 of 31 May 2010, converted, with modifications, into law No 133 of
30 July 2010";
Having regard to Decree of the Minister for Home Affairs of 9 March 2007: "Provision of fire
resistance of constructions carrying out activities under the control of the national Body of the fire
service", published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic No 74 Ordinary Supplement
No 87 of 29 March 2007;
Having regard to Decree of the Minister for Home Affairs of 9 May 2007: "Directives for the
implementation of the engineering approach to fire safety", published in the Official Journal of the
Italian Republic, No 117 of 22 May 2007;
Given that the new technical standards for construction, approved with the cited Ministerial Decree
of 14 January 2008, Chapter 1 "Purpose", third paragraph, regarding the application information for
obtaining the prescribed provisions, states that for whatever is not expressly specified by the same
technical standards for construction, one can refer to regulations of proven validity and to other
technical documents listed in Chapter 12 and, in particular, those provided by the Eurocodes with
the relevant National Appendices constitute information of proven validity and provide applied
systematic support of said standards;
Given that Chapter 12 "Technical References" of the new technical standards for construction,
approved with the cited Ministerial Decree of 14 January 2008, in the first paragraph, which states
that unless otherwise specified in the same new technical standards for construction are understood
to be coherent with the principles of the same, the information in the structural Eurocodes published
by the CEN, with the provisions given in the National Appendices or, failing this, in the
international EN format;
Given the cited ministerial Note No 617 of 2 February 2009 as above Public Works, confirming,
relating to Chapter 12 of the new technical standards for constructions, approved with the cited
Ministerial Decree of 14 January 2008, which the Structural Eurocodes published by the CEN
constitute as an important reference for the application of new technical standards;
Given that for the use of Structural Eurocodes it is therefore necessary for national Parameters
regarding the safety levels of the Member States' works to be defined in Technical Appendices;
Given, therefore, that the Eurocodes, with the relative National Appendices, provide applied
systematic support of the new technical standards for construction, approved with the cited
Ministerial Decree of 14 January 2008, if expressly referred to or for technical reasons not expressly
or completely dealt with by the same, in compliance with the principles and levels of safety of the
same new technical standards for construction;
Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission of 11 December 2003 relating
to the application and use of the Eurocodes for construction work and structural construction
products, notified with the Number C(2003)4639, published in the Official Journal of the European
Union of 19 December 2003, Law No 332, and in particular Point 2, under which the Member
States shall fix parameters of usage in their territory as "parameters specified at national level";
Given that it was decided to establish, under Point 2 of the cited recommendation of
11 December 2003, the National Appendices which indicate said "parameters specified at national
level" of structural Eurocodes with the aim of fully implementing the new technical standards for
construction approved with the cited Ministerial Decree of 14 January 2008;
2/6
Having regard to the vote No 98 of 24 September 2010 and No 4 of 25 February 2011 with which
the General Assembly of the Executive Council of public works expressed themselves as as in
agreement with the Parameters stated in the National Appendices attached to the Eurocodes;
Having regard to the agreement with the Joint Conference of 10 May 2012, under the cited Articles
54 and 93 of Legislative Decree No 112 of 31 March 1998, and 83 of Presidential Decree No 380 of
6 June 2001;
Having regard to the decree of the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister of
Infrastructure and Transport of 13 December 2011, through which the matters relating to the
Minister of Infrastructure and Transport have been delegated to the Under-secretary of State;
Having regard to the Presidential Decree of 19 December 2011, published in the Official Journal
of the Italian Republic, general series, No 301 of 28 December 2011, which attributes the title of
Vice Minister to the aforementioned Under-secretary of State:
HEREBY DECREES
SINGLE ARTICLE
The technical Parameters are established as given in the National Appendices to the Eurocodes
given in the annexes which form an integral part of the present decree, and whose references are
listed in the following table.
EUROCODE
PUBLISHED
EACH YEAR
1
UNI EN 1990
2004
2
UNI EN 1991-1-1
2004
3
UNI EN 1991-1-2
2005
4
UNI EN 1991-1-3
2005
5
UNI EN 1991-1-4
2007
6
UNI EN 1991-1-5
2005
7
UNI EN 1991-1-6
2005
8
UNI EN 1991-1-7
2006
9
UNI EN 1991-2
2005
10 UNI EN 1991-3
2006
TITLE
Basis of structural design - Annex A1
application to buildings Annex A2 application
to bridges
Actions on structures Part 1-1:General
actions-Densities, self-weight, imposed loads
for buildings
Actions on structures Part 1-2:General
actions-Actions on structures exposed to fire
Actions on structures Part 1-3: General
actions-Snow loads
Actions on structures Part 1-4: General
actions-Wind actions
Actions on structures Part 1-5: General
actions-Thermal actions
Actions on structures Part 1-6: General
actions-Actions during execution
Actions on structures Part 1-7: Actions in
general-Accidental actions
Actions on structures Part 2: Traffic loads on
bridges
Actions on structures Part 3:Actions induced
NUMBER OF
PRESCRIBE
D NATIONAL
PARAMETER
S
43
10
10
24
53
23
23
31
90
7
3/6
11 UNI EN 1991-4
2006
12 UNI EN 1992-1-1
2005
13 UNI EN 1992-1-2
2007
14 UNI EN 1992-2
2006
15 UNI EN 1992-3
2006
16 UNI EN 1993-1-1
2005
17 UNI EN 1993-1-2
2005
18 UNI EN 1993-1-3
2007
19 UNI EN 1993-1-4
2007
20 UNI EN 1993-1-5
2007
21 UNI EN 1993-1-6
2007
22 UNI EN 1993-1-7
2007
23 UNI EN 1993-1-8
2005
24 UNI EN 1993-1-9
2005
25 UNI EN 1993-1-10
2005
26 UNI EN 1993-1-11
2007
27 UNI EN 1993-1-12
2007
28 UNI EN 1993-2
2007
29 UNI EN 1993-3-1
2007
30 UNI EN 1993-3-2
2007
31
32
33
34
2007
2007
2007
2007
UNI EN 1993-4-1
UNI EN 1993-4-2
UNI EN 1993-4-3
UNI EN 1993-5
35 UNI EN 1993-6
2007
36 UNI EN 1994-1-1
2005
37 UNI EN 1994-1-2
2005
38 UNI EN 1994-2
2006
by cranes and machinery
Actions on structures Part 4:Actions on silos
and tanks
Design of concrete structures Part 11:General rules and rules for buildings
Design of concrete structures Part 12:General rules-Structural fire design
Design
of
concrete
structures
Part
2:Concrete bridges-Design and detailing
rules
Design of concrete structures Part 3:Liquid
retaining and containment structures
Design of steel structures Part 1-1:General
rules and rules for buildings
Design of steel structures Part 1-2:General
rules-Structural fire design
Design of steel structures Part 1-3:General
rules-supplementary rules for cold-formed
metals and sheeting
Design of steel structures Part 1-4:General
rules-supplementary rules for stainless steel
Design of steel structures Part 1-5:General
rules-Plated structural elements
Design of steel structures Part 1-6: Strength
and stability of shell structures
Design of steel structures Part 1-7: Plated
structures subject to out-of-plane loading
Design of steel structures Part 1-8:General
rules-Design of joints
Design of steel structures Part 1-9: Fatigue
Design of steel structures Part 1-10: Material
toughness and through-thickness properties
Design of steel structures Part 1-11:Design
of structures with tension components
Design of steel structures Part 112:Additional rules for the extension of EN
1993 up to steel grade S700
Design of steel structures Part 2: Steel
bridges
Design of steel structures Part 3-1:Towers,
masts and chimneys- Towers and masts
Design of steel structures Part 3-2:Towers,
masts and chimneys- Chimneys
Design of steel structures Part 4-1:Silos
Design of steel structures Part 4-2:Tanks
Design of steel structures Part 4-3:Pipelines
Design of steel structures Part 5: Piling
Design of steel structures Part 6:Crane
supporting structures
Design of composite steel and concrete
structures Part 1-1:General rules and rules
for buildings
Design
of
steel-concrete
composite
structures Part 1-2:General rules-Structural
fire design
Design
of
steel-concrete
composite
structures Part 2:General rules and rules for
bridges
7
122
16
35
5
25
5
19
7
15
17
1
6
11
2
16
6
56
45
19
38
11
8
15
17
19
8
15
4/6
39 UNI EN 1995-1-1
2005
40 UNI EN 1995-1-2
2005
41 UNI EN 1995-2
2005
42 UNI EN 1996-1-1
2007
43 UNI EN 1996-1-2
2005
44 UNI EN 1996-2
2006
45 UNI EN 1996-3
2006
46 UNI EN 1997-1
2005
47 UNI EN 1997-2
2007
48 UNI EN 1998-1
2007
49 UNI EN 1998-2
2006
50 UNI EN 1998-3
2005
51 UNI EN 1998-4
2006
52 UNI EN 1998-5
2005
53 UNI EN 1998-6
2005
54 UNI EN 1999-1-1
2007
55 UNI EN 1999-1-2
2007
56 UNI EN 1999-1-3
2007
57 UNI EN 1999-1-4
2007
58 UNI EN 1999-1-5
2007
Design of wooden structures Part 11:General rules-Common rules and rules for
buildings
Design of wooden structures Part 12:General rules-Structural fire design
Design of wooden structures Part 2:Bridges
Design of brickwork structures Part 11:General
rules
for
reinforced
and
unreinforced masonry structures
Design of brickwork structures Part 12:General rules-Structural fire design
Design of brickwork structures Part 2:Design
considerations, selection of materials and
execution of masonry
Design of brickwork structures Part
3:Calculation methods for unreinforced
masonry structures
Geotechnical design Part 1:General rules
Geotechnical
design
Part
2:Ground
investigation and testing
Design of structures for seismic resistance
Part 1-1:General rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings
Design of structures for seismic resistance
Part 2:Bridges
Design of structures for seismic resistance
Part 3:Assessment and retrofitting of
buildings
Design of structures for resistance in seismic
zones Part 4:Silos, tanks and pipelines
Design of structures for seismic resistance
Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and
geotechnical aspects
Design of structures for seismic resistance
Part 6: Towers, masts and chimneys
Design of aluminium structures Part 11:General structural rules
Design of aluminium structures Part 12:General rules-Structural fire design
Design of aluminium structures Part 13:General rules-Structures susceptible to
fatigue
Design of aluminium structures Part 14:Cold-formed structural sheeting
Design of aluminium structures Part 15:Shell structures
12
5
16
19
9
5
7
40
0
56
30
8
10
4
7
26
6
20
7
2
This decree and its attachments are published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic.
THE VICE MINISTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORT
5/6
THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR
THE DEPARTMENTAL HEAD OF CIVIL PROTECTION
6/6
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1990:2004
Eurocode 0:
General Criteria of structural
design
Annex A1 application to buildings
Annex A2 application to bridges
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI EN 1990:2004
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in the general criteria of structural design
National annex
UNI-EN-1990 – General Criteria of structural design
EN-1990 – Basis of structural design
1)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1990, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2)
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains in Point 3 the decision on national parameters which
shall be prescribed in UNI-EN1990 relating to paragraphs:
A1.1(1) Note
A1.2.1(1) Notes 1 and 2
A1.2.2(1) Note (Table A.1.1 Note)
A1.3.1(1) Note [Table A1.2(A) - Note 1 and 2 -, Table A1.2(B) – Notes 1, 2,
3 and 4 - and Table A1.2(C) – Note]
A1.1(5) Note
A1.3.2(2) (Table A1.3)
A1.1(2) Note
and national information related to use of informative Annexes B, C and D for
buildings and other civil engineering works.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, shall be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1990 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex shall be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to the UNI-EN-1990– General criteria of structural design, as well
as when designing structures involving materials or actions different to those
appropriate to the scope and field of application of the EN of EN1991 to EN 1999.
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
A1.1(1)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The following statement applies:
TYPE
1
2
3
Rated life
Description
(in years)
Provisional works – Provisional works
Structures in construction phase (1)
Usual works, bridges, infrastructure works and dams
of small dimensions or normal importance
Major works, bridges, infrastructure works and dams
of large dimensions or of strategic importance
 10
≥ 50
≥ 100
(1)
Seismic checks of provisional works or structures in construction phase may be omitted when the
foreseen design duration is less than 2 years
A1.2.1(1)
Note 1:
All actions which may occur simultaneously must be considered, without limit in number.
A1.2.1(1)
Note 2:
No modifications are provided for climatic reasons of expressions of combinations of
actions from 6.9a to 6.12b, to be used for verification of ultimate limit states, and from
6.14a to 6.16b, to be used for verification of serviceability limit states.
A1.2.1(1)
Note
The values of the recommended coefficients  given in Table A1.1 are valid
A1.3.1(1)
Note
There are two coefficients G : G1 and G2 respectively for structural and non-structural
permanent loads.
In each verification of the ultimate limit state structural loads are considered as all those
deriving from the presence of structures and materials which, in the modelling used,
contribute to the behaviour of the work with characteristics of strength and rigidity. In
particular, considered within the structural load will be the weight of the soil in verification
of slopes and embankments, the force on support structures, etc.
A1.3.1(1)
Table A1.2(A)
The following values are adopted of .
Note 1:
EQ
U
G1
fav.
G1
unfav.
G2
fav.
G2
unfav.
Qj
fav.
Qj
unfav.
0.9
1.1
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.5
Should permanent non-structural loads be definitely invariable without a new security
check, they will be able to adopt the same coefficients valid for permanent structural loads.
Partial coefficients on soil strength are given in EN 1997-1
A1.3.1(1)
Table A1.2(A)
Note 2
A1.3.1(1)
Table A1.2(B)
Note 1
Should the static balance verification involve resistance of the structural elements, two
separate verifications must be carried out, based on Tables A1.2(A) and A1.2(B). A
combined verification is not permitted.
Expression 6.10 is adopted.
A1.3.1(1)
Table A1.2(B)
The following values are adopted of .
Note 2
STR
G1
fav.
1.0
G1
unfav.
1.3
G2
fav.
0.0
G2
unfav.
1.5
Qj
fav.
0.0
Qj
unfav.
1.5
Should permanent non-structural loads be unaffected with certainty failing a new
security check, they will be able to adopt the same coefficients valid for permanent
structural loads.
Partial coefficients on soil strength are given in EN 1997-1
A1.3.1(1)
Table A1.2(B)
Note 3
A1.3.1(1)
Table A1.2(B)
The characteristic values of all actions deriving from a single source are multiplied by
G,sup if the effect of the total resulting action is unfavourable and for G,inf if the effect of
the total resulting action is favourable. For example, all actions generated by the weight
of the structure can be considered as deriving from a single source; this applies even if
different materials are involved.
The reference to Note 4 is deleted.
Note 4
A1.3.1(1)
Table A1.2(C)
The following values are adopted of .
Note
GE
O
G1
fav.
G1
unfav.
G2
fav.
G2
unfav.
Qj
fav.
Qj
unfav.
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.3
Should permanent non-structural loads be definitely unchanged without a new safety
verification, they will be able to adopt the same coefficients valid for permanent
structural loads.
Partial coefficients on soil strength are given in EN 1997-1
A1.3.1(5)
Note
A1.3.2(2)
Table A1.3
(*)
A1.4.2(2)
Note
National
standards
implemented
by Eurocodes
Use of informative
Annexes B, C and
D.
(p. 7 English
text)
Approach 1 or alternatively approach 2 may be adopted, except in the case of other
explicit requirements.
In accidental design situations for the main variable action the semi-permanent value is
adopted. In combinations of seismic actions for the main variable action the semipermanent value is adopted. The combination of seismic actions is valid for verifications
of the ultimate limit state of strength, and for verifications of the damage limit state (see
EN1998)
Restrictions are generally reported in the single Eurocodes from EN1992 to EN1999.
The informative Annexes, containing additional information which does not contradict
EN 1990, may be used informatively and only for the scope indicated in the said annex.
UNI-EN-1990 – General Criteria of structural design
Annex A2 – Application for bridges
EN-1990 – Basis of structural design – Annex A2 – Application for bridges
4)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters in Annex A2 of UNI-EN-1990,
has been approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
5)
Introduction
2.3. Scope
This national annex contains in Point 3 the decision on national parameters which must be
prescribed in Annex A2 of UNI-EN1990 relating to paragraphs:
General paragraphs
A2.1.1(1) NOTE 3
A2.2.1(2) NOTE 1
A2.2.6(1) NOTE 1
A2.3.1(1)
A2.3.1(5)
A2.3.1(7)
A2.3.1(8)
A2.3.1 Table A2.4(A)
NOTES 1 and 2
A2.3.1 Table A2.4(B) - NOTE
1
A2.3.1 Table A2.4(B) - NOTE
2
A2.3.1 Table A2.4(B) - NOTE
4
A2.3.1 Table A2.4(C)
A2.3.2(1) (Table A2.5)
A2.3.2 Table A2.5
NOTE
A2.4.1(1)
NOTE 1 (Table A2.6)
A2.4.1(1) NOTE 2
A2.4.1(2)
Guide to use of Table 2:1: Rated life
Combinations regarding actions beyond the scope of EN1991
Coefficients  for combination of activities
Amendments to the design values of actions for ULS
Choice between methods 1, 2 or 3.
Definition of actions arising from the pressure of ice.
Safety coefficients P for prestressing when not specified in the relevant
Eurocodes.
Safety coefficients  for actions.
Choice between the methods proposed in 6.10 and 6.10a/b.
coefficient values  and  (STR/GEO) (Set B).
coefficient values Sd
coefficient values 
Choice of values of variable action based on accidental design
situations.
Design values of actions.
Alternative values for traffic actions at serviceability limit state.
Possibility of use of an infrequent combination of actions.
Requirements regarding SLS (deformation and vibration of road
bridges)
Specific paragraphs for road bridges.
A2.2.2 (1)
A2.2.2(3)
A2.2.2(4)
A2.2.2(6)
A2.2.6(1) NOTE 2
A2.2.6(1) NOTE 3
Possibility of use of an infrequent combination of actions.
Rules for combination of actions for special vehicles.
Rules for combination of actions caused by snow and traffic
Rules for combination of actions caused by snow and thermic effects.
Coefficient values Ψ1,infq for the infrequent combination.
Values of actions caused by water.
Specific paragraphs for pedestrian bridges.
A2.2.3(2)
A2.2.3(3)
A2.2.3(4)
A2.4.3.2(1)
Rules for combination of actions caused by snow and thermic effects.
Rules for combination of actions caused by snow and traffic
Rules for combination of climatic actions on covered pedestrian
bridges.
Comfort of pedestrian bridges.
Specific paragraphs for railway bridges.
A2.2.4(1)
A2.2.4(4)
A2.4.4.1(1)
NOTE 3
A2.4.4.2.1(4)P
A2.4.4.2.2
Table A2.7 NOTE
A2.4.4.2.2(3)P
A2.4.4.2.3(1)
A2.4.4.2.3(2)
A2.4.4.2.3(3)
A2.4.4.2.4(2) Note
A2.4.4.2.4(2) Table A2.8 A2.8
NOTE 3
A2.4.4.2.4(3)
A2.4.4.3.4(6)
Rules for combination of actions caused by snow on railway bridges.
Maximum wind speed compatible with rail traffic.
Requirements for deformations and vibrations of temporary railway
bridges
Peak values of acceleration of railway bridge decks and associated
frequency range.
Limitations of torsional rotation values of railway bridge decks.
Limitations of total torsional rotation values of railway bridge decks.
Limitations of deformation of railway bridges with and without
ballast.
Limitations of end rotations of railway bridges without ballast.
Ultimate limits of end rotations of railway bridges.
Transverse deflection limits
Values of i and ri.
Minimum lateral frequency for railway bridges
Comfort of passengers on temporary bridges.
and to national information related to use of informative annexes for bridges.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of Annex A2 UNI-EN-1990 in Italy.
6)
2.4. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to Annex A2 in UNI-EN-1990– General criteria of structural
design, as well as when designing structures involving materials or actions different
to those of the scope and field of application of the ENs from EN1991 to EN 1999.
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter
- value or requirement -
General paragraphs
A2.1.1(1)
Note 3
The following statement applies:
TYPE
1
2
3
(1)
Rated life VN
(in years)
DESCRIPTION
Provisional works – Provisional works
Structures in construction phase (1)
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and dams, of
small dimensions or normal importance
Works, bridges, infrastructure works and dams
of large dimensions or strategic importance
 10
≥ 50
≥ 100
Seismic checks of provisional works or structures in construction phase may be omitted when the
foreseen design duration is less than 2 years
A2.2.1(2)
Note 1
Additional information may be provided for the single design
A2.2.6(1)
Note 1
The recommended values  in Table A.2.1 are adopted
A2.3.1(1)
Note
There are two G coefficients: G1 and G2 respectively for structural and non-structural
permanent loads.
In each verification of the ultimate limit state structural loads are considered as all those
deriving from the presence of structures and materials which, in the modelling used,
contribute to the behaviour of the work with characteristics of strength and rigidity. In
particular, considered within the structural load shall be the weight of the soil in the
verifications on slopes and embankments, the force on support structures, etc.
A2.3.1(5)
Note
Approach 1 or alternatively approach 2 may be adopted, except in the case of other explicit
requirements.
A2.3.1(7)
Note
To be defined by the individual design in accordance with EN 1991-1-6, where relevant
A2.3.1(8)
Note
The values of γp are to be assumed by the relevant Eurocodes EN 199i
A2.3.1
Table A2.4(A)
Notes 1 and 2
The recommended γ values are adopted in the notes with the following modifications.
G1
fav.
0.9
G1
unfav.
1.1
G2
fav.
0.0
G2
unfav.
1.5
B
fav.
0.9
B
unfav.
1.5
EQU
where γB is the partial coefficient for ballast.
Should the permanent non-structural loads (for example permanent carried loads)
be fully defined the same valid coefficients may be adopted for permanent actions.
The above is not applicable to ballast.
When significant variations in load are foreseen owing to ballast, this must be
taken into account explicitly in the individual verifications.
Partial coefficients on soil strength are given in EN 1997-1
A2.3.1
Table A2.4(B)
Note 1
Expression 6.10 is adopted.
A2.3.1
Table A2.4(B)
Note 2
The recommended γ values are adopted in the notes with the following
modifications.
G1
G1
G2
G2
B
B
fav.
unfav.
fav.
unfav.
fav.
unfav.
1.0
1.35
0.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
where γB is the partial coefficient for ballast.
Q for the loads of railway traffic (groups of loads from 1 to 4 of Table
6.11 of EN1991-2 which has been modified) is equal to 1.45, if
unfavourable, or to 0, if favourable.
Should the permanent non-structural loads (for example permanent
carried loads) be fully defined the same valid coefficients may be
adopted for permanent actions. The above is not applicable to ballast.
When significant variations in load are foreseen owing to ballast, this
must be taken into account explicitly in the individual verifications.
Partial coefficients on soil strength are given in EN 1997-1
A2.3.1
Table A2.4(B) - Note 4
A2.3.1
Table A2.4(C)
The reference to Note 4 is deleted.
The recommended γ values are adopted in the notes with the following
modifications.
G1
G1
G2
G2
B
B
fav.
unfav.
fav.
unfav.
fav.
unfav.
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
where γB is the partial coefficient for ballast.
Should the permanent non-structural loads (for example permanent
carried loads) be fully defined the same valid coefficients may be
adopted for permanent actions. The above is not applicable to ballast.
When significant variations in load are foreseen owing to ballast, this
must be taken into account explicitly in the individual verifications.
Partial coefficients on soil strength are given in EN 1997-1
A2.3.2(1)
Table A2.5
In accidental design situations the semi-permanent value is adopted for the
main variable action. In combinations of seismic actions the semi-permanent
value is adopted for the main variable action.
For railway bridges, in combinations of seismic actions a coefficient 2 = 0.2 is
considered the semi-permanent value of the materials corresponding to traffic
loads.
The combination of seismic activity is valid both for ultimate limit state
verifications of strength, and for damage limit state verifications (see EN1998)
A2.3.2
Table A2.5 - Note
The recommended value γ = 1 is adopted.
A2.4.1(1)
Table A2.6 Note 1
The recommended values γ = 1 are adopted.
A2.4.1(1)
Note 2
A2.4.1(2)
Note
Verifications with infrequent combinations are not required.
To be defined by the individual design.
Specific paragraphs for road bridges.
A2.2.2 (1)
Note
Verifications with infrequent combinations are not required.
A2.2.2(3)
Note
To be defined by the individual design in accordance with EN 1991-2
A2.2.2(4)
Note
Actions due to snow and traffic are not combined, except for covered bridges.
A2.2.2(6)
Note
Actions caused by wind and thermic effects are combined.
A2.2.6(1)
Note 1
Recommended values with F*w=0Fwk are adopted. Wind action on bridge load
is determined considering an exposed surface of vehicles of a height of 3 m
from the road surface.
A2.2.6(1)
Note 2
Verifications with infrequent combinations are not required.
A2.2.6(1)
Note 3
Actions of hydraulic origin must be defined for the individual design.
Specific paragraphs for pedestrian bridges.
A2.2.3(2)
Note
Actions caused by wind and thermic effects are combined.
A2.2.3(3)
Note
No specific rules are provided.
A2.2.3(4)
Note
Reference is made, as recommended, to combinations of actions similar to
those for buildings (Annex A1) adopting the coefficients  in Table A2.2..
A2.4.3.2(1)
Note
Recommended maximum acceleration values are adopted.
Specific paragraphs for railway bridges.
A2.2.4(1)
Note
Snow and traffic are not combined.
A2.2.4(4)
Note
Additional limitations are not provided (a wind action 0Fwk must be
considered)
A2.4.4.1(1)
Note 3
A2.4.4.2.1(4)P
Note
A2.4.4.2.2
Table A2.7 - Note
Recommended t values are adopted.
A2.4.4.2.2(3)
Note
The value tT = 6 mm/3 m is adopted.
A2.4.4.2.3(1)
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
A2.4.4.2.3(2)
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
A2.4.4.2.3(3)
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
A2.4.4.2.4(2)
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
A2.4.4.2.4(2)
Table A2.8 Note 3
The recommended values of i and ri are adopted.
A2.4.4.2.4(3)
Note
The recommended value fh0=1.25 Hz is adopted.
A2.4.4.3(6)
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
To be defined by the individual design.
Recommended values for peak acceleration are adopted.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-1-1:2004
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Part 1-1: Actions in general –
Densities, self-weight, imposed
loads for building
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-1-1:2004
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for actions on buildings
National Annex
UNI EN 1991-1-1 – Eurocode 1 - Action on structures – Part 1-1: Actions in general - Densities,
self-weight, imposed loads for building
EN 1991-1-1 – Eurocode 1 “Actions on structures – Part 1-1: General actions –
Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for building”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the Nationally Determined Parameters (NPDs) for UNI-EN-1991-11, was approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1
Scope
this national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1990, relating to the following paragraphs:
-
2.2 (3)
5.2.3 from (1) to (5)
6.2.2(1)
6.3.1.1(1)P - Table 6.1
6.3.1.2(1)P - Table 6.2
6.3.1.2 (10) and (11)
6.3.2.2(1)P - Table 6.4
6.3.3.2(1)P - Table 6.8
6.3.4.2 - Table 6.10
6.4(1)P - Table 6.12
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied in Italy by the use
of UNI-EN 1991-1-1.
2.2
Normative references
the present annex must be considered when using normative documents which refer to UNI-EN
1991-1-1: Actions on structures –
Part 1-1 – Actions in general – Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for building
3) National decisions
National Parameter Reference Section
- value or requirement 2.2
(3)
No additional statement
5.2.3
from (1) to (5)
No value and no additional statement
6.2.2
(1)
No additional statement
6.3.1.1(P)
Table 6.1
Cat. B - Buildings: subdivided into B1 (private buildings) and
B2 (buildings open to the public)
Cat. C3-C5: Categories C3 to C5 are consolidated
6.3.1.2(P)
Table 6.2
In Cat. A, a distinction is made between internal stairs to
residential or commercial units, and communal stairs,
incorporated in Cat. C2
The following values are adopted:
Cat.
qk (kN/m2) Qk (kN)
A
2.0
2.0
B1 – private buildings
2.0
2.0
B2 – buildings open to the public
3.0
C1
3.0
2.0
C2
4.0
4.0
C3-C5
5.0
5.0
D1
4.0
4.0
D2
5.0
5.0
2.0
6.3.1.2
(10) (11)
The recommended values are adopted for αA and αn
6.3.2.2(1)P
Table 6.4
qk ≥ 6.00 kN/m2
6.3.3.2(1)
Table 6.8
The following values are adopted:
Cat.
F
F
Qk = 6.00 kN
qk (kN/m2)
2.5
5.0
Qk (kN)
2 x 10.0
2 x 50.0
6.3.4.2(1)
Table 6.9
Cat. H: lofts which are not accessible are added
Other Cats.: no amendments
6.3.4.2(1)
Table 6.10
The following values are adopted:
Cat.
qk (kN/m2)
Qk (kN)
H
6.4(1)
Table 6.12
0.5 1.2
The following values are adopted:
Cat.
A
B1,B2, C1
C2
C3-C5
D1, D2
E1, E2
F, G
qk (kN/m)
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 (*)
1.0 (**)
(*) Does not include any horizontal actions which may be performed by absorbed materials.
(**) For parapets or partitions in pedestrian areas. The actions performed on barriers by vehicles are
indicated in Annex B of EN 1991-1-1.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-1-2:2005
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Parts 1-2: General actionsActions on structures exposed to
fire
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-1-2:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for structures exposed to fire
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1991-1-2: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Parts 1-2: General actions – Actions on
structures exposed to fire
EN 1991-1-2 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Parts 1-2: General actions – Actions on
structures exposed to fire
1.
BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1991-1-1 and was approved by
the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1.
Scope
This national annex contains in Point 3 the Decisions on National Parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN1990, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.4 (4) note 1
2.4 (4) note 2
3.1 (10)
3.3.1.2 (1) note 1
3.3.1.3 (1)
3.3.2(2)
4.2.2(2)
4.3.1(2)
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be observed when UNI-EN
1991-1-2 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN 1991-1-1 – Actions on structures –Part 1-2: General actions – Actions on structures
exposed to fire
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode UNI-EN 19911-2.
Paragraph
2.4 (4)
2.4 (4)
Reference
Note 1
Note 2
National parameter - value or requirement The time period specified is provided in the national fire prevention
regulations given by the Minister for Home Affairs for constructions where
activities take place which are under the control of the National Body of
Firefighters or regulated by specific technical fire prevention rules.
Limited time periods are provided in the Annex to the Decree of the Minister
for Home Affairs on 9 March 2007, Point 4.2 for constructions where
activities take place which are under the control of the National Body of
Firefighters or regulated by specific technical fire prevention rules.
Both of the methods stated in Point 3.2 and 3.3 are permissible.
For constructions where activities take place which are under the control of
the National Body of Firefighters or regulated by specific technical fire
prevention rules, further information is contained in the Decree of the Minister
for Home Affairs of 9 March 2007 with reference to the nominal temperaturetime curve and in the Decree of the Minister for Home Affairs of
9 March 2007 with reference to the use of natural fire models.
3.1 (10)
Note
3.3.1.2 (1)
Note 1
No specific information is provided.
3.3.1.3 (1)
Note 1
Various methods of proven validity may be used, for the calculation of
thermic actions consequent to localised fires. A simplified method is provided
in Annex C.
3.3.2(2)
Note
In the case of models for a zone, two zones or of computational fluid
dynamics, various methods may be used, of proven validity, for the
calculation of thermic action for analysis of temperature. A method is
provided in Annex D.
4.2.2(2)
Note
No specific information is provided.
4.3.1(2)
Note
The recommended value ψ2,1 Q1 is adopted.
Annexes A, B, C and D retain an informative nature.
Annex E is not adopted for Points E1 and E2, but the additional information
contained in the notes to this national annex is adopted. Points E3 and E4 of
Use of information annexes
Annex E may be used for information purposes and only within the scope
indicated in the same points.
Annex F is not adopted.
NOTES - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SPECIFIC FIRE LOAD
E.1 Details
These notes conform to the notes on the decree of the Minister for Home Affairs of 9 March 2007.
(1) The density of fire load used in calculations corresponds to a design value, based on measurements or, in
special cases, on fire resistance requirements indicated in national regulations.
(2) The design value may be determined:
- from a national classification of fire loads based on the intended use, and/or
- specifically for a single design, through an analysis of the fire loads.
(3)The design value of the fire load qf,d is defined as follows:
q f,d = q f · δq1 · δq2 · δn
where:
[MJ/m2]
(E.1)
δq1 is the factor which takes account of the risk of a fire starting in relation to the dimensions of the
compartment (see next Statement E.1);
δq2 is the factor which takes account of the risk of a fire starting in relation to the type of activity carried out
in the compartment (see next Statement E.1);
10
 n    ni
i 1
is the factor which takes account of the different protection measures (see next Statement E.2);
q f is the nominal value of the specific fire load per unit of floor area [MJ/m2] (see for example the next
Statement E.4).
Statement E.1 Factors δq1, δq2
Gross floor area of the compartment (m2)
q1
A < 500
1.00
500 ≤ TO < 1 000
1.20
1 000 ≤ TO < 2 500
1.40
2 500 ≤ TO < 5 000
1.60
5 000 ≤ TO < 10 000
1.80
TO < 10 000
2.00
q2
Risk class
0.80
Areas which present a low fire risk in terms of probability of ignition,
speed of flames spreading and possibility of the emergency services
controlling the fire
1.00
Areas which present a moderate fire risk in terms of probability of
ignition, speed of flames spreading and possibility of the emergency
services controlling the fire
1.20
Areas which present a high fire risk in terms of probability of ignition,
speed of flames spreading and possibility of the emergency services
controlling the fire
Statement E.2 Factors δni
ni, Function of protection measures
Automatic
extinguishing
systems
Automatic
smoke and heat
evacuation
systems
Automatic
detection,
signalling and fire
alarm systems
Professional
team dedicated
to firefighting1

to
water
other
n1
n2
n3
n4
0.60
0.80
0.90
0.85
Anti-incendiary water
supply
Protected
access routes
Access to fire
engines
internal
internal
and
external
n5
n6
n7
n8
n9
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.90
0.90
Those responsible must have obtained the certification of technical suitability as stated in Article 3 of Law
No 609 of 28 November 1996, following a type C training course as stated in Annex IX of the ministerial
decree of 10 March 1998.
E.2 Determining the density of fire load
E.2.1 Details
(1) The fire load is determined by taking into account all combustible contents of the building and
all parts of the construction which may burn, also including finishes and installations. Combustible
parts which do not char during the fire need not be considered.
The contribution to the determination of density of fire load of timber structures is determined by
taking into account the information provided by the Ministry for Home Affairs for the activities
under the control of the National Body of Firefighters or regulated by specific technical fire
prevention rules.
(2) To determine the volume of fire load it is possible to operate:
- through a classification of fire load depending on the intended use (see the following Point E.2.5)
and/or
- through specific designs (see the following Point E.2.6).
(3) If the density of fire load is determined through classification of the fire load in relation to the
intended use, the following must be taken into account:
- the fire load of the intended use, provided by the classification,
- the fire load of the building (construction elements, installations and finishes), which is not
generally included in the classification and as such must be assessed with reference to the following
points, where applicable.
E.2.2 Definitions
(1) The nominal fire load is defined in the form:
Qfi = Σ Mi · Hui · mi · Ψi = Σ Q fi, i
where:
[MJ]
(E.2)
Mi is the amount of combustible material [kg], in accordance with (3) and (4);
Hui is the net heating value[MJ/kg], (see the following Point E.2.4 );
mi is the factor for assessing the participation in combustion of x-th combustible material, (see E.3
of Annex E of EN1991-1-2);
Ψi is the factor for assessing fire loads with safeguarding, (see the following Point E.2.3).
(2) The specific nominal fire load qf per unit of area is defined as:
1
Those responsible must have obtained the certification of technical suitability as stated in Article 3 of Law No 609 of
28 November 1996, following a type C training course as stated in Annex IX of the ministerial decree of
10 March 1998.
[MJ/m2]
q f = Q fi / Af
(E.3)
where:
Af is the floor area of the compartment or the space referenced
(3) Permanent fire loads, which are not expected to undergo changes in the course of the service life
of the structure, are introduced with their expected value resulting from a detailed analysis.
(4) Variable fire loads, which may change during the service life of the structure, are represented by
values, which it is not expected will be exceeded for 80 % of the time.
E.2.3 Protected fire load
(1) Fire loads in containers which are designed to survive exposure to fire are not to be considered
in the calculation.
(2) To fire loads in non-combustible containers which remain intact for the period of exposure, the
value Ψ i may be adopted, as follows:
0 for materials contained in containers specially designed for fire resistance;
0.85 for materials contained in non-combustible containers which are not specially designed for fire
resistance;
1 in all other cases.
E.2.4 Net heating value
(1) Net heating values are determined according to EN ISO 1716:2002.
(2) The humidity content of materials can be taken into account as follows:
Hu = Hu0 (1 - 0.01 u ) - 0.025 u
[MJ/kg]
(E.4)
where:
u is the express humidity content as a percentage compared with dry weight;
Hu0 is the net heating value of dry material.
(3) Heating values of some solids, liquids and gases are indicated in the following Statement E.3.
Statement E.3 Net heating values Hu [MJ/kg] of combustible materials for the calculation of fire loads
Solids
Timber
Other cellulose materials
- clothes
- cork
- cotton
- paper, cardboard
- silk
- straw
- wool
Carbon
- anthracite
- charcoal
- coal
Chemical products
Paraffin
- methane
- ethane
- propane
- butane
17.5
20
30
50
Olefins
- ethylene
- propylene
- butene
45
Aromatic compounds
- benzene
- toluene
40
Alcohol
- methanol
- ethanol
- ethyl alcohol
30
Combustibles
- petrol, paraffin
- gasoline
45
Plastics from pure hydrocarbons
- polyethylene
- polystyrene
- polypropylene
40
Other products
ABS (plastic)
35
Polyester (plastic)
30
Polyisocyanurate and polyurethane (plastic)
25
Polyvinyl chloride,PVC (plastic)
20
Bitumen, asphalt
40
Skin
20
Linoleum
20
Pneumatics
30
NOTE The values provided in this statement are not applicable for
calculating energy content of fuels.
E.2.5 Classification of fire loads for intended use
(1) Fire load densities are classified based on their intended use, the compartment area, and are included as
nominal fire load density q f [MJ/m2], as indicated in the following Statement E.4.
Statement E.4 Density of nominal fire loads q f [MJ/m2] for different intended uses
Intended use
Mean
80 % Fractile
Housing
780
948
Hospital (room)
230
280
Hotel (room)
310
377
Library
1 500
1 824
Office
420
511
Class in a school
285
347
Shopping centre
600
730
Theatre (cinema)
300
365
Transport (public area)
100
122
NOTE
Gumbel distribution is spaced by 80 % fractile.
(2) Specific fire load values provided in Statement E.4 are valid if the factor δq2 is equal to 1.0 (see
previous Statement E.1).
(3) Fire loads provided in the previous Statement E.4 are valid for "ordinary" compartments in
relation to intended use indicated in the statement. Special volumes are considered in accordance
with the previous Point E.2.2.
(4) Fire loads of the construction itself (construction elements, fittings, fixtures) are determined in
accordance with the previous Points E.2.1 and E.2.2.
E.2.6 Individual assessment of fire load density
(1) In the absence of classes of intended use, fire load densities can be specifically determined by
individual designs, carrying out a reconnaissance of the fire loads present in relation to the intended
use.
(2) Fire loads and their timely provision are assessed considering the intended use, installations and
furnishings, variations in time, unfavourable situations and possible changes in intended use.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-1-3:2005
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Parts 1-3: General actions –
Snow loads
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-1-3:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for snow loads of structures
National annex
UNI EN 1991-1-3 – Eurocode 1 – Action on structures – Parts 1-3: Snow loads
EN 1991-1 – Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Parts 1-3: General actions – Snow loads
1)
Background
This national annex, containing the nationally determined parameters present in UNI-EN-1991-1-3,
was approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2)
Introduction
2.1
Scope
This National annex contains in Point 3 the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1991-1-3, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1 (2)
5.2 (2)
6.2 (2)
1.1 (3)
5.2 (5)
6.3 (1)
1.1 (4)
5.2 (6)
6.3 (2)
5.2 (7)
2 (3)
5.2 (8)
2 (4)
5.3.3(4)
A(1) (through Table A1)
5.3.4(3)
3.3 (1)
5.3.4(4)
3.3 (3)
5.3.5(1)
5.3.5(3)
4.1 (1)
5.3.6(1)
4.1 (2)
5.3.6(3)
4.2 (1)
4.3 (1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, shall be applied by the use of UNIEN 1991-1-3 in Italy.
Normative references
This Annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN 1991-1-3 "Actions on structures – Part 1-3: Snow loads".
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
1.1 (2)
Note
1.1 (3)
Note
1.1 (4)
Note
2 (3)
Note
2 (4)
Note
3.3 (1)
3.3 (3)
Note 2
Note 2
4.1 (1)
Note 1
National parameter
- value or requirement For altitudes greater than 1 500 m a.s.l. local climate
and exposure conditions must be referred to, using load
values which are not lower than those provided by the
quota of 1 500 m.
Case A in Table A.1 is applied for the entire national
territory
Use of Annex B is not accepted
The case of accidental snow actions does not apply in
Italy
The case of accidental accumulations of snow does not
apply in Italy
The case of accidental conditions does not apply in Italy
The case of accidental conditions does not apply in Italy
The minimum characteristic values of snow load on the
ground are given in the following map.
Zone I – Alpine
Aosta, Belluno, Bergamo, Biella, Bolzano, Brescia,
Como, Cuneo, Lecco, Pordenone, Sondrio, Turin,
Trento, Udine, Verbania, Vercelli, Vicenza:
qsk = 1.50 kN/m2 as <= 200 m
qsk = 1.39 [1+[]2] kN/m2 as > 200 m
Zone I – Mediterranean
Alexandria, Ancona, Asti, Bologna, Cremona, Forlì-
Cesena, Lodi, Milan, Modena, Novara, Parma, Pavia,
Pesaro and Urbino, Piacenza, Ravenna, Reggio Emilia,
Rimini, Treviso, Varese:
qsk = 1.50 kN/m2 as <= 200 m
as
qsk = 1.35 [1+[ 602 ]2] kN/m2 as > 200 m
Zone II
Arezzo, Ascoli Piceno, Bari, Campobasso, Chieti,
Ferrara, Florence, Foggia, Genoa, Gorizia, Imperia,
Isernia, La Spezia, Lucca, Macerata, Mantova, Massa
Carrara, Padua, Perugia, Pescara, Pistoia, Prato, Rovigo,
Savona, Teramo, Trieste, Venice, Verona:
qsk = 1.00 kN/m2 as <= 200 m
as
qsk = 0.85 [1+[ 481 ]2] kN/m2 as > 200 m
Zone III
Agrigento, Avellino, Benevento, Brindisi, Cagliari,
Caltanisetta, Carbonia-Iglesias, Caserta, Catania,
Catanzaro, Cosenza, Crotone, Enna, Frosinone,
Grosseto, L’Aquila, Latina, Lecce, Livorno, Matera,
Medio Campidano, Messina, Naples, Nuoro, Ogliastra
Olbia-Tempio, Oristano, Palermo, Pisa, Potenza,
Ragusa, Reggio Calabria, Rieti, Rome, Salerno, Sassari,
Siena, Syracuse, Taranto, Terni, Trapani, Vibo Valentia,
Viterbo:
4.1 (1)
Note 2
4.1 (2)
4.2 (1)
Note 1
Note
4.3 (1)
Note
5.2 (2)
5.2 (5)
5.2 (6)
Note
Note 2
Note
5.2 (7)
Note
5.2 (8)
5.3.3(4)
Note 1
Note
qsk = 0.60 kN/m2 as <= 200 m
as
qsk = 0.51 [1+[ 481 ]2] kN/m2 as > 200 m
The map of characteristic snow load on the ground is
based on the map in Annex C, for Alpine and
Mediterranean regions
No further information is required
The recommended values in Table 4.1 are adopted.
The case of accidental accumulations of snow does not
apply in Italy
Use of Annex B is not permitted
No additional information
No additional information
The values of coefficients of exposure Ce, for various
topographic conditions, are the following:
- wind beaten Ce = 0.9
- normal Ce = 1.0
- repaired Ce = 1.1
The recommended value Ct = 1.0 is adopted
The use of alternative load distribution is not accepted
4)
5.3.4(3)
Note
5.3.4(4)
Note
5.3.5(1)
Note 1
5.3.5(3)
Note
5.3.6(1)
Note 1
5.3.6(3)
6.2 (2)
6.3 (1)
Note
Note
Note
6.3 (2)
Note
A(1)
A(1)
Table A.1 Note 1
Table A.1 Note 2
Use of Annex B is not accepted
For 1 o 2 > 60° the value of 2 may not be less than
2=1.6
The recommended value is adopted for the upper limit
of coefficient 3 = 2.0 as indicated in Figure 5.5
The use of alternative load distribution is not accepted
The recommended values for limits in change to
coefficient w are adopted: 0.8  w  4.0
Use of Annex B is not accepted
Use of Annex B is not accepted
Use is permitted for quotes greater than 800 m a.s.l.
The recommended values are adopted for k = 3/d, with k
 d
Case A is applied
Cases B2 and B3 are not applied
Non-contradictory additional information
Until the physical map of snow is available the administrative subdivision indicated in Point 3.4.2 is
valid.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-1-4:2007
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
Parts 1-4: General actions – Wind
actions
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-1-4:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for wind actions on structures
National Annex
UNI-EN 1991-1-4 – Eurocode 1 – “Action on structures – Parts 1-4: General actions - Wind actions
EN 1991-1-4 – Eurocode 1 “Actions on structures – Part 1-4: General Actions – Wind Actions”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1991-1-4, was approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains in Point 3 the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1990-1-4, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1 (11) Note 1
1.5 (2) Note
4.1 (1) Note
4.2 (1) P Note 2
4.2 (2) P Notes 1, 2, 3 and 5
4.3.1 (1) Notes 1 and 2
4.3.2 (1) Note
4.3.2 (2) Note
4.3.3 (1) Note
4.3.4 (1) Note
4.3.5 (1) Note
4.4 (1) Note 2
4.5 (1) Notes 1 and 2
5.3 (5) Note
6.1 (1) Note
6.3.1 (1) Note 3
6.3.2 (1) Note
7.1.2 (2) Note
7.1.3 (1) Note
7.2.1 (1) Note 2
7.2.2 (1) Note
7.2.2 (2) Note 1
7.2.3 (2) Note
7.2.3 (4) Note 1
7.2.4 (1) Note
7.2.4 (3) Note
7.2.5 (1) Note
7.2.5 (3) Note
7.2.6 (1) Note
7.2.6 (3) Note
7.2.8 (1) Note
7.2.9 (2) Note
7.2.10 (3) Notes 1 and 2
7.3 (6) Note
7.4.1 (1) Note
7.4.3 (2) Note
7.6 (1) Note 1
7.7.(1) Note 1
7.8 (1) Note
7.9.2 (2) Note
Table 7.14 Note
7.10 (1) Note 1
7.11 (1) Note 2
7.13 (1) Note
7.13 (2) Note
8.1 (1) Notes 1 and 2
8.1 (4) Note
8.1 (5) Note
8.2 (1) Note 1
8.3 (1) Note
8.3.1 (2) Note
8.3.2 (1) Note
8.3.3 (1) Note 1
8.3.4 (1) Note 1
8.4.2 (1) Note 1
A.2 (1) Note
E.1.3.3 (1) Note
E.1.5.1 (1) Notes 1 and 2
E.1.5.1 (3) Note
E.1.5.2.6 (1) Note 1
E.1.5.3 (2) Note 1
E.1.5.3 (4) Note
E.1.5.3 (6) Note
E.3 (2) Note
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied for the use of
UNI-EN 1991-1-4 in Italy.
2.2) Normative references
This Annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to
in UNI-EN 1991-1-4 "Actions on structures –Parts 1-4: General actions – Wind actions."
3). National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
1.1 (11)
1.5 (2)
4.1 (1)
4.2 (1)P
4.2 (2)P
Note 1
Note
Note
Note 2
Note 1
National parameter
- value or requirement No additional information
No additional information
The value vb,0 through which we arrive, with application of the
Formulas (4.1) and (4.3), at vm(z) is obtained through the following
procedure:
In the absence of specific and appropriate statistical investigations
vb,0 is given by the expression:
v b,0  v b,0
for as  a0
v b,0  v b,0  k a a s  a 0 
for a0  as  1 500 m
where:
v b,0 , a0, ka
are given in Table N.A.1 depending on the zone,
defined in Figure N.A.1, where the construction
stands;
as
is the altitude above sea level (in metres) of the site of
the construction.
Figure N.A.1
For altitudes greater than 1 500 m above sea level local climate and
exposure conditions may be referred to, using however speed values
which are not lower than those provided by the quota of 1 500 m.
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
4.2 (2)P
4.2 (2)P
4.2 (2)P
Note 2
Note 3
Note 5
4.3.1(1)
Note 1
4.3.1(1)
4.3.2 (1)
Note 2
Note
Description
v b,0 (m/s)
Valle d'Aosta, Piemonte,
Lombardia, Trentino Alto
Adige, Veneto, Friuli
25
Venezia Giulia (with the
exception of the prov. of
Trieste)
Emilia Romagna
25
Tuscany, Marche, Umbria,
Lazio, Abruzzo, Molise,
Campania,
Puglia,
27
Basilicata, Calabria (with
the exception of the prov.
of Reggio Calabria)
Sicily and prov. of Reggio
28
Calabria
Sardinia (area to the east
of the line joining Cape
28
Teulada with the island of
La Maddalena)
Sardinia (area to the west
of the line joining Cape
28
Teulada with the island of
La Maddalena)
Liguria
28
Province of Trieste
30
Islands (with the exception
of Sicily and Sardinia) and
31
open water
Table N.A.1
a0
k0 (1/s)
1 000
0.010
750
0.015
500
0.020
500
0.020
750
0.015
500
0.020
1 000
1 500
0.015
0.010
500
0.020
The recommended value cdir = 1 is adopted.
The recommended value cseason = 1 is adopted.
For return periods of between 5 and 50 years, the values K=0.20 and
n=0.5 are adopted; for return periods between 50 and 1 000 years,
the values K=0.138 and n=1 are adopted.
The recommended value c0 = 1 is adopted failing any different
information in Paragraph 4.3.3.
The value vm(z) is given by the expression (4.3). For cr(z) the
Formula 4.4 is adopted where the parameters kr(z), z0 and zmin are
given in Table N.A.2 according to the category of exposure of the
site of the construction. This category is assigned through the
diagrams in Figure N.A.2., according to the geographic position of
the site and the class of roughness of terrain in Table N.A.3.
Categories of exposure
I
II.
III.
VI
R
kr
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.22
0.23
z0(m)
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.30
0.70
ZONES 1,2,3,4,5
zmin(m)
2
4
5
8
12
ZONE 9
coast
coast
sea
*
*
sea
Category II in Zone 1,2,3,4
*
Category II in Zone 5
Category III in Zone 2,3,4,5
Category IV in Zone 1
ZONE 7,8
ZONE 6
sea
coast
coast
sea
*
Figure N.A.2.
Table N.A.3
Roughness class
Description
Category II in Zone 8
Category III in Zone 7
A
B
C
D
4.3.2(2)
Note
4.3.3(1)
4.3.4(1)
4.3.5(1)
4.4 (1)
4.5 (1)
4.5 (1)
5.3 (5)
6.1 (1)
6.3.1(1)
6.3.2(1)
7.1.2(2)
7.1.3(1)
7.2.1(1)
7.2.2(1)
Note
Note
Note
Note 2
Note 1
Note 2
Note
Note
Note 3
Note
Note
Note
Note 2
Note
7.2.2(2)
7.2.3(2)
7.2.3(4)
7.2.4(1)
7.2.4(3)
Note 1
Note
Note 1
Note
Note
7.2.5(1)
7.2.5(3)
Note
Note
7.2.6(1)
7.2.6(3)
7.2.8(1)
Note
Note
Note
Urban areas where at least 15 % of the land
is covered by buildings of an average height
greater than 15 m
Urban areas (not Class A), suburbs,
industrial areas and wooded land.
Areas scattered with obstacles (trees, houses,
walls, fences, ......); areas with roughness not
attributable to Classes A, B and D.
Areas free from obstacles (open countryside,
airports, agricultural areas, pastures,
wetlands or sandy areas, snowy or icy areas,
seas, lakes, .....)
Assignment of roughness class does not depend on the plate
structure of the land. So that a construction can be placed in Class A
or B, the area distinguishing the classes must continue around the
construction for not less than 1 km and not less than 20 times the
height of the construction. Where there are doubts about the
roughness class, in the absence of detailed analysis, the least
favourable class will be assigned.
zmax = 200 m is assumed as recommended.
Further to these recommendations (Annex A2) other procedures may
be used.
The recommended procedure given in Annex A.3 is adopted.
The recommended procedure given in Annex A.4 is adopted.
The recommended procedure given in Annex A.5 is adopted.
The recommended value k1=1.0 is adopted.
The recommended expression is adopted (4.8).
The recommended value  = 1.25 kg/m3 is adopted.
No additional information
The coefficient cscd (not separated into the two coefficients cs and
cd) is calculated according to the procedure in Annex B.
The method in Annex B is adopted.
The recommended procedure is adopted.
No additional information
The recommended procedure is adopted in Figure 7.2.
The recommended procedure for using construction height as the
height of reference is adopted.
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.1.
The recommended areas are adopted.in Figure 7.6.
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.2.
The recommended areas are adopted in Figure 7.7.
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.3a and in Table
7.3b.
The recommended areas are adopted in Figure 7.8.
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.4a and in Table
7.4b.
The recommended areas are adopted.in Figure 7.9.
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.5.
The recommended values are adopted in Figure 7.11 and 7.12.
7.2.9(2)
7.2.10 (3)
7.3 (6)
7.4.1(1)
7.4.3(2)
7.6 (1)
7.7 (1)
7.8 (1)
7.9.2(2)
7.10 (1)
7.10 (1)
7.13 (1)
7.13 (2)
8.1 (1)
8.1 (1)
8.1 (4)
8.1 (5)
8.2 (1)
8.3 (1)
8.3.1(2)
8.3.2(1)
8.3.3(1)
8.3.4(1)
8.4.2(1)
ANNEX A,
B, C, D, E, F
Note
No additional information
Notes 1 and 2 No additional information
Note
The position recommended is adopted as the centre of pressure in
Figure 7.16.
Note
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.9.
Note
The recommended value e =  0.25b is adopted.
Note 1
The recommended values are adopted in Figure 7.24.
Note 1
The recommended value cf,0 = 2 is adopted.
Note
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.11.
Note
No additional information
Note 1
The recommended values are adopted in Figure 7.30.
Note 2
No additional information
Note
No additional information
Note
The recommended values are adopted in Table 7.16 and Figure
7.36.
Note 1
No additional information
Note 2
No additional information
Note
v*b,0 = 0.9 vb,0 is used.
Note
v**b,0 = vb,0 is used.
Note 1
No specific procedure is provided.
Note
No additional information, please refer to the application of Section 7.4.
Note
No additional information.
Note
The recommended values are adopted in Table 8.2.
Note 1
The recommended value is adopted.
Note 1
The recommended values are adopted.
Note 1
No simplified rules are provided.
Annexes A, B, C, D, E and F may be used for informative purposes
and only in the scope indicated in the same, as they contain
additional information which does not contradict EN 1991-1-4.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-1-5:2005
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Parts 1-5: General actions –
Thermic actions
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-1-5:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for thermic actions on structures
National Annex
UNI-EN 1991-1-5 – Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures – Parts 1-5: General actions – Thermic
actions
EN 1991-1-5 – Eurocode 1 – “Actions on structures – Parts 1-5: General actions – Thermal actions”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1991-1-5, was approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains in Point 3 the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1990-1-5, relating to the following paragraphs:
5.3(2) (Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3)
6.1.1 (1) (Note 1)
6.1.2(2) (Note)
6.1.3.1(4) (Note)
6.1.3.2(1)P (Note)
6.1.3.3(3) (Note 2)
6.1.4(3) (Note)
6.1.4.1(1) (Note)
6.1.4.2(1) (Note 1)
6.1.4.3(1) (Note)
6.1.4.4(1) (Note)
6.1.5(1) (Note 1)
6.1.6(1) (Note)
6.2.1(1)P (Note)
6.2.2(1) (Note)
6.2.2(2) (Note 1)
7.2.1(1) P (Note)
7.5(3) (Note 1)
7.5(4) (Note)
A.1(1) (Notes 1 and 2)
A.1(3) (Note)
A.2(2) (Note 1)
B(1) (Tables B.1, B.2 and B.3)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied for the use of
UNI-EN 05/01/1991 in Italy.
2.2) Normative references
This Annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1991-1-5 "Actions on structures –Parts 1-5: General actions – Thermic
actions."
3)
National decisions
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Paragraph Reference
5.3 (2)
Tables 5.1,
5.2 and 5.3
Tint=T1=T2=20 °C
Tmax = 45 °C, Tmin = -15 °C.
For surfaces exposed to the North-East is assumed:
T3= 0 °C, T4 = 2 °C, T5 = 4 °C.
For surfaces exposed to the South-West is assumed:
T3= 18 °C, T4 = 30 °C, T5 = 42 °C.
T6= 8 °C, T7 = 5 °C, T8 = -5 °C, T9 = -3 °C.
6.1.1(1)
Note 1
No additional information is provided
6.1.2(2)
Note
Approach 1 is used.
6.1.3.1 (4)
Note
The recommended values in Figure 6.1 are adopted for the values of Te.min
and Te.max.
6.1.3.2(1)P Note
7.2.1(1) P Note
A.1(1)
Note 1
Map of the maximum air temperature in the shade, at sea level (Tmax).
Map of the minimum air temperature in the shade, at sea level (Tmin).
6.1.3.3 (3)
Note 2
The recommended values are adopted.
6.1.4(3)
Note
For the initial temperature difference the value T = 15 °C is assumed.
6.1.4.1 (1)
Note
6.1.4.2 (1)
Note 1
For the values of TM,heat and TM,cool the recommended values in Table
6.1 are adopted.
Since Approach 1 is used, Point 6.1.4.2 is not applied.
6.1.4.3 (1)
Note
For the temperature difference in the east the value T = 5 °C is adopted.
6.1.4.4 (1)
Note
For the temperature difference the value T = 15 °C is adopted.
6.1.5(1)
6.1.6(1)
6.2.1(1) P
Note 1
Note
Note
The recommended values, N = 0.35; M = 0.75 are adopted.
The recommended values are adopted.
No specific procedure is provided, the recommended procedure is used.
6.2.2(1)
Note
The recommended value, T = 5 °C is adopted.
6.2.2(2)
Note 1
The recommended value, T = 15 °C is adopted.
7.5 (3)
7.5 (4)
Note 1
Note
The recommended value, T = 15 °C is adopted.
The recommended value, T = 15 °C is adopted.
A.1(1)
Note 2
For the purpose of evaluating the air temperature in the shade in areas
away from the sea, the Italian territory is subdivided into 4 climate zones:
 Zone I (Valle d’Aosta, Piemonte Lombardia, Emilia Romagna, Veneto,
Friuli Venezia Giulia, Trentino Alto Adige);
 Zone II (Liguria, Tuscany, Umbria, Lazio, Sardinia, Campania,
Basilicata);
 Zone III (Marche, Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia);
 Zone IV (Calabria, Sicily).
Italian climate zones.
The minimum temperature Tmin,h and maximum temperature Tmax,h of the
air to the quota h (in m) at sea level can be evaluated using the following
reports:
Zone I
Tmin,h = Tmin – 4.38 h/1 000
Tmax,h = Tmax – 6.16 h/1 000
Zone II
Tmin,h = Tmin – 5.49 h/1 000
Tmax,h = Tmax – 1.95 h/1 000
Zone III
Tmin,h = Tmin – 6.91 h/1 000
Tmax,h = Tmax – 0.35 h/1 000
Zone IV
Tmin,h = Tmin – 8.58 h/1 000
Tmax,h = Tmax – 1.59 h/1 000
A.1(3)
A.2(2)
B(1)
Note
The value T0 = 15 °C is adopted.
Note 1
The recommended values are adopted.
Table B.1, For T the recommended values in Table B.1, B.2 and B.3 are adopted.
B.2 and B.3.
Annex C
Use of informative Annex C is permitted.
Annex D
Use of informative Annex D is permitted.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-1-6:2005
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Parts 1-6: General actions –
Actions during execution
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-1-6:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for actions during execution
National Annex
UNI EN 1991-1-6 – Eurocode 1 – Action on structures – Part 1-6: General actions- Actions during
execution
EN 1991-1-6 Eurocode 1 “Actions on structures – Part 1-6: General actions – Actions during
execution”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the Nationally Determined Parameters (NPDs) for UNI-EN1991-1-6, was approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1
Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which must
be prescribed in UNI-EN 1991-1-6, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1 (3)
2 (4)
3.1 (1)P
3.1(5) NOTE 1
3.1(5) NOTE 2
3.1 (7)
3.1(8) NOTE 1
3.3 (2)
3.3 (6)
4.9(6) NOTE 2
4.10(1)P
4.11.1(1) Table 4.1
4.11.2(2)
7.11 (1) NOTE 2
4.12(2)
4.12(3)
4.13(2)
Annex A1 A1.1(1)
Annex A1 A1.3(2)
Annex A1 A1.3(1)
Annex A2 A2.4(2)
Annex A2 A2.4(3)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied in Italy for the use
of UNI-EN 1991-1-6.
2.2)
Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN 1991-1-6 – Actions on structures – Parts 1-6: General actions – Actions during execution.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter
- value or requirement -
1.1
(3)
No additional information
2.2
(4) Note 1
No additional information
3.1
(1)
No additional information
3.1
(5) Note 1
Recommended values are adopted, with the following
amendment: use of return periods of less than 5 years is not
permitted.
3.1
(5) Note 2
There is no minimum value prescribed to wind speed
3.1
(7)
In normal conditions construction loads caused by personnel
must not be combined with snow and wind loads.
For construction loads such as storage of materials, etc., effects of
snow and wind actions must be assessed with particular attention
to interactions of these last with the structure being executed with
the completed part.
3.1
(8) Note 1
No additional information
3.3
(2)
No additional information
3.3
(6)
No additional information
4.9
(6) Note 2
No additional information
4.10
(1)
No additional information
4.11.1
(1) Table 4.1
4.11.2
(1) Note 2
The recommended values in Table 4.2 are adopted. The use of
different load patterns, sufficiently justified, is permitted.
4.12
(1)P Note 2
Where any dynamic effects are relevant, specific additional
verifications will be carried out with dynamic amplification
factors of static loads equal to 2.0. See also EN 1991-1-7.
4.12
(2)
No additional information
4.12
(3)
The example values shown are adopted
4.13
(2)
See the National Annex in EN 1998-1.
Annex A
The recommended values are used.
Annex A retains an informative nature
Annex A1
A1.1
(1)
Recommended values are adopted (0=1.0 2=0.2)
Annex A1
A1.3
(2)
The recommended value is adopted.
Annex A2
A2.3
(1)
The recommended values are adopted as minimum values
Paragraph
Reference
Annex A2
A2.4
(2)
The recommended value is adopted.
Annex A2
A2.4
(3)
Use of this paragraph is permitted, by adopting the recommended
value for x
Annex A2
A2.5
(2)
The recommended value is adopted, see additional information
Annex A2
A2.5
(3)
The values obtained from specific tests must be used
Annex B
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Annex B retains an informative nature
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-1-7:2006
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Parts 1-7: General actions –
Accidental actions
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-1-7:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for accidental actions
National Annex
UNI-EN 1991-1-7 – Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures – Parts 1-7: General actions – Accidental
actions
EN 07/01/1991 – Eurocode 1 – “Actions on structures – Parts 1-7: General actions – Accidental
actions”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1991-1-7, was approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1991-1-7, relating to the following paragraphs:
2 (2)
4.4 (1)
3.1(2) Note 4
4.5(1)
3.2(1) Note 3
4.5.1.2(1) Notes 1 and 2
3.3(2)P Notes 1, 2 and 3
4.5.1.4(1)
3.4(1) Note 4
4.5.1.4(2)
3.4(2)
4.5.1.4(3)
4.1(1) Note 1
4.5.1.4(4)
4.1(1) Note 3
4.5.1.4(5)
4.3.1(1) Notes 1, 2 and 3
4.5.1.5(1)
4.3.1(2)
4.5.2(1)
4.3.1(3)
4.5.2(4)
4.3.2(1) (Note)
A.1(1) (Notes 3 and 4)
4.3.2(2)
4.3.2(3)
4.6.1(3) Note 1
4.6.2(1)
4.6.2(2)
4.6.2(3) Note 1
4.6.2(4)
4.6.3(1)
4.6.3(3)
4.6.3(4)
P
4.6.3(5) Note 1
5.3 (1)P
A.4 (1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, shall be applied for the use of
UNI-EN 1991-1-7 in Italy.
2.2) Normative references
This Annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1991-1-7 "Actions on structures – Parts 1-7: General actions –
Accidental actions."
3). National decisions
Paragraph Reference
2 (2)
3.1 (2)
3.2 (1)
3.3 (2)
3.3 (2)
Note
Note 4
Note 3
Note 1
Note 2
3.3 (2)
Note 3
3.4 (1)
Note 4
National parameter
- value or requirement No additional information
No additional information
No additional information
The model of distributed load and recommended value is accepted
The limit of acceptability of the total collapse, caused by the removal of a
pillar, column or panel, is equal to the lesser of 100 m2 and 15 % of the
surface of each of the two contiguous floors, supported by the removed
vertical element
The strategy in Point A.4 of Annex A is followed, depending on the
consequence class, with the following amendment: for consequence Class 3
structures, further to than that which is provided for structures in
consequence Class 2, deeper analysis must be carried out, which may also
include risk analysis.
The following classification, not intended to be exhaustive, is adopted, and
must be accompanied by a case-by-case assessment.
Consequence
class
CC1
Examples of classification of structures
CC2 – low
risk
Constructions used for normal levels of people, without contents which
are a danger to the environment and without essential public and social
functions. Industries with activities which are not a danger to the
environment. Bridges, structures, road networks which do not fall into
higher consequence Classes.
CC2 – high
risk
Constructions used by significant amounts of people. Industries with
activities which are a danger to the environment. Non-urban road
networks which do not fall into Consequence Class 3. Bridges and rail
networks whose interruption may cause emergency situations.
CC3
Constructions with important public or strategic functions, also with
reference to the management of civil protection in case of disaster.
Industries with activities which are a particular danger to the
environment. Bridges and rail networks of critical importance for
maintenance of communication channels.
Constructions where people are only occasionally present, agricultural
buildings.
3.4 (2)
4.1 (1)
4.1 (1)
Note
Note 1
Note 3
No additional information
No additional information
No additional information
4.3.1(1)
Note 1
In the absence of more accurate determinations and overlooking the
structure's capacity of loss, the equivalent static forces are those shown in
the table:
STREET TYPE
VEHICLE TYPE
FORCE Fd,x (kN)
Motorways, non-urban
roads
-
1 000
Local roads
-
750
Urban roads
-
500
Automobiles
50
Vehicles intended for
Parking areas and garages transport of goods, with a
maximum weight greater
than 3.5 t
150
Fd,y may be assumed equal to 50 % of Fd,x
4.3.1(1)
4.3.1(1)
4.3.1(2)
Note 2
Note 3
Note
No additional information, see also Annex C.
No additional information
In the verifications 2 actions may be considered, not simultaneously, in
parallel (Fd,x) and perpendicular (Fd,y) directions to the normal driving
direction.
4.3.1(3)
Note
For automobile impacts the recommended conditions are accepted.
For impacts involving vehicles other than automobiles, the recommended
conditions are accepted except for the height of the application of force
resulting from collision with the road surface, which is assumed to be equal
to 1.25 m.
4.3.2(1)
Note 1
The equivalent static actions reported in Table 4.2 are adopted.
4.3.2(1)
Note 3
The recommended values are accepted.
4.3.2(1)
Note 4
The recommended value is accepted.
4.3.2(2)
Note
4.3.2(3)
4.4 (1)
Note
Note
The recommended procedure is accepted.
The recommended procedure is accepted.
In constructions where forklifts are regularly present a horizontal static
action can be considered equivalent to accidental impacts, applied to the
height of 0.75 m from the floor, equal to
F=5W
when W is the total weight of the forklift and the maximum transportable
load.
4.5 (1)
4.5.1.2 (1)
4.5.1.2 (1)
4.5.1.4 (1)
Note
Note 1
Note 2
Note
No additional information
No additional information
No additional information
In the absence of specific risk analyses the following equivalent static
actions, variable according to the distance "d" of the exposed elements from
the axis of the track, may be adopted:
Distance "d" of the exposed
elements from the track axis
(m)
d ≤ 5.0 m
5 < d  15 m
D > 15 m
Force Fdx
Force Fdy
(kN)
(kN)
4 000
2 000
0
1 500
750
0
These forces must not be considered as simultaneous agents.
4.5.1.4 (2)
4.5.1.4 (3)
4.5.1.4 (4)
4.5.1.4 (5)
4.5.1.5 (1)
4.5.2(1)
4.5.2(4)
4.6.1(3)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note 1
No reduction in impact actions is provided.
The recommended value is used.
No reduction in impact actions is provided.
No additional information
No additional information
No additional information
The recommended values are used
The classification of Table C.4 in Annex C is accepted.
4.6.2(1)
Note
No additional information
4.6.2(2)
Note
The recommended value is used
4.6.2(3)
Note 1
The indicated values are used
4.6.2(4)
Note
The indicated value is used
4.6.3(1)
Note
The values in Table C.4 in Annex C are accepted.
Relative values for boats of different mass may be obtained through linear
interpolation.
4.6.3(3)
Note
4.6.3(4) P
Note
The recommended value is used
The recommended values are used
4.6.3(5)
Note 1
The value of 10 % is used.
5.3 (1)P
Note
The procedure for natural gas explosions contained in Annex D is used.
A.4(1)
Note 1
No additional information
Annex A
Use of informative Annex A is permitted.
Annex B
Use of informative Annex B is permitted.
Annex C
Use of informative Annex C is permitted.
Annex D
Use of informative Annex D is permitted.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-2:2005
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Part 2 – Traffic load on bridges
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-2:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for traffic loads on bridges
National Annex
UNI-EN-1991-2 – Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures – Part 2 – Traffic loads on bridges
EN-1991-2 – Eurocode 1 – Action on structures – Part 2 – Traffic loads on bridges
1)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1990, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2)
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains in Point 3 the decision on national parameters which
shall be prescribed in UNI-EN1991-2 relating to paragraphs:
Section 1 – Details
1.1(3) Further rules for retaining walls, underground structures and tunnels.
Section 2 – Classification of actions
2.2.(2) Note 2 Use of infrequent load values for road bridges
2.3(1) Definition of adequate protections against collision
2.3(4) Rules concerning collision forces of various origins
Section 3 – Design situations
3(5) Rules for bridges subject to road and rail traffic
Section 4 – Road traffic actions and other specific actions for road bridges
4.1(1) Note 2 Road traffic actions for spread loads of a length greater than
200 m
4.1(2) Note 1 Specific load models for bridges with vehicle weight limitation
4.2.1(1) Note 2 Definition of further load models
4.2.1(2) Note 2 Definition of models of special vehicles
4.2.3(1) Established pavement height
4.3.1(2) Note 2 Use of model LM2
4.3.2(3) Notes 1 and 2 Factor values 
4.3.2(6) Use of simplified alternative models
4.3.3(2) Factor values 
4.3.3(4) Note 2 Choice of contact surface for model LM2
4.3.4(1)Definition of load 3 model (special vehicles)
4.4.1(2) Note 2 Upper limit for braking actions on road bridges
4.4.1(3) Note Horizontal forces associated with load model 3
4.4.1(6) Braking forces transmitted from expansion joints
4.4.2(4) Lateral forces on road decks
4.5.1 – Drawing 4.4a Notes a and b – Consideration of horizontal forces in
gr1a
4.5.2(1) Note 3 Use of infrequent values of variable actions
4.6.1(2) Point c) – Conditions for use of fatigue load models 1 and 2
4.6.1(2) Point e) – Conditions for use of fatigue load model 4
4.6.1(2) Note 2 – Use of fatigue load models
4.6.1(2) Note 4 – Amendment of values for fatigue load models 1 and 2
4.6.1(3) Note 1 – Definition of traffic categories
4.6.1(6) Definition of coefficients of additional dynamic amplification
(fatigue)
4.6.4(3) Adaptation of fatigue load model 3
4.6.5(1) Note 2 Characteristics of road traffic for use of fatigue load model
No 4
4.6.6(1) Use of fatigue load model 5
4.7.2.1(1) Definition of force and impact height.
4.7.2.2(1) Note 1 – Definition of collision forces on the deck
4.7.3.3(1) Note 1 – Definition of collision forces on the barrier system for
vehicles
4.7.3.3(1) Note 3 – Definition of vertical force acting simultaneously with the
horizontal collision force.
4.7.3.3(2) Design load for the support structure of a guardrail
4.7.3.4(1) Definition of collision force for an unprotected vertical structural
element
4.8(1) Note 2 Definition of actions on railings
4.8(3) Definition of design actions on support structures caused by railings
4.9.1(1) Note 1 Definition of load models for embankments
Section 5 –Actions on pavements, cycle paths and pedestrian bridges
5.2.3(2) Definition of load models for inspection walkways
5.3.2.1(1) Definition of characteristic value for distributed load
5.3.2.2(1) Definition of characteristic values for concentrated load on
pedestrian bridges
5.3.2.3(1)P Note 1 Definition of service vehicles for pedestrian bridges
5.4(2) Characteristic value of horizontal force on pedestrian bridges
5.6.1(1) Definition of specific collision forces
5.6.2.1(1) Collision forces on piles
5.6.2.2(1) Collision forces on decks
5.6.3(2) Note 2 Definition of a load model for accidental presence of a
vehicle on a pedestrian bridge
5.7(3) Definition of dynamic models for pedestrian loads
Section 6 – Rail traffic actions and other specific actions for rail bridges
6.1(2) Traffic not covered in EN1991-2, alternative load models for rail
bridges.
6.1(3)P Other rail types
6.1(7) Temporary railway bridges
6.3.2(3)P Coefficient value 
6.3.3(4)P Choice of heavy traffic lines
6.4.4 Parameters for the choice between static and dynamic analysis
6.4.5.2(3)P Choice of dynamic amplification coefficient
6.4.5.3(1) Characteristic length
6.4.5.3 Table 6.2 Cantilever structures of characteristic length
6.4.6.1.1(6) Additional requests for use of HSLM-A and HSLM-B models
6.4.6.1.1(7) Loads and methodology for dynamic analysis
6.4.6.1.2(3) Table 6.5. Cases of additional load depending on number of
tracks
6.4.6.3.1(3) Damping coefficient values
6.4.6.3.2(3) Alternative values of density of materials
6.4.6.3.3(3) Note 1 Improved Young modulus
6.4.6.3.3(3) Note 2 Other properties of materials
6.4.6.4(4) Reduction of peak response in resonance and value of additional
damping
6.4.6.3.1(4) Increase of damping coefficient
6.4.6.4(5) Admissible values of binary defects and vehicle imperfections
6.5.1(2) Increased height of centre of gravity for the application of
centrifugal forces
6.5.3(5) Action due to breaking for spread load of length greater than 300 m
6.5.3(9)P Alternative requirements for the application of braking and starting
forces
6.5.4.1(5) Binary structure interaction, requirements for tracks without ballast
6.5.4.3.(2) Notes 1 and 2 Alternative requirements for variations in
temperature
6.5.4.4(2) Longitudinal shear strength between track and deck
6.5.4.5 Alternative design criteria
6.5.4.5.1(2) Minimum value of bending radius
6.5.4.5.1(2) Track tension limits
6.5.4.6 Alternative calculation methods
6.5.4.6.1(1) Alternative criteria for the application of simplified calculation
methods
6.5.4.4(4) Longitudinal plastic shear strength between track and deck
6.6.1(3) Alternative values of aerodynamic actions
6.7.1(2)P Additional requirements for derailments
6.7.1(8)P Derailments, additional measures fort structural elements situated
above the rail and requirements for containment of a derailed
train on the structure
6.7.3(1) P Other actions
6.8.1(11)P Drawing 6.10 Number of loaded tracks to consider for calculation
of the drainage system and structural precautions
6.8.2(2) Drawing 6.11 Definition of load groups
6.8.3.1(1) Default values of multi-component actions
6.8.3.2(1) Semi-permanent values of multi-component actions
6.9(6) Fatigue load models, life of structure
6.9(7) Fatigue load models, special traffic
Annex C(3)P Note 1 Dynamic coefficient
Annex C(3)P Note 2 Dynamic analysis method
Annex D2(2) Partial safety coefficient for fatigue load
and to national information relating to the use of regulatory Annexes B and C and
informative Annexes A, D, E, F, G and H for bridges.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1991-2 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1991-2 – Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures – Part 2 –
Traffic loads on bridges together with Annex A2 – Applications to bridges in UNIEN-1991 – General criteria of structural design.
3)
National decisions
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Paragraph
Reference
1.1 (3)
Note
No further specific information is provided.
2.2 (2)
Note 2
Use of infrequent values is not mandatory.
2.3 (1)
Note
No specific definition is proposed.
2.3 (4)
Note
Collision force values are to be defined for each design. Recommended collision force
values for boats are given in EN 1991-1-7.
3 (5)
Note
Appropriate rules are to be defined by the individual design.
4.1 (1)
Note 2
In the absence of specific studies, the load actions defined in this section are also valid
for spread loads longer than 200 m.
In the absence of specific studies and as an alternative to the generally precautionary
main load model, for light works greater than 300 m, for the purposes of the total static
of the bridge, reference can be made to the following loads q L,a, qL,b and qL,c:
0. 25
1
1
1
qL ,a  128.95 
q L ,c  77.12 
q L ,b  88.71 
L
 L  kN/m;
 L  kN/m,
kN/m;
when L is the length of the loaded area. On lane No 1 will be load qL,a, on lane
No 2 a load qL,b, on lane No 3 a load qL,c and on other lanes in in the remaining
area a distributed load of intensity 2.5 kN/m2.
0 .38
0.38
Loads qL,a, qL,b and qL,c are arranged in alignment with the respective lanes.
4.1 (2)
Note 1
Specific models are to be defined by the individual design.
4.2.1(1)
Note 2
No further models are defined.
4.2.1(2)
Note
No specific models are defined. When significant, the table of special vehicles and
application rules set out in informative Annex A are adopted.
4.2.3(1)
Note
A minimum "non-mountable" pavement height of 200 mm (in place of the
recommended 100 mm)
4.3.1(2)
Note 2
No further supplementary rules are provided for the use of LM2
4.3.2(3)
Note 1
The following adaptation coefficient values are adopted:
 Q1  qi  qr
=
= =1 for Category I bridges.
 Q1  qi  qr
=
= =0.8 for Category II bridges.
There are only two traffic classes, corresponding to the bridge category, therefore
Class 1 traffic involves Category I bridges and Class 2 traffic involves Category II
bridges.
4.3.2(3)
Note 2
4.3.2(6)
Note
No specific conditions are defined.
4.3.3(2)
Note
The recommended criteria is adopted, therefore Q=1 for Category I bridges and
Q=0.8 for Category II bridges.
4.3.3(4)
Note 2
The rectangular contact surface is adopted.
When significant, the table of special vehicles and application rules set out in
informative Annex A are adopted.
4.3.4(1)
Note
4.4.1(2)
Note 2
4.4.1(3)
Note
A joint horizontal load is adopted equal to 60 % of the weight of the special vehicle,
but not greater than 900 kN.
4.4.1(6)
Note
The recommended value is adopted Qlk=0.6Q1Q1k is adopted.
4.4.2(4)
Note
As a minimum value of transverse action the recommended value is adopted, equal to
25 % of longitudinal breaking or acceleration angle.
4.5.1
Drawing 4.4a
Note a
For combination values the value 0 is adopted.
4.5.1
Drawing 4.4a
Note b
Combination values
The value 2.5 kN/m2 is adopted.
4.5.2(1)
Note 3
Verifications with infrequent combinations are not required.
4.6.1(2)
Point c)
No specific conditions are provided.
4.6.1(2)
Point e)
No additional specific data or conditions are defined. The possibility of interactions
between vehicles must be assessed case by case.
4.6.1(2)
Note 2
* Point d applies to the single models 3 and 4 (see Ref. 4.6.6(1) note).
4.6.1(2)
Note 4
Reductions in fatigue load model values 1 and 2 are not permitted
4.6.1(3)
Note 1
In the absence of specific studies, on slow lanes the annual flows of heavy vehicles
indicated in Table 4.5 are adopted. For fast lanes, fluxes equal to 10 % of the
considered flux of slow lanes are adopted.
4.6.1(6)
Note
The recommended expression is adopted (4.7).
4.6.4(3)
Note
The recommended application method of the second vehicle is adopted.
4.6.5(1)
Note 2
4.6.6(1)
Note
Model 5 can be used for both damage verifications and verifications on unlimited
fatigue life. Informative Annex B is adopted.
4.7.2.1 (1)
Note
For impacts due to erratic vehicles action can be taken as follows.
For piles or other structural support elements of the bridge, vehicle impacts may be
represented through equivalent horizontal forces.
In the absence of more accurate determinations and neglecting the dissipative capacity
of the structure, if impact is considered to come in the direction of vehicle flow, static
forces are adopted equivalent to Fd,x shown in the table.
The recommended value 900 kN is adopted.
* It does not concern national parameter, but correction of material error, consisting of incorrect
reference to model 5.
Other standard vehicles or traffic composition are not defined.
Road type
Motorways, main and secondary non-urban roads
Force Fd,x (kN)
1 000
Local roads
750
Urban roads
500
If the impact is considered to come in the direction of travel at right angles to the
direction of travel Fd,y=0.5Fd,x is adopted.
Said forces are considered to be applied on an area of 0.5 m height and width equal to
the minimum value between the width of the element and 1.50 m, whose centre of
gravity is placed at a height of 1.25 m above the road floor.
See also EN 1991-1-7.
4.7.2.2 (1)
Note 1
Impacts on horizontal elements located above the road due to abnormally high
vehicles may be simulated, in the absence of specific studies and neglecting the
structure's capacity of loss, through a resulting collision force F, applied on the vertical
surface (facing the structural element) and distributed on a square of 0.25 m per side.
Force F, to be used for verifications of static equilibrium or strength or capacity of
deformation of structural elements, is given by F=rFd,x, where Fd,x is given in the
footnote of Article4.7.2.1(1). Factor r is equal to 1.0 for underpass heights of up to 5 m
is equal to 0 for heights greater than 6.0 m and varies linearly between 5.0 and 6.0 m.
On the intrados of the structural element the same impact load F above is considered,
with an upward inclination of 10°.
See also EN 1991-1-7.
4.7.3.3 (1)
Note 1
The crash barriers and structural elements to which they are attached must be
dimensioned to the required class of containment for the specific use (see Ministerial
Decree 21-06-04 No 2367). In the absence of specific information a horizontal force of
value not less than 100 jN, recommended for Class A in Table 4.9a must be
considered.
4.7.3.3 (1)
Note 3
In design of the deck an accidental load condition must be considered where the
horizontal impact force on the crash barrier is associated with an isolated vertical load
on the road bed made up of ML2, positioned adjacent to the barrier itself and located
in the most onerous position.
4.7.3.3 (2)
Note
The design load of the structure the railing is attached to must not be less than 1.5
times the characteristic strength of the railing.
4.7.3.4 (1)
Note
The proposed approach is adopted, for which the forces to consider are those indicated
in Article 4.7.2.1(1).
4.8 (1)
Note 2
For actions on pedestrian railings, for pedestrian or cycle bridges and for service
walkways a value of 1.5 kN/m is adopted; as a variable load, applied horizontally or
vertically on top of the railing.
4.8 (3)
Note
For the design load of the structure supporting the railing the value 1.5 times the
characteristic strength of the railing is adopted.
4.9.1(1)
Note 1
5.2.3(2)
Note
The recommended models are adopted.
5.3.2.1 (1)
Note
The recommended value is adopted qfk=5.0 kN/m2.
5.3.2.2 (1)
Note
The recommended value is adopted.
5.3.2.3(1)P
Note 1
5.4 (2)
Note
The recommended value is adopted.
5.6.1(1)
Note
Other impact forces are to be defined by the individual design.
5.6.2.1 (1)
Note 1
The recommended model is adopted.
As recommended, the vehicle named in 5.6.3 is adopted.
For impacts due to erratic vehicles action can be taken as follows.
For piles or other structural support elements of the bridge, vehicle impacts may be
represented through equivalent horizontal forces.
In the absence of more accurate determinations and neglecting the structure's capacity
of loss, if impact is considered to come in the direction of vehicle flow, static forces
are adopted equivalent to Fd,x shown in the table.
Road type
Motorways, main and secondary non-urban roads
Force Fd,x (kN)
1 000
Local roads
750
Urban roads
500
If the impact is considered to come in the direction of travel perpendicular to the
direction of travel Fd,y=0.5Fd,x is adopted.
Said forces are considered to be applied on an area of 0.5 m height and width equal to
the minimum value between the width of the element and 1.50 m, whose centre of
gravity is placed at a height of 1.25 m above the road floor.
See also EN 1991-1-7.
5.6.2.2 (1)
Note 1
Impacts on horizontal elements located above the road due to abnormally high
vehicles may be simulated, in the absence of specific studies and neglecting the
dissipative capacity of the structure, through a resulting collision force F, applied on
the vertical surface (facing the structural element) and distributed on a square of
0.25 m per side. Force F, to be used for verifications of static equilibrium or strength
or capacity of deformation of structural elements, is given by F=rFd,x, where Fd,x is
given in the footnote of Article 4.7.2.1(1). Factor r is equal to 1.0 for underpass
heights of up to 5 m is equal to 0 for heights greater than 6.0 m and varies linearly
between 5.0 and 6.0 m. On the intrados of the structural element the same impact load
F above is considered, with an upward inclination of 10°.
See also EN 1991-1-7.
5.6.3(2)
Note 2
5.7 (3)
Note
Additional
information for
railway bridges
The recommended model is adopted.
The procedure in Annex 2 EN 1990 is adopted.
Decisions which in EN 1991-2 are delegated to the competent Authority in relation to
railway bridges shall be prepared by the work Committee, after obtaining, for security
aspects, the opinion of the High Council of Public Works.
6.1 (2)
Note
Alternative load models are not provided.
6.1 (3)P
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
6.1 (7)
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
6.3.2(3) P
Note
Adaptation coefficient values  are variable depending on the infrastructure type
(normal railways, light railways, metropolitan, etc.). The adaptation coefficient
multiplies the load models LM71, SW/0 and SW/2.
6.3.3(4) P
Note
To be defined by the individual design.
6.4.4
Note
A dynamic analysis must be carried out when designing railway bridges, adopting real
convoys and specific control parameters of the infrastructure and the type of traffic
anticipated.
6.4.5.2(3)P
Note
6.4.5.3 (1)
Note
-
when the frequency of the structure does not fall into the zone indicated in Figure
6.10, independently of the travelling speed, for normal bridges;
-
in each case, for non-conventional bridges (cable-stayed bridges, suspended
bridges, long-span bridges, metal bridges different from the type in use in
railways, etc.).
To be defined by the individual design.
The recommended values in Table 6.2 are adopted with the following amendments:
in 2.3 L=span of transverse beam
in 3.2 3=2 where not better specified
in 3.4 L=span of transverse beam
in 4.5 if e < 0.5m: 2=1.67
and adding to Points 5.3.a (slabs and other box elements), 6.1 and 6.2 (structural
supports):
5.3.a Slabs and other box elements for one or more tracks (underpass with  5.0 m
height clearance and  8.0 m height clearance): 2 = 1.20; 3 = 1.35. For boxes which
do not respect the previous limits Point 5.3 is applicable, neglecting the presence of
the lower slab and considering a reductive coefficient of  equal to 0.9, to be applied
to coefficient .
6.1 Piles with thinness 30
L = Sum of length of the spans adjacent to the pile
6.2 Supports, calculation of contact tensions below the same and suspension rods
L = Length of supported elements.
6.4.5.3
Table 6.2
Note "a" becomes: "In general all brackets with span greater than 0.50 m subjected to
railway traffic loads require a dedicated study in accordance with 6.4.6 and with a load
to be defined for each design"
6.4.6.1.1(6)
Table 6.4
No further specifications are added for use of models HSLM-1 and HSLM-B on
complete structures or continuous beams.
6.4.6.1.1(7)
Note
6.4.6.1.2(3)
Table 6.5
The load referred to in note "a" is to be defined for each design.
6.4.6.3.1(3)
Table 6.6
The recommended values  for Table 6.6 are adopted.
6.4.6.3.2(3)
Note
More reliable density values can be deduced based on results of tests conducted in
accordance with EN 1990, EN 1992 and ISO 6784.
6.4.6.3.3(3)
Note 1
More reliable values of elastic modulus can be deduced based on results of tests
conducted in accordance with EN 1990, EN 1992 and ISO 6784.
6.4.6.3.3(3)
Note 2
Not applicable.
6.4.6.4 (4)
Note 1
Not applicable.
6.4.6.4 (4)
Note 2
Values provided in 6.4.6.4(4)  are adopted.
6.4.6.4 (5)
Note
Values provided in Annex C are adopted.
6.5.1(2)
Note
For ht the value provided in 6.5.1(2) is adopted.
6.5.3(5)
Note
To be defined for each design.
6.5.3(9) P
Note
For double line bridges two trains in transit in opposite directions must be considered,
one accelerating, the other braking.
To be defined for each design.
For bridges with more than two lines, the following must be considered:
6.5.4.1 (5)
Note
-
a first track with the maximum braking force;
-
a second track with the maximum starting force in the same direction as the
braking force;
-
a third and fourth rail with 50 % of the braking force, agrees with the previous;
-
any other tracks free from horizontal forces.
To be defined for each design.
6.5.4.3 (2)
6.5.4.4(2)
Notes 1 and 2
Figure 6.20
Note 1
For works directly exposed to atmospheric actions, in the absence of deeper studies,
for TN the following values are adopted:
▪
Concrete deck, reinforced concrete and prestressed reinforced concrete T = 
15 °C
▪
Mixed steel – concrete deck structure T =  15 °C
▪
Deck with steel structures and ballast reinforcement T =  20 °C
▪
Deck with steel structures and direct reinforcement T =  25 °C
▪
Concrete structures T =  15 °C.
Figure 6.20 is replaced with the following Figures 6.20.a, 6.20.b and 6.20.c in which
the links are given between longitudinal resistance to sliding and longitudinal sliding
per metre for the single track, in the case of installation on ballast, direct installation
with traditional indirect type K attachment and direct elastic attachment, respectively.
force
Resistance to sliding per metre of track
track loaded with 80 KN/m
Resistance to sliding per metre of track
on bridge
(rail unloading)
Resistance to sliding per metre of track
on embankment
(rail unloading)
displacement
Figure 6.20.a – Link between resistance to sliding and longitudinal sliding per metre for single
track ( laying on ballast)
force
Resistance to sliding per metre of track
track loaded with 80 KN/m
Resistance to sliding per metre of track
track unloading
displacement
Figure 6.20.b – Link between resistance to sliding and longitudinal sliding per metre for single
track ( direct laying with traditional indirect type K attachment)
force
Resistance to sliding per metre of track
track loaded with 80 KN/m
Resistance to sliding per metre of track
track unloading
displacement
Figure 6.20.a – Link between resistance to sliding and longitudinal sliding per metre for single
track (direct laying with elastic attachment)
When laying on ballast, the longitudinal sliding force q, in the absence of vertical
traffic load, is assumed equal to 12.5 kN/m on the embankment and to 20 kN/m on the
bridge, whilst in the presence of a vertical traffic load of 80 kN/m, it is assumed as
equal to 60 kN/m. For different loads the strength values are obtained by linear
interpolation or extrapolation. In all cases a displacement threshold of 2 mm, is
assumed which uniquely defines the initial rigidity.
With a directly laid track, resistance to sliding q depends on the type of connection and
tightening force, as well as the applied vertical load, as described in the following.
Said standards do not apply to structures with innovative types of reinforcement.
For the traditional type K indirect connection, the longitudinal sliding force q is
assumed, for wheelbases between the crosspiece of 0.6 m, 50 kN/m in the absence of
vertical traffic load and 80 kN/m in the presence of a vertical traffic load of 80 kN/m.
For the elastic connection, the longitudinal sliding force q is assumed equal to 13
kN/m in the absence of vertical traffic load and 35 kN/m in the presence of a vertical
traffic load of 80 kN/m.
In the case of direct laying and for different vertical traffic loads, values of resistance
are obtained by linear interpolation or extrapolation. In all cases a displacement
threshold of 0.5 mm, is assumed which uniquely defines the initial rigidity.
No alternative requirements are specified.
6.5.4.5
Note
6.5.4.5.1(2)
Note 1
In all cases r  1 500 m is adopted.
6.5.4.5.1(2)
Note 2
For UIC 60 tracks with resistance of 900 N/mm2 the values given in 6.5.4.5.1(1) are
adopted.
6.5.4.6
Note
Alternative calculation methods are not specified.
6.5.4.6.1(1)
Note
The recommended criteria are adopted.
6.5.4.6.1(4)
Note
The values given in the preceding Point 6.5.4.4.(2) are adopted.
6.6.1(3)
Note
The recommended values in Paragraphs 6.6.2 to 6.6.6 are adopted.
6.7.1(2) P
Note
No alternative requirements and/or loads are specified.
6.7.1(8) P
Notes 1 and 2
The models and values given below are adopted:
Derailment on the bridge
In addition to considering vertical load models for rail traffic, in order to perform
verifications on the structure, the alternative possible of a train or heavy carriage
derailing must be kept in mind, examining separately the two following design
situations:
Case 1: Two vertical linear loads are each considered qA1d= 60 kN/m (including the
dynamic effect) (Fig. a).
Transversely the loads are separated by s (track gauge) and may assume all the
positions included within the limits indicated in Figure a. For this condition slight
damage is tolerated, provided that it may be easily repaired, whilst damage to the main
load-bearing structures is to be avoided.
gauge
Figure a – Derailment on the bridge – case 1
Case 2: A single linear load qA2d=80 kN/m × 1.4 = 112 kN/m is considered to be
extended by 20 m and containing a maximum eccentricity, external side, of 1.5 s with
respect to the axis of the track (Figure b). For this conventional load condition the
global stability of the structure will be verified, as will the tipping of the deck, the
collapse of the slab, etc.
For metal decks with direct rail tracks, case 2 must be considered only for global
verifications.
gauge s
Figure b – Derailment on the bridge – case 2
Derailment below the bridge
In the positioning of structural elements adjacent to the railway, with the exception of
artificial tunnels with curtain wall, it must be taken into account that for an area of
width of 3.5 m measured crosswise from the axis of the nearest track, the ban on
building applies.
At distances greater than 4.50 m building isolated pillars is permissible. For medium
distances structural elements must be provided which have rigidity which gradually
increases with reduction in the distance of the track.
The actions produced by the derailed train on vertical support elements adjacent to the
railway seating must be determined on the basis of a specific risk analysis, bearing in
mind the presence of any protective or sacrificial elements (buffers) or of conditions of
use which may reduce the risk of the event occurring (pavements, check-rails, etc.).
In the absence of specific risk analysis the following equivalent static actions may be
adopted, variable depending on distance "d" of the exposed elements from the axis of
the track:
· for a distance d ≤ 5 m:
- 4 000 kN in parallel direction to the direction of travel of the train convoys;
- 1 500 kN in perpendicular direction to the direction of travel of the train convoys;
· for a distance 5 m < d ≤ 15 m:
- 2 000 kN in parallel direction to the direction of travel of the train convoys;
- 750 kN in perpendicular direction to the direction of travel of the train convoys;
· zero for a distance d ≤ 15 m:
These forces must be applied to 1.80 m from the rail level and must not be considered
simultaneous agents.
6.7.3(1) P
Note
The actions provided in Paragraph 6.7.3(1)P are accepted.
Further actions may be specified for each design.
The possibility, as an accidental action, that the chain breaks in the most unfavourable
part of the structure of the bridge must be considered. The force transmitted to the
structure following a similar event is considered as a static force of nature static acting
in a parallel direction to the axis of the track, of an intensity equal to 20 kN and
applied on the supports to the portion of wire.
Depending on the number of tracks present on the work the simultaneous rupture is
estimated as:
1 chain for bridges with one track;
2 chains for bridges with between 2 and 6 tracks;
3 chains for bridges with more than six tracks.
During the verifications the chains considered broken will be those which determine
the least favourable effect.
6.8.1(11) P
Table 6.10
Note
To be defined for each design.
6.8.2(2)
Table 6.11
In substitution of those provided in Table 6.11, the following group of actions is
adopted
Note
TIPO
DI CARICO
LOAD
TYPE
Azioni verticali
Azioni orizzontali
Vertical
actions
Horizontal
actions
Treno
Frenatura
Train
Breaking
Centrifuga Serpeggio
scarico
e
offloadin
Centrifuge
Nosing
and
avviamento
g(1)
(1)
starting
Commenti
Comments
Gruppo
di carico
Load group
Load
Carico
vertical (1)
verticale
(1)
Gruppo.
Group 1 1
(2)
(2)
1.00
-
0.5 (0.0)
1.0 (0.0)
1.0 (0.0)
massimavertical
azione
greatest
e
andverticale
lateral action
laterale
Group 2 2
Gruppo.
(2)
(2)
-
1.00
0.00
1.0 (0.0)
1.0(0.0)
lateral stability
stabilità
laterale
Gruppo.
Group 3 3
(2)
(2)
1,0 (0,5)
-
1.00
0.5 (0.0)
0.5 (0.0)
Gruppo.
Group 4 4
0.8 (0.6;0.4)
-
0.8 (0.6;0.4) 0.8 (0.6;0.4) 0.8 (0.6;0.4)
massima
azione
maximum
longitudinale
longitudinal
action
fessurazione
cracking
Dominant
action
Azione dominante
(1) Including
Includendo
i fattori
ad essi
relativi
(,,
alltutti
factors
relating
to these
(Φ,α,
etc.)ecc..)
(2) The
La simultaneità
valori
caratteristici
interivalues
(assunzione
di diversi
coefficienti
pari adequal
1), sebbene
concurrencydi
ofdue
twooortrethree
entire
characteristic
(assumption
of various
coefficients
to 1),
although
improbable,
has been considered
as simplification
load di
groups
2, 2,
3 and
4 without
thisciò
having
improbabile,
è stata considerata
come semplificazione
per ifor
gruppi
carico1 1,
3 e 4,
senza che
abbia
significative
conseguenze
progettuali.
significant
design
consequences.
When the action is favourable as regards the verifications being carried out, the values
indicated in parenthesis in the table are assumed.
Group 4 is to be considered exclusively for cracking verifications. The values shown
in parenthesis are assumed equal to: (0.6) for decks with 2 loaded tracks and (0.4) for
decks with three or more loaded tracks.
6.8.3.1(1)
Note
When relevant, the recommended rule is adopted. For cracking verifications load
group 4 in the table in Article 6.8.2.2(2) must be considered.
6.8.3.2(1)
Note
The recommended value zero is adopted.
6.9 (6)
Note
The recommended value 100 years is adopted.
6.9 (7)
Note
To be defined for each design.
Annex
C(3)P
Note 1
When the expression (C.2) is not properly specified, the expression (C.1) must be
adopted as recommended.
Annex
C(3)P
Note 2
Not applicable.
Annex
D2(2)
Note
Use of information annexes
The recommended value Ff =1.00 is adopted.
Annexes A, B,E, F, G and H are of an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-3:2006
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Part 3: Actions induced by cranes
and machinery
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-3:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in actions induced by cranes and
machinery
National annex
UNI-EN-1991-3 – Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures: Part 3: Actions induced by cranes and
machinery
EN 1991-1-5 – Eurocode 1 – “Actions on structures – Part 3: Actions induced by cranes and
machinery”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1991-3, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1991-3, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1(2)
Procedures when actions are provided by cranes
2.5.2.1(2) Eccentricity of wheel load
2.5.3(2) Maximum number of cranes to consider in most unfavourable conditions
2.7.3(3) Friction coefficient value
A2.2(1) Definition of coefficients  - for STR and GEO cases
A2.2(2) Definition of coefficients  - for EQU case
A2.3(1) Definition of coefficients 
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1991-3 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1991-3 – Actions on structures: Actions induced by cranes and
machinery.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.1 (2)
Note
2.5.2.1(2)
2.5.3(2)
Note
Note
2.7.3(3)
Note 2
A.2.2(1)
Note 2
A.2.2(2)
Note
A.2.3(1)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement For the purposes of the design and verification of the tracks the values of actions
specified in the design of cranes may be used.
The recommended value e = 0.25 bt is adopted.
The recommended Table 2.3 is adopted.
The recommended values are adopted:
 = 0.20 for steel contact – steel;
 = 0.50 for steel contact – rubber.
The recommended values in Table A.1 are adopted.
The following values are adopted:
Gsup = 1.10;
Ginf = 0.90.
For other cases the terms given (with amendments) in A.2.2(1) are valid.
The recommended values are adopted.
Annex A retains a normative value.
Annex B retains a normative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1991-4:2006
Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
Part 4: Actions on silos and tanks
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1991-4:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for actions on silos and tanks
National Annex
UNI EN 1991-4 – Eurocode 1 – Action on structures – Part 4: Actions on silos and tanks
EN 1991-4 – Eurocode 1 “Actions on structures – Part 4: Silos and tanks”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the Nationally Determined Parameters (NPDs) for the UNI-EN1991-4, was approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1
Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1991-4, relating to the following paragraphs:
-
2.5 (5)
3.6 (2)
5.2.4.3.1 (3)
5.4.1(3)
5.4.1(4)
A.4 (3)
B.2.14 (1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied in Italy for the use
of UNI-EN 1991-4.
2.2)
Normative references
The present annex must be considered when using normative documents which make reference to
UNI-EN 1991-4: Actions on structures –
Part 4 - Actions on silos and tanks.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Ref.
National parameter
- value or requirement -
2.5
(5)
The classification given in Table 2.1 is adopted
3.6
(2)
No additional information
5.2.4.3.1
(3)
The recommended values are adopted
5.4.1
(3)
The recommended procedure is adopted
5.4.1
(4)
The recommended procedure is adopted
Annex A
A.4
Annex A retains an informative nature
(3)
The following values and combinations are adopted:
-Table A.1
-Table A.2: use not permitted
-Table A.3, as subsequently amended
-Table A.4, as subsequently amended
-Table A.5, as subsequently amended
Table A.3
The values of 1,1 or 2,1, in the column “Accompanying
variable action 1 (main)”, for both lines “E” and “V”, are
supplemented by: Liquid Content 1,1=2,1=1.0
Table A.4
The values of 1,1 or 2,1, in the column “Accompanying
variable action 1 (main)”, in line "SF" are supplemented
by: Liquid Content 1,1=2,1=1.0
The values of 1,1 or 2,1, in the column “Accompanying
variable action 1 (main)”, in line "SE" are modified in:
Liquid Content 1,1=2,1=0.0
Table A.5
The values of 1,1 or 2,1, in the column “Accompanying
variable action 1 (main)”, in all lines are supplemented by:
Liquid Content 1,1=2,1=1.0.
Annex B
Annex B retains an informative nature
B.2.14
(1)
No additional information is provided
Annex F
Annex F retains an informative nature
Annex H
Annex H retains an informative nature
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1992-1-1:2005
Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures
Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1992-1-1:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for design of concrete structures
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings
EN 1992-1-1 – Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings
1.
BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1991-1-1 and
was approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters
which must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1992-1-1, relating to the following
paragraphs:
2.3.3(3)
2.4.2.1 (1)
2.4.2.2 (1)
2.4.2.2 (2)
2.4.2.2 (3)
2.4.2.3 (1)
2.4.2.4 (1)
2.4.2.4 (2)
2.4.2.5 (2)
3.1.2(2)P
3.1.2(4)
3.1.6 (1)P
3.1.6 (2)P
3.2.2 (3)P
3.2.7 (2)
3.3.4 (5)
3.3.6 (7)
4.4.1.2 (3)
4.4.1.2 (5)
4.4.1.2 (6)
4.4.1.2 (7)
4.4.1.2 (8)
4.4.1.2 (13)
4.4.1.3 (2)
4.4.1.3 (3)
4.4.1.3 (4)
5.1.2 (1)P
5.2 (5)
5.5 (4)
5.6.3 (4)
5.8.3.1 (1)
5.8.3.3 (1)
5.8.3.3 (2)
5.8.5 (1)
5.8.6 (3)
5.10.1 (6)
5.10.2.1 (1)P
5.10.2.1 (2)
5.10.2.2 (4)
5.10.2.2 (5)
5.10.3 (2)
5.10.8 (2)
5.10.8 (3)
5.10.9 (1)P
6.2.2 (1)
6.2.2 (6)
6.2.3 (2)
6.2.3 (3)
6.2.4 (4)
6.2.4 (6)
6.4.3 (6)
6.4.4 (1)
6.4.5 (3)
6.4.5 (4)
6.5.2 (2)
6.5.4 (4)
6.5.4 (6)
6.8.4 (1)
6.8.4 (5)
6.8.6 (1)
6.8.6 (3)
6.8.7 (1)
7.2 (2)
7.2 (3)
7.2 (5)
7.3.1 (5)
7.3.2 (4)
7.3.4 (3)
7.4.2 (2)
8.2 (2)
8.3 (2)
8.6 (2)
8.8 (1)
9.2.1.1 (1)
9.2.1.1 (3)
9.2.1.2 (1)
9.2.1.4 (1)
9.2.2 (4)
9.2.2 (5)
9.2.2 (6)
9.2.2 (7)
9.2.2 (8)
9.3.1.1(3)
9.4.3(1)
9.5.2 (1)
9.5.2 (2)
9.5.2 (3)
9.5.3 (3)
9.6.2 (1)
9.6.3 (1)
9.7 (1)
9.8.1 (3)
9.8.2.1 (1)
9.8.3 (1)
9.8.3 (2)
9.8.4 (1)
9.8.5 (3)
9.8.5 (4)
9.10.2.2 (2)
9.10.2.3 (3)
9.10.2.3 (4)
9.10.2.4 (2)
11.3.5 (1)P
11.3.5 (2)P
11.3.7 (1)
11.6.1 (1)
11.6.1 (2)
11.6.2 (1)
11.6.4.1 (1)
12.3.1 (1)
12.6.3 (2)
A1.2.1(1)
A1.2.1(2)
A.2.2(1)
A.2.2(2)
A.2.3(1)
C.1 (1)
C.1 (3)
E.1 (2)
J.1 (2)
J.2.2 (2)
J.3 (2)
J.3 (3)
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be
observed when UNI-EN 1992-1-1 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents
explicitly referred to in UNI-EN 1992-1-1 – Design of concrete structures –Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode
UNI-EN 1992-1-1.
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter - value or requirement -
2.3.3 (3)
Note
The recommended value djoint = 30 m is adopted. For prefabricated
structures this value may be greater than the structures cast in situ to
compensate for the deformation of viscosity and shrinkage which is
produced before construction.
2.4.2.1 (1)
Note
The recommended value γSH = 1.0 is adopted
2.4.2.2 (1)
Note
The recommended value P,fav = 1.0 is adopted for persistent and transient
design situations. The value P.fav = 1.0 may also be used for fatigue
verifications.
2.4.2.2 (2)
Note
For global analysis the recommended value P.unfav = 1.3 is adopted.
2.4.2.2 (3)
Note
The recommended value γP.unfav = 1.2 is adopted.
2.4.2.3 (1)
Note
The recommended value F.fat = 1.0 is adopted
The values contained in Statement 2.1N are adopted:
Statement 2.1N: Partial safety coefficient for ultimate limit states for
materials:
Design
situations
2.4.2.4(1)
Note
C for
concrete
S for
ordinary
reinforced
steel
1.15
S for prestressed
steel
1.5*
Persistent
1.15
and transient
Accidental
1.0
1.0
1.0
* In the case of flat elements (slabs, walls, ...) cast in situ and with thickness less than
50 mm, C = 1.875 is assumed.
* The coefficient C may be reduced from 1.5 to 1.4 for continuous production of elements
or structures subject to continuing control of concrete which shows a coefficient of
variation (ratio between square metre and mean value) of resistance not greater than 10 %.
Said productions must be included in a quality system as stated in Article 11.8.3. of NTC
(National Construction Standards) 2008.
2.4.2.4 (2)
Note
For situations not covered by specific sections of this Eurocode the
recommended value c =1 and s = 1 is adopted
2.4.2.5 (2)
Note
The value kf = 1.0 is adopted.
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter - value or requirement -
3.1.2 (2)P
Note
The recommended value is adopted:
Cmax = 90/105 , bearing in mind that, for use of Classes C80/95 and
C90/105, there is specific authorisation from the Central Technical
Service of the High Council of Public Works.
(see additional information)
3.1.2 (4)
Note
The value kt = 1.0 is adopted
3.1.6 (1)P
Note:
The value cc = 0.85 is adopted
In each fire resistance verification cc = 1.0 will be assumed
3.1.6 (2)P
Note
The recommended value αct = 1.0 is adopted.
The upper limit fyk = 450 MPa is adopted
3.2.2 (3)P
Note
It is permitted to use only steel:
B450C for diameters 6 < < 40 mm
B450C for diameters 5 < < 10 mm
3.2.7 (2)
Note 1
3.3.4 (5)
Note
3.3.6 (7)
Note
The recommended value ud = 0.9 uk is adopted.
The recommended value k = 1.1 is adopted,
it being understood that the prestressing reinforcements must possess the
mechanical properties defined in Ministerial Decree 2008-1-14(Technical
Standards) in Point 11.3.3.2 mechanical characteristics.
The recommended value is adopted ud = 0.9uk is adopted. If there are no more
accurate noted values, the recommended values are
ud = 0.02 and fp0,1k/fpk = 0.9.
4.4.1.2 (3)
Note
For circular and rectangular sheaths for adhesive post-tensioned reinforcements and for
prestressed pretensioned reinforcements, the following values are adopted for cmin,b:
For prestressed sheaths for post-tension:
circular cross-section sheaths cmin,b = diameter of the sheath
rectangular cross-section sheaths cmin,b = smaller dimension or half of the bigger
dimension, if the latter is greater
There are no requirements for covers for circular or rectangular sheaths greater than
80 mm
For pretensioned frameworks:
cmin,b = 2.0 x the diameter of the strand or the fine wire
cmin,b = 1.5 x the diameter of the strand or the fine wire in the floors
cmin,b = 3.0 x the diameter of the indented wire.
4.4.1.2 (5)
Note
The recommended structural class (finite life of design of 50 years) is adopted,
equal to S4 for indicative strengths of concrete given in Statement E1N with
amendments of the recommended structural classes in Statement 4.3N.
The minimum Structural Class recommended is S1.
The recommended values of cmin,dur are given in Statement 4.4N (ordinary steel
framework) and in Statement 4.5N (prestressed steel).
4.4.1.2 (6)
Note
The recommended value ∆cdur,γ = 0 mm is adopted.
4.4.1.2 (7)
Note
The recommended value ∆cdur.st = 0 mm is adopted.
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter - value or requirement -
4.4.1.2 (8)
Note
The recommended value ∆cdur.add = 0 mm is adopted.
4.4.1.2 (13)
Note
The recommended values k1,= 5 mm; k2 = 10 mm and k3 = 15 mm are adopted.
Note
The recommended value ∆cdev = 10 mm is adopted.
4.4.1.3 (2)
4.4.1.3 (3)
Note
The recommended values are adopted:
- if the execution is subjected to a secure quality control system, including
measurements of concrete covers, the acceptable tolerance of the design,
∆cdev , may be reduced:
10 mm ≥ ∆cdev ≥ 5 mm
(4.3N)
- if it is assured that a very accurate measuring system is used for monitoring
and that non-conforming elements are rejected (for ex. prefabricated elements),
the acceptable tolerance ∆cdev may be reduced:
10 mm ≥ ∆cdev ≥ 0 mm
4.4.1.3 (4)
5.1.3 (1)P
Note
Note
(4.4N)
The recommended values k1,= 40 mm and k2 = 75 mm are adopted.
For buildings, the recommended simplified load regulations are adopted:
(a) Alternate spans loaded with variable and permanent design loads
(QQk + GGk+ Pm), the remaining spans loaded with only the permanent
design load, GGk + Pm.
(a) Any two adjacent spans loaded with variable and permanent design
loads (QQk + GGk+ Pm), the remaining spans loaded with only the
permanent design load, GGk + Pm.
5.2 (5)
5.5 (4)
Note
Note
The recommended value 0 = 1/200 is adopted
The recommended values are adopted
k1 = 0.44,
k2 = 1.25 (0.6 + 0.0014 / εcu2),
k3 = 0.54,
k4 = 1.25 (0.6 + 0.0014 / εcu2),
k5 = 0.7
For k6 the following value is adopted:
k6 = 0.85
εcu2 is the ultimate deformation according to Statement 3.1.
Paragraph
5.6.3 (4)
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
Note
The recommended values of pl,d are adopted.
The recommended values for Classes B and C of steel (use of Class A steel is
not advised for plastic analysis) and classes of strength of concrete less than or
equal to C50/60 and C90/105 are given in Figure 5.6N. Strength classes of
concrete from C 55/67 to C 90/105 may be interpolated. Values are applied for
shear thinness λ = 3.0. For different shear thinness values, it is recommended to
multiply θpl,d by kλ:
kλ 
 /3
(5.11N)
Where  is the ratio between the distance between the points of zero moment
and maximum moment after redistribution is the useful height, d.
More simply  it may be calculated by the joint design values of bending moment
and shear:
 = MSd / (VSd  d)
(5.12N)
The recommended value λlim is adopted.
The recommended value is calculated with the expression:
lim  20  A  B  C
n
(5.13N)
where:
λ
is the ratio of thinness as defined in 5.8.3.2
A
= 1 / (1 + 0.2 ef) (if ef is not known, A = 0.7 may be adopted)
B
C
 1  2 (if ω is not known, B = 1.1 may be adopted)
= 1.7 - rm (if rm is not known, C = 0.7 may be adopted)
effective viscosity coefficient; see 5.8.4
ω
= Asfyd/(Acfcd); mechanical framework ratio
As
is the total area of longitudinal reinforcement
n
= NEd / (Ac fcd); relative normal force
rm
= M01 / M02; ratio between moments
M01, M02 are the moments of major estimate of extremity, M02  M01
ef
5.8.3.1 (1)
Note:
If the final moments M01 and M02 cause traction on the same side, rm is assumed
positive (that is C ≤ 1.7), in the opposite case negative (that is C > 1.7).
In the following cases, it is recommended that rm is assumed as equal to 1.0
(that is C = 0.7):
- for fixed-joint frames subject only to major estimate moments or to moments
owing mainly to imperfections or transverse load
- of sway frames in general
5.8.3.3 (1)
Note
The recommended value k1 = 0.31 is adopted.
5.8.3.3 (2)
Note 1
The recommended value k 2 = 0.62 is adopted.
5.8.5 (1)
Note
Both simplified methods, (a) and (b), may be adopted
5.8.6 (3)
Note
The recommended value cE = 1.2 is adopted.
5.10.1 (6)
Note:
General methods A and B are adopted. In particular cases methods C, D and E
may be adopted, with adequate justification.
Paragraph
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
The recommended values are adopted:
k1 = 0.80 pretensioned reinforcement
5.10.2.1 (1)P
Note:
k1 = 0.75 post-tensioned reinforcement
k2 = 0.90 pretensioned reinforcement
k2 = 0.85 post-tensioned reinforcement
5.10.2.1 (2)P
Note:
The recommended value k3 = 0.95 is adopted.
5.10.2.2 (4)
Note:
The recommended values k4 = 50 and k5 = 30 are adopted.
5.10.2.2 (5)
Note
The value k6 = 0.70 is adopted
5.10.3 (2)
Note
The recommended values k7 = 0.75 and k8 = 0.85 are adopted.
5.10.8 (2)
Note
The recommended value ∆σp,ULS = 100 MPa is adopted.
The recommended values ∆P,sup = 1.2 and ∆P,inf = 0.8 are adopted.
5.10.8 (3)
5.10.9 (1)P
Note
Note
If linear analysis is conducted with uncracked sections, it is possible to adopt a
lower deformation limit and the recommended value for both ∆P,sup and ∆P,inf is
1.0.
The recommended values are adopted:
- for pretensioned reinforcements or non-adherent frames:
rsup = 1.05 and rinf = 0.95
- for post-tensioned adherent frames: rsup = 1.10 and rinf = 0.90
When appropriate measures are taken (for ex. direct prestressed measure):
rsup = rinf = 1.0.
6.2.2 (1)
Note
The recommended values are adopted
CRd,c = 0.18/c,
min = 0.035 k3/2fck1/2 (6.3N)
k1 = 0.15,
The following value is adopted:
= 0.5 up to Class C70/85
(6.6N)
6.2.2 (6)
Note


  0,6 1 
f ck 
250 for Classes C80/95 and C90/105.
for use of Classes C80/95 and C90/105, there is specific authorisation from the
Central Technical Service of the High Council of Public Works.
6.2.3 (2)
Note
The recommended limits are adopted: 1  cot  2.5 (6.7N)
Paragraph
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
The following values of 1 and cw are adopted
1 = is adopted  even when the tension calculated in the shear frame is
less than 80 % of the characteristic yield tension fyk.- (for values of  see
6.2.2 (6))
The recommended value of cw is:
1 for structures which have not been prestressed
(1 + cp/fcd) for 0 < cp  0.25 fcd (6. 11.aN)
6.2.3 (3)
Note
1.25 for 0.25 fcd < cp  0.5 fcd (6. 11.bN)
2.5 (1 - cp/fcd) for 0.5 fcd < cp < 1.0 fcd (6. 11.cN)
where:
 cp is the mean stress tension, considered positive, in concrete due to
axial force calculated. This is obtained as mean value on the concrete
section taking into account the reinforcements. The value of cp need not
necessarily be calculated at a lower distance of 0.5d cot  from the edge of
the support.
6.2.4 (4)
Note
In the absence of more rigorous calculations, the recommended values are
adopted:
1.0  cot  f  2.0
for prestressed lintels (45  f  26.5)
1.0  cot  f  1.25
for tensioned lintels (45   f  38.6)
6.2.4 (6)
6.4.3 (6)
Note
Note
The recommended value k = 0.4 is adopted.
The recommended values in Figure 6.21N are adopted.
A - internal pillar = 1.15
B - border pillar = 1.4
C - angle pillar  = 1.5
The recommended values are adopted:
Crd,c = 0.18/c,
vmin is given by the expression (6.3N)
k1 = 0.1
6.4.4 (1)
Note
6.4.5 (3)
Note
vRd,max = 0.4  fcd ; for values of see 6.2.2 (6)
6.4.5 (4)
Note
The recommended value k = 1.5 is adopted.
The recommended value is adopted:
Paragraph
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
The following value is adopted:
’ = 0.83 up to Class C70/85
6.5.2 (2)
Note
 '  1
f ck
250 for Classes C80/95 and C90/105.
for use of Classes C80/95 and C90/105, there is specific authorisation from
the Central Technical Service of the High Council of Public Works.
6.5.4 (4)
a) Note
The recommended value k1=1.0 is adopted.
6.5.4 (4)
b) Note
The recommended value k2=0.85 is adopted.
6.5.4 (4)
c) Note
The recommended value k3=0.75 is adopted.
6.5.4 (6)
Note
The recommended value k4=3.00 is adopted.
6.8.4 (1)
Note 1
The recommended value F.fat = 1.0 is adopted
6.8.4 (1)
Note 2
The recommended values given in Statements 6.3N and 6.4N are adopted,
which refer to ordinary steel and prestressed steel respectively.
6.8.4 (5)
Note
The recommended value k2=5.0 is adopted.
6.8.6 (1)
Note
The recommended value k1=70 Mpa is adopted.
6.8.6 (1)
Note
The recommended value k2=35 MPa is adopted.
6.8.6 (3)
Note
The recommended value k3=0.9 is adopted.
6.8.7 (1)
Note
The recommended value N = 106 is adopted.
6.8.7 (1)
Note
The recommended value k1=0.85 is adopted.
The recommended value k1=0.60 is adopted.
7.2 (2)
Note
In the case of flat elements (slabs, walls, ...) cast in the work and with
concrete thickness of less than 50 mm the value of k1 will be reduced by
20 %.
The recommended value k2=0.45 is adopted.
In the case of flat elements (slabs, walls, ...) cast in the work and with
concrete thickness of less than 50 mm the value of k2 will be reduced by
20 %.
7.2 (3)
Note
7.2 (5)
Note
The value k6 = 0.80 is adopted
7.2 (5)
Note
The value k4 = 0.90 is adopted
7.2 (5)
Note
The value k5 = 0.70 is adopted
Paragraph
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
The values in the table are adopted.
Requirement
groups
Environmental
conditions
in
Ordinary
b
7.3.1 (5)
Note
c
Combinations of
actions
Reinforcement
Sensitive
Limit state
wd
frequent
crack openings
≤ w2
semi-permanent
crack openings
≤ w1
frequent
crack openings
≤ w1
semi-permanent
destressing
-
frequent
crack formation
-
semi-permanent
destressing
-
Aggressive
Very aggressive
Not very sensitive
Limit state
wd
crack
≤ w3
openings
crack
≤ w2
openings
small crack
≤ w2
openings
crack
≤ w1
openings
small crack
≤ w1
openings
crack
≤ w1
openings
w1=0.2 mm; w2=0.3 mm; w3=0.4 mm
Environmental conditions are defined as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CLASS OF EXPOSURE
CONDITIONS
Ordinary
X0, XC1, XC2.XC3,XF1
Aggressive
XC4. XD1, XS1, XA1. XA2. XF2, XF3
Very aggressive
XD2. XD3, XS2, XS3. XA3. XF4
7.3.2 (4)
Note
The recommended values ct,p = fct,eff are adopted in accordance with Point 7.3.2
(2).
7.3.4 (3)
Note
The recommended values k3 = 3.4 k4 = 0.425 are adopted.
7.4.2 (2)
Note
The recommended values of K are adopted, given in Statement 7.4N. The same
also provides values obtained by applying the expression (7.16) to common
cases (C30, s = 310 Mpa, different structural systems, reinforcement ratios  =
0.5 % and  = 1.5 %).
8.2 (2)
Note
The recommended values k1 = 1 mm and k2 = 5 mm are adopted.
Paragraph
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
The recommended values m,min given in Statement 8.1N are adopted.
Statement 8.1N: Minimum diameter of the mandrel to avoid damage to
the frame
a) for bars and wires
Minimum diameter of the mandrel
Bar diameter
for Bends, fasteners, hooks (see
Figure 8.1)
  16 mm
4
 > 16 mm
7
8.3 (2)
Note
b) for welded folded bars and grids bent after welding
Minimum diameter of mandrel
or
or
d
5
d  3 : 5
d < 3 welding
internal bending: 20
Note:
The diameter of the mandrel for bending the bars or grids in the
event of internal welding in the bending area, may be reduced to 5
Φ if welding is carried out in accordance with Annex B of standard
EN ISO 17660.
The recommended value is adopted, determined by:
8.6 (2)
Note
Fbtd = ltd t td but not greater than Fwd (8.8N)
8.8 (1)
Note
The recommended value large= 32 mm is adopted.
The recommended value is adopted:
0,26
9.2.1.1 (1)
Note 2
fctm
bd
f yk t
but not less than 0.0013 bt d (9.1N)
As,min =
where:
bt represents the mean width of the tension area; for a T beam with stressed
lintel, in calculating the value of bt only the width of the core is considered
fctm is determined using the corresponding strength class in accordance with
Statement 3.1.
Alternatively, for secondary elements, where a risk of brittle fracture may be
accepted, As,min may be taken as equal to 1.2 times the area required for the
verification of ultimate limit state.
The Formula (9.1N) does not apply to prestressed structures with only adherent
pretensioned frames
9.2.1.1 (3)
Note
The recommended value As,max = 0.04Ac is adopted.
9.2.1.2 (1)
Note 1
The recommended value 1= 0.15 is adopted
Paragraph
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
9.2.1.4 (1)
Note
The recommended value 2= 0.25 is adopted
9.2.2 (4)
Note
The recommended value 3= 0.50 is adopted
The recommended value given by the expression (9.5N) is adopted
9.2.2 (5)
Note
 w,min = (0,08 fck ) /fyk
(9.5N)
The recommended value given by the expression (9.6N) is adopted
sl,max = 0.75d (1 + cot  ) (9.6N)
9.2.2 (6)
Note
9.2.2 (7)
Note
 being the inclination of the shear reinforcement of the longitudinal axis of the
beam.
The recommended value given by the expression (9.7N) is adopted.
sb,max = 0.6 d (1 + cot ) (9.7N)
The recommended value given by the following expression is adopted
9.2.2 (8)
9.3.1.1 (3)
Note
Note
st,max = 0.75d  300 mm
The value is adopted:
- for the main frame, 2h  350 mm, when h is the total height of the plate;
- for the secondary frame, 3h  400 mm .
In areas with concentrated loads or maximum moment the previous moment, for
the main reinforcement, becomes: 2h  250 mm
9.4.3 (1)
Note
The recommended value k = 1.5
9.5.2 (1)
Note
The value min = 12 mm is adopted
The recommended value given by the expression is adopted
As,min 
9.5.2 (2)
Note
or 0.003 Ac , the greater of the two
where:
fyd
is the calculated yield of the reinforcement
NEd
9.5.2 (3)
Note
0,10 NEd
fyd
is the axial stress force calculated
The recommended value As,max = 0.04Ac is adopted outside the overlap area
unless it can be demonstrated that the integrity of the concrete is not
compromised, and that the entire resistance to the ultimate limit state is reached.
This limit is increased to 0.08 Ac in the overlap areas.
For scl,tmax the minimum value between the following distances is adopted:
9.5.3 (3)
Note
- 12 times the minimum diameter of the longitudinal bars
- the lower dimension of the pillar
- 250 mm
9.6.2 (1)
Note 1
The value As,vmin = 0.002 Ac is adopted.
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter - value or requirement -
9.6.2 (1)
Note 2
The recommended value As,max = 0.04Ac is adopted outside the overlap area
unless it can be demonstrated that the integrity of the concrete is not
compromised, and that the entire resistance to the ultimate limit state is reached.
This limit may be doubled in the overlap areas.
9.6.3 (1)
Note
The recommended adopted value, or As,hmin is the greater of the two values: 25 %
of the vertical frame, 0.001Ac.
9.7 (1)
Note
The recommended adopted value As,dbmin = 0.001Ac, but not less than 150 mm²/m
on each face in every direction.
9.8.1 (3)
Note
The value min = 12 mm is adopted
9.8.2.1 (1)
Note
The value min = 12 mm is adopted
9.8.3 (1)
Note
The value min = 12 mm is adopted
9.8.3 (2)
Note
The recommended value q1 = 10 kN/m is adopted.
9.8.4 (1)
Note
The recommended values q2 = 5 Mpa and min = 8 mm are adopted
The recommended values are adopted. The recommended value for h 1 is 600 mm
and that of As,bpmin is given in Statement 9.6N. It is recommended to distribute this
reinforcement along the perimeter of the section.
Statement 9.6N: Minimum area of suggested longitudinal reinforcement in
bored piles cast in situ
Transverse section of
Minimum area of longitudinal
piles: Ac
frame: AS,bpmin
9.8.5 (3)
Note
Ac  0.5 m²
AS  0.005  Ac
0.5 m²  Ac  1.0 m²
AS  25 cm2
Ac  1.0 m²
AS  0.0025  Ac
It is recommended that the minimum diameter of the longitudinal bars is not less
than 16 mm, that the piles have at least 6 longitudinal bars and that the net
distance between the bars measured along the outline of the pile is not greater
than 200 mm
9.10.2.2 (2)
Note
The recommended values q1 = 10 kN/m and q2 = 70 kN are adopted.
9.10.2.3 (3)
Note
The recommended value Ftie,int = 20 kN/m is adopted.
9.10.2.3 (4)
Note
The recommended values q3 = 20 kN/m and Q4 = 70 kN are
adopted.
9.10.2.4 (2)
Note
The recommended values Ftie,fac = 20 kN and Ftie,col = 150 kN are
adopted.
11.3.5 (1)P
Note
The recommended value lcc = 0.85 is adopted
11.3.5 (2)P
Note
The recommended value lct = 0.85 is adopted
Paragraph
National parameter - value or requirement -
Reference
11.3.7 (1)
Note
11.6.1 (1)
Note
The recommended value is adopted, that is: k =1.1 for concrete with
lightweight aggregates with sand as fine aggregate and k = 1.0 for
concrete with lightweight aggregates (fine and coarse)
The recommended values are adopted:
ClRd,c = 0.15/c, vl,min = 0.028 k3/2 flck1/2 and k1 = 0.15
The recommended value is adopted.
11.6.2 (1)
Note
1 = 0.50 (1 – flck/250) (11.6.6N)
11.6.4.1 (1)
Note
The recommended value k2=0.08 is adopted.
12.3.1 (1)
Note
The recommended values cc,pl = ct,pl = 0.8 are adopted.
12.6.3 (2)
Note
The recommended value k = 1.5 is adopted.
Annex A
This Annex retains an informative nature (subject to the coefficient values
indicated in the regulatory articles)
Annex B
This Annex retains an informative nature
C.1 (1)
Note
For values relating to the interval of fatigue tension with an upper
limit of  fyk and relating to the minimum area of grooves the
recommended values which are given in Statement C.2N are
adopted. For  the recommended value  = 0.6 is adopted.
C.1 (3)
Note 1
For a the recommended value is adopted. The recommended value
for fyk is 10 MPa and for k and uk it is 0.
For the minimum and maximum values of fyk, k and uk the values contained in the
following statement are adopted:
Statement C.3N. Absolute limit of experimental results
C.1 (3)
Characteristic
value
Minimum value
Maximum value
Yield fyk
0.95  minimum Cv
1.03  minimum Cv
K
0.96  minimum Cv
1.02  minimum Cv
uk
0.93  minimum Cv
Not applicable
Note 2
Annex D
This Annex retains an informative nature
Annex E
This Annex retains an informative nature
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter - value or requirement -
For the value of classes indicative of strength the values given in Statement
E.1N are adopted.
Statement E.1N: Indicative class of strength
Class of exposure in accordance with Statement 4.1
Corrosion
Corrosion induced by
carbonation
E.1 (2)
XC1
Note
Indicative
classes of
resistance
XC2
Corrosion induced
by chloride ions
XC3 XC4 XD1
C25/30 C25/30
C30/37
XD
2
C30/37
Corrosion induced
by chloride ions of
marine origin
XD3
XS1
C35/45 C30/37
XS2 XS3
C35/45
Damage to concrete
No risk
Indicative
classes of
resistance
Freeze/thaw attack
Chemical attack
X0
XF1
XF2
XF3
C12/15
C30/37
C30/37
C30/37
Annex F
This Annex retains an informative nature
Annex G
This Annex retains an informative nature
Annex H
This Annex retains an informative nature
Annex I
This Annex retains an informative nature
Annex J
This Annex retains an informative nature
XA1
XA2
C30/37
XA3
C35/45
J.1 (2)
Note
The recommended value As,surf,min = 0.01 Act,ext is adopted, when Act,ext is the area
of concrete tensioned outside the brackets (see Figure J.1).
J.2.2 (2)
Note
The recommended values are adopted for limit values: for the lower limit tan =
0.4 and for the upper limit tan = 1.
J.3. (2)
Note
The recommended value k 1 = 0.25 is adopted.
J.3 (3)
Note
The recommended value k 2 = 0.5 is adopted.
4). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
3.1 CONCRETE
Classes of concrete
In relation to specific uses the minimum classes of resistance indicated in the
following table must be used:
INTENDED STRUCTURES
For non-reinforced structures or with
structures with low percentage of
reinforcement
For simply reinforced structures
For prestressed structures
CLASSES OF MINIMUM
RESISTANCE
C8/10
C16/20
C28/35
11. CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH LIGHT AGGREGATE
11.3.1 CONCRETE
Classes of resistance up to Class LC55/60 are permitted.
Also for lightweight concrete, in relation to specific uses, the minimum classes of
resistance indicated in the previous table must be used for ordinary concrete.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1992-1-2:2007
Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures
Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1992-1-2:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for design of structures exposed to fire
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1992-1-2: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
EN 1992-1-2 – Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire
design
1. BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1991-1-2 and was approved by
the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Scope
This National Annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1992-1-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1.3(2) note
2.3(2)P note 1
3.2.3(5) note
3.2.4(2) note
3.3.3(1) note 1
4.1(1)P note 3
4.5.1(2) note
5.2(3) note
5.3.1(1) note
5.3.2(2) note 1
5.6.1(1) note
5.7.3(2) note
6.1(5) note
6.2(2) note
6.3(1) note1
6.4.2.1(3) note
6.4.2.2(2) note
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be observed when UNI-EN
1992-1-2 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN 1991-1-2: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode UNI-EN 19921-2.
Paragraph
Reference
2.1.3(2)
Note
National parameter - value or requirement The recommended values are adopted:
1 = 200 K
2 = 240 K
The recommended value M,fi = 1.0 is adopted
2.3(2)P
Note 1
3.2.3(5)
Note
The recommended Class N is adopted.
3.2.4(2)
Note
Class B is adopted.
3.3.3 (1)
Note 1
The value of c for concrete with mainly calcareous aggregate coincides with
the lower limit (2) of Figure 3.7
4.1 (1)P
Note 3
No specific information is provided.
4.5.1(2)
Note
In the absence of more accurate assessments the recommended value is
adopted
k=3%
5.2 (3)
Note
No specific information is provided.
5.3.1(1)
Note
No specific information is provided.
5.3.2(2)
Note 1
5.6.1(1)
Note
No specific information is provided.
5.7.3(2)
Note
No specific information is provided.
`For the maximum value of eccentricity of the major estimate in fire
conditions the recommended value emax = 0.15 h (or b) is adopted
For values fc,θ/fck the data provided in Statement 6.1N is adopted.
For C 55/67 and C 60/75 concrete Class 1 is adopted, for C 70/85 and C80/95
concrete Class 2 is adopted and for C 90/105 concrete Class 3 is adopted. See
also the note in Point 6.4.2.1(3) and Point 6.4.2.2 (2)
6.1 (5)
Note
6.2(2)
Note
6.3(1)
Note 1
For the thermic conductivity value of concrete at high resistance the upper
limit (1) in Figure 3.7 is adopted
6.4.2.1(3)
Note
The recommended values k = 1.1 for Class 1 and 1.3 for Class 2 are adopted.
For Class 3 more accurate methods are adopted.
6.4.2.2(2)
Note
The recommended value indicated in Statement 6.2N are adopted. More
accurate methods are adopted for Class 3.
No specific information is provided.
Use of information annexes Annexes A, B,C, D and E are of an informative nature.
4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
3.3.2(2)
4.1(1)P
add Note
For elements of ordinary concrete in an atmosphere of normal
humidity, in the absence of specific evaluations, a conventional
humidity is assumed of 2 % by weight (50 kg of water per m3 of
concrete) which corresponds to cp,peack= 1 653 J/kg K.
add to Note 1
When calculation methods are used, for the required integrity (E), further to
said reference regarding joints, attention is drawn to respect of the minimum
values of thinness and reinforcement provided for calculation at ordinary
temperature (UNI EN 1992-1-1). Particular attention must be paid to the
danger of concrete exploding, which includes lightening of combustible
material.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1992-2:2006
Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures
Part 2: Concrete bridges –
Construction design and detailing
rules
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1992-2:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in design of concrete bridges
National annex
UNI-EN-1992-2 – Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures – Part 2 – Concrete bridges –
Construction design and detailing rules
EN-1992-2 – Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures – Part 2 – Concrete bridges design and
detailing rules
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1990-2, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
Introduction
2.3. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
shall be prescribed in UNI-EN1992-2 relating to paragraphs:
3.1.2 (102)P
3.1.6 (101)P
3.1.6 (102)P
3.2.4 (101)P
4.2 (105)
4.2 (106)
4.2 (106)
4.3 (103)
4.4.1.2 (109)
5.1.3 (101)P
5.2 (105)
5.3.2.2 (104)
5.5 (104)
5.6 (101)P
5.7 (105)
6.1 (109)
6.1 (110)
6.2.2 (101)
6.2.3 (103)
6.2.3 (107)
6.2.3 (109)
6.8.1 (102)
6.8.7 (101)
6.8.7(101) Note
7.2 (102)
7.3.1 (105)
Minimum and maximum permitted classes of concrete.
Long term effects on compressive strength.
Long term effects on traction strength.
Permitted classes of steel.
Classes of exposure for surfaces protected by waterproofing.
Propagation distance of road de-icing salts.
Classes of exposure for surfaces directly exposed to antifreeze
Salts.
Requirements for durability of external cables
Minimum concrete cover with additional concrete coating.
Simplification of load provisions.
Geometric imperfections.
Reduction of moment on the design supports.
Redistribution coefficients.
Use of methods for plastic analysis.
Details for non-linear analysis.
Choice of method and value of fctx.
Multiplier for concrete cover of prestressing cables.
Design shear in elements without specific shear reinforcement
Design shear in elements with specific shear reinforcement
Overlap of meshing resistant models for shear in prestressed
structures.
Reduced height for segmented structures.
Additional rules for fatigue verifications.
Data for fatigue verifications.
Value of k1
Limits of maximum stress tension in XD, XF and XS Classes
of exposure
Maximum opening of cracks and destressing limit according to
class of exposure.
7.3.3 (101)
7.3.4 (101)
8.9.1 (101)
8.10.4 (105)
8.10.4 (107)
9.1 (103)
9.2.2 (101)
9.5.3 (101)
9.7 (102)
9.8.1 (103)
11.9 (101)
113.2 (102)
113.3.2 (103)
Extension of stressed area in the destressing limit state
Simplified method for control of cracking without direct
calculation.
Calculation of opening of cracks; recognised methods of
control.
Coupled bars.
Maximum percentage of coupled cables in a section.
Minimum distance between sections where prestressed cables
are coupled.
Additional rules for anchorage and coupling of prestressed
cables in aggressive environments.
Additional rules on: minimum thickness of structural elements,
minimum reinforcement, minimum diameter of bars and
minimum distance between the bars.
Details of permitted transverse reinforcement.
Minimum diameter of transversal reinforcement.
Distance between successive bars of a network.
Minimum diameter of bars of head-piles.
Use of coupled bars.
Ultimate state of balance for bridges built in sections.
Check on traction tensions during construction phases for
elements for which the service destressing limit state is
provided.
and to national information regarding use of informative annexes for bridges.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1991-2 in Italy.
2.4. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1992-2 – Eurocode 2 – Design of reinforced cement
structures – Part 2 – Reinforced cement bridges.
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
3.1.2 (102)P
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement Minimum Class: C25/30 for reinforced concrete C28/35 for prestressed reinforced concrete
Maximum Class: C70/85
For resistance classes greater than C45/55 the characteristic resistance and all mechanical and
physical parameters which influence strength and durability of the concrete are to be examined
before work begins through an appropriate preliminary trial and production must follow
specific quality control procedures.
For use of Classes C80/95 and C90/105, there is specific authorisation from the Central
Technical Service of the High Council of Public Works.
3.1.6 (101)P
Note
The recommended value cc = 0.85 is adopted
3.1.6 (102)P
Note
The value ct = 0.85 is adopted
3.2.4 (101)P
Note
For bridges B450C steel must be used. The use of type B450A steel is permitted, with
diameters between 5 and 10 mm, for networks and meshes; its use in transversal reinforcement
is not permitted.
4.2 (105)
Note
The recommended class is adopted (XC3)
4.2 (106)
Note
The recommended distances (x = 6m, y = 6m) are adopted
4.2 (106)
Note 2
Recommended classes of exposure are adopted
For National Authorities must be meant the High Council of Public Works - Ministry of
Infrastructure
4.3 (103)
4.4.1.2 (109)
Note
The recommended value is adopted (see Point 4.4.1.2(3) in EN1992-1-1)
5.1.3 (101)P
Note
Simplifications are not permitted.
5.2 (105)
Note
The recommended value
5.3.2.2 (104)
Note
The recommended value is adopted.
5.5 (104)
Note
Recommended values of ki are adopted.
 0 =1/200 is adopted
The use of plastic analysis is allowed for verifications of the ULS
5.6.1 (101)P
5.7 (105)
Note 1
6.1 (109)
Note
The recommended procedures and values are adopted.
All three approaches may be adopted.
Should approach B be used the recommended value fctx is adopted, fctx= fctm.
6.1 (110)
Note
The recommended value of kcm is adopted, kcm=2.0.
6.1 (110)
Note
The recommended value of kp is adopted, kp=1.0.
6.2.2 (101)
Note
The recommended values are adopted.
6.2.3 (103)
Note 2
The following values are adopted: 1 and cw
The following is adopted: 1 = even when the calculated tension of the shear frame is less
than 80 % of the characteristic yield fyk.
The recommended value of cw is:
1 for structures which have not been prestressed
(1 + cp/fcd) for 0 < cp  0.25 fcd (6. 11.aN)
1.25 for 0.25 fcd < cp  0.5 fcd (6. 11.bN)
2.5 (1 - cp/fcd) per 0.5 fcd < cp < 1.0 fcd (6. 11.cN)
where:
 cp
is the mean stress tension, considered positive, in concrete due to the calculated axial
force. This is obtained as a mean value on the concrete section taking into account the
reinforcement. The value of cp need not necessarily be calculated at a lower distance of 0.5d
cot  from the edge of the support.
6.2.3 (107)
Note
The recommended procedure is adopted (Figure 6.102N)
6.2.3 (109)
Note
The recommended value hred = 0.5 h is adopted.
6.8.1 (102)
Note
No additional information is provided.
For load models and traffic data reference must be made to EN1991-2, using the recommended
S-N curve (expression 6.72 of EN1992-1-1).
6.8.7 (101)
6.8.7 (101)
Note
The recommended value k1 = 0.85 is adopted.
7.2 (102)
Note
The recommended values are adopted.
7.3.1 (105)
Note
sn reference in Point 7.3.1(5) of EN1992-1-1, the values in the table are adopted
Reinforcement
Require
Environmental
Combinations of
ment
Sensitive
Not very sensitive
conditions
actions
groups
Limit state
wd
Limit state
wd
frequent
crack openings
≤ w2 crack
≤ w3
openings
in
Ordinary
semi-permanent
crack openings
≤ w1 crack
≤ w2
openings
frequent
crack openings
≤ w1 crack
≤ w2
openings
b
Aggressive
semi-permanent
destressing
crack
≤ w1
openings
frequent
crack formation
crack
≤ w1
c
Very aggressive
semi-permanent
destressing
openings
w1=0.2 mm; w2=0.3 mm; w3=0.4 mm
7.3.1 (105)
Note
The stressed area in proximity to the adherent prestressing cables or their sheaths must extend
for at least 100 mm (recommended value) from the edge of the adherent frame or the sheath,
respectively.
7.3.3 (101)
Note
The recommended method is adopted.
7.3.4 (101)
Note
The recommended method is adopted; other methods may also be adopted, provided that they
are recognised as valid
8.9.1 (101)
Note
As recommended, no additional restrictions are introduced.
8.10.4 (105)
Note 1
The recommended values are adopted.
8.10.4 (105)
Note 2
The recommended values in Table 8.101N are adopted.
8.10.4 (107)
Note
Openings and cavities for anchorage of prestressing cables on the upper side of the slab are not
permitted in aggressive environments.
9.1 (103)
Note
No additional information is provided.
9.2.2 (101)
Note
The recommended forms are adopted.
9.5.3 (101)
Note
The minimum recommended diameters are adopted min=6 mm and min,mesh=5 mm.
9.7 (102)
Note
The recommended value for smesh is adopted.
9.8.1 (103)
Note
The recommended value dmin=12 mm is adopted.
11.9 (101)
Note
Further restrictions are not introduced.
113.2 (102)
Note
Horizontal or vertical upward pressure, acting on one of the two brackets of a bridge brought
about before the beam is assumed to be x= 300 N/m2.
113.3.2 (103)
Note
The value k = 0.70 is adopted.
Use of information annexes
Use of Annexes A and NN is not permitted.
Other informative Annexes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I ,J, KK, LL, MM, OO, PP and QQ are of an
informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1992-3:2006
Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures
Part 3: Liquid retaining and
containment structures
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1992-3:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in design of liquid retaining and
containment structures
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1992-3: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 3: Liquid
retaining and containment structures
EN 1992-3 – Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 3: Liquid retaining
and containment structures
1. BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1992-3 and
was approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the Decisions on National Parameters
which must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1992-3, relating to the following
paragraphs:
7.3.1 (111)
7.3.1 (112)
8.10.1.3 (103)
9.11.1 (102)
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be
observed when UNI-EN 1992-3 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents
explicitly referred to in UNI-EN 1992-3 – Design of concrete structures –Part 3:
Tanks and containment structures
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
The recommended values are adopted.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-1:2005
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-1:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-1 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings.
EN-1993-1-1 – Eurocode 3: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.3.1(1)
5.3.2(3)
6.3.2.4(2)B
3.1(2)
5.3.2(11)
6.3.3(5)
3.2.1(1)
5.3.4(3)
6.3.4(1)
3.2.2(1)
6.1(1)
7.2.1(1)
3.2.3(1)
6.1(1)B
7.2.2(1)B
3.2.3(3)B
6.3.2.2(2)
7.2.3(1)B
3.2.4(1)B
6.3.2.3(1)
BB.1.3(3)B
5.2.1(3)
6.3.2.3(2)
5.2.2(8)
6.3.2.4(1)B
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-1 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-1-1 – Design of steel structures: General rules and rules for
buildings.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.3.1(1)
Note 1
3.1(2)
Note
3.2.1(1)
Note
3.2.2(1)
Note
3.2.3(1)
Note
3.2.3(3)B
Note B
3.2.4(1)B
Note 3B
5.2.1(3)
Note
5.2.2(8)
Note
5.3.2(3)
5.3.2 (11)
Note
Note 2
5.3.4(3)
Note
6.1(1)
Note 1
6.1(1)B
Note 2B
National parameter
- value or requirement Specific actions for particular regional, climatic or accidental
situations are not provided.
Other materials different to those given in Table 3.1 are not
added.
For use of steel not included in Table 3.1, the approval of the
High Council of Public Works is required for its specific use.
– Central Technical Service.
For nominal values of yield tension fy and ultimate tension fu
reference is made to the values given in the relevant standards
produced; in design the nominal values given in Table 3.1
may be assumed for calculation purposes.
The following values are adopted:
- fu/fy ≥ 1.15
- elongation at rupture ≥ 15 %;
- εu ≥ 20εy
For dissipative areas of structures in seismic zones the
following values are adopted:
- fu/fy ≥ 1.20
-fy,max/fy1.20
- elongation at rupture ≥ 20 %;
- εu ≥ 20εy
Compliance with these requirements is guaranteed by
detailing them in the design documentation.
The minimum service temperature assumed in the design
must not be greater than the minimum environmental
temperature of the site with return period of 50 years for
unprotected structures, not greater than the temperature as
stated above, increasing by 15 % for protected structures.
Should no local statistical data on temperature be available,–
25 °C may be assumed as minimum service temperature for
unprotected structures and –10 °C for protected structures.
For the limit value of resilience of stressed elements of the
building, Table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 is adopted for
σEd=0.25fy (t).
ZEd, values must be evaluated in accordance with Table 3.2 in
the case of buildings. For other cases please refer to EN 19931-10.
Limit values of cr lower than those recommended are not
permitted, even if supported by more accurate calculation
methods:
- αcr ≥ 10 for elastic analyses;
- αcr ≥ 15 for plastic analyses..
No additional clarification.
The recommended values in Table 5.1 are adopted.
No additional clarification.
The recommended value is adopted:
k = 0.5
For structures not included in Parts 2–6 of EN 1993 the same
values valid for bridges are adopted, given in the national
Annex UNI EN 1993-2 (Design of steel bridges).
The following values for buildings are adopted:
- γM0= 1.05;
- γM1= 1.05;
- γM1= 1.25.
6.3.2.2(2)
Note
The recommended values in Table 6.3 are adopted.
The following values are adopted:
0 , 20   LT , 0  0 , 40
0,75    1,0
with the following restrictions
6.3.2.3(1)
Note
h/b
Stability curve
Cross section limits
≤2
b
laminated
section I
>2
c
≤2
welded
section - I
>2
Other sections
transversal
c
d
d
The recommended formulation is adopted:
6.3.2.3(2)
Note
6.3.2.4(1)B
Note 2B
6.3.2.4(2)B
Note B
6.3.3(5)
Note 2
6.3.4(1)
Note
7.2.1(1)B
Note B
7.2.2(1)B
Note B

1  0,5 1  k



2

1  2,0 λ LT  0,8

c 
f=
with f ≤ 1.0
The recommended value is adopted:
=  LT , 0  0,1
A corrective factor kfl equal to 1.10 is adopted in the case of
laminated profiles, and equal to 1.00 in the case of welded
profiles.
Both methods may be used.
The method may be used when the methods given in 6.3.1,
6.3.2 and 6.3.3 are not applicable. The method allows
resistance to be verified when dealing with lateral and lateraltorsional resistance for structural elements such as: single
frames, composite or not, uniform or not, with linking
conditions which are complete or not, flat structures or substructures made up of frames subject to stressing and/ or
simple bending in the plane, which do not contain rotational
plastic hinges.
Multipliers of design loads αu,ult,k αcr,op, may be determined
through numeric models, if corroborated with reference to
reliable trial comparisons.
The following limits are adopted for vertical shifts max
deflection in final state, effects of the initial lift; 2 variation
due to application of variable loads):
- roofs in general: max/L  1/200, 2/L  1/250
- roof space: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/300
- floors in general: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/300
- floors or roofs bearing plaster or other fragile finishing
materials or inflexible partitions: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/350
- floors which support columns max/L  1/400, 2/L  1/500
Should shifting compromise the appearance of the building:
max/L  1/250
In the case of specific technical and/or functional
requirements these limits must be suitably reduced.
 c0
The following values are adopted for horizontal shifting (
horizontal movement at the top; relative displacement of
floor):
- single-storey industrial buildings without overhead
travelling crane: /h  1/150;
- other single-story buildings: /h  1/300;
- multi-storey buildings: /h  1/300; /H  1/500
In the case of specific technical and/or functional
requirements these limits must be suitably reduced.
7.2.3(1)B
Note B
BB.1.3(3)B
Note
When necessary the following limits relating to vibration of
decks are adopted:
- floors loaded by people: lowest natural frequency of the
structure must not in general be inferior to 3 Hz;
- floors loaded by cyclical excitations: lowest natural
frequency of the structure must not in general be inferior to 5
Hz;
As an alternative to such restrictions a test may be conducted
on acceptability of the perception of vibrations.
No additional information
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-2:2005
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-2:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for design of structures exposed to fire
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1993-1-2 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire
design
EN 1993-1-2 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire
design
1. BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1993-1-2 and was approved by
the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.3(1) note
2.3(2) note
4.1(2) note
4.2.3.6 (1) note 2
4.2.4 (2) note
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be observed when UNI-EN
1993-1-2 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN1993-1-2: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire
design.
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode UNI-EN 19931-2.
Paragraph
Reference
2.3(1)
Note
2.3(2)
Note
4.1 (2)
Note
4.2.3.6 (1)
4.2.4 (2)
Note 2
Note
Use of information annexes
National parameter - value or requirement The recommended value is adopted.
M,fi = 1.0
The recommended value is adopted.
M,fi = 1.0
No specific information is provided.
The recommended value is adopted.
crit = 350 °C
No specific information is provided
Annexes C, D and E are of an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-3:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-3: General rules –
supplementary rules for coldformed metals and sheeting
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-3:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for thin-profiled steel structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-3 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 1-3: General rules –
Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting
EN-1993-1-3 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-3: General rules – Supplementary
rules for cold-formed members and sheeting
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-3, relating to the following paragraphs:
2(3)P
8.3(13) Drawing 8.3
A.6.4(4)
2(5)
8.3(13) Drawing 8.4
E(1)
3.1 (3) Note 1
8.4(5)
3.1 (3) Note 2
8.5.1(4)
3.2.4(1)
9(2)
5.3(4)
10.1.1(1)
8.3(5)B
10.1.4.2(1)
8.3(13) Drawing 8.1
A.1(1) Note 2
8.3(13) Drawing 8.2
A.1(1) Note 3
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-3 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN1993-1-3: General rules – Supplementary rules for cold-formed
members and sheeting.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2(3)P
2(5)
3.1(3)
Note 1
National parameter
- value or requirement The following values are adopted for partial coefficients M :
M0 = 1.05 ; M1 = 1.05 ; M2 = 1.25.
For bridges (road and railway) the following values are adopted for partial
coefficients M :
M0 = 1.05 ; M1 = 1.10 ; M2 = 1.25.
The recommended value is adopted.
M,ser = 1.00.
A reduction in nominal value of mechanical characteristics (yield strength fyb and
breaking strength fu) is not accepted/
Table 3.1b of EN 1993-1-3 is replaced by the following table
Type of steel
Standard Quality of
fyk
ftk
steel
[N/mm2] [N/mm2]
Steel strips and sheets for
structural use, hot-dip
galvanized. Technical
conditions of supply
250
280
320
350
330
360
390
420
390
430
480
520
8.3(5)
8.3(13)
Flat hot laminated steel
S 315 MC
315
products at high yield limit for UNI EN S 355 MC
355
cold-forming. Conditions of
10149-2 S 420 MC
420
supply for steel made using
S 460 MC
460
thermomechanical lamination.
Flat hot laminated steel
S 260 NC
260
products at high yield limit for UNI EN S 315 NC
315
cold-forming. Conditions of
10149.-3 S 355 NC
355
supply for steel made using
S 420 NC
420
normalised steel or normalised
laminated steel.
The following restrictions are adopted:
panels and 0.8 mm frames  tcor  16 mm
(the lower limit may be reduced to 0.7 mm when
pedonality of panels or corrugated sheets is guaranteed);
0.8 mm (0.7 mm) joints  tcor  4 mm
(for tcor  4 mm is applied as in EN 1993-1-8).
The recommended values are adopted:
e0/L = 1/600 for elastic analysis; e0/L = 1/500 for plastic analysis.
The recommended partial factor M2 = 1.25 is adopted.
Drawing 8.1 No additional information or regulations.
8.3(13)
Drawing 8.2 No additional information or regulations.
8.3(13)
8.3(13)
8.4(5)
8.5.1(4)
9(2)
Drawing 8.3 No additional information or regulations.
Drawing 8.4 No additional information or regulations.
The recommended partial factor is adopted: M2 = 1.25.
The recommended partial factor M2 = 1.25 is adopted.
No additional information or regulations.
3.1(3)
3.2.4(1)
5.3(4)
UNI EN
10326
S250GD+Z
S280GD+Z
S320GD+Z
S350GD+Z
Note 2
370
430
470
530
10.1.1(1)
10.1.4.2(1)
A.1(1)
A.1(1)
Note 2
Note 3
A6.4(4)
E(1)
Use of information
annexes
No additional information or regulations regarding the trial phase.
For verifications the recommended stability curve "b" is adopted.
No additional information or regulations are provided regarding trial procedures.
The recommended criteria are adopted.
Partial factors M determined following testing must
be determined following the information in EN 1990, but not
less than:
M0  1.05; M1  1.05 ; M2  1.25.
For bridges (road and railway) the following restrictions must be respected:
M0  1.05; M1  1.10 ; M2  1.25.
No additional information or regulation.
Annexes B, C, D and E are of an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-4:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-4: General roles –
supplementary rules for stainless
steel
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-4:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for stainless steel structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-4 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 1-4: General rules –
Supplementary rules for stainless steel.
EN-1993-1-4 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-4: General rules – Supplementary
rules for stainless steels
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-4, has been approved
by the High Council of Public on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-4, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1.4(2)
5.5(1)
6.1(2)
2.1.5(1)
5.6(2)
6.2(3)
5.1(2)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-4 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN-1993-1-4: General rules – Supplementary rules for stainless steel.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.1.4(2)
2.1.5(1)
Note 2
5.1(2)
National parameter
- value or requirement No additional information or regulations.
No additional information or regulations.
The following values are adopted for partial coefficients M :
M0 = 1.10; M1 = 1.10; M2 = 1.25.
These values may also be adopted for bridges (road and railway).
5.5(1)
Note 1
Alternative formulas for coefficients ky, kz and kLT are not proposed and the
recommended formulas are adopted.
5.5(1)
Note 2
Alternative interaction formulas are not proposed and the formulas from 5.13 to 5.17
are to be adopted.
5.6(2)
6.1(2)
Note
Note 2
6.2(3)
Note
Use of information
annexes
The recommended value = 1.20 is adopted.
New additional formulas are not proposed.
The recommended values of the coefficient are adopted :
Annexes A and B are of an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-5:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-5: Plated structural elements
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-5:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for plated structural elements
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-5 – Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures: Plated structural elements
EN-1993-1-5 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-5: Plated structural elements
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-5, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-5, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.2(5)
Annex A
3.3(1)
Annex B
4.3(6)
Annex C
5.1(2)
C.2(1)
6.4(2)
C.5(2)
8(2)
C.8(1)
9.1(1)
C.9(3)
9.2.1(9)
Annex D
10(1)
D.2.2(2)
10(5)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-5 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-1-5 – Design of steel structures: Plated structural elements.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.2(5)
3.3(1)
4.3(6)
Note 1
Note 1
Note
5.1(2)
Note 2
6.4(2)
Note
8(2)
9.1(1)
9.2.1(9)
10(1)
10(5)
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
C.2(1)
C.5(2)
C.8(1)
Note
Note
Note
Note 2
Note 2
C.9(3)
Note
Note
Note 1
Note 1
Annex D
D.2.2(2)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The recommended value ρlim = 0.5 is adopted.
The recommended method c) is adopted
The recommended value h = 2.0 is adopted.
The recommended value  = 1.20 is adopted for steel up to
grade S460. Use of higher grade steel is not permitted.
No additional information
The recommended rules are adopted.
No additional information
No additional information
The recommended value θ = 6 is adopted.
No limitations on use of the method
No additional information
This Annex retains an "informative" nature
This Annex retains an "informative" nature
This Annex retains an "informative" nature
No limitation on use of FEM analysis
The recommended value is adopted.
The recommended value is adopted.
As recommended, the values of partial coefficients given in
the relevant parts of EN1993 are adopted:
M1 = 1.05; M1 = 1.10 for road and railway bridges, M2 =
1.25.
This Annex retains an "informative" nature
No additional information
The recommended formulations are adopted.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-6:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-6: Strength and stability of
shell structures
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-6:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel shell structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-6 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 1-6: Strength and stability of
shell structures
EN-1993-1-6 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-6: Strength and stability of shell
structures
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-6, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-6, relating to the following paragraphs:
3.1(4)
8.4.4(4)
4.1.4(3)
8.4.5(1)
5.2.4(1)
8.5.2(2)
6.3(5)
8.5.2(4)
7.3.1(1)
8.7.2(7)
7.3.2(1)
8.7.2(16)
8.4.2(3)
8.7.2(18)
8.4.3(2)
8.7.2(18)
8.4.3(4)
9.2.1(2)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-6 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-1-6 – Design of steel structures: Strength and stability of
shell structures.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
3.1(4)
Reference
4.1.4(3)
5.2.4(1)
6.3(5)
7.3.1(1)
7.3.2(1)
8.4.2(3)
8.4.3(2)
8.4.3(4)
8.4.4(4)
8.5.2(2)
8.5.2(4)
8.7.2(7)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note 2
Note
Note
Note
Note 1
Note 1
Note
Note 1
Note
8.7.2(16)
Note
8.7.2(18)
8.7.2(18)
9.2.1(2) P
Note 1
Note 2
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The application field of the standard is limited to temperatures lower than 150 °C. No
information on property of materials at other temperatures is provided.
The recommended value Nf = 10 000 is adopted.
The recommended value (r/t)min = 25 is adopted.
The recommended value εmps = 50 fyd / E is adopted.
No additional information on more refined rules of analysis.
The recommended value εp.eq.Ed = 25 fyd / E is adopted.
The recommended values in Table 8.1 are adopted.
The recommended values in Table 8.2 are adopted.
The recommended values in Table 8.3 are adopted.
Recommended relative values of concavity given in Table 8.4 are adopted.
The recommended value M1= 1.1 is adopted
The values given in Annex D are adopted.
The recommended value  = 0.1 radiants is adopted.
Additional information on the trend of geometric imperfections to be introduced into
the numeric modelling.
The recommended value ni = 25 is adopted.
The recommended values in Table 8.5 are adopted.
The partial factor Mf is assumed according to Table 3.1 of Standard EN 1993-1-9.
Annexes A, B, C and D retain an informative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-7:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-7: Plated structures subject
to out of plane loading
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-7:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel plated structures subject to out of
plane loading
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-7 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1-7: Plated structures subject to
out of plane loading
EN-1993-1-7 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1- 7: Plated structures subject to out of
plane loading
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-7, has been approved
by the High Council of Public on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-7, relating to the following paragraphs:
6.3.2(4)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-7 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-1-7 – Steel plated structures subject to out of plane loading.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
6.3.2(4)
Note 1
National parameter
- value or requirement Cyclical plasticisation. Limit of accumulated
deformations.
The recommended value neq = 25 is adopted.
Annexes A, B, and C retain an informative value.
plastic
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-8:2005
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-8: Design of joints
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-8:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for design of joints in steel structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-8 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1-8: Design of joints
EN-1993-1-8 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1- 8: Design of joints
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-8, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which must
be prescribed in UNI-EN 1991-1-8, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.2(2)
1.2.6 (Group 6: rivets)
3.1.1(3)
3.4.2(1)
5.2.1(2)
6.2.7.2(9)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-8 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-1-8 – Design of steel structures – Design of joints.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
1.2.6 (Group 6: rivets)
2.2(2)
3.1.1(3)
Note
Note
Note
3.4.2(1)
Note
5.2.1(2)
Note
6.2.7.2(9)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement No additional reference standard.
The recommended values in Table 2.1 are adopted
Class 4.8 and 5.8 bolts are ruled out
When the preload is not explicitly considered for resistance to
friction, but is required for the purposes of execution or
quality requirements, the preload level applied must conform
to the information in EN 1090-2(8.3).
No additional information is provided
No other situations are defined in which it is possible to use
the equation (6.26)
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-9:2005
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-9: Fatigue
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-9:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in steel structures subject to fatigue
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-9 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1-9 – Fatigue
EN-1993-1-9 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structure – Part 1-9 – Fatigue
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-9, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN1993-1-9 relating to paragraphs:
- 1.1(2) – 2 positions
- 2(2)
- 2(4)
- 3(2)
- 3(7)
- 5(2)
- 6.1(1)
- 6.2(2)
- 7.1(3)
- 7.1(5)
- 8(4)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1993-1-9 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1992-1-9 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures
Part 1-9 – Fatigue.
3)
National decisions
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Paragraph
Reference
- 1.1(2)
Note 1
No specific information is provided
- 1.1(2)
Note 2
No supplementary information is provided
- 2(2)
Note
The Formula (A.3) in regulatory Annex A is affected by material error; it should in fact
 C
 Ff  E ,2 m Dd 
 Mf
read
.
Use of Formula (A.3) as corrected is accepted only in cases where values of coefficients
of equivalent damage i are available, based on an appropriate scientific foundation. In
each case, where relevant, the choice of the root exponent, m, must be properly justified
and must also be precautionary. In other terms the assumption m=3 is only accepted
when the effective damage to be considered is greater than that used by the calculation of
E,2.
- 2(4)
Note
No additional requirements are provided.
- 3(2)
Note 2
No specific requirements are given. In works of particular relevance the inspection
program must be specified on a case by case basis.
- 3(7)
Note
Both methods of carrying out fatigue verifications are applicable. The choice depends on
the spectrum of tension, detail, consequences of the crisis and ability to inspect and repair
said detail. For partial coefficients Mf the recommended values in Table 3.1 are adopted.
- 5(2)
Note 2
No restrictions of use of Class 4 sections are prescribed.
- 6.1(1)
Note
The delta tensions  to be used in verifications must be coherent with those used in the
definition of S-N curves. Should reference be made to peak tension it is necessary that
the calculated tensions are determined with the same method adopted to obtain the test
peak values.
- 6.2(2)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 7.1(3)
Note 2
The calculation may be carried out with reference to categories of detail determined
through tests according to the process indicated in Note 1.
- 7.1(5)
Note
Additional detailed categories are not provided.
- 8(4)
Note 2
That which is indicated in the preceding Point 2(2) is valid.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-10:2005
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-10: Material toughness and
through-thickness properties
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-10:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for verifications on toughness of steel
structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-10 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1-10: Material toughness and
through-thickness properties
EN-1993-1-10 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-10: Material toughness and
through-thickness properties
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-10, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-1-10, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.2(5)
3.1(1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-1-10 in Italy.
Further to Point 4 of this Annex some additional information is given which, without
contradiction with UNI-EN-1993-1-10, supplies additional information and clarification
on some rules in UNI-EN-1993-1-10.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-1-10 – Design of steel structures – Material toughness and
through-thickness properties.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.2(5)
Note 1
2.2(5)
Note 3
2.2(5)
Note 4
3.1(1)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The recommended value is adopted:
TR = 0°
For structural elements whose failure could have serious
consequences in terms of safety and economy, the validity
of permitted through-thickness values in Table 2.1 must
be limited with the following criterion:
- for ED ≥ 0.75 fy: T27j  TED + 30 °C
- for 0.5 fy < ED < 0.75 fy: T27j  TED + 40 °C
The use of Table 2.1 is permitted for steels indicated in
said table up to and including grade S460; the use of
grade S 690 steel is not permitted, under EN 1993-1-1.
The recommended class is adopted:
Class 1
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-11:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-11: Design of structures with
tension components
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-11:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in steel structure with tension components
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-11 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1-11 – Design of structures
with tension components
EN-1993-1-11 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structure – Part 1-11 – Design of structures with
tension components
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-11, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN1993-1-11 relating to paragraphs:
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1993-1-11 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1992-1-11 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures
Part 1-11 – Design of structures with tension components.
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.3.6(1)
Note
2.3.6(2)
Note 1
2.4.1(1)
Note
3.1(1)
Note 6
4.4(2)
Note 1
4.5(4)
Note 1
5.2(3)
Note
5.3(2)
Note
6.2(2)
Note 4
6.3.2(1)
Note
6.3.4(1)
Note
6.4.1(1) P
Note 1
7.2(2)
Note 1
A.4.5.1(1)
Note
A.4.5.2
Note
B(6)
Note
National parameter - value or requirement For this transient condition the partial factors of the relevant loads of the accidental
combination are adopted.
For component and joint verifications, partial factors M are adopted as provided for
persistent situations.
No supplementary information is provided.
Partial factors of permanent loads during assembly phases.
The following values are adopted of partial factors of permanent loads during assembly:
G = 1.20 for short periods (a few hours) for assembly of the first stay;
G = 1.30 for assembly of successive stays;
G = 1.00 for favourable effects (in general);
G = 0.90 for favourable effects (for EQU verifications).
The recommended values are adopted:
round steel wire – nominal strength 1 770 Nmm-2 ;
shaped wire - nominal strength 1 570 Nmm-2 ;
stainless steel wire – round wire - nominal strength 1 450 Nmm-2 ;
No specific requirements are provided.
No specific information is provided.
The recommended value P = 1.00 is adopted.
No additional information is provided.
The following values are adopted:
presence of measures aimed at reducing the effects of bending on anchorage R = 1.00;
absence of measures aimed at reducing the effects of bending on anchorage R = 1.10;
The recommended value M,fr= 1.65 is adopted.
For k the recommended value k = 1.10 is adopted.
The recommended partial factor M,fr= 1.65 is adopted.
The following limit values are adopted
Limit tensions for construction phases f const (Table 7.1).
Pulling of the first component (for only a few hours) fconst  0.57 uk
After the pulling of other components fconst  0.52 uk
Limit tensions for conditions of service f sls (Table 7.2).
Fatigue design taking into account the effects of fluid fsls  0.47 uk
Fatigue design taking into account the effects of fluid fsls  0.43 uk
No specific evidence is provided.
No specific evidence is provided.
No specific monitoring and inspection information is provided.
Annexes A, B and C retain an informative nature/
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-1-12:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 1-12: Additional rules for the
extension of EN 1993 up to steel
grades S 700
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-1-12:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel
grade S 700
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-1-12 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1-12 – Additional rules for the
extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S 700
EN-1993-1-12 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structure – Part 1 – 12 – Additional
rules for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S 700
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-12, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN1993-1-12 relating to paragraphs:
– 2.1 (3.1(2))
– 2.1 (3.2.2(1))
– 2.1 (5.4.3(1))
– 2.1 (6.2.3(2))
– 2.8 (4.2(2))
– 3(1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1993-1-12 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1992-1-12 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures –
Part 1-12 – Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S 700.
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
- 2.1 (3.1(2))
Note 1
National parameter
- value or requirement Steel of a higher grade than S460 up to S700 may be used for the production of structural
elements or works, with the approval of the Central Technical Service on the advice of
the High Council of Public Works, authorisation regarding use of material in the specific
structural types proposed on the basis of procedure defined by the Central Technical
Service.
For types of steel to be used and their relative mechanical characteristics the
recommended yield tension values in Tables 1 and 2 are adopted. Furthermore it must be
guaranteed that the braking tension values are equal to the maximum between the
recommended value and that obtained by applying the information in the next Paragraph
2.1 (3.2.2(1)).
- 2.1 (3.2.2(1))
Note
The relationship between characteristic values of breaking tension ftk (nominal) and yield
tension fyk (nominal) must be greater than 1.10 and elongation at rupture A5, measured by
a standard sample, must not be less than 14 %;
- for ultimate deformation the recommended value u=15 fy/E is adopted.
For dissipative areas of structures in seismic zones the following values are adopted:
- fu/fy ≥ 1.20
- fy, max /fy,k ≤ 1.20
- elongation at rupture ≥ 20 %
- εu ≥ 20 εy
- 2.1 (5.4.3(1))
Note
No additional requirements are provided.
- 2.1 (6.2.3(2))
Note
The recommended value M12=M2=1.25 is adopted
- 2.8 (4.2(2))
Note
No restrictions on use of sub-resistant electrodes.
- 3(1)
Note
No specific restrictions are provided.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-2:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 2: Steel bridges
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-2:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for design of steel bridges
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-2 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 2: Steel bridges
EN-1993 – 2 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structure – Part 2 – Steel bridges
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-2, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
shall be prescribed in UNI-EN1993-2 relating to paragraphs:
- 2.1.3.2(1)
- 2.1.3.3(5)
- 2.1.3.4(1)
- 2.1.3.4(2)
- 2.3.1(1)
- 3.2.3(2)
- 3.2.3(3)
- 3.2.4(1)
- 3.4(1)
- 3.5(1)
- 3.6(1)
- 3.6(2)
- 4(1)
- 4(4)
- 5.2.1(4)
- 5.4.1(1)
- 6.1(1)P
- 6.2.2.3(1)
- 6.2.2.4(1)
6.3.2.3(1)
6.3.4.2(1)
6.3.4.2(7)
- 7.1(3)
- 7.3(1)
- 7.4(1)
- 8.1.3.2.1(1)
- 8.1.6.3(1)
- 8.2.1.4(1)
- 8.2.1.5(1)
- 8.2.1.6(1)
- 8.2.10(1)
- 8.2.13(1)
- 8.2.14(1)
- 9.1.2(1)
- 9.1.3(1)
- 9.3(1)P
- 9.3(2)P
- 9.4.1(6)
- 9.5.2(2)
- 9.5.2(3)
- 9.5.2(5)
- 9.5.2(6)
- 9.5.2(7)
- 9.5.3(2) (2 positions)
- 9.6(1) (2 positions)
- 9.7(1)
- A.3.3(1)P
- A 3.6(2)
- A.4.2.1.(2)
- A.4.2.1(3)
- A.4.2.1(4)
- A.4.2.4(2)
- C.1.1(2)
- C.1.2.2(1)
- C.1.2.2(2)
- E.2(1)
and to national information regarding use of normative Annexes A, B and E in
informative Annexes C and D for steel bridges.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1993-2 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-19923-2 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures –
Part 2 – Steel bridges.
3)
National decisions
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Paragraph
Reference
- 2.1.3.2(1)
Note 1
For bridges of small dimensions or of normal importance a rated life of not less than 50
years is adopted. For bridges of large dimensions or strategic importance the rated life
must not be assumed less than 100 years.
- 2.1.3.3(5)
Note
No additional recommendations are given.
- 2.1.3.4(1)
Note
No additional recommendations are given.
- 2.1.3.4(2)
Note 2
Both methods of carrying out fatigue verifications are applicable. The choice depends on
the spectrum of tension, detail, consequences of the crisis and ability to inspect and repair
said detail.
- 2.3.1(1)
Note 2
No additional information is provided.
- 3.2.3(2)
Note 2
No additional information is provided.
- 3.2.3(3)
Note
The recommended values in Table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 for Ed=0.25 fy(t) are adopted.
- 3.2.4(1)
Note
The recommended values in Table 3.2 are adopted.
- 3.4(1)
Note
No specific information is provided.
- 3.5(1)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 3.6(1)
Note
The guardrails must be of a type approved by the Decree from the Minister for
Infrastructure and Transport of 2004-06-21: "Upgrading the technical instructions for
design, approval and use of road safety barriers and the technical requirements for testing
of road safety barriers". For the other elements no additional information is provided.
- 3.6(2)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 4(1)
Note
No specific information is provided.
- 4(4)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 5.2.1(4)
Note
No additional information is provided
- 5.4.1(1)
Note
In accidental design situations it is acceptable to use plastic global analysis.
- 6.1(1)P
Note 2
The recommended values of coefficients Mi, with the exception of the coefficient
M0=1.05 are adopted.
- 6.2.2.3(1)
Note
No additional information is provided
- 6.2.2.5(1)
Note
No specific method is indicated
- 6.3.2.3(1)
Note
No additional information is provided
- 6.3.4.2(1)
Note
The recommended values are adopted
- 6.3.4.2(7)
Note
The recommended method is adopted
- 7.1(3)
Note
No specific information is provided
- 7.3(1)
Note 2
The value Mser=1.05 is adopted
- 7.4(1)
Note
No specific cases are indicated
- 8.1.3.2.1(1)
Note
The use of injection bolts is permitted, following testing in an official Laboratory in
accordance with 2.5 of EN 1993-1-1
Reference may be made to the recommendations relating to "design supported by
evidence"
- 8.1.6.3(1)
Note
The use of hybrid joints is permitted, in accordance with 3.9.3(1) of EN1993-1-8
- 8.2.1.4(1)
Note
Partial penetration welds are only accepted for secondary components, not subject to
fatigue and not involving the global stability of the bridge
- 8.2.1.5(1)
Note
Weld beads are only accepted for secondary components, not subject to fatigue and not
involving the global stability of the bridge
- 8.2.1.6(1)
Note
Flare groove welds are only accepted for secondary components, not subject to fatigue
and not involving the global stability of the bridge. They are still permitted, however, in
cases of coupling of tubular elements with cordons subject to prevailing  
- 8.2.10(1)
Note
In joint overheads, cord connections of a single angle or partial penetration of one side
only are not permitted.
- 8.2.13(1)
Note
No additional information is provided.
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 9.1.2(1)
Note
No information is provided
- 9.1.3(1)
Note
No information is provided
- 9.3(1)P
Note
The recommended value Ff=1.00 is adopted
- 9.3(2)P
Note
The recommended values of Mf (Table 3.1 of EN1993-1-9) are adopted
- 9.4.1(6)
Note
No further information is provided (see EN1991-2).
- 9.5.2(2)
Note
The recommended values of 1 are adopted only for simply supported beams and in the
absence of more refined evaluation. For continuous beams or more complex static
patterns specific calibrations are necessary, considering equivalence in terms of damage.
- 8.2.14(1)
1
m

1

n  im  m
 100  N 0
i i

 expression may be

In these cases to assess 1 a type 1  
6 
m
 2  10   N s   p 


adopted, where P is the maximum delta tension induced by fatigue model No 3 in
EN1991-2, N0 is the relevant annual flow (N0=0.5106), the summation is extended to the
spectrum of tension induced by Ns vehicles of the load spectrum, and m is an appropriate
coefficient dependent on the incline of the S-N curve and the total flow of vehicles.
- 9.5.2(3)
Note
In the absence of more refined assessments the recommended value is adopted. When
more refined calculations are necessary  2  k  Qm1  m N obs , may be placed with
Q0
N0
D ef
Q0
Q m 1 , when Dv is the damage produced by N0 fatigue vehicles and Def is the
damage produced by N0 actual vehicles. For m a suitable value must be adopted which is
dependent on the shape of the S-N curve and on Nobs.
k 
-9.5.2(5)
Note
- 9.5.2(6)
Note
Dv

The recommended value tLd=100 years is adopted.
In the absence of more refined assessments, for4 the value
 4 (l , N 1 )  5
N*
N 1*
 i
N1
i  N1

 
  i 
 1 
5

N
    comb
 i  N 1

  comb
 1



5



may be adopted, where N1 is the
flow in the first lane, Ni is the flow on the x-th lane, i the maximum ordinates on the
N*
area of influence corresponding to the x-th lane, i the flow of vehicles not interacting
on the x-th lane, Ncomb the number of vehicles interacting on the x-th lane and comb the
global ordinate of the area of influence for interacting lanes, when the second summation
is extended to all relevant vehicle combinations on the spectrum on more lanes.
In the significant case of two lanes subjected to the same flow, it may be assumed that
4  5
1   2 
LN 
  1.03  0.01 

1
v
10 6 

as L is the base length of the area of influence in m,
v is the mean velocity of heavy vehicles in m/s, and 1 and 2, 1  2, are coefficients of
influence of the two tracks, respectively.
- 9.5.2(7)
Note
The recommended values of max are adopted.
- 9.5.3(2)
Note 1
No additional information is provided.
- 9.5.3(2)
Note 3
Recommended values of 1 are not adopted. Values of 1 to be adopted must be
appropriately adapted to the specific case, considering equivalence in terms of damage.
- 9.6(1)
Note 1
No exclusions are expected in advance of details.
- 9.6(1)
Note 2
No additional information is provided.
- 9.7(1)
Note
No specific information is provided.
- A.3.3(1)P
Note
The recommended values =2.00 are adopted for friction of steel on steel and =1.20
for friction of steel on concrete.
- A 3.6(2)
Note
The recommended values of  (Table A.2) are adopted, where n is the number of
supports.
- A.4.2.1.(2)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- A.4.2.1(3)
Note
For T0 the values recommended in Table A.4 are adopted.
- A.4.2.1(4)
Note 1
Additional thermic variation T must satisfy the report
T  5 C
.
- A.4.2.4(2)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- C.1.1(2)
Note
The information provided has only an informative nature and in no case implies
automatic fulfilment of the fatigue verifications.
- C.1.2.2(1)
Note 1
The recommended values are adopted, with an exception made for Point 1: for the
minimum through-thickness the sheet deck adopts t  12 mm.
- C.1.2.2(1)
Note 2
Note 2 is deleted.
- C.1.2.2(2)
Note
The values indicated in Figure C4 have an exclusively informative purpose
- E.2(1)
Note
The combination factor is assumed equal to 1.00.
Use of information annexes
Annexes A, B,C, D and E retain an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-3-1:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 3-1: Towers, masts and
chimneys – Towers and masts
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-3-1:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel towers and masts
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-3-1 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 3-1: Towers, masts and chimneys
– Towers and masts
EN-1993-3-1 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 3-1: Towers, masts and chimneys –
Towers and masts
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-3-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-3-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
– 2.1.1(3)P
– 2.3.1(1)
– 2.3.2(1)
– 2.3.6(2)
– 2.3.7(1)
– 2.3.7(4)
– 2.5(1)
– 2.6(1)
– 4.1(1)
– 4.2(1)
– 5.1(6)
– 5.2.4(1)
– 6.1(1)
– 6.3.1(1)
– 6.4.1(1)
– 6.4.2(2)
– 6.5.1(1)
– 7.1(1)
– 9.5(1)
– A.1(1)
– A.2(1)P
(2 places)
– B.1.1(1)
– B.2.1.1(5)
– B.2.3(1)
– B.3.2.2.6(4)
– B.3.3(1)
– B.3.3(2)
– B.4.3.2.2(2)
– B.4.3.2.3(1)
– B.4.3.2.8.1(4)
– C.2(1)
– C.6.(1)
– D.1.1(1)
– D.1.2(2)
- D.3(6) (2 places)
– D.4.1(1)
– D.4.2(3)
– D.4.3(1)
– D.4.4(1)
– F.4.2.1(1)
– F.4.2.2(2)
– G.1(3)
– H.2(5)
- H.2(7)
Note: this reference [B2.3(3)] has been deleted in the “Corrigendum” – Doc. TC 250
SC3 N1673E9.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-3-1 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-3-1 – Design of steel structures: Part 3-1: Towers, masts
and chimneys – Towers and masts.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.1.1(3) P
2.3.1(1)
2.3.2(1)
Note
Note
Note
2.3.6(2)
Note 1
2.3.7(1)
2.3.7(4)
2.5(1)
2.6(1)
4.1(1)
4.2(1)
5.1(6)
5.2.4(1)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note 1
Note
Note
Note
6.1(1)
Note 1
6.3.1(1)
Note 1
6.4.1(1)
Note
6.4.2(2)
6.5.1(1)
Note
Note
7.1(1)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The recommended procedure given in Annex E is adopted.
The recommendation to refer to Annex B is adopted.
The recommendation to refer to Annex C is adopted.
The following values are adopted:
variable load on platforms 2 kNm-2;
variable load on platforms 1 kNm-1;
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
The service life must correlate to that of the estimated use and maintenance plan.
No additional information is provided.
No specific information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
The following values are adopted for partial strength factors:
- γM0= 1.05;
- γM1= 1.05;
- γM2= 1.25;
- γMg= 2.00 (stays);
- γMg= 2.50 (isolators);
Requirements for choice between two proposed methods are not provided.
The following values, recommended in Table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-8 of partial factors of
strength:
- γM2= 1.25 Bolt strength, nails, pin connections, welding
and contact plates;
- γM3= 1.25 Resistance to sliding - ULS;
- γM3= 1.10 Resistance to sliding - SLS;
- γM6,ser = 1.00 Pin connection strength - SLS;
- γM7= 1.10 Bolt preload at high strength.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information regarding serviceability limit states is provided and the
recommended partial factor is adopted.
9.5(1)
Note
A.1(1)
Note
Values of recommended partial factors: γFf =1.00 and γM as indicated in Table 3.1 in
EN 1993-1-9
Only one class of reliability, corresponding to Class 2 of Table A.1.
Table A.2 is amended in the following way
Table A.2 Partial factors for permanent and variable actions
A.2(1)P
Note 2
A.2(1)P
B.1.1(1)
B.2.1.1(5)
Note 3
Note
Note
Table
B.2.1
Note 4
Table
B.2.2
Note
Note 1
Note
Note
Note 2
Note 2
Note 1
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note 1
Note 2
B.2.3(1)
B.2.3(1)
B.3.2.2.6(4)
B.3.3(1)
B.3.3(2)
B.4.3.2.2(2)
B.4.3.2.3(1)
B.4.3.2.8.1(4)
C.2(1)
C.6(1)
D.1.1(2)
D.1.2(2)
D.3(6)
D.3(6)
Type of effect Reliability class
Unfavourable
2
Favourable
2
Accidental Situations
Permanent Actions
1.35
1.00
1.00
Variable Actions (Qs)
1.50
0.00
1.00
No information on dynamic analysis of wind effects is provided.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
The adopted values are shown in Table
The adopted values are shown in Table
The recommended value kx = 1.00 is adopted.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
The recommended value Ks = 3.50 is adopted.
The recommended value Ks = 3.50 is adopted.
The recommended value kx = 1.00 is adopted.
No additional information is provided.
The recommended values are adopted.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
No information is provided.
D.4.1(1)
D.4.2(3)
D.4.3(1)
D.4.4(1)
F.4.2.1(1)
F.4.2.2(2)
G.1(3)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
H.2(5)
Note
H.2(7)
Note 2
No further information is provided
No information is provided.
No information is provided.
No information is provided.
The recommended value is adopted.
The recommended value is adopted.
The recommended values are adopted for reduction of resistance factors .
Should the distance of intermediate joints exceed the prescribed limits in Point 6.4.4 of
EN 1993-1-1 the following may be referred to.
The verification of the rod may be done as for a simple rod, but assuming an
equivalent thinness equal to:
eq = ( 2 + 12)0.5 .
Where:
 thinness of the rod;
1 = L0 / i1min
L0 distance of joints;
i1min minimum ray of inertia of single-angle steel;
with the limitation:
1  50 for S235 and S275; 1  40 for S355 and S 430.
The intermediate joints must be at least two [ 2 ] in number and must be made up of a
welded padded plate or joined with at least two [ 2 ] bolts (friction preloaded or in
precision coupling, defined in the next Point H.2(7) – Note 2).
The joint, if bolted, must be made up of at least two bolts arranged along the axis of
the frame in precision coupling (bolt clearance hole equal to 0.3 mm per bolt up to
M20, 0.5 mm per bolt of higher diameter).
Annexes A and D retain an regulatory value.
Annexes B, C, E, F, G and H retain an informative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-3-2:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 3-2: Towers, masts and
chimneys–Chimneys
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-3-2:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel chimneys
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-3-2 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 3-1: Towers, masts and
chimneys- Chimneys.
EN-1993-3-2 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 3-1: Towers, masts and chimneys –
Chimneys
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-3-2, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-3-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-3-2 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-3-2 – Design of steel structures: Part 3-2: Towers, masts
and chimneys – Chimneys.
3)National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.3.3.1(1)
Note 1
2.3.3.5(1)
2.6(1)
4.2(1)
5.1(1)
5.2.1(3)
Note 1
Note
Note
Note
Note
6.1(1)P
Note
6.2.1(6)
Note
6.4.1(1)
Note
6.4.2(1)
6.4.3(2)
7.2(1)
Note
Note 1
Note
7.2(2)
Note 2
9.1(3)
9.1(4)
Note 1
Note
9.5(1)
Note
A.1(1)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The following values are adopted:
variable load on platforms 2 kNm-2;
variable load on platforms 1 kNm-1;
ISO 12494 may be referred to.
The service life must correlate to that of the estimated use and maintenance plan.
The recommended values in Table 4.1 are adopted.
No specific information is provided.
The recommended criteria are adopted.
The following values are adopted for partial strength factors:
- γM0= 1.05;
- γM1= 1.15;
- γM2= 1.25.
The recommended restrictions are adopted.
The following values are adopted for partial strength factors:
- γM2= 1.25 Bolt strength, nails, pin connections, welding
and contact plates;
- γM3= 1.25 Resistance to sliding - ULS;
- γM3= 1.10 Resistance to sliding - SLS;
- γM6,ser = 1.00 Pin connection strength - SLS;
- γM7= 1.10 Bolt preload at high strength.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
The recommended value max = h / 50 is adopted
Reference is made only to reliability Class 2 and the recommended value in Table 7.1
is adopted.
No additional information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
Values of recommended partial factors γFf =1.00 and γM are adopted as indicated in
Table 3.1 in EN 1993-1-9.
Only one class of reliability, corresponding to Class 2 of Table A.1.
Table A.2 is amended in the following way
Table A.2 Partial factors for permanent and variable actions
A.2(1)
Note 2
A.2(1)
C.2(1)
Note 3
Note
Type of effect Reliability class
Unfavourable
2
Favourable
2
Accidental Situations
Permanent Actions
1.35
1.00
1.00
No specific information is provided.
No additional information is provided.
Annex A retains a normative value.
Annexes B, C, D and E retain informative value.
Variable Actions (Qs)
1.50
0.00
1.00
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-4-1:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 4-1: Silos
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-4-1:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel silos
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-4-1 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 4-1: Silos.
EN-1993-4-1 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 4-1: Silos
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-4-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-4-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.2 (1)
2.2 (3)
2.9.2.2 (3)
3.4 (1)
4.1.4 (2) and (4)
4.2.2.3 (6)
4.3.1 (6)
4.3.1 (8)
5.3.2.3 (3)
5.3.2.4 (10)
5.3.2.4 (12)
5.3.2.4 (15)
5.3.2.5 (10)
5.3.2.5 (14)
5.3.2.6 (3)
5.3.2.6 (6)
5.3.2.8 (2)
5.3.3.5 (1)
5.3.3.5 (2)
5.3.4.3.2 (2)
5.3.4.3.3 (2)
5.3.4.3.3 (5)
5.3.4.3.4 (5)
5.3.4.5 (3)
5.4.4 (2)
5.4.4 (3)
5.4.4 (4)
5.4.7 (3)
5.5.2 (3)
5.6.2 (1)
5.6.2 (2)
Consequence classes.
Consequence classes.
Partial coefficients Mi.
Special steel
Reduction of thickness ta through corrosion or abrasion
Limit distance of vertical hollow beams (equivalent plate
calculation)
Limit distance of horizontal hollow beams (equivalent plate
calculation)
Width of composite sheet
Efficiency coefficient of opposing joints
Equivalent harmonic distribution
Eccentricity of normal force of opposing joints
Reduction coefficient for instability
Imperfection coefficient for instability
Coefficient of rigidity
Coefficient of rigidity
Imperfection coefficient for instability
Minimum number of significant cycles for fatigue verification
Coefficient of rigidity
Coefficient for length of diffusion
Imperfection coefficient for instability
Limit distance of hollow beams (equivalent plate calculation)
Imperfection coefficient for instability
Equivalent rigidity of wall
Minimum distance between hollow beams
Criteria for application of the membrane theory of shells in the
presence of axial loads
Minimum bending rigidity
Minimum height of shell
Lifting action due to wind
Minimum rigidity of stiffeners in the presence of openings
Limit of horizontal deformity (SLS)
Limit of radial deformity (SLS)
6.1.2 (4)
6.3.2.3 (2)
6.3.2.3 (4)
6.3.2.7 (3)
7.3.1 (4)
8.3.3 (4)
8.4.1 (6)
8.4.2 (5)
8.5.3 (3)
9.5.1 (3)
9.5.1 (4)
9.5.2 (5)
9.8.2 (1)
9.8.2 (2)
A.2 (1)
A.2 (2)
A.3.2.1 (6)
A.3.2.2 (6)
A.3.2.3 (2)
A.3.3 (1)
A.2 (2)
A.3.3 (3)
A.3.4 (4)
Increase in partial coefficient M0g in Class 1 silos, where the
limits states of cyclical plasticity and fatigue are disregarded.
Meridian forces in hoppers: effects of asymmetry
Design resistance of hopper in transition joint
Design buckling resistance of hopper
Design buckling resistance of tapered roofs
In-plane instability – Limit angle of cone opening
Omission of stability verification in planned joints
Omission of stability verification in planned joints
Minimum bending rigidity of the base ring
Shape coefficients for pressure exercised by coarse-grained
solids
Coefficients of load state
Maximum initial deflection of tie-rods
Maximum total deflection
Maximum local deflection of panels
Coefficient of amplification of diaphragm stress
Coefficient of amplification of diaphragm stress
Coefficient of efficiency of opposing joints
Partial coefficient M1
External pressure, internal low pressure and wind
Increase of partial coefficient M0g
Coefficient of intensification of asymmetry pressure
Meridian tensions of diaphragm at the top of the hopper
Partial coefficient M0
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-4-1 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-4-1 – Design of steel structures: Silos.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.2(1)
Note
2.2(3)
Note
2.9.2.2(3)
Note
3.4(1)
Note
4.1.4 (2)
Note
4.1.4 (4)
Note 1
4.2.2.3(6)
Note
4.3.1(6)
Note
4.3.1(8)
Note
5.3.2.3(3)
5.3.2.4(10)
5.3.2.4(12)
5.3.2.4(15)
5.3.2.5(10)
5.3.2.5(14)
5.3.2.6(3)
5.3.2.6(6)
5.3.2.8 (2)
5.3.3.5(1)
5.3.3.5(2)
5.3.4.3.2(2)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
5.3.4.3.3(2)
Note
5.3.4.3.3(5)
5.3.4.3.4(5)
5.3.4.5(3)
5.4.4(2)
5.4.4(2)
5.4.4(3)
5.4.4(4)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
National parameter - value or requirement Consequence classes for silos are defined depending only on the dimension and type
of action to be considered, as indicated in Article 2.2(3).
Depending on the dimension and type of action to be considered, the classes indicated
in Table 2.1 are adopted.
Classes of silo capacity are defined depending on the recommended values of W
limits1a, W1b, W3c, W3b, W3c.
The following values are adopted:
M0=1.05;
M1=1.15;
M2 = 1.25.
M4=1.05;
M5=1.25;
M6=1.10.
No specific information is provided.
The recommended value ta=2 mm is adopted, except where required to consider
greater thinness where required by the specific usage.
No specific information is to be given
For the purposes of the calculation of hollow beams and wall tensions, the area of
hollow beams may be combined with that of the wall, so that the distance between
hollow beams is not greater than nvs(rt)0.5: For nvs the recommended value nvs=5 is
adopted.
For the purposes of the plate calculation of hollow beams and wall tensions, the area of
hollow beams may be combined with that of the wall, so that the distance between
hollow beams is not greater than nst. For ns the recommended value ns=40 is adopted.
The length of the composite sheet is given by newt. For new the recommended value
new =15 is adopted.
The recommended values for ji are adopted
The recommended value b=0.40. is adopted
The recommended values are adopted: L=0.7 ; k1=0.5; k2=0.25.
The recommended values are adopted: =0.6; =1.0.
The recommended value n= 0.5 is adopted
The recommended value k1=0.1 is adopted.
The recommended value Ks=0.1 is adopted.
The recommended value =0.8 is adopted.
The recommended value Nf = 10 000 is adopted.
The recommended value ks=0.1 is adopted.
The recommended value kt = 4.0 is adopted.
The recommended value X= 0.8 is adopted
For the purposes of the plate calculation the rigidity of the hollow beams may be
combined with that of the wall, so that the distance of the hollow beams is not greater
than ds,max. For coefficient kdx the recommended value kdx=7.4 is adopted.
The recommended value X= 0.8 is adopted
The recommended value ks=6.0 is adopted.
The recommended value kd=7.4 is adopted.
The recommended values are adopted: (r/t)max=400; k1=2.0; k2=1.0; k3=1.0
The recommended values are adopted: (r/t)max=400; k1=2.0; k2=1.0; k3=1.0
The recommended value ks=0.10 is adopted.
The recommended value kL=4.0 is adopted.
For Class 1 and 2 silos the recommended harmonic coefficient values are adopted. For
Class 3 silos, as recommended please refer to informative Annex C.
The recommended value kd1=0.02 is adopted.
The recommended value kd2=0.02 is adopted.
The recommended values kd3=0.05 and kd4=20.0 are adopted
5.4.7(3)
Note
5.5.2(3)
5.6.2(1)
5.6.2(2)
6.1.2(4)
Note
Note
Note
Note
6.3.2.3(2)
Note
6.3.2.3(4)
6.3.2.7(3)
7.3.1(4)
8.3.3(4)
8.4.1(6)
8.4.2(5)
8.5.3(3)
9.5.1(3)
9.5.1(4)
9.5.2(5)
9.8.2(1)
9.8.2(2)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note 1
Note 1
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
A.2(1)
Note
The recommended value kM = 1.10 is adopted.
A.2(2)
Note
The recommended value kh = 1.20 is adopted.
A.3.2.1(6)
Note
The recommended values of ji are adopted.
A.3.2.2(6)
Note
The value M1=1.15 is adopted.
A.3.2.3(2)
Note
Values n=0.5 and M1=1.15 are adopted.
A.3.3(1)
Note
The value M0g=1.50 is adopted
A.3.3(2)
Note
The recommended value gasym = 1.2.
A.3.3(3)
Note
The recommended values kr=0.90 and M2=1.25 are adopted.
A.3.4(4)
Note
The value M0=1.05 is adopted.
The value M0g=1.5 is adopted
The recommended value gasym=1.2 is adopted for coefficients of intensification of
stress through effects of asymmetry.
The recommended value kr=0.9 is adopted.
The recommended value xh= 0.10 is adopted
The recommended value P= 0.20 is adopted.
The recommended value lim=20° is adopted.
The recommended values lim=10°, kL=10; kR=0.04 are adopted.
The recommended values lim=10°, kL=10; kR=0.04 are adopted.
The recommended value k = 0.10 is adopted.
The recommended values Csc=1.0; Css=1.2 are adopted.
The recommended values kLf=4.0; kLe=2.0 are adopted.
The recommended value ks=0.01 is adopted.
The recommended values k1=0.02; k2=10 are adopted.
The recommended value k3 = 0.05 is adopted.
Annexes A, B and C retain an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-4-2:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 4-2: Tanks
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-4-2:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel tanks
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-4-2 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 4-2: Tanks
EN-1993-4-2 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 4-2: Tanks
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-4-2, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-4-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.2 (1)
2.2 (3)
2.9.2.1 (1)P
2.9.2.1 (2)P
2.9.2.1 (3)P
2.9.2.2 (3)P
2.9.3 (2)
3.3 (3)
4.1.4 (3)
4.3.1 (6)
4.3.1 (8)
Consequence classes.
Consequence classes.
Partial coefficients F.
Partial coefficients F.
Partial coefficients F.
Partial coefficients Mi.
Partial coefficient MSer.
Steel for devices under pressure
Minimum number of significant cycles for fatigue verification
Limit distance of the horizontal hollow beams (equivalent
plate calculation)
Width of composite sheet
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-4-2 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-4-2 – Design of steel structures: Tanks.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
2.2(1)
Reference
Note
2.2(3)
Note
2.9.2.1(1)P
2.9.2.1(2)P
2.9.2.1(3)P
Note
Note
Note
2.9.2.2(3)P
Note
2.9.3(2)
3.3(3)
4.1.4(3)
Note
Note
Note
4.3.1(6)
Note
4.3.1(8)
Note
National parameter - value or requirement Consequence classes for tanks are defined in Article 2.2(3).
Depending on the dimension and type of action to be considered, the recommended
classes given in Table 2.1 are adopted.
The recommended values in Table 2.1 are adopted.
The recommended values in Table 2.1 are adopted.
The recommended values in Table 2.1 are adopted.
The following values are adopted:
M0=1.05;
M1=1.15;
M2 = 1.25.
M4=1.05;
M5=1.25;
M6=1.10.
The recommended value Mser=1.0 is adopted.
No additional information is provided.
The recommended value Nf = 10 000 is adopted.
For the purposes of the plate calculation of hollow beams and wall tensions, the area of
hollow beams may be combined with that of the wall, so that the distance between
hollow beams is not greater than nst. For ns the recommended value ns=40 is adopted.
The length of the composite sheet is given by newt. For new the recommended value
new=15 is adopted.
Annex A retains a normative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-4-3:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 4-3: Pipelines
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-4-3:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel pipelines
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-4-3 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 4-3: Pipelines
EN-1993-4-3 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 4-3: Pipelines
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-4-3, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-4-3, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.3 (2)
3.2 (2)P, (3), (4)
3.3 (2), (3), (4)
3.4 (3)
4.2 (1)P
5.1.1 (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13)
5.2.3 (2)
5.2.4 (1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-4-3 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-4-3 – Design of steel structures: Part 4-3: Pipelines
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.3(2)
3.2(1)P
3.2(2)P
3.2(3)
3.2(4)
3.3(2)
3.3(3)
3.3(4)
3.4(3)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
4.2(1)P
Note
5.1.1(2)
Note
5.1.1(3)
Note
5.1.1(4)
5.1.1(5)
5.1.1(6)
5.1.1(9)
5.1.1(10)
5.1.1(11)
5.1.1(12)
5.1.1(13)
5.2.3(2)
5.2.4(1)
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement No specific information is provided.
The value Vm=1.05 is adopted.
The recommended value is adopted.
The recommended value is adopted.
The recommended value (20 %) is adopted.
The recommended criteria are adopted.
The recommended criterion is adopted.
The recommended criteria are adopted.
The recommended value is adopted.
Partial factors of actions are to be determined with reference to information on
specialist regulations.
The recommended values are adopted.
The recommended limit values are adopted (for different yield values of the steel
used).
The recommended limit is adopted.
The recommended limit is adopted.
The recommended limit is adopted.
The recommended limit is adopted.
The recommended limit is adopted.
The recommended limits are adopted.
The recommended limits are adopted.
The recommended limits are adopted.
The recommended limit is adopted.
No other Normative references are given.
Annexes A, B, and C retain informative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-5:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 5: Piling
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-5:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for steel piling
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-5 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 5: Piling
EN-1993-5 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 5: Piling
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-1-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-5, relating to the following paragraphs:
3.7 (1)
3.9 (1)P
4.4 (1)
5.1.1 (4)
5.2.2 (2)
5.2.2 (13)
5.2.5 (7)
5.5.4 (2)
6.4 (3)
7.1 (4)
7.2.3 (2)
7.4.2 (4)
A.3.1 (3)
B.5.4 (1)
D.2.2(5)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-5 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-5 – Design of steel structures: Piling.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
3.7(1)
Note
3.9(1)P
Note
4.4(1)
Note
5.1.1(4)
Note
5.2.2(2)
Note 2
5.2.2(13)
Note
5.2.5(7)
5.5.4(2)
6.4(3)
7.1(4)
7.2.3(2)
7.4.2(4)
Note
Note
Note 1
Note
Note 1
Note
A.3.1 (3)
Note
B.5.4(1)
Note 1
D.2.2(5)
Note
National parameter - value or requirement The maximum strength of steel (according to EN 1537) used for anchorages must be
fy.spec.max  460 Nmm-2.
The minimum working temperature to consider in the calculations and choice of
materials must not exceed -15 °C.
The recommended values are adopted and reported in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
The following values are adopted for partial resistance factors:
- γM0= 1.05;
- γM1= 1.15;
- γM2= 1.25.
No specific information is provided.
For the minimum length of the initial section and the final section the recommended
value l = 500 mm is adopted. This length must not be less than the length of
intermediate sections.
The recommended value R= 0.80 is adopted.
The recommended value, h  5 m is adopted.
No specific information is provided.
The recommended values γM2= 1.25; γMt,ser = 1.10 are adopted.
The recommended value kt = 0.90 is adopted.
No specific design requirements are provided.
The recommended values for the ratio fu/fy elongation at rupture A5 and ultimate
deformation εu
For the cases indicated the recommended value sys = 1.00 is adopted.
No specific information is provided.
Annex A retains a normative value.
Annexes B, C and D retain informative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1993-6:2007
Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
Part 6: Crane supporting structures
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1993-6:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for crane supporting structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1993-6 – Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures: Part 6: Crane supporting structures
EN-1993-6 – Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 6: Crane supporting structures
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1993-6, has been approved
by the High Council of Public on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1993-6, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1.3.2(1)P
2.8(2)P
3.2.3(1)
3.2.3(2)P
3.2.4(1) Table 3.2
3.6.2(1)
3.6.3(1)
6.1(1)
6.3.2.3(1)
7.3(1)
7.5(1)
8.2(4)
9.1(2)
9.2(1)P
9.2(2)P
9.3.3(1)
9.4.2(5)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1993-6 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1993-6 – Design of steel structures: Crane supporting structures.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
2.1.3.2(1)P
2.8(2)P
Reference
Note
Note
3.2.3(1)
Note
3.2.3(2)P
Note
3.2.4(1)
Note 2
3.6.2(1)
3.6.3(1)
Note
Note
National parameter - value or requirement The recommended values are adopted.
The recommended value γF,test = 1.1 is adopted.
In the absence of more precise determinations a service temperature of air inside the
construction equal to 0 °C. is adopted
The recommended indication to refer to Table 2.1 of EN 1993-1-10 is adopted for
σEd = 0.25 fy(t) .
For the resistance properties of steel through thickness the recommended values as
stated in Table 3.2 are adopted.
No specific information is provided.
No specific information is provided.
The following values are adopted.
For frames
- γM0= 1.05;
- γM1= 1.05;
- γM2= 1.25.
6.1(1)
Note
6.3.2.3(1)
Note
7.3(1)
7.5(1)
8.2(4)
Note
Note
Note
9.1(2)
Note
For joints
- γM2= 1.25 Bolt strength, nails, pin connections, welding
and contact plates;
- γM3= 1.25 Resistance to sliding - ULS;
- γM3= 1.10 Resistance to sliding - SLS;
- γM6,ser = 1.00 Pin connection strength - SLS;
- γM7= 1.10 Bolt preload at high strength.
As an alternative to the simplified method as stated in 6.3.2.3 the method stated in
Annex A may be followed.
The recommended values in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 are adopted.
The value γM,ser = 1.10 is adopted.
Recommended classes of crane are adopted
Number of cycles below which fatigue verifications are not required: the
recommended number, C0 = 104 is adopted.
9.2(1)P
Note
The recommended value γFf = 1.0 is adopted.
9.2(2)P
Note
9.3.3(1)
Note
9.4.2(5)
Note
For the partial factor Mf the recommendation to refer to Table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-9 is
adopted
The recommended indications are adopted.
The recommended criteria which make reference to: Table 2.12 of EN 1993-3 is
adopted.
Annex A retains an informative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1994-1-1:2005
Eurocode 4:
Design of composite steel and
concrete structures
Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1994-1-1:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in composite steel and concrete structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1994-1-1 – Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
EN-1994-1-1 – Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures –
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1994-1-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1994-1-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
- 2.4.1.1(1)
- 6.6.3.1(1)
- 9.7.3(4)
- 2.4.1.2(5)
- 6.6.3.1(3)
- 9.7.3(8)
- 2.4.1.2(6)
- 6.6.4.1(3)
- 9.7.3(9)
- 2.4.1.2(7)
- 6.8.2(1)
- B.2.5(1)
- 3.1(4)
- 6.8.2(2)
- B.3.6(5)
- 3.5(2)
- 9.1.1(2)
- 6.4.3(1)(h)
- 9.6(2)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1994-1-1 in Italy.
Further to Point 4 of this Annex some additional information is given which, without
contradiction with UNI-EN-1994-1-1, supply additional information and clarification on
some rules in UNI-EN-1994-1-1.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1994-1-1 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures:
General rules and rules for buildings.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.4.1.1(1)
Note
2.4.1.2(5)P
Note
2.4.1.2(6)P
Note
2.4.1.2(7)P
Note
3.1(4)
Note
3.5(2)
Note
6.4.3(1)h
Note
6.6.3.1(1)
Note
6.6.3.1(3)
Note
6.6.4.1(3)
Note
6.8.2(1)
Note
6.8.2(2)
Note
9.1.1(2)P
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The recommended value is adopted:
γP = 1.0
The recommended value is adopted:
γV =1.25
The recommended value is adopted:
γVS =1.25
The recommended value is adopted:
γMf,s =1.0
The recommended values in Annex C of EN 1994-1-1 are
adopted
The nominal minimum thickness of corrugated sheets used in
composite slabs is equal to 0.8 mm; it is, however, possible to
reduce the thickness of the sheet to 0.7 mm when appropriate
measures are studied in construction phase in order to allow
safe transit of work and personal vehicles.
The recommended values in Table 6.1 are adopted
The recommended value is adopted:
γV =1.25
No additional information is given
The construction details indicated in Point 6.6.5.4 are
confirmed.
The recommended value is adopted:
γMf,s =1.0
For the coefficient γFf please refer to EN 1991-2.
The recommended value is adopted:
maximum ratio br/bs = 0.6
The deflection s of the sheet in the casting phase,
due to its own weight and the weight of concrete,
must not exceed the quantity s,max = min(L/180;
20 mm).
9.6(2)
Note
9.7.3(4)
Note
9.7.3(8)
Note 1
9.7.3(9)
Note
B.2.5(1)
Note
B.3.6(5)
Note
Such limits may be increased should greater
deflections not invalidate the strength or working
order of the floor and in any case the additional
weight owing to accumulation of concrete is
considered in the design of the floor and the support
structure. Should deflection of the extrados lead to
problems linked to functionality requirements of the
structure, the deformative limits must be reduced.
The recommended value is adopted:
γVS =1.25
The recommended value is adopted:
γVS =1.25
The recommended value is adopted:
 =0.5
The recommended value is adopted:
γV =1.25
The recommended value is adopted:
γVs =1.25
Informative Annexes A, B and C retain informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1994-1-2:2005
Eurocode 4:
Design of composite steel and
concrete structures
Part 1-2 General rules-Structural
Fire Design
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1994-1-2:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for composite steel and concrete
structures exposed to fire
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1994-1-2 – Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1-2:
General rules – Structural fire design
EN 1994-1-2 – Eurocode 4 : Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1-2: General
rules – Structural fire design
1. BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1994-1-2 and was approved by
the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1.
Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the Decisions on National Parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1994-1-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1 (16) note
2.1.3 (2) note
2.3 (1)P note 1
2.3 (2)P note 1
2.4.2 (3) note 1
3.3.2 (9) note 1
4.1 (1)P note
4.3.5.1 (10) note 1
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be observed when UNI-EN
1994-1-2 is used in Italy.
2.2.
Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN1994-1-2 – Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1-2:
General rules – Structural fire design.
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode UNI-EN 19941-2.
Paragraph
1.1 (16)
Reference
Note
National parameter - value or requirement The use of concrete of a higher class than C50/60 and LC50/55 is
permitted if advanced calculation models are used in the design and
making reference to the properties of the materials indicated in Section 6 of
EN 1992-1-2.
The recommended values are adopted:
Note
1 = 200 K
2 = 240 K
2.3(1)P
Note 1
γM,fi,a = 1.0
γM,fi,s = 1.0
γM,fi,c = 1.0
γM,fi,v = 1.0
2.3(2)P
Note 1
2.4.2 (3)
Note 1
It should be noted that Figure 2.1 is constructed assuming G = 1.35 and
Q = 1.50 are not coherent with the information given in the technical
Standards of construction.
3.3.2 (9)
Note 1
The value of c for concrete with mainly limestone aggregate is that of the
lower limit as stated in expression 3.6b
4.1 (1)P
Note
2.1.3(2)
The recommended values are adopted
The recommended value is adopted:
M,fi = 1.0
No specific information is provided.
The recommended values are adopted
4.3.5.1(10)
Note 1
Use of information annexes
Lei = 0.5
Let = 0.7
Annexes A, B,C, D, E, F and G retain informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1994-2:2006
Eurocode 4:
Design of composite steel and
concrete structures
Part 2: General rules and rules for
bridges
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1994-2:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for bridges with composite steel and
concrete structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1994-2 – Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 2: General
rules and rules for bridges
EN-1994-2 – Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 2 – General
Rules and rules for bridges
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1994-2, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
shall be prescribed in UNI-EN1993-2 relating to paragraphs:
- 1.1.3(3)
- 2.4.1.1(1)
- 2.4.1.2(5)P
- 2.4.1.2(6)P
- 5.4.4(1)
- 6.2.1.5(9)
- 6.2.2.5(3)
- 6.3.1(1)
- 6.6.1.1(13)
- 6.6.3.1(1)
- 6.8.1(3)
- 6.8.2(1)
-7.4.1(4)
- 7.4.1(6)
- 8.4.3(3)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1994-2 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1994 – Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and
concrete structures Part 2 – Rules for bridges.
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter
- value or requirement -
- 1.1.3(3)
Note
Other types of connectors, for ex. rigid connectors, may be used, provided they are designed
and verified in accordance with procedures of proven validity.
- 2.4.1.1(1)
Note
The recommended value P=1.0 is adopted for both favourable and unfavourable effects
- 2.4.1.2(5)P
Note
The recommended value V=1.25 is adopted
- 2.4.1.2(6)P
Note
The recommended value Mf,s=1.00 is adopted
- 5.4.4.1
Note
A unit combination coefficient is adopted
- 6.2.1.5(9)
Note
No specific information is given on choice of method.
Note
The recommended values CRd,c=0.15/C and k1=0.12 are adopted, with the limit value cp,0=1.85
N/mm2
- 6.3.1(1)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 6.6.1.1(13)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 6.6.3.1(1)
Note
The recommended value V=1.25 is adopted
Note
The recommended value ks=0.75 is adopted.
- 6.8.2(1)
Note
The recommended value Mf,s=1.00 is adopted
-7.4.1(4)
Note
See EN1992-2, 7.3.1(105) Record
- 7.4.1(6)
Note
The recommended value 20 K is adopted
- 8.4.3(3)
Note
No additional information is provided.
- 6.2.2.5(3)
- 6.8.1(3)
Use of informative annexes
Informative Annex C retains an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1995-1-1:2005
Eurocode 5:
Design of timber structures
Part 1-1: General rules – Common
rules and rules for buildings
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1995-1-1:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for timber structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1995-1-1 – Eurocode 5 – Design of timber structures: Part 1-1: Part 1-1: General rules – Common
rules and rules for buildings
EN-1995-1-1 – Eurocode 5 – Design of timber structures. Part 1-1: General – Common rules and rules for
buildings
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1995-1-1, has been approved by the
High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1995-1-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.3.1.2(2)P
2.4.1(1)P
7.2(2)
8.3.1.2(4)
9.2.4.1(7)
10.9.2(3)
2.3.1.3(1)P
6.4.3(8)
7.3.3(2)
8.3.1.2(7)
9.2.5.3(1)
10.9.2(4)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the use of
UNI-EN-1995-1-1 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in UNI-EN
1995-1-1 – Design of timber structures: Part 1-1: General rules – Common rules and rules for buildings.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
2.3.1.2(2)P
Note - Table 2.2
2.3.1.3(1)P
Note 2
2.4.1(1)P
Note 2
National parameter
- value or requirement Snow load is to be considered in relation to the characteristics
of the site. The wind may be considered instantaneous except
in more accurate assessments in relation to the site.
Examples of classes of service (not exhaustive):
1: indoor structures in dry and heated areas.
2: indoor structures in unheated areas without major sources of
humidity; outdoor structures protected from water.
3: indoor structures with strong concentrations of humidity;
outdoor structures exposed to atmospheric precipitation, or to
water.
The values in the following table are adopted:
Partial coefficients γM for properties and resistances of the
materials.
Basic combinations:
Solid timber
Lamellar welded
timber
1.50
1.45
LVL, OSB plywood
Chipboard
High-density
fibreboard
Medium-density
fibreboard
MDF panels
Low-density
fibreboard
Connections
Metallic punched
joining plates
Accidental
combinations:
6.4.3(7)
Note
7.2(2)
Note
7.3.3(2)
Note
8.3.1.2(4)
Note 2
8.3.1.2(7)
Note
9.2.4.1(7)
Note
9.2.5.3(1)
Note
10.9.2(3)
10.9.2(4)
Note
Note
1.40
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
The Formula 6.54 is adopted
The values of Table 7.2 of EC5 are adopted, with the exception
of accurate verifications on deformation in relation to the use
of the structure, with particular reference to damage to nonstructural elements and functionality of the work.
The following values are adopted:
a=1.0 mm/kN
b=120
The proposal in Paragraph 8.3.1.2(4) is adopted.
For silver fir, spruce fir and Douglas fir Paragraph 8.3.1.2(7) is
adopted.
Method A is applied.
The following values are adopted:
ks = 4
kf1 = 60
kf2 = 80
kf3 = 30
abow,perm ≤ 20 mm
adev ≤ 30 mm
4) Additional information
Kmod in Table 3.1, greater than one, shall refer to the value Kmod = 1.00.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1995-1-2:2005
Eurocode 5:
Design of timber structures
Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1995-1-2:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for timber structures exposed to fire
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1995-1-2: Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
EN 1995-1-2 – Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire
design
1. BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1995-1-2 and was approved by
the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the Decisions on National Parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1995-1-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1.3(2) note
2.3(1)P note 2
2.3(2)P note 1
2.4.2(3) note 2
4.2.1(1) note
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be observed when UNI-EN
1995-1-2 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN1995-1-2: Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode UNI-EN 19951-2.
Paragraph
Reference
2.1.3(2)
Note
National parameter - value or requirement The recommended values are adopted:
1 = 200 K
2 = 240 K
2.3(1)P
Note 2
The recommended value M,fi = 1.0 is adopted
2.3(2)P
Note 1
The recommended value M,fi = 1.0 is adopted
2.4.2(3)
Note 2
No specific information is provided
4.2.1(1)
Note
The recommended procedure of reduced cross-section is adopted
Use of information annexes Annexes A, B,C, D, E and F retain informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1995-2:2005
Eurocode 5:
Design of timber structures
Part 2: Bridges
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1995-2:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for timber bridges
National annex
UNI-EN-1995-2 – Eurocode 5 – Design of timber structures – Part 2: Bridges
EN-1995-2 – Eurocode 5 – Design of timber structures – Part 2 –Bridges
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1995-2, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
shall be prescribed in UNI-EN1995-2 relating to paragraphs:
- 2.3.1.2(1) Assignment of duration of load
- 2.4.1 Partial coefficients for material properties
- 7.2 Limit values for deflections
- 7.3.1(2) Damping values
and to national information regarding use of informative Annexes A and B for timber
bridges.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1995-2 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1995 – Eurocode 5 Design of timber structures – Part
2 – Bridges.
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Reference
- 2.3.1.2(1)
Note
The recommended values are adopted (see note in Article 2.3.1.2 and
Statement 2.2 of EN1995-1-1). Actions during execution are assumed to be of
short duration, as recommended.
- 2.4.1
Note
Values of coefficients M are adopted in the following table
Ultimate limit states
M
Timber and derivatives
- fundamental combinations
solid timber
M=1.50
glued lamellar timber
M=1.45
particle board or fibreboard
M=1.50
plywood, oriented flake panels
M=1.40
- fatigue limit state
M,fat=1.00
Unions
- fundamental combinations
M=1.50
- fatigue limit state
M,fat=1.00
Steel used in composite elements
M,s=1.15
Concrete used in composite elements
M,c=1.50
Shear unions in composite timber and concrete
elements
- 7.2
- 7.3.1(2)
Note
Note 1
Use of information annexes
- fundamental combinations
M=1.25
- fatigue limit state
M,fat=1.00
Exceptional combinations:
M=1.00
The recommended deflection limits in Table 7.1 are adopted.
Values of damping coefficients different to those indicated may be adopted for
specific structures, following suitable justification on a trial bases.
Annexes A and B retain informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1996-1-1:2007
Eurocode 6:
Design of masonry structures
Part 1-1: General rules for
reinforced and non-reinforced
masonry structures
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1996-1-1:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in masonry structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1996-1-1 – Eurocode 6 – Design of masonry structures – Part 1-1: General rules for
reinforced and non-reinforced masonry structures
EN 1996-1-1 – Eurocode 6 – Design of masonry structures – Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced
masonry structures
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1996-1-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1996-1-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.4.3(1) P
3.6.3(3)
8.1.2(2)
2.4.4(1)
3.7.2(2)
8.5.2.2(2)
3.2.2(1)
3.7.4(2)
8.5.2.3(2)
3.6.1.2(1)
4.3.3(3)
8.6.2(1)
3.6.2(3)
4.3.3(4)
8.6.3(1)
3.6.2(4)
5.5.1.3(3)
3.6.2(6)
6.1.2.2(2)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1996-1-1 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all the normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1996-1-1 – Design of masonry structures – Part 1-1:
general rules for reinforced and non-reinforced masonry structures: general rules and
rules for buildings.
3) National decisions
Paragrap
h
Reference
2.4.3(1)P
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement Partial factors M for ultimate limit states.
Classes and values M indicated in the following table shall be adopted:
M
Class
1
2
Material
Masonry built with:
elements, performance-guaranteed
A Category I
mortar;
B Category I elements, mortar of prescribed
composition;
C Category II elements, any type of mortar.
D Anchorage of reinforced steel
E Reinforced and prestressed steel
F Completion elements
G Lintels, according to EN845-2
2.0
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.2
1.15
2.2
2.0
2.7
3.0
2.7
1.15
2.7
2.5
Attribution to Classes 1 and 2 is carried out in relation to that indicated
in Annex A "Considerations of partial factors related to Execution".
Class 2 is given only control operations when provided, which are
obligatory, indicated in the third and fourth section of Annex A,
namely:
- availability of specific staff who are qualified and experienced,
employed by the Company, for supervision of work (site
manager);
- availability of specific staff who are qualified and experienced,
employed by the Company, for inspection verifications of work
(site engineer).
Class 1 is given when provided, as well as the control operations above,
which are mandatory, indicated in the fifth and sixth section of Annex
A, namely:
- control and on-site evaluation of properties of mortar and
concrete;
- dispensing components of mortar "in volume" with the use of
suitable containers and control of mixing operations or use of
pre-mixed mortar certificated by the Producer.
2.4.4(1)
Note
The recommended value M =1 is adopted.
3.2.2(1)
Note
In the following table, six mixes of prescribed composition (in volume)
are indicated, with the relative M value.
To the three base components of the mix (cement, hydraulic lime and
sand) are added two further components (air lime and pozzolana) with
the aim of being able to consider the use of pozzolanic mortar.
Mortar class
Type
Cement
Hydraul
Sand
Air
Pozzolana
M2.5,0,1,3,0,0 Hydraulic
M2.5,1,2,9,0,0
Rough
M5,1,1,5,0,0
Rough
M8,2,1,8,0,0
Cement
M12,1,0,3,0,0
Cement
M2.5,0,0,0,1,3 Pozzolanic
3.6.1.2(1)
Note
-1
1
2
1
--
ic lime
1
2
1
1
---
3
9
5
8
3
--
lime
-----1
-----3
The method indicated as (ii) is adopted.
The following is adopted
fvk flmt = 0.065 fb
3.6.2(3)
Note
with the exception of the aerated autoclaved elements in Group 1
concrete and all the elements characterised by tensile strength
(measured in horizontal direction parallel to the laying plan) greater or
equal to 0.2fb, for which
fvk flmt = 0.10 fb
3.6.2(4)
Note
3.6.2(6)
Note
3.6.3(3)
Note 1
Note 2
fvk 0.045fb is adopted
The values in Table 3.4 are adopted
For fxk1 and fxk2 the values provided in the table are adopted
The recommended value kE=1 000 is adopted.
3.7.2(2)
3.7.4(2)
Note
The fields of values provided in the table are adopted.
4.3.3(3)
Note
The recommended selections are adopted, as given in the appropriate
table.
4.3.3(4)
Note
For cnom the recommended values are adopted, given in the appropriate
table.
5.5.1.3(3)
Note
The recommended value ktef = E2/E1  2 is adopted.
6.1.2.2(2)
Note
For each type of masonry the recommended limit value c=15 is
adopted.
8.1.2(2)
Note
The minimum thickness of walls with structural function is equal to:
- masonry with full artificial strength of 150 mm
- masonry with semi-full artificial strength of 200 mm
- masonry with hollow artificial strength of 240 mm
- squared stone masonry 240 mm
-
squared stone masonry 400 mm
unsquared stone masonry 500 mm
For the definition of full, semi-full or hollow elements please refer to
the additional information at the end of this document.
8.5.2.2(2)
Note 3
nmin= 2.5 tie rods /m2 is adopted.
8.5.2.3(2)
Note 2
j=2.5 tie rods /m2 is adopted.
8.6.2(1)
Note
The recommended values in the Table are adopted
8.6.3 (1)
Note
The recommended values in the Table are adopted
4) Additional information
4.1
Properties of masonry elements
The following denomination is introduced based on the percentage of holes  expressed as a
percentage ratio between the complete area of the through holes and deep non-through and the
gross area of the element face delimited by its perimeter:
-
artificial full elements:  ≤ 15 %
artificial semi-full elements: 15 %<  ≤ 45 %
hollow elements: 45 %<  ≤ 55 %
In the case of extruded brick blocks the percentage of holes  coincides with the percentage in
volume of the voids as defined in standard UNI EN 772-9:2001
Elements for structural masonry must respect the following restrictions:
- percentage of holes  ≤ 55 %
- minimum thinness of internal walls (minimum distance between two holes):
brick and calcium silicate elements: 7 mm
concrete elements: 18 mm
- minimum thinness of external walls (minimum distance from the outer edge to the nearest hole
net of any scoring
brick and calcium silicate elements: 10 mm
concrete elements: 18 mm
4.2
Use of soft mortar joints or of vertical dry joints (without mortar)
Should use be made of thin joint masonry with thickness of between 0.5 mm and 3 mm and/or
vertical dry joints it is necessary to respect the following further restrictions:
-
that no storey's height is greater than 3.5 m;
that the number of floors in the masonry of the building is not greater than two.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1996-1-2:2005
Eurocode 6:
Design of masonry structures
Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1996-1-2:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for masonry structures exposed to fire
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1996-1-2 – Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural
fire design
EN 1996-1-2 – Eurocode 6 : Design of masonry structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire
design
1. BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1996-1-2 and was approved by
the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the Decisions on National Parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1996-1-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1.3(2) note (see AC:2010)
2.2(2) note
2.3(1) note
2.3(2) note
2.4.2(3) note 1
3.3.3.1(1) note
3.3.3.2 (1) note 2
3.3.3.3 (1) note 2
4.5(3) note
Annex B note 1
Annex B note 4
Annex C note
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be observed when UNI-EN
1996-1-2 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN1996-1-2: Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures – Part 1-2: General rules -Structural
fire design.
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode UNI-EN 19961-2.
Paragraph
Reference
2.1.3(2)
Note (from
AC:2010)
2.2(2)
note
2.3 (1)
note
2.3 (2)
note
2.4.2 (3)
3.3.3.1 (1)
3.3.3.2 (1)
3.3.3.3 (1)
4.5(3)
Annex B
note 1
National parameter - value or requirement -
No specific information is provided
The value is adopted:
εm = 0.7
The recommended value is adopted.
γM,fi= 1.0
The recommended value is adopted.
γM,fi= 1.0
The information established in the national annex of EN1990 is applied
note
Whatever the mode of determination of the thermal expansion to be
used within an analytical method it is still necessary to validate the
model with suitable testing to be conducted through execution of
standard tests (EN1364-1 for non-load bearing masonry and
EN1365-1 for load bearing masonry)
note 2
Whatever the mode of determination of specific heat to be used
within an analytical method it is still necessary to validate the model
with suitable testing to be conducted through execution of standard
tests (EN1364-1 for non-load bearing masonry and EN1365-1 for
load bearing masonry)
note 2
Whatever the mode of determination of the thermal conductivity to
be used within an analytical method it is still necessary to validate
the model with suitable testing to be conducted through execution of
standard tests (EN1364-1 for non-load bearing masonry and
EN1365-1 for load bearing masonry)
note
No specific information is provided
note 1
No specific information is provided
Annex B
Note 4
Annex C
note
Use of informative annexes
The values of the tables from N.B.1.1 to N.B.5.2 are not usable.
The class of fire resistance to be assigned to a masonry wall is that
which is determinable by applying the Decree from the Minister for
Home Affairs of 16 February 2007 which states: "Classification of
fire resistance of products and construction elements for construction
works" and Circular No 1968 of 15 February 2008 stating: "Load
bearing fire-resistant masonry walls" and further acts emanating
from the relevant competent authorities.
No specific information is provided
Annexes A, C, D and F retain an informative nature
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1996-2:2006
Eurocode 6:
Design of masonry structures
Part 2: Design considerations,
selection of materials and
execution of masonry
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1996-2:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in masonry structures, selection of
materials and execution
National annex
UNI-EN-1996-2 – Eurocode 6 – "Design of masonry structures – Part 2: Design
considerations, selection of materials and execution of masonry"
EN 1996-2 – Eurocode 6 – "Design of masonry structures – Part 2: Design considerations, selection
of materials and execution of masonry"
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1996-2 has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1996-2, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1.(2)P
2.3.1(1)
2.3.4.2(2)
3.4.3
3.5.3.1(1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1996-2 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1996-2 – Design of masonry structures – Part 2: Design
considerations, selection of materials and execution of masonry.
3) National decisions
Paragrap
h
Reference
1.1.(2)P
2.3.1(1)
Note
Note
2.3.4.2(2)
Note
3.4 (3)
Note
3.5.3.1(1)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement No additional information
No additional information
The recommended values are adopted
In addition to the values indicated in Table 3.1 and illustrated in Figure
3.1, the values given in Section 4.1 of this national annex are
considered.
The recommended value is adopted
Table3.1 - Acceptable deviations for wall elements
Position
Uprightness
in any storey height
on the total height of buildings of 3 or more
storeys
vertical alignment
Straightnessa
for each metre
in 10 metres
Thickness
of the single wall layerb
Maximum deviation
± 20 mm
± 50 mm
± 20 mm
± 10 mm
± 50 mm
± 5 mm or ± 5 % of the thickness of the
layer taking the greater of the two
of the total wall cavity
± 10 mm
a
The deviation of straightness is measured from a line which lies between two reference
points
b
Excluding the case in which the thickness of the layer corresponds to the width or length
of the single masonry element, where dimensional tolerances of the layer coincide with
those of the single element.
1) height of storey
2) height of building
1) intermediate storey
uprightness
vertical alignment
Figure 3.1 - Maximum deviation of the vertical
4)
Non-contradictory additional information
4.1 Deviations permitted in the specific designs (Article 3.4.[3])
In addition to the values indicated in Table 3.1 and in Figure 1, the deviations permitted in the
specific designs must also respect the following limits.
Position
Uprightness
in any storey (Figure 3.1a, 1)
Maximum deviation
±h/200 (h net height of the wall from floor to
floor)
in the total height of buildings of 3 or more ± 35 mm
storeys (Figure 3.1a, 2)
vertical alignment (Figure 3.1b)
Flatness/uprightnessa
of 10 m
a
the minor, in absolute value, between ±15 mm
and ±t/15 (t thickness of the underlying wall)
± 35 mm
the deviation of the flatness/uprightness is measured from an ideal straight line between two points
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1996-3:2006
Eurocode 6:
Design of masonry structures
Part 3: Simplified calculation
methods for unreinforced masonry
structures
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1996-3:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for simplified calculation methods for
unreinforced masonry structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1996-3 – Eurocode 6 – Design of masonry structures – Part 3: Simplified calculation
methods for unreinforced masonry structures
EN 1996-3 – Eurocode 6 – Design of masonry structures – Part 3: Simplified calculation methods
for unreinforced masonry structures
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1996-3 has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1996-3, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.3 (2)P
4.1 (P)
4.2.1.1 (1)P
4.2.2.3 (1)
D.1 (1)
D.2 (1)
D.3(1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1996-3 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1996-3 – Design of masonry structures – Part 3: Simplified
calculation methods for unreinforced masonry structures
3) National decisions
Paragraph
2.3 (2)P
4.1 (P)
Reference
Note
Note
4.2.1.1 (1)P
Note
4.2.2.3 (1)
D.1 (1)
Note
Note
D.2 (1)
D.3(1)
Note
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement The values of M are adopted as given in national Annex EN 1996-11
It is assumed that verification of the global stability of the building is
satisfied if Equation 5.1 in Point 5.4 (2) of EN 1996-1-1 is satisfied
The maximum height hm is equal to 12 m. (from the grade plane of
the foundation of the masonry structure)
The recommended value nmin is adopted.
The recommended values in the tables are adopted, remembering
that the requirements given in Point 4) "Additional information" of
national annex in EN 1996-1-1 must be respected. Therefore the
elements in Group 3 and Group 4 are excluded.
The recommended values in the tables are adopted.
The recommended values in the table are adopted.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1997-1:2005
Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical design
Part 1: General rules
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1997-1:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in pyrotechnical design
National annex
UNI-EN-1997-1 – Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules
EN 1997-1 – Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1997-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1997-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1(8)P
7.6.2.2(8)P
A.3.1
2.4.6.1(4)P
7.6.2.2(14)P
A.3.2
2.4.6.2(2)P
7.6.2.3(4)P
A.3.3.1
2.4.7.1(2)P
7.6.2.3(5)P
A.3.3.2
2.4.7.1(3)
7.6.2.3(8)
A.3.3.3
2.4.7.1(4)
7.6.2.4(4)P
A.3.3.4
2.4.7.1(5)
7.6.3.2(2)P
A.3.3.5
2.4.7.1(6)
7.6.3.2(5)P
A.3.3.6
2.4.7.2(2)P
7.6.3.3(3)P
A.4
2.4.7.3.2(3)P
7.6.3.3(4)P
A.5
2.4.7.3.3(2)P
7.6.3.3(6)
2.4.7.3.4.1(1)P
8.5.2(2)P
2.4.7.4(3)P
8.5.2(3)
2.4.7.5(2)P
8.6(4)
2.4.8(2)
10.2(3)
2.4.9(1)P
11.5.1(1)P
2.5(1)
A.2
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1997-1 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1997-1 – Geotechnical design – General rules.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
2.1(8)P
Reference
NOTE
2.4.6.1(4)P
NOTE 1
2.4.6.2(2)P
NOTE 1
2.4.7.1(2)P
2.4.7.1(3)
NOTE
NOTE
2.4.7.1(4)
NOTE
2.4.7.1(5)
2.4.7.1(6)
2.4.7.2(2)P
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE 2
2.4.7.3.2(3)P
NOTE
2.4.7.3.3(2)P
NOTE
2.4.7.3.4.1(1)P
2.4.7.4(3)P
2.4.7.5(2)P
2.4.8(2)
NOTE 1
NOTE
NOTE 1
NOTE
2.4.9(1)P
2.5(1)
7.6.2.2(8)P
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
7.6.2.2(14)P
NOTE
7.6.2.3(4)P
7.6.2.3(5)P
7.6.2.3(8)
7.6.2.4(4)P
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
7.6.3.2(2)P
7.6.3.2(5)P
NOTE
NOTE
7.6.3.3(3)P
7.6.3.3(4)P
7.6.3.3(6)
8.5.2(2)P
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
8.5.2(3)
NOTE
National parameter - value or requirement Minimum requirements for investigation, calculation methods
and pyrotechnical controls are not to be introduced should the
complexity of the works vary.
Please refer to Tables A.1, A.3, A.15 and A.17 given in
Paragraphs A.2, A.3.1, A.4 and A.5 respectively.
Please refer to Tables A.2, A.4 and A.16 given in Paragraphs
A.2, A.3.2 and A.4 respectively.
Please refer to all Tables given in Paragraphs A.2, A.3.1, A.3.2,
A.3.3.1, A.3.3.2, A.3.3.3, A.3.3.4, A.3.3.5, A.3.3.6, A.4 and A.5
Coefficients for accidental actions are equal to 1.00
More precautionary values of partial coefficients than those
established in Annex A are not to be indicated. More
precautionary values may be requested by the committee or
justifiably assumed by the designer.
Less conservative partial coefficient values than those named in
Annex A are not accepted.
Model coefficients are not indicated
Please refer to Tables A.1 and A.2 given in Paragraph A.2
Please refer to Tables A.3 and A.4 given in Paragraphs A.3.1
and A.3.2
Please refer to Tables A.2, A.4 and A.16 given in Paragraphs
A.2, A.3.2 and A.4 respectively.
Design Criteria 1 is still applicable.
Design Criteria 2 may be adopted only for structures with direct
or pile foundations or on retaining walls with direct and pile
foundations, but lacking anchorages. Criteria 2 may not be used
for bulkheads and other works and geotechnical installations.
Please refer to Tables A.15 and A.16 given in Paragraph A.4
Please refer to Table A.17 given in Paragraph A.5
Partial coefficients for accidental actions are equal to 1.00
Limit values of collapse of foundations must be prescribed by
the awarding authority or responsibly chosen by the designer.
No conventional and precautionary design rules are provided.
Please refer to Table A.9 given in Paragraph A.3.3.3
Please refer to Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 given in Paragraph
A.3.3.2
Please refer to Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 given in Paragraph
A.3.3.2
Please refer to Table A.10 given in Paragraph A.3.3.3
Model coefficients are not indicated
Please refer to Table A.11 given in Paragraph A.3.3.3
Please refer to Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 given in Paragraph
A.3.3.2
Please refer to Table A.9 given in Paragraph A.3.3.3
Please refer to Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 given in Paragraph
A.3.3.2
Please refer to Table A.10 given in Paragraph A.3.3.3
Model coefficients are not indicated
Please refer to Table A.12 given in Paragraph A.3.3.4
Reference is made to the values of a given in the Table
according to the number of design pull-out tests performed.
Correlation coefficients for tests on anchorage
Number of tests
1
2
>2
1.5
1.4
1.3
a1
1.5
1.3
1.2
a2
The characteristic value of resistance Ra;k will be determined as
the minimum value amongst those obtained with the following
formulas:
8.6(4)
NOTE
10.2 (3)
NOTE
11.5.1(1)P
A.2
A.3.1
A.3.2
A.3.3.1
A.3.3.2
A.3.3.3
A.3.3.4
A.3.3.5
A.3.3.6
A.4
A.5
Annex B
(informative)
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
Annex C
(informative)
Annex D
(Informative)
Annex E
(informative)
Annex F
(informative)
Annex G
(informative)
Annex H
(informative)
Ra;k 1 
Ram
Ra;k 2 
Ra min
a1
a 2
where with Ram and Ramin mean and minimum resistances are
respectively indicated, obtained with pull-out tests on pilot
anchorage which, due to the properties of the soil involved,
geometric and technological characteristics, are similar to those
carried out whilst completing the work.
For verifications based on theoretical formulas please refer to
Paragraph 4) of this national annex
Model coefficients for verifications on the limit state of service
for anchors are assumed to be equal to partial safety coefficients
used in the corresponding verifications on the ultimate limit
state.
It is not permitted to treat lifting strength due to shear strength
and anchorage forces as permanent stabilizing actions.
Therefore, partial safety coefficients are not provided.
Please refer to Tables A.3, A.4 and A.14 given in Paragraphs
A.3.1, A.3.2 and A.3.3.6 respectively.
See Table A.1 and A.2 attached at the bottom.
See Table A.3 attached at the bottom.
See Table A.4 attached at the bottom.
See Table A.5 attached at the bottom.
See Tables A.6, A.7 and A.8 attached at the bottom
See Tables A.9, A.10 and A.11 attached at the bottom
See Table A.12 attached at the bottom.
See Table A.13 attached at the bottom.
See Table A.14 attached at the bottom.
See Tables A.15 and A.16 attached at the bottom
See Table A.17 attached at the bottom.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed. Alternative
methods may be used for the calculation of active and passive
forces.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
The use of this annex is not accepted.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
Annex J
(informative)
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
Table A1
Partial coefficients on actions for verifications regarding the
EQU limit state (1)
Action
Permanent
favourable(2)
G;dst1
G;dst2
G;stb1
G;stb2
Value
1.1
1.5
0.9
0
Variable unfavourable
Q;dst
1.5
Variable favourable
Q;stb
0
Permanent
unfavourable(2)
Symbol
(1) Coefficients are defined in the Annex of EN 1990. At this time they are
given solely for ease of consultation.
(2) There are two coefficients G, G1 and G2, respectively for permanent
structural and non-structural loads.
In each verification of the ultimate limit state structural loads are
considered as all those deriving from the presence of structures and
materials which, in the modelling used, contribute to the behaviour of the
work with characteristics of strength and rigidity. In particular, considered
within the structural load shall be the weight of the soil in the verifications
on slopes and embankments, the force on the support structures, etc.
Should the permanent non-structural loads (for example permanent carried
loads) be fully defined, the same valid coefficients may be adopted for
permanent actions.
Table A2
Partial coefficients on soil parameters for verifications
regarding the EQU limit state
Soil parameters
Symbol
Value
Angle of shear force (or of
friction)
φ'
1.25
Effective cohesion
c'
1.25
Undrained strength (or
cohesion)
cu
1.4
Uniaxial compression
strength
qu
1.6
Density

1.0
Table A3
Partial coefficients on actions or effect of actions
Action
Symbol
Permanent unfavourable(1)
Values
A1
A2
G
G1 =1.3
G2 =1.5
G1 =1.0
G2 =0
G1 =1.0
G2 =1.3
G1 =1.0
G2 =0
Q
1.5
1.3
0
0
Permanent favourable(1)
Variable unfavourable
Variable favourable
There are two coefficients G, G1 and G2, respectively for the permanent structural and nonstructural loads. In each verification of the ultimate limit state structural loads are considered as all
those which derive from the presence of structures and materials which, in the modelling used,
contribute to the performance of the work with characteristics of strength and rigidity. In
particular, considered within the structural load shall be the weight of the soil in the verifications
on slopes and embankments, the force on the support structures, etc.
Should the permanent non-structural loads (for example permanent carried loads) be fully defined
the same valid coefficients may be adopted for permanent actions.
Table A4
Partial coefficients on soil parameters for verifications regarding
the STR and GEO limit states
Soil parameters
Symbol
Values
M1
M2(1)
1.0
Angle of shear force (or
of friction)
Effective cohesion
Undrained strength (or
cohesion)
Uniaxial compression
strength
Weight of unit of volume
φ'
1.25
1.0
c'
1.25
1.0
cu
1.4
1.0
qu

1.6
1.0
1.0
Table A5
Partial coefficients for strength of shallow
foundations (1)
Strength
Symbol
Load limit
R1(2)
1.8
R2
2.3
1.1
1.1
R;v
R;h
(1) The coefficients in this table do not apply in the case of foundations of works whose main
function is to support land
(2) R1 coefficients only apply to Combination 2 of DA1. For Combination 1 R1 coefficients are
united.
Sliding
Table A6
Partial coefficients for strength of driven piles (1)
Strength
Symbol
R1
1.0
Values
R2
1.15
R4
1.45
Point
b
Lateral
s
1.0
1.15
1.45
Total (compression)
t
1.0
1.15
1.45
Lateral (traction)
s;t
1.0
1.25
1.6
R1
1.0
Values
R2
1.35
R4
1.7
(1) The coefficients refer only to verifications under axial loads
Table A7
Partial coefficients for strength of bored piles (1)
Strength
Symbol
Point
b
Lateral
s
1.0
1.15
1.45
Total (compression)
t
1.0
1.3
1.6
Lateral (traction)
s;t
1.0
1.25
1.6
Values
R2
1.3
R4
1.6
1.15
1.45
1.25
1.55
1.25
1.6
(1) The coefficients refer only to verifications under axial loads
Table A8
Partial coefficients for strength of continuous flight auger
piles (1)
Strength
Symbol
R1
1.0
b
Point
1.0
s
Lateral
1.0
t
Total (compression)
1.0
s;t
Lateral (traction)
(1) The coefficients refer only to verifications under axial loads
Table A9
Correlation coefficients for designed static load verifications on pilot piles
1
2
3
 for n =
4
≥5

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
2
1.40
1.20
1.05
1.00
1.00
Table A10
Correlation coefficients for deriving characteristic values of pile strength from calculations carried
out from the results of on-site and laboratory investigations on soil
5
1
2
3
4
7
10
 for n =
1.70
1.65
1.60
1.55
1.50
1.45
1.40
3
4
1.70
1.55
1.48
1.42
1.34
1.28
1.21
Table A11
Correlation coefficients for dynamic load tests on piles
≥2
≥5
 for n =
≥ 10
≥ 15
5
1.60
1.50
1.45
1.42
6
1.50
1.35
1.30
1.25
Table A12
Partial coefficients for pretensioned anchorages (bulb injected)
Values
Strength
Symbol
R1
R4
Temporary anchorages
Permanent anchorages
a;t
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
a;p
Table A13
Partial coefficients for verifications of support works
Strength
Symbol
Values
R2(1)
1.4
R1
load limit
R;v
1.0
sliding
R;h
1.0
1.1
R;e
passive strength
1.0
1.4
(1) Criterion DA2 and the relevant R2 coefficients are only applied to verifications of
retaining walls without anchorage. Does not apply to bulkheads.
Table A14
Safety coefficients for global stability verifications
Strength
Symbol
shear strength of land
R;e
Values
R1
1.1
Table A15
Partial coefficients on actions for verifications regarding the UPL state
Action
Structural permanent
unfavourable(1)
Non-structural permanent
unfavourable(1)
Structural permanent
favourable(2)
Non-structural permanent
favourable
Variable unfavourable
Symbol
Value
G;dst1
1.1
G;dst,2
1.5
G;stb, 1
0.9
G;stb,2
0
Q;dst
1.5
(1) There are two coefficients G, G1 and G2, respectively for the permanent structural and non-structural
loads. In each verification of the ultimate limit state structural loads are considered as all those which derive
from the presence of structures and materials which, in the modelling used, contribute to the performance of
the work with characteristics of strength and rigidity.
Should the permanent non-structural loads (for example permanent carried loads) be fully defined the same
valid coefficients may be adopted for permanent actions.
≥ 20
1.40
1.25
Table A16
Partial coefficients on terrain parameters for verifications regarding the UPL limit
state
Soil parameters
Symbol
Value
Angle of shear force (or of
friction)
φ'
1.25
Effective cohesion
c'
1.25
Undrained strength (or
cohesion)
cu
1.4
Uniaxial compression
strength
Anchorage strength
qu
in
1.6
1.4
Table A17
Partial coefficients on actions for verifications regarding the HYD state
Action
Structural permanent
unfavourable1)
Non-structural permanent
unfavourable(1)
Structural permanent
favourable(1)
Non-structural permanent
favourable(1)
Variable unfavourable
Symbol
Value
G;dst1
1.3
G;dst,2
1.5
G;stb, 1
0.9
G;stb,2
0
Q;dst
1.5
There are two coefficients G, G1 and G2, respectively for permanent structural and non-structural loads. In
each verification of the ultimate limit state structural loads are considered as all those which derive from the
presence of structures and materials which, in the modelling used, contribute to the performance of the work
with characteristics of strength and rigidity. In particular, considered within the structural load shall be the
weight of the soil in the verifications on slopes and embankments, the force on the support structures, etc.
Should the permanent non-structural loads (for example permanent carried loads) be fully defined, the same
valid coefficients may be adopted for permanent actions.
4) Additional information
For design of piles under transverse actions and anchorages, the Technical Standards 2008 GU 2008-1-14
must be referred to.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1997-2:2007
Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical design
Part 2: Ground investigation and
testing
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1997-2:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for ground investigation and testing
National annex
UNI-EN-1997-2 – Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design: Part 2: Ground investigation and testing.
EN-1997-2 – Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design – Part 2: Ground investigation and testing
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1997-2 has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
The document, which contains 24 informative Appendices, does not provide definitions of
any parameter.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1998-1:2007
Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1998-1:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for design of structures for seismic actions
National annex
UNI-EN-1998-1 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for seismic resistance.
Part 1- General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
EN-1998-1 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistancePart 1 – General Rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
1) Background
This national annex contains the national parameters in UNI-EN-1998-1.
This Annex also contains values and requirements relating to the definition of seismic actions
(accelerations, response spectra and relative stratigraphic classifications, relative displacements of land,
etc.) as well as all NPD values in EN 1998-1. Said parameters are coherent with the general and specific
criteria on defined seismic actions for the national territory. The values of parameters which define
seismic actions and identify seismic Zones (under Article 83(2) of Presidential Decree No 380 of
6 June 2001) are given in the attachment to this Annex. Further to the parameters described in Paragraph
3, more detail on the same is provided in Paragraph 4: "observations", which contains, amongst other
things, requirements relating to the text of the National Legislation, given in full here. Paragraph 4
therefore indicates the numeration of national parameters as well as the numeration of the text of the
National Technical Legislation referenced.
The Annex has been approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1998-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1.2(7)
2.1(1)P
2.1(1)P
3.1.1(4)
3.1.2(1)
3.2.1(1), (2),(3)
3.2.1(4)
3.2.1(5)P
3.2.2.1(4)
3.2.2.2(1)P
3.2.2.3(2)
3.2.2.5(4)P
4.2.3.2(8)
4.2.4(2)P
4.2.5(5)P
4.3.3.1 (4)
4.3.3.1 (8)
4.4.2.5 (2).
4.4.3.2 (2)
5.2.1(5)P
5.2.2.2(10)
5.2.4 (3)
5.4.3.5.2(1)
5.11.3.4(7)and
6.1.2(1)P
6.1.3(1)
6.2(3)
6.2 (7)
6.5.5(7)
6.7.4(2)
7.1.2(1)P
9.2.3(1)
9.2.4(1)
9.3(2)
9.3(2)
9.3(3)
9.3(4), Table 9.1
9.3(4), Table 9.1
9.5.1(5)
5.8.2(3)
7.1.3(1), (3)
9.6(3)
5.8.2(4)
5.8.2(5)
5.11.1.3.2(3)
5.11.1.4
5.11.1.5(2)
7.1.3(4)
7.7.2(4)
8.3(1)P
9.2.1(1)
9.2.2(1)
9.7.2(1)
9.7.2(2)b
9.7.2(2)c
9.7.2(5)
10.3(2)P
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the use of
UNI-EN-1998-1 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to
in UNI-EN1998-1.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Page
1.1.2(7)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement Annex A, which remains informative, is fully incorporated into the
expression of the spectrum of elastic response in displacement illustrated in
Paragraph 4 of this national annex. Annex B is informative. It shows how
other criteria may be used to assess maximum displacement.
The rated life of the different types of work is given in Table I and must be clarified in the
design documents.
Table I - Rated life VN for different types of work
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
Rated
life
(in years)
1
2
3
Temporary structures – Provisional works Structures in construction phase(1)
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and
dams, of small dimensions or normal
importance
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and
dams, of large dimensions, or of strategic
importance
 10
≥ 50
≥ 100
(1) Seismic
checks of provisional works or structures in construction phase may be omitted when the
foreseen design duration is less than 2 years
2.1(1)P
Note1
Constructions are classified in four classes of importance, defined in the Note to the
following Point 4.2.2 (5) P.
Seismic actions are assessed in relation to a reference period V R which is obtained, for each
type of construction, by multiplying the rated life VN by the coefficient of use CU, defined in
addition to
VR=VNCU
For structures with VR=50 years, for the limit state of protection of life,
defined in Paragraph 4 of this national annex, the suggested value TNCR =
475 years is adopted.
PNCR =10 % in 50 years
For structures with VR=75 years, TNCR = 712.5 years
For structures with VR=100 years, TNCR = 950 years
For structures with VR=50 years, for the limit state of damage, the following
value is adopted
TDLR = 50 years
PNCR =63 % in 50 years
For structures with VR=75 years, TNCR = 75 years
2.1(1)P
Note3
For structures with VR=100 years, TNCR = 100 years
For structures where protection regarding the serviceability limit states is of
primary importance:
National parameter
- value or requirement for type 2 structures, TDLR = 92 years , PDLR = 42 % in 50 years
Paragraph
Page
3.1.1(4)
Note
3.1.2(1)
Note
Point 3.1.2 of the Eurocode (1998.1) is replaced by Paragraph 4 of this
national annex.
Tab 3.1 of Eurocode 1998.1 is specified in the most extensive way and is
replaced by the table given in this annex.
The values of parameters which define the spectrum: S, TB, TC, TD are
obtained based on the expressions given in this annex in Paragraph 4.
Different expressions are given according to the type of subsoil and the
orographic situation.
3.2.1(1),
(2),(3)
Notes
Seismic zones are identified based on the acceleration value ag,475, which
represents the ground acceleration on Category A subsoil with a return
period of 475 years.
For all sites, values of ag, F0 and Tc* are provided, necessary for the
determination of seismic actions to be used for different verifications.
Italian classification for each site gives the spectrum of response on subsoil
A from which is obtained the design spectra of response for all types of
subsoil, based on the expressions stated in Point 3.1.2(1).
3.2.1(4)
Note
Seismic Zone 3, said to be of Low Seismicity, is characterised by
0.05 g<ag,4750.15 g.
3.2.1(5) P
Note
Seismic Zone 4, said to be of Very Low Seismicity, is characterised by
ag,4750.05 g. In this Zone, simplified design criteria may be adopted
according to the information given in Point 4 of this Annex.
3.2.2.1(4)
3.2.2.2(1)P
Note(1)
Note(2)
The parameters which define the spectral shapes are defined in Paragraph 4
of this national annex.
3.2.2.3(2)
Note
The spectral forms are those defined in Eurocode 1998.1 with, however,
some variations in parameters as well as symbols. The maximum spectral
amplification is given by parameter F0 for horizontal actions and Fv for
vertical actions, instead of prescribed values as given in the Eurocode. To
facilitate the use of parameters, in the following Paragraph 4) the complete
expressions of parameters are given in accordance with National Technical
Legislation
3.2.2.5(4)P
Note
The suggested value β = 0.2 is accepted. For complete expressions of
design spectra please refer to Paragraph 4 of this national annex.
4.2.3.2(8)
Note
4.2.4(2)P
Note
 = 1.00 for each category and storey
4.2.5(5)P
Note
Importance coefficients as given in EN1998.1, where seismic action is
multiplied, are assumed to be equal to 1.
for type 3 structures, TDLR = 132 years, PDLR =31.5 % in 50 years
No further specifications are introduced, leaving the general definition
No definition of the centre of rigidity is given
Paragraph
Page
National parameter
- value or requirement In this National Technical Annex the importance of buildings is directly
taken into account in the definition of seismic action changing the mean
periods of return or dividing the associated probability of exceedance for
said Coefficients of use, Cu.
Coefficients of use are defined by the four classes of use. Class of use I
has coefficient of use Cu=0.7, Class of use II has coefficient of use
Cu=1.0, and Classes III and IV have coefficients of use Cu=1.5 and
Cu=2.0 respectively (see table). In Paragraph 4 the definition of the
classes of use is given
Class of use Cu
I
0.7
II.
1
III.
1.5
IV.
2
For structures, with the exception of those in the following
paragraph, coefficients Cu increase by multiplying the mean return
period given by Cu=1
For structures in which protection regarding the serviceability limit
states is of primary importance, the factor Cu divides the value of
PDLR with which the return period is obtained [see Points 2.1.1p, Note
1 and Note 2].
4.3.3.1 (4)
Note
The use of non-linear analysis methods is permitted even for buildings
which are not insulated at the base. In this case the partial coefficient
values to adopt must take into account the information given in Point
4.4.2.2.5
4.3.3.1 (8)
Note
In respect of the conditions stated in Points a)–d) of 4.3.3.1 (8) the flat
analysis in two directions is accepted independent of the class of
importance of the building.
4.4.2.5 (2).
Note
For horizontal diaphragms a single value Rd = 1.3 is adopted independently
of the mode of rupture of the diaphragms themselves
4.4.3.2 (2)
Note
Assessment of displacement by damage limit state is done with the relative
response spectrum assuming.
ν=1
For Class III and IV structures the verification is also done with the action
relative to the operative limit state (OLS) assuming:,
ν=1.5
5.2.1(5)P
Note
No geographic limitation to the use of ductility Classes M and H.
The use of ductility Class L in Zone 4 with the conditions stated in
Paragraph 4) of Point 3.2.1(5) of this Annex.
In the other Zones, should it be necessary to design in ductility Class L, a
structural coefficient of q=1 must be adopted.
5.2.2.2(10)
Note
No increase in q is permitted following quality control
National parameter
- value or requirement The values γM are adopted for fundamental load conditions contained in
1992 -1-1 for verifications to the ULS
Paragraph
Page
5.2.4 (3)
Note
5.4.3.5.2(1)
Note
The suggested value is accepted: the minimum provided for walls in nonseismic zones EN 1992-1-1
5.8.2(3)
Note
The foundation structures must be connected to each other through a
network of beams or by a plate of appropriate dimensions, capable of
absorbing consequent axial forces. In the absence of more accurate
assessments, the following axial actions must be conservatively be
assumed:
± 0.3 Nsd amax /g for type B stratigraphic profile
± 0.4 Nsd amax /g for type C stratigraphic profile
± 0.6 Nsd amax /g for type D stratigraphic profile
5.8.2(4)
Note
The suggested values are adopted
5.8.2(5)
Note
The suggested value ρb,min = 0.4 % is adopted.
5.11.1.3.2(3)
Note
Ductility Class L may be used in Zones with very low seismicity, Zone 4 ,
with the requirements stated in Point 3.2.1(5) in this Annex.
In the other Zones, should it be necessary to design in ductility Class L, a
structural coefficient of q=1 must be adopted.
5.11.1.4
Note
The suggested value kp=1 is adopted for structures which respect the terms
given in Points 5.11.2.1.1, 5.11.2.1.2, 5.11.2.1.3.
Should this condition not be satisfied it will be necessary to demonstrate
the ductile behaviour of the connection and the entire structure with
appropriate testing. Alternatively a structure factor qp will be assumed
equal to 1.5 as seen in Point 5.11.1.4(2). This corresponds to value
kp=1.5/q.
5.11.1.5(2)
Note
5.11.3.4(7)and
Note
Should it be necessary to verify stability during execution, verification of
the ultimate limit state will be evaluated with action relative to the rated
life of 10 years and Cn=1 so obtaining a return period of 95 years.
The suggested value is adopted
6.1.2(1)P
Note(1)
Note(2)
The suggested value in the Note (1) is adopted, of the upper limit of the
structure factor of structure by low dissipation structures q = 1.50.
There are no restrictions on use of ductility Classes M and H. Class L may
be used in zones with very low seismicity: Zone 4.
In the other Zones, should it be necessary to design in ductility Class L, a
structural coefficient of q=1 must be adopted.
6.1.3(1)
Note(1)
Note(2)
For verifications of the ultimate limit states, the partial safety factor on
steel resistance is equal to γs = 1.05
6.2(3)
Note(1)
Note(2)
The value of γov to be adopted is equal to the ratio of the expected mean
value fy,m of yield tension and the characteristic rated value fyk:  ov 
f y ,m
f yk
Paragraph
Page
National parameter
- value or requirement in the absence of specific evaluations the values given in the following
table are adopted
Steel
 ov 
f y ,m
f yk
S 235
1.20
S 275
1.15
S 355
1.10
S420/460
1.10
6.2 (7)
Note
The toughness of steel and welding filler material must satisfy the
requirements prescribed regarding the semi-permanent temperature value
(see EN 1993-1- 10:2004).
6.5.5(7)
Note
No additional rules
6.7.4(2)
Note(1)
Note(2)
Note (1)
Note(2)
7.1.2(1)P
The suggested value γpb = 0.30 is adopted
The suggested lower value in Note (1) of the structure factor of structures
with low dissipation q = 1.50
There are no restrictions on use of ductility Classes M and H. Class L may
be used in zones with very low seismicity: Zone 4 with the requirements
stated in Point 3.2.1(5) of this Annex.
In the other Zones, should it be necessary to design in ductility Class L, a
structural coefficient of q=1 must be adopted.
7.1.3(1), (3)
7.1.3(4)
7.7.2(4)
Note(1)
Note(2)
For conglomerate and reinforcement for the relevant reinforced concrete,
the values γM are adopted for the fundamental load conditions contained in
1992-1-1 for ULS verifications γc = 1.50, γs = 1.15.
For parts made of structural metal the value γM is adopted for the ULS
verifications contained in 1993 -1-1: γs = 1.05.
Note(1) The recommended value γov = 1.25 is adopted.
Note(2)
Point 6.2.3
Note
The suggested value r= 0.50 is adopted
8.3(1)P
Note
Table 8.1 is accepted in full; there are no geographical restrictions on the
use of ductility Classes M and H. Ductility class L may be used in zones
with very low seismicity: Zone 4 with the requirements stated in Point
3.2.1(5) of this Annex.
In the other Zones, should it be necessary to design in ductility Class L, a
structural coefficient of q=1 must be adopted.
9.2.1(1)
Note
With reference to Table 3.1 of EN 1996-1, in seismic Zone 4 the use of
group 1 and 2 elements is permitted with the restrictions given in the
national annex to EN 1996-1-1. In seismic Zones 1, 2 and 3 the following
restrictions must be respected:
Paragraph
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Page
- volumetric percentage of any voids not greater than 45 % of the
total volume of the block;
- any internal walls placed parallel to the plane of the continuous and
rectilinear wall; the only permitted interruptions are those belonging
to plug sockets or for housing of reinforcement;
The use of masonry made of unsquared stones or listed only in sites
falling under seismic Zone 4 is permitted.
9.2.2(1)
Note
The values are adopted:
fb,min=6.0 N/mm2
fb,min=1.8 N/mm2
Possible exceptions to normalised minimum strength values given above are
permitted on the condition that the following characteristic minimum
strength values are respected:
- characteristic breaking strength in the load-bearing direction (vertical),
calculated on the pre-drilled area, may not be less than 5 MPa
- characteristic breaking strength perpendicular to the load-bearing
direction or in the development plan of the wall, calculated in the
same way, may not be less than 1.5 MPa.
Respect of minimum characteristic strengths given above is in each
case a mandatory requirement for any type of element, excluding
zones with very low seismicity.
9.2.3(1)
Note
The suggested value is adopted:
fm,mim = 5 N/mm2 for unreinforced and confined masonry
the following value is adopted:
fm,min=10 N/mm2 for reinforced masonry. The minimum resistance class of
conglomerate must be C12/15.
For the adherence of reinforcement, results of trials and sources of
recognised validity must be referred to
9.2.4(1)
Note
The vertical joints must be filled with mortar (type a joints). If using
elements for masonry which rely on pockets for filling of mortar, the
vertical joint may be considered as entirely filled according to the
indications in UNI EN 1996-1-1, Point 8.1.5 (3).
The use of type b) and c) vertical joints is permitted in Zone 4 and with the
following requirements:
9.3(2)
Note(1)
Note(2)
- minimum thickness of internal walls of the elements ≥7 mm
- minimum thickness of external walls of the elements ≥10 mm
- maximum percentage of holes ≤ 55 %
- number of masonry storeys ≤2 from ground level
- maximum height of buildings ≤7 m
- maximum height of buildings ≤3 m
Unreinforced masonry designed only according to the provisions of EN
1996, may be used in seismic Zone 4 with the further requirements as stated
in Point 3.2.1(5) of this Annex.
The minimum thicknesses appropriate for unreinforced masonry designed
Paragraph
Page
9.3(3)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement only according to the provisions of EN 1996 are given in Table 9.2 of this
Annex.
No limitation in the use of masonry in relation to the value agS,
provided that the information in this Annex is respected with the
following further provisions:
For structural types of unreinforced masonry which do not access the
inelastic reserves of the structure, falling into Zone 1, a maximum height is
prescribed equal to 2 storeys from ground level, or by the roadside.
The flat floor of the second storey may not be counted as living area.
9.3(4), Table
9.1
Note(1)
The information in Note(1) is received assuming, for masonry, the
minimum values of q0 in Table 9.1.
9.3(4), Table
9.1
Note(2)
Under Note (2) those buildings are considered to be of increased ductility
which, in addition to the provisions of this Section 9 of EN 1998-1, also
respect the following requirements:
a) Structural walls, excluding openings, must have vertical continuity
up to the foundation, avoiding false walls.
b) A continuous edging is made in the intersection between floor and
walls. The edging must have a minimum height equal to the height of
the floor and width at least equal to that of the wall; a maximum
retraction of 6 cm from the external thread is permitted. The
continuous reinforcement rod must not be less than 8 cm2, and the
brackets must have a diameter of not less than 6 mm and a distance
not exceeding 25 cm.
c) Metallic or prefabricated beams constituting the floors are
elongated in the edging for at least half its width and not less than
12 cm and adequately anchored to the same.
d) Where there is unreinforced masonry, next to corner angles
between two perimeter walls, on both walls, areas of the masonry
wall with a length not less than 1 m, including the thickness of the
transverse wall.
e) Above each opening there is a lintel resistant to bending which is
effectively clamped onto the masonry.
For buildings with increased ductility the values of q structure factors
are adopted, to be assumed equal to the values of q0 given in the
Technical Standards for Construction, which are:
2.0 αu/α1 ordinary masonry
2.5 αu/α1 reinforced masonry
Coefficients α1 and αu are defined as follows:
α1 is the multiplier of the horizontal seismic force through which, other
actions remaining constant, the first masonry panel reaches its ultimate
resistance (through shear or bending pressure).
αu is 90 % of the multiplier of the horizontal seismic force through which,
other actions remaining constant, the construction reaches its maximum
Paragraph
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Page
resistance force.
The value of αu/α1 may be calculated through means of a static non-linear
analysis and may not in any case be assumed as greater than 2.5.
Should a non-linear analysis not be carried out, the following values
may be adopted for assessment of αu/α1:
- single storey constructions using ordinary masonry αu/α1 = 1.4
- two or more storey constructions using ordinary masonry
αu/α1 = 1.8
- single storey constructions using reinforced or confined masonry αu/α1 =
-
1.3
two or more storey constructions using reinforced or confined masonry
αu/α1 = 1.5
reinforced masonry constructions designed with resistance
hierarchy αu/α1 = 1.3
For buildings constructed with reinforced masonry systems which use
hierarchy of resistance criteria, and which therefore guarantee increased
ductility, it is possible to increase the values stated in the previous point by
20 %.
The fundamental principal of the hierarchy of resistance consists in
avoiding the collapse through shearing of each masonry panel, ensuring that
it is preceded by methods of collapse due to bending. This principal is
intended to be applied when each masonry panel is verified for
bending in respect of actions upon it and is verified for shear with
respect to actions resulting from resistance and collapse due to
bending, amplified by a factor γRd = 1.5.
For confined masonry a value of q is assumed equal to 2.5 αu/α1
9.5.1(5)
Note
The suggested values are welcomed with the exception of the minimum
thickness of unreinforced masonry in zones of low seismicity:
Table 9.2: Geometric requirements for shear walls
Type of masonry
(hef/tef)max
(l/h)min
tef,min (mm)
Unreinforced, with natural
squared stone elements
10
0.50
300
Unreinforced, with natural
squared stone elements, in
Zones 3 and 4
Unreinforced, with artificial
elements
240
12
0.30
240
12
0.40
Unreinforced, with semifull artificial elements in
Zone 4
200
20
0.3
Unreinforced, with full
artificial elements in Zone 4
150
20
0.3
Confined masonry
0.3
240
15
Paragraph
Page
National parameter
- value or requirement Confined masonry in Zones
200
3 and 4
15
Reinforced masonry
240
Confined masonry in Zones
3 and 4
200
15
15
0.3
No
limitation
No
limitation
Meaning of symbols:
tef thickness of the wall (see EN 1996-1-1:2004);
hef effective height of the wall (see EN 1996-1-1:2004);
h maximum height of openings adjacent to the wall;
l length of the wall.
9.6(3)
Note
The partial safety coefficient of the masonry m for the safety check on
constructions designed according to EN 1998-1 may not be less than 2.
For conglomerate and reinforced steel used in reinforced and confined
masonry the values γM are adopted for the fundamental load conditions
contained in 1992-1-1 for ULS checks: γc = 1.50, γs = 1.15
Paragraph
Page
9.7.2(1)
Note
National parameter
- value or requirement Table 9.3 is replaced thus.
For simple constructions, as defined in the point for each storey the
ratio between the area of the resistant section of the walls and gross
area of the storey must not be less than the values indicated in the
following table, according to the number of storeys in the
construction and the seismicity of the site, for each of the two
orthogonal directions.
Peak acceleration of the terrain
ag·S
Number of ≤0.07 g
Type of structure
storeys
1
3.5 %
Ordinary masonry
2
4.0 %
3
4.5 %
1
2.5 %
2
3.0 %
Reinforced
masonry
3
3.5 %
4
4.0 %
≤0.1 g ≤0.15 g ≤0.20 g ≤0.25 g ≤0.30 g ≤0.35 g ≤0.40 g ≤0.45 g ≤0.4725 g
3.5 %
4.0 %
4.5 %
3.0 %
3.5 %
4.0 %
4.5 %
4.0 %
4.5 %
5.0 %
3.0 %
3.5 %
4.0 %
4.5 %
4.5 %
5.0 %
5.5 %
3.0 %
3.5 %
4.0 %
5.0 %
5.0 %
5.5 %
6.0 %
3.5 %
4.0 %
4.5 %
5.5 %
5.5 %
6.0 %
6.5 %
3.5 %
4.0 %
5.0 %
5.5 %
6.0 %
6.5 %
7.0 %
4.0 %
4.5 %
5.5 %
6.0 %
6.0 %
6.5 %
6.0 %
6.5 %
6.5 %
7.0 %
4.0 %
5.0 %
5.5 %
6.0 %
4.5 %
5.0 %
6.0 %
6.5 %
4.5 %
5.0 %
6.0 %
6.5 %
Furthermore the construction requirements given in Letters a)–e) of Note 2
in Table 9.1 of Point 9.3(4) must be respected, and the horizontal
diaphragms must be able to be considered as infinitely rigid.
The following must also be true for each plan:
f
N
 0.25 k
A
m
where N is the total vertical load at the base of each storey of the
building corresponding to the sum of permanent and variable loads
(assessed by placing G = Q = 1), A is the total area of structural walls
of the storey and fk is the characteristic compressive strength in
vertical direction of the wall.
9.7.2(2)b
Note
For simple buildings in seismic Zones 2, 3 and 4 it is not mandatory
to carry out further analyses and safety checks. No solution to the
simple building in seismic Zone 1 is provided.
The recommended value min= 0.25 is adopted.
9.7.2(2)c
Note
The value p=25 % is adopted
9.7.2(5)
Note
The following must be true: m, max=25 %
The change in the total horizontal cross section of resistant walls by a
horizontalisation which must be between + 10 % and – 30 %. a)
Earthquake-resistant walls must have vertical continuity up to the
foundation, avoiding false walls.
10.3(2)P
Note
Checks of devices must be conducted with reference to actions for CLS
rather than LLS.
Similarly, the greatest safety with regard to instability, provided in Point
10.10(6) is guaranteed by performance of devices, ascertained through
testing procedures provided in EN 15129.
So it is always assumed that γx=1.
In addition an increased coefficient of displacement equal to 1.2 must be
provided.
Paragraph
Page
National parameter
- value or requirement -
4) Non-contradictory additional information
2.1(1)P Mean return period and 4.2.5(5)P importance factors
Mean return periods of action for usual structures are defined on the basis of probability of exceeding the relevant limit state.
The limit states are:
 Limit state of operativeness (OLS): following the earthquake the construction in its entirety, including
structural and non-structural elements and equipment related to its function, must not be damaged and
must not suffer any significant interruption of usage;
 Limit state of immediate use or damage (SLD): following the earthquake the construction in its
entirety, including structural and non-structural elements and equipment related to its function, suffers
damage which does not put its users at risk and does not significantly compromise its strength and
rigidity capacity compared with vertical and horizontal actions remaining immediately usable even if use
of part of the equipment is interrupted.
The limit states are:
 Limit state of safeguarding of life or ultimate limit state (LLS): following the earthquake the
construction sustains breaks and collapse of non-structural components and installations and significant
damage to structural components associated with a significant loss of rigidity in horizontal actions; the
construction preserves a significant part of its resistance for horizontal actions and strength and rigidity
for vertical actions is almost unchanged showing, overall, a significant safety margin against collapse
due to horizontal actions;
 Limit state of prevention of collapse (CLS): following the earthquake the construction sustains serious
breaks and collapse of non-structural components and installations and very serious damage to structural
components associated with a substantial loss of rigidity and a small loss of resistance for horizontal
actions; the construction still maintains a significant part of its rigidity and strength for vertical actions
and a narrow safety margin against collapse due to horizontal actions.
The probabilities of exceeding the reference period PVR , which relate to identifying the seismic action acting
in each of the limit states considered, are reported in the following
found..
Error! Reference source not
Table 1 (Table 3.2.I of the National Technical Standard)– Probability of exceedance PVR when the
considered limit state varies
PVR : Probability of exceedance in the reference period PR
Limit State
Limit state
Ultimate limit
states
SLO
81 %
SLD
63 %
LLS
10 %
CLS
5%
The mean return period of the action of assigned probability of exceedance is obtained with the expression:
Tvr 
i

Tl
ln 1  Pvr

i
Point 3.1.2(1) Identification of sites
As contained in Point 3.1.2 of document EN 1998-1 is included and replaced by that which is indicated
below. (From Technical Standards Point 3.2.2)
3.2.2 (NUMERATION OF NATIONAL TECHNICAL STANDARDS) CATEGORIES OF
SUBSOIL AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
Categories of subsoil
For the purposes of defining design seismic action, it is necessary to evaluate the effect of local seismic
response through specific analyses, as indicated in Article 7.11.5. In the absence of these analyses, for the
definition of seismic action reference may be made to a simplified approach, which is based on the
identification of categories of subsoil referenced (Table 3.2.II and 3.2.III).
Subject to the need for geotechnical characterisation of the terrain in significant volume 2, for the purposes of
identification of the category of subsoil, the classification is made based on the equivalent speed values Vs,30
of the propagation of speed waves (defined below) within the first 30 m of depth. For shallow foundations,
this depth relates to said enforced plan, whilst the pile foundation relates to the head of the piles. For natural
land support works, the depth refers to the head of the work. For embankment retaining walls, the depth
relates to the enforced foundation plan.
The same direct measure of speed of propagation of shear waves is strongly recommended. Should this
determination not be possible, the classification may be carried out based on the values of equivalent
numbers of attacks using the dynamic test of penetration (Standard Penetration Test) NSPT,30 (defined
below) in mainly course ground soil and of equivalent undrained resistance cu,30 (defined below) in mainly
fine grained soil.
Table 3.2.II – Categories of subsoil
Category Description
2
A
Rocky outcrops or very rigid soil characterised by values of Vs,30 greater than 800 m/s, possibly
including a layer of surface alteration, with maximum thickness equal to 3 m.
B
Soft rocks and deposits of very thick coarse-grained soil or very consistent fine-grained soil
with thickness greater than 30 m, characterised by a gradual improvement in mechanical
By significant volume of soil is intended the part of the subsoil which is directly or indirectly influenced by
construction of the article and which influences the article itself.
properties with depth and values of Vs,30 including between 360 m/s and 800 m/s (or NSPT,30 >
50 in coarse-grained soil and cu,30 > 250 kPa in fine-grained soil).
C
Soft rocks and deposits of averagely thick coarse-grained soil or moderately consistent finegrained soil with thickness greater than 30 m, characterised by a gradual improvement in
mechanical properties with depth and values of Vs,30 including between 180 m/s and 360 m/s (or
15 < NSPT,30 > 50 in coarse-grained soil and 70 < cu,30 > 250 kPa in fine-grained soil).
D
Soft rocks and deposits of poorly thickened coarse-grained soil or fine-grained soil with little
consistency, with thickness greater than 30 m, characterised by a gradual improvement in
mechanical properties with depth and values of Vs,30 including between 180 m/s and 360 m/s (or
NSPT,30 > 50 in coarse-grained soil and cu,30 > 70 kPa in fine-grained soil).
E
Types C and D subsoils with thickness not greater than 20 m, placed on the relevant
substratum (with Vs > 800 m/s).
For these five categories of subsoil, seismic actions are defined in Article 3.2.3 of these standards.
For subsoil belonging to Categories S1 and S2 indicated as follows (Table 3.2.III), it is necessary to
provide specific analysis for definition of seismic actions, particularly in cases where the presence of soil
susceptible to liquefaction and/or high-sensitivity clays may lead to phenomena of soil collapse.
Table 3.2.II – Additional categories of subsoil.
Category Description
S1
Deposits of soil characterised by values of Vs,30 less than 100 m/s (or 10 < cu,30 < 20 kPa), which
include a layer of at least 8 m of fine-grained soil low consistency soil, or which include at least
3 m of peat, or of highly organic clays.
S2
Deposits of soil susceptible to liquefaction, of sensitive clays or any other category of
subsoil not classifiable as the previous types.
The equivalent speed of shear waves Vs,30 is defined by the expression
VS,30 
30
[m/s].
hi

i 1,N VS,i
(3.2.1)
Equivalent dynamic penetration resistance NSPT,30 is defined by the expression
NSPT,30 
 hi
i 1,M
h
Ni
SPT,i
i 1,M
.
(3.2.2)
Equivalent undrained resistance cu,30 is defined by the expression
cu,30 
 hi
i 1,K
h
 ci
i 1,K u,i
.
In the previous expressions is specified with:
hi
thickness (in metres) of the x-th layer included in the first H m of depth;
speed of shear waves in the x-th layer;
VS,i
NSPT,i number of blows NSPT in the x-th layer;
c u,i undrained resistance in the x-th layer;
N
number of layers present in the first 30 m of depth;
(3.2.3)
number of layers of coarse-grained soil present in the first 30 m of depth;
number of layers of fine-grained soil present in the first 30 m of depth;
M
K
For subsoils made up of layers of coarse-grained and fine-grained sand, distributed with comparable
thicknesses in the first 30 m of depth, falling into Categories A to E, when no direct measurement
of shear wave speed is available it is possible to proceed as follows:
- to determine NSPT,30 only layers of coarse-grained sand present within the first 30 m of depth;
- to determine cu,30 only layers of fine-grained soil present in the first 30 m of depth;
- to identify the categories corresponding only to parameters NSPT,30 and cu,30 ;
- to refer the subsoil to the worst category out of those identified in the previous point.
Topographic conditions
For complete topographic conditions specific analysis of local seismic response must be arranged. For
simple superficial configurations the following classification may be adopted (Table 3.2.IV):
Table 3.2.IV – Topographic categories
Category
Characteristics of topographic areas
T1
Level ground, slopes and isolated reliefs with average inclinations i ≤ 15°
T2
Slopes with average inclinations i > 15°
T3
Reliefs with ridge with much smaller than their base and average inclination 15° ≤ i ≤
30°
T4
Reliefs with much smaller ridges than base and average inclination i ≤ 30°
The above topographic categories refer to mainly two-dimensional geometric configurations, elongated
ridges, and must be considered in the definition of seismic action if taller than 30 m.
3.2.2 Representation of seismic action
3.2.2.1(1)P General Aspects
3.2.2.2(1) Horizontal elastic response spectrum: parameters
3.2.2.3(1) Vertical elastic response spectrum: parameters
3.1.1.1
(Numeration of the National Technical Standard) Elastic response spectrum under
acceleration
The spectrum of elastic response under acceleration is expressed by the spectral shape (normalised spectrum)
referring to a conventional damping of 5 % multiplied by the value of maximum horizontal acceleration a g
on the rigid horizontal site referenced. Both the spectral shape and the value of a g vary from the mean return
period (see Point 2.1 of this Annex).
The spectra thus defined may be used for structures with fundamental period which is less than or equal to
4.0 s. For structures with higher fundamental periods the spectrum must be defined by appropriate analysis
or the seismic action must be described through accelerograms. Similarly it operates under Category S1
or S2 subsoils.
3.1.1.1.1
(Numeration of the National Technical Standard) Elastic response spectrum under
acceleration of horizontal components
Whatever the probability that the considered reference period PVR is exceeded, the elastic response spectrum
of horizontal components is defined by the following expressions:
0  T  TB
T
1 
T 
Se (T)  a g  S   Fo   
1 

 TB  Fo  TB  
TB  T  TC
Se (T)  a g  S   Fo
TC  T  TD
T 
Se (T)  a g  S   Fo   C 
 T 
(3.2.4)
T T 
Se (T)  a g  S   Fo   C 2D 
 T 
TD  T
in which T and Se are the period of vibration and horizontal spectral acceleration respectively. In
addition there is:
S
coefficient which takes into account the category of subsoil and topographic conditions through the
following relationship:
S  SS  ST
(3.2.5)
where SS is the coefficient of stratigraphic amplification (see Table 3.2.V) and ST is the coefficient of
topographic amplification (see Table 3.2.VI);

factor which alters the elastic spectrum by coefficients for conventional viscous damping  other than
5 %, through the following relationship:
  10 /(5  )  0,55
(3.2.6)
where  (expressed in percentage form) is evaluated on the basis of materials, structural type and
foundation soil;
Fo factor which quantifies the maximum spectral amplification, on the rigid horizontal site, and has a
minimum value equal to 2.2;
NOTE: regarding that provided in1998.1 spectral amplification is equal t F0 instead of 2.5;
TC period corresponding to the beginning of the line of constant speed of the spectrum, determined through
the relationship:
TC  CC  TC*
(3.2.7)
where TC* , corresponding to the beginning of the line of constant speed of the spectrum on Type A
subsoil, is assigned site by site and CC is a coefficient depending on the subsoil category (see Table
3.2.V);
TB period corresponding to the beginning of the line of the constantly accelerating spectrum, determined
through the relationship:
TB  TC / 3
(3.2.8)
TD period corresponding to the beginning of the line of constant displacement of the spectrum, expressed in
seconds through the relationship:
TD  4,0 
ag
g
 1,6
(3.2.9)
For special categories of subsoil, for determined geotechnical systems or if the grade of accuracy in
provision of amplification phenomenon is intended to be increased, the seismic actions to consider while
designing may be determined through more rigorous analysis of local seismic response. These analyses
presuppose an adequate knowledge of the geotechnical properties of the soil and, in particular, of the cyclical
stress-strain relationships, to be determined through specific investigations and tests.
In the absence of such determinations, for horizontal components of motion and for categories of
foundation subsoil defined in Article 3.2.2, the spectral shape on Category A subsoil is modified
through the stratigraphic coefficient SS , the topographic coefficient ST and coefficient CC which
changes the value of the TC period.
Stratigraphic amplification
For Category A subsoil the coefficients SS and CC are valued at 1.
For Categories B, C, D and E the coefficients SS and CC may be calculated, according to the values of FO
and TC* relating to Category A, subsoil, through the expressions provided in Table 3.2.V, where g is the
acceleration of gravity and the time is expressed in seconds.
Table 3.2.V – Expressions of SS and of CC
Subsoil
category
SS
CC
A
1.00
1.00
B
1,00  1, 40  0, 40  Fo 
ag
C
1,00  1,70  0,60  Fo 
ag
D
0,90  2, 40  1,50  Fo 
ag
E
1,00  2,00  1,10  Fo 
ag
g
g
g
g
 1, 20
1,10  (TC* )0,20
 1,50
1, 25  (TC* ) 0,33
 1,80 
1,05  (TC* ) 0,50
 1,60
1,15  (TC* )0,40
Topographic amplification
To take account of the topographic conditions and in the absence of specific analyses of local seismic
response, the values of the topographic coefficient ST are used, given in Table 3.2.VI, according to the
topographic categories defined in Article 3.2.2 and the location of the work or maintenance.
Table 3.2.VI – Values of coefficient of topographic amplification ST
Topographic category
Location of work or maintenance
ST
T1
-
1.0
T2
Corresponding to the summit of the slope
1.2
T3
Corresponding to the ridge of the relief
1.2
T4
Corresponding to the ridge of the relief
1.4
The spatial variation of the coefficient of topographic amplification is defined by a linear decrease
with the height of the slope or relief, from the summit or ridge to the base where ST assumes a
unitary value.
3.1.1.1.2
(Numeration of the National Technical Standard) Elastic response spectrum under
acceleration of vertical components
The elastic response spectrum in acceleration of the vertical component is defined by the following
expression:
0  T  TB
T
1 
T 
Sve (T)  a g  S   Fv   
1 

 TB  Fv  TB  
TB  T  TC
Sve (T)  a g  S   Fv
TC  T  TD
T 
Sve (T)  a g  S   Fv   C 
 T 
(3.2.10)
 T T 
Sve (T)  a g  S   Fv   C 2 D 
 T 
TD  T
in which T and Sve are, respectively, period of vibration and vertical spectral acceleration and Fv is the factor
which quantifies the maximum spectral amplification, in terms of-maximum horizontal acceleration of ag
soil on the rigid horizontal reference site, through the relationship:
0,5
 ag 
(3.2.11)
Fv  1,35  Fo   
 g 
Values of ag, Fo, S, η are defined in Article 3.2.3.2.1 for horizontal components; values of SS, TB, TC and TD,
excepting more accurate determinations, are those given in Table 3.2.VII.
NOTE: regarding Eurocode 1998.1 spectral amplification is equal to F v instead of 3.0 and the
parameter S is present as for the horizontal response
Table 3.2.VII – Values of parameters of the elastic response spectrum of the vertical component
Category of subsoil
SS
TB
TC
TD
A, B, C, D, E
1.0
0.05
0.15
1.0
To take account of the topographic conditions, in the absence of specific analyses, the values of the
topographic coefficient ST are used, given in Table 3.2.VI.
3.1.1.1.3
(Numeration of the National Technical Standards) Elastic response spectrum in
displacement of horizontal components
The elastic response spectrum in displacement of horizontal components SDe(T) is obtained from the
corresponding acceleration response Se(T) through the following expression:
 T 
SDe (T)  Se (T)   
 2 
2
(3.2.12)
so that the period of vibration T does not exceed the TE values indicated in Table 3.2.VIII.
Table 3.2.VIII – Values of TE and TF parameters
Subsoil category
TE
TF
A
4.5
10.0
B
5.0
10.0
C, D, E
6.0
10.0
For periods of vibration exceeding TE, the ordinates of the spectrum may be obtained from the following
formulas:
for TE < T ≤ TF:

T  TE 
SDe (T)  0,025  a g  S  TC  TD   Fo    1  Fo    
TF  TE 

(3.2.13)
SDe (T)  dg
(3.2.14)
for T > TF:
where all symbols have already been defined, with the exception of dg,, defined in the following paragraph.
3.1.1.2
(Numeration of the Normal Technical Standard) Horizontal displacement and horizontal
speed of the soil
The values of maximum horizontal displacement dg and of horizontal speed vg of the soil are given by the
following expressions:
dg  0,025  a g  S  TC  TD
vg  0,16  a g  S  TC
(3.2.15)
where ag, S, TC, TD assume the values already used in Article 3.2.3.2.1.
3.1.1.3
(Numeration of the National Technical Standard) Design spectra for limit states in force
For the limit states in force the design spectrum Sd(T) to be used, whether for horizontal or vertical
components, is the corresponding elastic spectrum, referring to the probability of exceedance in the
considered reference period PVR .
3.1.1.4
(Numeration of the National Technical Standard) Design spectra for ultimate limit states
Should the checks on the ultimate limit states not be carried out through the use of appropriate accelerograms
and up to speed dynamic analyses, for the purposes of design or checks of structures the dissipative capacity
of the structures may be taken into account through a reduction of elastic force which keeps track in a
simplified way of the inelastic dissipative capacity of the structure, it's overstrength and the increase of its
own period as a result of plasticisation. In this case, the design spectrum Sd(T) to be used, whether for
horizontal or vertical components, is the corresponding elastic spectrum referring to the mean return
period as stated in Point 2.1(1) Note1 of this national annex, with the ordinates reduced by
replacing 3.2.4 η with 1/q, where q is the structure factor.
It is assumed that Sd(T)  0.2ag.
3.1.2
(Numeration of National Technical Standard) EFFECTS OF SPACIAL VARIABILITY IN
MOTION
3.1.2.1
(Numeration of National Technical Standard) Effects of spatial variability in motion
At the points of contact of the work with the soil (foundations) the seismic motion is generally different, due
to its intrinsic propagation character, lack of homogeneity and any discontinuity present, and the different
local response of the soil due to particular stratigraphic and topographic differences.
The effects indicated above must be taken into account when significant and in any case where the subsoil
conditions are variable throughout the development of the works in such a way as to require the use of
different response spectra.
In the absence of models which are physically more accurate and suitably documented, a criterion must be
suitable to take account of the spatial variability of motion consisting in the overlapping of dynamic effects,
evaluated for example with the response spectrum, the pseudo-static effects induced by relevant
displacement.
Relative displacements of soil may be overlooked when dimensioning the raised structure when the
foundation structure is sufficiently rigid and resistant in a way which renders the planned distortions
minimal. This happens for example in buildings when the foundation plinths are joined in a suitable way.
The dynamic effects may be evaluated by adopting a single seismic action, corresponding to the category of
subsoil which induces the most severe stress. Should the work be divided into portions, each foundation on
subsoil of reasonably homogeneous characteristics, for each of these the appropriate seismic action will be
adopted.
3.1.2.2
(Numeration of the Normal Technical Standard) Absolute and relative displacement of the
soil
The value of absolute horizontal displacement of soil (dg) may be obtained using the Expression 3.2.18.
Should it be necessary to evaluate the effects of spatial variability of motion given in the preceding
paragraph, the value of relative displacement, in transversal and longitudinal direction in respect of the
greatest dimension of the work, between two points i and j characterised by the respective stratigraphic
properties of the subsoil, whose motion may be considered independent, may be estimated according to the
following expression:
dij max  1.25 d gi2  d gj2
[3.2.18]
where d gi and d gj are the maximum displacement of the soil to bearings i and j calculated with reference to
the characteristics of local subsoil. Motion of two points of soil may be considered independent for points
placed at a considerable distance, whose value depends on the type of subsoil. Motion is also made
independent from the presence of strong orthographic variability between points.
In the absence of strong orthographic discontinuity, the displacement between points at x distance from each
other, may be evaluated with the expression:
dij ( x)  dij 0  (dij max  dij 0 ) 1  e1.25( x / vs ) 


0.7
[3.2.19]
where d ij 0 is the displacement between two points at a short distance from each other and is given by the
expression:
dij 0 ( x)  1.25 d gi  d gj
[3.2.20]
vs is the propagation velocity of shear waves in m/s.
For foundations placed in different subsoil, at a distance of less than 20 m, displacement is represented by
d ij 0 .
For foundations placed in subsoil of the same type, at a distance of less of 20 m, the relative displacement of
soil may be estimated, instead of with the Expression 3.2.19, with the linear expression:
dij ( x) 
dij max
dij ( x) 
dij max
vs
2.3  x for subsoil D
[3.2.21]
vs
 3  x for subsoil other than D
3.2.1(5) (Numeration ofEN1998.1) Prescriptions for zones where seismicity is Very Low
(In accordance with the terms given in Point 7 of the National Regulation). Constructions to be built on sites
in Zone 4 may be designed and checked by applying rules which are only valid for structures which are not
subject to seismic action, under the conditions set out below:
- horizontal diaphragms must respect the terms indicated below:
- structural elements must respect limitations regarding geometry and quantities of reinforcement, relating to
CD "M"; for masonry constructions, where no ductility classes are provided, the terms in Points 9.2, 9.3,
9.5.1 of this standard UNI-EN 1998-1 must be respected.
- stresses must be evaluated considering the combination of actions defined for seismic action and applying,
in two orthogonal directions; the system of horizontal static forces where Sd(T1) = 0.07 g is assumed for all
types.
The relevant safety checks must be carried out, independently in both directions, on the ultimate limit state.
Checks on the limit state in force are not required.
Horizontal elements may be considered as infinitely rigid in their plane, provided they are made of
reinforced cement, or concrete and masonry with slabs in reinforced concrete of at least 40 mm
thickness, or in mixed structures with reinforced cement slabs of at least 50 mm of thickness
connected by shear connectors suitably dimensioned to structural elements made of steel or timber
and provided that the apertures do not significantly reduce rigidity.
The force to apply to each level of construction is given by the following expression:
Fi=FhziWi/j zjWj
where:
Fh=W 0.07g
Fi is the force to be applied to the x-th mass;
Wi and Wj are the weights, respectively, of mass i and mass j;
zi and zj are the reference dimensions, with regard to the foundation plan, of masses i and j;
Sd(T1) is the ordinate of the response spectrum defined in the design;
W is the total weight of the building;
is a coefficient equal to 0.85 if the building has at least three horizontal elements and if T1 < 2TC,
equal to 1.0 in all other cases;
g is the acceleration of gravity.
For buildings, if the lateral rigidity and masses are distributed symmetrically on the plane, the
accidental torsional effects as stated in Article 7.2.6 may be considered by amplifying the stresses
on every resistant element, calculated with the distribution provided by the expression above,
through the factor () resulting from the following expression:
1 0.6 x / Le
where:
x is the distance of the vertical resistant element from the geometric centre of gravity in the plan,
measured
perpendicular to the direction of seismic action considered;
Le is the distance between the two furthest resistant elements, measured in the same way.
4.2.5(5)P (Numeration of EN1998.1) Importance factors γI
Constructions are then subdivided into classes of used defined as:

Class I: Constructions where people are only occasionally present, agricultural buildings.

Class II: Constructions used for normal levels of people, without contents which are a danger to the
environment and without essential public and social functions. Industries with activities which are not
dangerous. Bridges, infrastructure, road and rail networks whose interruption may result in emergency
situations. Dams whose collapse will not have significant consequences.

Class III: Constructions used by significant amounts of people. Industries with activities which are a
danger to the environment. Bridges, infrastructure, road and rail networks whose interruption may result
in emergency situations. Dams whose collapse would have significant consequences.

Class IV: Constructions with important public or strategic functions, also with reference to the
management of Civil Protection in case of calamity. Industries with activities which are particularly
harmful for the environment. Bridges and road and rail networks of critical importance for the
maintenance of communication channels, particularly after a seismic event, and whose collapse could
lead to a particularly high number of victims. Dams connected to functioning of aqueducts and electrical
plants.
For attribution of a building to Classes III and IV it must also take account of the regional determinations on
the matter.
5.5.2.3 (Numeration of EN1998.1) Beam-Column Joints
It is noted that values As1 and As2 present in the formulas indicate the stressed reinforcements of the beams
converging in the joint
5.11.1.3.2 ( Numeration of EN1998.1) Slip ductility
Please note that dissipation by friction is not permitted
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1998-2:2006
Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
Part 2: Bridges
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1998-2:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for design of bridges for seismic actions
National annex
UNI-EN-1998-2 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for seismic resistance
Part 2: Bridges
EN-1998-2 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2 – Bridges
1)
2)
Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1998-2, has been
approved by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010.
Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decision on national parameters which
shall be prescribed in UNI-EN1998-2 relating to paragraphs:
- 1.1.1(8)
- 2.1(3)P
- 2.1(4)P
- 2.1(6)P
- 2.2.2(5)
- 2.3.5.3(1)
- 2.3.7(1) (2 positions)
- 3.2.2.3(1)P
- 3.3(1)P
- 3.3(3)
- 3.3(6) (2 positions)
- 4.1.2(4)P
- 4.1.8(2)
- 5.3(4)
- 5.4(1)
- 5.6.2(2)P b
- 5.6.3.3(1)P b
- 6.2.1.4(1)P
- 6.5.1(1)P
- 6.6.2.3(3)
- 6.6.3.2(1)P
- 6.7.3(7)
- 7.4.1(1)P
- 7.6.2(1)P
- 7.6.2(5)
- 7.7.1(2)
- J.1(2)
- J.2.(1)
and to national information regarding use of normative Annexes A, B, C, D, E, F, H,
JJ and K and in informative annexes G and J for bridges in seismic zones.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by
the use of UNI-EN-1998-2 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be considered when using all normative documents which make
explicit reference to UNI-EN-1998–2 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for
seismic resistance – Part 2 – Bridges
3)
National decisions
Paragraph
Reference
National parameter - value or requirement -
- 1.1.1(8)
Use of
information
annexes
Annexes A, J, JJ, K may not be used, excepting Point J(1). Informative Annexes
B, C, D, E, F, H retain an informative nature.
- 2.1 (3)P
Note 1
Mean return periods of action for usual structures are defined on the basis of
probability of exceedance of the relevant limit state.
The serviceability limit states are:

Limit state of operativeness (OLS): following the earthquake the
construction in its entirety, including structural and non-structural elements
and equipment related to its function, must not be damaged and must not
suffer any significant interruption of usage;

Limit state of immediate use or damage (DLS): following the earthquake
the construction in its entirety, including structural and non-structural
elements and equipment related to its function, suffers damage which does
not put its users at risk and does not significantly compromise its strength
and rigidity capacity towards vertical and horizontal actions remaining
immediately usable even if use of part of the equipment is interrupted.
The ultimate limit states are:

Limit state of safeguarding of life (LLS): following the earthquake the
construction sustains breaks and collapse of non-structural components and
installations and significant damage to structural components associated
with a significant loss of rigidity in horizontal actions; the building
preserves part of the strength and rigidity for horizontal actions and a safety
margin against collapse due to horizontal seismic actions;

Limit state of prevention of collapse (CLS): following the earthquake the
construction sustains serious breaks and collapse of non-structural
components and installations and very serious damage to structural
components; the construction still maintains a significant safety margin for
vertical actions and a narrow safety margin against collapse due to
horizontal actions;
The rated life of the different types of work is given in Table I and must be
clarified in the design documents.
Table I - Rated life VN for different types of work
TYPE
1
2
3
DESCRIPTION
Temporary structures – Provisional works Structures in construction phase(1)
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and
dams, of small dimensions or normal
importance
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and
dams, of large dimensions, or of strategic
importance
Rated life VN
(in years)
 10
≥ 50
≥ 100
(1) Seismic
checks of provisional works or structures in construction phase may be omitted
when the foreseen design duration is less than 2 years
Bridges are classified in four classes of importance, defined in the Note to the
following Point 2.1.(4) P.
Seismic actions are evaluated in relation to a reference period V R which is
obtained, for each type of construction, for each type of building, by multiplying
the rated life VN by the coefficient of use CU:
VR=VNCU
The value of the coefficient of use CU is defined, to vary the class of use, as
shown in Table II.
Table II – Values of coefficient of use CU
CLASS OF USE
II.
III.
IV.
COEFFICIENT CU
1.0
1.5
2.0
Should VR ≤ 35 years, VR = 35 years is still to be used.
The probabilities of exceeding the reference period P VR, which relate to
identifying the seismic action acting in each of the limit states considered, are
reported in Table III.
Table III – Probability of exceeding PVR when the considered limit state changes
PVR: Probability of exceeding the reference period
Limit States
VR
Serviceability
SLO
81 %
limit states
SLD
63 %
Ultimate limit
LLS
10 %
states
CLS
5%
Therefore the return periods of the design seismic action are those indicated in
the following table:
Bridge type
Class
Reference
period
2
2
2
3
3
3
II.
III.
IV.
II.
III.
IV.
50
75
100
100
150
200
Return period
ULS
SLD
(T NCR)
(T DCR)
475
50
711
75
950
100
950
100
1 423
150
1 898
200
Should protection of serviceability limit states be of primary importance the
values of pvr provided in the table must be reduced in relation to the protection
grade you wish to reach.
- 2.1(4)P
Note
The bridges are classified in classes of use II, III and IV, defined as follows:

Class II: Bridges and road and rail infrastructure not in use Class III or in
use Class IV, rail networks whose interruption would not create an
emergency situation.

Class III: Non-urban road networks which do not fall under Class IV.
Bridges and rail networks whose interruption may result in emergency
situations.

Class IV: Type A or B road networks as stated in Ministerial Decree
No 6792 of 5 November 2001, "Functional and geometric standards for
road construction" and type C networks, when belonging to connecting
routes between regional towns also not served by type A or B roads.
Bridges and railway networks of critical importance for maintenance of
communication channels, particularly after a seismic event.
- 2.1(6)
Note
Importance coefficients as given in EN1998.2, where seismic action is
multiplied, are assumed to be equal to 1. In this national annex the importance
of bridges is directly taken into account in the definition of seismic action
changing the return period of the action itself.
- 2.2.2(5)
Note
(5) may not be applied.
- 2.3.5.3(1)
Note 2
For determination of width of the plastic join Lp, in the absence of more accurate
determinations, the recommended expression given in Annex E is adopted.
- 2.3.6.3(5)
Note 1
The value of the permitted limits for non-critical structural components must be
greater than the sum of displacement determined by the seismic action relative
to the damage limit state and displacement due to 50 % of the design thermic
variation. The values adopted are therefore pE=1.0 and pT=0.5.
In Class III and IV bridges, the viability of the bridge must be guaranteed.
- 2.3.7(1)
Note 1
By very low seismic zones is meant Zone 4.
- 2.3.7(1)
Note 2
No specific simplified methods for bridges are provided. However, the check
may be conducted in the elastic range for bridges of any category and in all
zones adopting a structure factor q=1
- 3.2.2.3(1)P
Note
The recommended procedure is not adopted. For the definition of active fault
please refer, when necessary, to specific evaluations.
- 3.3(1)P
Note
The spatial variability of motion must be considered together with the terms
provided in Point 4) Additional information in the national annex of EN1998-1.
Therefore information is not provided on the value of Llim, which does not
interfere with the analysis
- 3.3(3)
The simplified method as stated in Points 3.3(4) and 3.3(7) may not be applied.
Instead the terms indicated in the national annex of EN1998-1 are applied in
relation to the preceding Point 3.3(1)P
- 3.3(4)
- 3.3(5)
-3.3 (6)
-3.3.(7)P
- 4.1.2(4)P
All the text
The method described is not applied.
Note
For road bridges the coefficient 2,1 is generally zero. For bridges with heavy
traffic, as defined in the note, or when explicitly requested, the recommended
value2,1 is adopted as the coefficient 2,1=0.2.
For railway bridges 2,1=0.2 is always adopted.
- 4.1.8(2)P
Note
The recommended value 0= 2.0 is adopted
- 5.3(4)
Note
For factors of overstrength 0 the following expression is adopted
0=0.7+0.2q≥1.0,
in which q is the value of the structure factor used in the calculation.
In the case of sections of reinforced concrete with confinement reinforcement,
when the ratio k between the axial force and compressive strength of the
section of concrete exceeds 0.1, the factor of overstrength is multiplied by
1+2(k-0.1)2.
For strains deriving from sliding or elastomeric bearings a factor of overstrength
1.30 is used.
- 5.4(1)
Note
The increase in the bending moment of the plastic hinge due to the effects of the
II order is given by:
M=qdEdNEd if T1≥TC
M=[1+(q-1)TC/T1]dEdNEd if T1<TC
- 5.6.2(2)P b
Note
For the partial coefficient Bd1 the recommended value Bd1=1.25 is adopted.
- 5.6.3.3(1)P b
Note
For calculation of the partial coefficient Bd procedure No 1 is adopted, so that
the recommended value is 1≤Bd=Bd1+1-(qVEd/VC,0) ≤Bd1
- 6.2.1.4(1)P
Note
As recommended, the use of all types of confinement reinforcement is accepted.
- 6.5.1(1)P
Note
As recommended, no rules for simplified checks are provided.
- 6.6.2.3(3)
Note
No specific rules are provided.
- 6.6.3.2(1)P
Note
To prevent the deck detaching from the supports anti-lift vertical restraints must
be used when the design seismic action exceeds a p H.percentage of the pressing
reaction, due to permanent loads, equal to
- pH = 90 % in bridges with ductile behaviour;
- pH = 65 % in bridges with limited ductile behaviour.
- 6.7.3(7)
Note
The recommended limit displacement values d lim given in the table are adopted,
limited to importance Classes II, III and IV.
Class of use
II.
III.
IV.
dlim [mm]
60
45
30
- 7.4.1(1)P
Note
The design spectrum must be considered in compliance with the terms provided
in National Annex EN1998-1.
- 7.6.2(1)P
Note
Checks of devices must be conducted with reference to actions for CLS rather
than LLS. Similarly, the greatest safety with regard to instability, provided in
Point 10.10(6) is guaranteed by performance of devices, ascertained through
testing procedures provided in EN 15129. So it is always assumed that γ IS=1. In
addition for sliding isolators an increased coefficient of displacement equal to
1.2 must be provided
- 7.6.2(5)
Note
For the partial coefficient m the value m=1.00 is always adopted
- 7.7.1(2)
Note
The following values are adopted:
δW =0 δd =0
- J.1(2)
Note
The temperature values Tmin,b must be defined case by case according to the type
of deck and location of the site.
The terms indicated in Point 1.1.1(8) of this national annex are also valid.
- J.2(1)
Note 2
The recommended values of factors  are adopted and the base line in
informative Annex JJ.
The terms indicated in Point 1.1.1(8) of this national annex are also valid.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1998-3:2005
Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
Part 3: Assessment and fitting of
buildings
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1998-3:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for assessment and retrofitting of existing
buildings for seismic action
National Annex
UNI-EN-1998-3 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for seismic resistance.
Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings
EN-1998-3 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistance
Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings
1) Background
This national annex contains the national parameters in UNI-EN-1998-3.
Further to the parameters described in Paragraph 3, more detail on the same is provided in Paragraph 4:
"observations", which contains, amongst other things, requirements relating to the text of the National
Legislation, given in full here. Paragraph 4 therefore indicates the numeration of national parameters as
well as the numeration of the text of the National Technical Legislation referenced.
Interventions to existing structures are classified as adaptation, improvement, repair or local interventions
as defined in Paragraph 8.4, Classification of interventions in the National Technical Regulations. The
application of UNI-EN-1998-3 may not abstract from the terms the National Technical Regulations
specify for each type of intervention.
Adaptation and improvement interventions must undergo static tests.
For interventions aimed at reducing seismic vulnerability on assets linked with cultural heritage, an
appropriate reference are the "Guidelines for evaluation and reduction of seismic risk to cultural
heritage", aligned with the new Technical Standards for Constructions as stated in the Ministerial
Decree of 14 January 2008 approved by the High Council of Public Works on the session of
23 July 2010. These guidelines are adoptable for constructions of historical and artistic value, even if
unlisted.
The Annex has been approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1998-3, relating to the following paragraphs:
1. 1.1(4) Informative Annexes A, B and C
2. 2.1(2)P Number of limit states to consider
3. 2.1(3)P Return period of seismic actions under which it is recommended that the limit states are not
exceeded
4. 2.2.1(7)P Partial coefficients for materials
5. 3.3.1 (4) Confidence coefficients
6. 3.4.4(1) Inspection and testing levels
7. 4.4.2(1)P Maximum value of ratio ρmax/ ρmin
8. 4.4.4.5(2) Additional non-contradictory information on static non-linear analysis procedures which
may capture the effects of higher modes
9. A.4.4.2(5) Partial coefficient for FRP delamination
10. A.4.4.2(9) Partial coefficient of FRP.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the use of UNI-EN1998-3 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to
in UNI-EN1998-3.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
Page
National parameter
- value or requirement -
ANNEX A REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
(informative)
Informative Annex A for reinforced concrete structures is replaced with
the terms given in Points C8A.1.B — Steel or reinforced concrete
constructions: necessary data for evaluation, C8.7.2 — Reinforced cement
or steel constructions, C8A.6. — Evaluation of rotations of collapse of
elements of reinforced concrete and steel structures, and C8A.7. —
Capacity models for reinforcement of reinforced concrete elements, from
Ministerial Circular N617 of 2 February 2009 and from Guidelines for
Design, Execution and Intervention Testing of Reinforcement of
reinforced concrete and prestressed reinforced concrete structures and
buildings through FRP by the High Council of Public Works.
1.1(4)
5
ANNEX B STEEL AND COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
(informative)
Annex B remains informative
ANNEX C MASONRY BUILDINGS
(informative)
Informative Annex C for masonry constructions is replaced with the
terms given in Points C8.7.1 — Masonry constructions, C8A.3 —
Building aggregates, C8A.4 — Analysis of local collapse mechanisms in
pre-existing masonry buildings, and C8A.5 — Criteria for consolidation
interventions on masonry buildings in Ministerial Circular N617 of
2 February 2009.
9
The ultimate limit states (ULS) and serviceability limit states (SLS) are
defined in the following Paragraph 4). Evaluation of safety and design of
interventions on existing constructions may be carried out with reference
to the usual ULS; should the check also be made with regard to SLS the
relative levels of service may be established by the Designer in concert
with the Commissioner.
ULS checks may be carried out with regard to the condition of
safeguarding of human life (LLS) or, alternatively, for reinforced concrete
and steel constructions, to conditions of collapse (CLS).
2.1(3)P
9
The ultimate limit states (ULS) and serviceability limit states (SLS) are
defined in the following Paragraph 4). For return periods referring to
different limit states to be checked the values indicated in Table II of the
following Paragraph 4) are assumed.
2.2.1(7)P
10
2.1(2)P
The values defined in national Annex EN-1998-1 are considered
5.2.4(1), (3) The values γM are adopted for fundamental load conditions
contained in 1992 -1-1 for checks on the ULS
6.1.3(1) For checks on the ultimate limit states, the partial safety factor of
steel strength is equal to γs = 1.05
7.1.3(1), (3) For conglomerate and reinforcement for the relevant
reinforced concrete, the values γM are adopted for the fundamental load
conditions contained in 1992-1-1 for ULS checks γc = 1.50, γs = 1.15
For parts made of structural metal the value γM is adopted for the ULS
checks contained in 1993 -1-1: γs = 1.05
9.6(3) The partial safety coefficient of the masonry m for the safety check
on constructions may not be less than 2.
For the conglomerate and reinforced steel used in reinforced and confined
masonry the values γM are adopted for the fundamental load conditions
contained in 1992-1-1 for ULS checks: γc = 1.50, γs = 1.15
The values are defined by the designer. Reference values are indicated in
Ministerial Circular N617 of 2 February 2009 where they are called
Confidence Factors.
3.3.1(4)
12
3.4.4(1)
15
The criteria, mode and quantity must be defined by the designer.
Reference indications are given in Ministerial Circular N617 of
2 February 2009.
4.4.2(1)P
17
the suggested value is adopted
4.4.4.5(2)
18
The national annex does not provide references to additional noncontradictory information.
A.4.4.2(5)
36
For the partial delamination coefficient γfd for FRP, the terms are adopted
which are indicated in the Guidelines for Design, Execution and
Intervention Testing of Reinforcement of reinforced concrete and
prestressed reinforced concrete structures and buildings through FRP by
the High Council of Public Works
A.4.4.2(9)
37
No additional information is to be provided
4) 4)
Non-contradictory additional information
In the following, additional information is given on the parameters in the annex. In the sub-paragraph title
there is a brief description of the meaning of the parameter itself. Within the paragraph are given the points
in the National Construction Standards NTC 2008 G.U. 2008-1-14 with the relevant numbering. The tables
are numbered according to this annex and in the caption is written the number that corresponds to the NTC
'08.
2.1(2)P definition of limit states and limit states which must be checked for evaluation of existing
structures and local masonry checks
3.2.1 LIMIT STATES AND RELATIVE PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
Against seismic actions the limit states, whether serviceability or ultimate, are identified by referring to the
performance of the structure as a whole, including structural and non-structural elements, and equipment.
The serviceability limit states are:
- Operative Limit State (OLS): following the earthquake the construction in its entirety, including structural
and non-structural elements and equipment related to its function, must not be damaged and must not suffer
any significant interruption of usage;
- Damage Limit State (DLS): following the earthquake the construction in its entirety, including structural
and non-structural elements and equipment related to its function, suffers damage which does not put its
users at risk and does not significantly compromise its strength and rigidity capacity towards vertical and
horizontal actions remaining immediately usable even if use of part of the equipment is interrupted.
The ultimate limit states are:
- Limit state of safeguarding of life (LLS): following the earthquake the construction sustains breaks and
collapse of non-structural components and installations and significant damage to structural components
associated with a significant loss of rigidity in horizontal actions; the building preserves part of the strength
and rigidity for horizontal actions and a safety margin against collapse due to horizontal seismic actions;
- Collapse prevention Limit State (CLS): following the earthquake the construction sustains serious breaks
and collapse of non-structural components and installations and very serious damage to structural
components; the construction still maintains a significant safety margin for vertical actions and a narrow
safety margin against collapse due to horizontal actions.
8.3 SAFETY EVALUATION
Evaluation of safety and design of interventions on existing constructions may be carried out with reference
to the usual ULS; should the check also be made with regard to SLS the relative levels of service may be
established by the Designer in concert with the Commissioner.
ULS Verifications may be carried out with regard to the condition of safeguarding of human life (LLS) or,
alternatively to conditions of collapse (CSL).
Existing constructions must undergo a safety evaluation in any of the following situations :
- noticeable reduction in strength capacity and/or deformation of the structure or of any of its parts due to
environmental actions (earthquake, wind, snow and temperature), significant deterioration and decay of the
mechanical characteristics of the materials, accidental actions (shocks, fires, explosions), abnormal
functioning situations and use, significant deformation caused by subsidence;
- proven serious errors in design or construction;
- change in intended use of the building or part of the same, with significant variation in variable loads
and/or classes of use of the building;
- undeclared structural interventions, when these interact, even if only in part, with elements with structural
function and which reduce capacity or change rigidity in a consistent way.
Should the circumstances stated in the previous points regard limited portions of the building, the safety
evaluation may be limited to the elements involved and to those which interact with them, bearing in mind
their function in the structure as a whole.
The safety evaluation must be allowed to establish if:
- use of the building may continue without interventions;
- its use must be changed (declassifying, change in use and/or imposition of limitations and/or precautions in
use);
- it is necessary to proceed with increasing or re-establishing the load bearing capacity.
The safety evaluation must be carried out every time structural interventions are made as stated in Point 8.4,
and must determine the safety level before and after the intervention.
The Designer must explain, in a report, the existing safety levels or those achieved with the intervention and
any consequent limitations to be placed on use of the building.
8.7.1 MASONRY CONSTRUCTIONS
In existing masonry constructions subject to seismic actions, particularly in buildings, local mechanisms and
overall mechanisms may be shown.
Local mechanisms involve single wall panels or wider portions of the construction, and are favoured by the
absence or poorness of joints between walls and horizontal elements and in wall intersections. Global
mechanisms are those which involve the entire construction and engage the wall panels mainly on their
plane.
The safety of the construction must be evaluated against both types of mechanism.
For seismic analysis of local mechanisms use may be made of analysis methods of balance limit of masonry
structures, bearing in mind, even if in approximate form, the compressive strength, wall weaving, quality of
connection between wall panels, the presence of chains and tie rods. With these methods it is possible to
evaluate seismic capacity in terms of resistance (applying an appropriate structure factor) or in displacement
(determining the progress of the horizontal action which the structure is gradually able to support as the
mechanism evolves).
Global seismic analysis must consider, as much as possible, the actual structural system of the construction,
with particular attention to the rigidity and strength of the floors, and to the efficacy of the joints in the
structural elements. When masonry is irregular, the shear strength calculated for actions in the plane of a
masonry panel may be calculated using alternative formulations compared to those adopted for new works,
provided they are of proven validity.
In the presence of buildings which are aggregate, contiguous, in contact or interconnected with adjacent
buildings, the method of checking general use for newly constructed buildings is not appropriate. In the
analysis of a building making up part of an aggregate construction, possible interactions deriving from
structural contiguity with adjacent buildings must be taken into account. For this purpose the structural unit
(SU) studied must be identified, highlighting the actions on it which may result from contiguous structural
units. The SU must have continuity from sky to ground as regards the flow of vertical loads and, as a rule,
will be closed-off or from open spaces, or structural joints, or structurally contiguous buildings but different
buildings, at least typologically. Further to the terms normally provided for non-aggregate buildings, the
effects must be evaluated of: non-contrast forces caused by horizontal elements staggered in height on walls
in common with adjacent SUs, local mechanisms deriving from non-linear prospects, adjacent SUs, and
different heights.
Global analysis of a single structural unit often assumes a conventional meaning and as such may use
simplified methodology. The check on an SU equipped with sufficiently rigid floors may be conducted, even
for buildings with more than two storeys, through non-linear static analysis, by separately analysing and
checking each inter-storey of the building, and omitting the variation in axial force in core walls due to the
effect of seismic action. With the exclusion of structural corner or head units, as for parts of the building
which are not attached or belonging on any side to other structural units, the analysis may also be carried out
omitting torsional effects, on the basis that the floors may only move in the direction of the seismic action.
However, as regards corner or head SUs the use of simplified analyses is accepted, providing they take
account of possible torsional effects and of additional action transferred from the adjacent SUs applying
appropriate increased coefficients of horizontal actions.
Should the floors of the building be flexible, analysis of the single walls or of coplanar wall networks may be
carried out, each wall being subject to their own vertical loads and to the corresponding actions of an
earthquake in parallel direction to the wall.
2.1(3)P definition of return periods referring to different limit states to be checked
C8.3 SAFETY EVALUATION
Safety evaluation means a quantitative procedure aimed at:
- establishing if an existing structure is capable or not of resisting combinations of design
actions contained in the National Construction Standards (NTC), or
- to determine the total extent of actions, considered in design combinations provided, that the structure is
able to sustain with the required NTC safety margins, defined by the partial safety coefficients on actions and
materials.
The NTC provide tools for evaluation of specific constructions and the results may not be extended to
different constructions, even those of the same type. When carrying out the evaluation it will be appropriate
to take account of the information, where available, coming from the test of behaviour of similar
constructions when undergoing actions of a similar type to those being tested. This is valid particularly when
carrying out safety checks with regard to seismic actions.
The safety requirements defined in Section 8 make reference to the damaged state of the structure, through
the limit states defined in Article 2.2 of the NTC, for combinations of non-seismic load (Ultimate limit state
and Serviceability limit state) and in Article 3.2.1 of the NTC, for load combinations including earthquake
(Collapse limit state, Safeguarding of life limit state and Serviceability limit state, in turn divided into
Damage limit state and Operative limit state).
This Circular provides criteria for checks of said limit States.
The collapse limit State is considered only for reinforced concrete or steel structures. The check against this
limit State may be carried out instead of that of the safeguarding life limit State.
For constructions subject to seismic action the terms given in Article 2.4 of NTC are applied, relating to
rated life (VN), class of use and reference period for seismic action (VR). For ease of reading, in Table C8.1
may be found the rated life values provided by the standard and corresponding reference periods of seismic
action for constructions with different use classes CU.
In Table C8.2 the return periods of seismic action to be considered for checks of different limit States are
given. Operative limit state (OLS), damage limit state (SLD), safeguarding of life limit state (LLS) and
collapse limit state (CLS). In the same table are also the probabilities of exceeding the seismic action
referring to a prescribed reference period equal to 50 years. This probability may be useful for evaluating
seismic action of interest for different Limit states and Use classes, having the safety data to refer to for a
period of 50 years.
Table I (Table C8.1 Reference period of seismic action V R = VN CU (years))
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
Temporary works – Provisional works — Structures in construction
phase
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and dams of small dimensions
or normal importance
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and dams of large dimensions
Class of use
Coeff. Cu
VN
I
0.70
10
35
50
100
II
1.00
III
1.50
IV
2.00
35
35
35
35
50
75
100
70
100
150
200
VR
or of strategic importance
Table II (Table C8.2 Return period of seismic action (TR) for different limit states and probability it is exceeded (P VR) in the
reference period (VR) and probability of the seismic action being exceeded (PT=50) referring to a prescribed reference period of VR =
50 years)
21
35
332
21
35
332
21
35
332
21
35
332
91 %
76 %
14 %
CLS
682
682
682
682
7.1 %
91 %
76 %
14 %
7.1 %
I
II
I
II
0.05
CLASS OF USE
PVR
OLS
0.81
DLS
0.63
LLS
0.1
CLS
0.05
CLASS OF USE
PVR
OLS
0.81
DLS
0.63
LLS
0.1
CLS
0.05
I
WORKS with VN=10
III
IV
CLASS OF USE
PVR
OLS
0.81
DLS
0.63
LLS
0.1
II
I
II
TR
WORKS with VN=50
III
IV
TR
21
35
332
682
30
50
475
975
I
II
60
100
949
1 950
IV
91 %
76 %
14 %
91 %
76 %
14 %
7.1 %
7.1 %
III
IV
67 %
48 %
7%
3.4 %
56 %
39 %
5%
2.5 %
III
IV
43 %
28 %
3.5 %
1.7 %
34 %
22 %
2.6 %
1.3 %
PT=50
45
75
712
1 462
60
100
949
1 950
91 %
76 %
14 %
7.1 %
81 %
63 %
10 %
5.0 %
I
II
WORKS with VN=100
III
IV
TR
42
70
664
1 365
III
PT=50
PT=50
90
150
1 424
2 475
120
200
1 898
2 475
69 %
51 %
7.3 %
3.6 %
56 %
39 %
5.1 %
2.5 %
Note: the terms in Annex A of the NTC in relation to the assumption of return periods are reproduced here in full: “Given the
reference range currently available, the only values considered will be those of TR comprising in the range 30 years ≤ TR ≤ 2 475
years; if TR < 30 years TR =30 years will be assumed, if TR > 2 475 years TR = 2 475 years will be assumed. Seismic actions referring
to higher TR may be considered as special works”.
3.3.1(4) definition of confidence factors and 3.4.4(1) Levels of inspection and testing
The terms of the Technical Standards for Construction (NTC-2008) reproduced here:
8.5.4 LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE AND CONFIDENCE FACTORS
On the basis of the in-depth analyses conducted in the learning phases given above, "knowledge levels" will
be identified of the different parameters involved in the model (geometry, construction details and materials),
and the correlating confidence factors will be defined, to be used as further partial safety coefficients which
take account of the knowledge gaps in the model's parameters.
C8.5.4 LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE AND CONFIDENCE FACTORS
The problem of knowledge of the structure and of introduction to confidence factors has been discussed in
C8.2. A guide to the estimation of confidence factors to be used, in relation to knowledge levels reached, is
given in Annex C8A. For constructions of historical and artistic value the confidence factors
contained in "Guidelines for evaluation and reduction of seismic risk to cultural heritage" may be
adopted, using them as illustrated.
C8A.1.A MASONRY CONSTRUCTIONS: NECESSARY DATA AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE
KNOWLEDGE LEVEL
Knowledge of the masonry construction undergoing verifications is of fundamental importance for the
purposes of a proper analysis, and may be achieved with different levels of in-depth analysis, according to
the accuracy of survey operations, historical analysis and trial investigations. These operations will be the
purpose of the proposed objectives and will involve all or part of the construction, according to the breadth
and relevance of the anticipated intervention.
C8A.1.A.1 Masonry constructions: geometry
Knowledge of the structural geometry of existing masonry buildings comes as a rule from survey operations.
These operations include the survey, floor by floor, of all masonry elements, including any recesses, cavities,
chimneys, survey of the vault (thickness and profile), the floors and roof (type and warping), of the stairs
(structural type), identification of loads imposed on each wall element and the type of foundations. The
representation of results of the survey is done in plan, elevation and sections.
Also surveyed and represented is any map cracking, possibly classifying each crack according to the type of
mechanism associated (detachment, rotation, rolling, displacement outside of the plan, etc.), and strain
(clearly out of plumb, bulges, depressions in the vaults, etc.). The aim is to enable, in the next diagnostic
phase, the identification of the origin and possible developments of the structural problems of the building.
C8A.1.A.2 Masonry constructions: construction details
The construction details to be examined relate to the following elements:
a) quality of the connection between vertical walls;
b) quality of the connection between horizontal elements and walls and any presence of floor kerbs or other
connecting devices;
c) existence of structurally efficient lintels above the openings;
d) presence of structurally efficient elements aimed at eliminating any forces present;
e) presence of elements, even non-structural, with increased vulnerability;
f) type of masonry (on one surface, on two or more surfaces, with or without rubble masonry, with or
without transversal joints, etc.) and its construction characteristics (made of brick or stone, regular, irregular,
etc.).
The following are separated:
- Limited on-site checks: they are based on visual surveys covering, in general, removal of plaster and tests
on masonry which permit both characteristics of the surface and the wall thickness to be examined, and of
clamping between the orthogonal wall and the floors into the walls. The construction details as stated in
Points a) and b) may also be evaluated on the basis of an appropriate knowledge of the types of floors and
masonry. In the absence of a direct survey, or of sufficiently reliable data, it is appropriate to assume, in the
next modelling phase, analysis and checks, the most precautionary hypotheses.
- Extensive and exhaustive on-site checks: they are based on visual surveys covering, in general, tests on
masonry which permit both characteristics of the surface and the wall thickness to be examined, and of
clamping between the orthogonal wall and the floors into the walls. The examination of the elements as
stated in Points a) to f) is appropriate if it is systematically extended to the entire building.
C8A.1.A.3 Masonry constructions: properties of materials
Particular attention is reserved for the evaluation of the quality of masonry, with reference to the aspects
linked to the respect or not of the "highest standard".
The examination of the quality of masonry and any trial evaluation of the mechanical characteristics has as
its main aim that of establishing if the masonry examined is capable of a structural behaviour fit to support
static and dynamic actions foreseen for the building in question, taking into account the soil categories,
properly identified, according to the terms indicated in Article 3.2.2 of the NTC.
Of particular importance is the presence or lack of transversal connecting elements (e.g. bond stones), the
shape, type and dimension of the elements, the texture, horizontal nature of the layout, the regular staggering
of joints, the quality and consistency of the mortar. Also significant is the characterisation of mortar (type of
binder, type of aggregate, binder/aggregate ratio, level of carbonation), and of stones and/or bricks
(mechanical and physical characteristics) through trials. Mortar and stone are sampled on site, taking care to
sample the mortar inside (at least 5–6 cm deep in the thickness of the masonry).
The following are separated:
- Limited on-site investigations: they serve to complete the information on properties of material obtained
from the literature, or from the rules in force at the time of construction, and to identify the type of masonry
(the most common types are given in Table C8A.2.1).
They are based on visual examinations of the area of masonry. These visual exams are conducted after the
removal of an area of plaster of around 1 m x 1 m, for the purpose of identifying the shape and dimension of
the blocks it is made from, preferably performed in the corners, with the aim of also checking the toothing
between the masonry walls. The compactness of the mortar is also to be evaluated in an approximate
manner. It is also important to evaluate the capacity of the wall elements to assume a monolithic behaviour
in the presence of actions, taking account of the quality of the internal and transverse connection through
localised tests, which involve the masonry thickness.
- Extended on-site investigations: the investigations given in the previous point are carried out in an extended
and systematic manner, with surface and internal tests for any type of masonry present. Tests with double
flat jacks and mortar characterisation tests (type of binder, type of aggregate, binder/aggregate ratio, etc.),
and possibly of stones and/or bricks (physical and mechanical characteristics) which allow the type of
masonry to be identified (the most common types are given in Table C8A.2.1). It is appropriate to test each
type of masonry present. Non-destructive test methods (sonic tests, sclerometric and penetrometer tests for
mortar, etc.) may be used in addition to the required tests. Should there exist a clear, proven typological
correspondence for materials, size of stones, construction details, tests on constructions under study may be
replaced with tests carried out on other constructions in the same zone. The Regions, taking account of the
specificity of the construction in their own territory, may define homogeneous areas to be referred to for this
purpose.
- Exhaustive on-site investigations: are used to obtain quantitative information on strength of the material. In
addition to the visual checks, internal tests and checks given in the previous points, a further series of trials
will be carried out which, in number and quality, are such as to allow the evaluation of mechanical
characteristics of the masonry. The measure of mechanical characteristics of the masonry is obtained through
execution of tests, on-site or in the laboratory (on non-disturbed sampled elements taken from the structure
of the building). The tests may in general encompass diagonal compressive tests on panels or combined tests
of vertical compression and shear. Non-disruptive test methods may be used in combination, but not in
complete substitution of those described above. Should there exist a clear, proven typological
correspondence for materials, size of stones and construction details, tests on constructions under study may
be replaced with tests carried out on other constructions in the same area. The Regions, taking account of the
specificity of the construction in their own territory, may define homogeneous areas to be referred to for this
purpose.
The results of the tests are examined and considered within a framework of general reference type, which
takes into account the results of trials available up to that time for the masonry types in question and which
allows evaluation, even in statistical terms, of the effective representativeness of the values found. The
results of the tests are used together with Table C8A.2.1, according to Article C8A.1.A.4.
C8A.1.A.4 Masonry constructions: levels of knowledge
With reference to the level of knowledge acquired, the mean values of mechanical parameters and
confidence factors may be defined according to the following:
- knowledge level KL3 is understood to be reached when the geometric survey, extensive and exhaustive onsite checks on construction details and exhaustive on-site investigations on property of materials have been
carried out; the corresponding confidence factor is FC=1;
- knowledge level KL2 is understood to be reached when the geometric survey, extensive and exhaustive onsite checks on construction details and exhaustive on-site investigations on property of materials have been
carried out; the corresponding confidence factor is FC=1.2;
- knowledge level KL1 is understood to be reached when the geometric survey, extensive and exhaustive onsite checks on construction details and exhaustive on-site investigations on property of materials have been
carried out; the corresponding confidence factor is FC=1.35;
For different knowledge levels, for each masonry type, the mean values of mechanical parameters
may be defined as follows:
- KL1
o Resistances: the minimum of the intervals given in Table C8A.2.1 for masonry types under
consideration.
o Elastic modules: the mean values of intervals given in said table.
- KL2
o Resistances: the mean of the intervals given in Table C8A.2.1 for masonry types under
consideration.
o Elastic modules: the mean values of intervals given in said table.
- KL3 – case a), if three or more trial resistance values are available
o
o
Resistances: mean test results
Elastic modules: mean of tests or mean values of intervals given in Table C8A.2.1 for masonry types
under consideration.
- KL3 – case b), if two trial resistance values are available
o
o
Resistances: if the mean value of resistances is made up of the interval given in Table C8A.2.1 for
the masonry types under consideration the mean value of the interval is assumed; if the minimum of
the interval is less, the trial mean value is used as the mean value.
Elastic modules: the above indicated for case LC3 – case a.) is valid
- KL3 – case c), if one trial resistance value is available
o
o
Resistances: if the mean value of resistance is made up of the interval given in Table C8A.2.1 for the
masonry type under consideration, or greater, the mean value of the interval is assumed; if the
resistance value is less than the minimum of the interval, the trial mean value is used.
Elastic modules: the above indicated for case LC3 – case a.) is valid
The relationship between knowledge levels and confidence factors is summarised in Table C8A.1.1.
Table III (Table C8A.1.1 – Knowledge level depending on the information available and consequent confidence factor values for
masonry buildings)
Knowledge
Level
KL1
KL2
Geometry
Survey of masonry,
vault, floors, stairs.
Identification of loads
on each wall element.
Identification of
foundation type.
Survey of any map
cracking and strain.
Construction details
Ownership of materials
Methods
of
Analysis
CF
limited on-site investigations
limited on-site checks
extensive and
exhaustive on-site
checks
Resistance: minimum value of Table C8A.2.1
Elastic module: mean interval value of Table
C8A.2.1.
Extensive on-site investigations
1.35
all
1.20
Resistance: mean interval value of Table
C8A.2.1
Elastic module: mean of tests or mean interval
value of Table C8A.2.1
Exhaustive on-site investigations
-case a) (3 or more trial resistance values
available)
Resistances: mean test results
Elastic module: mean of tests or mean interval
value of Table C8A.2.1
KL3
-case b) (2 or more test resistance values
available)
Resistance: if mean test interval value included
in Table C8A.2.1, mean interval value of Table
C8A.2.1; if mean trial value is greater than
extreme upper range, this last; if mean trial value
is less than the minimum of the range, mean trial
value.
Elastic module: as for KL3 – case a).
-case c) (1 or more trial resistance values
available)
Resistance: if trial interval value included in
Table C8A.2.1, or greater, mean interval value;
if trial value is less than minimum interval, trial
value. Elastic module: as for KL3 – case a).
1.00
C8A.2. TYPE AND RELATIVE MECHANICAL PARAMETERS OF MASONRY
In Table C8A.2.1 are given the reference values which may be adopted in the analyses, according to that
indicated in Article C8A.1.A.4 depending on the knowledge level acquired.
Recognition of the masonry type is conducted through a detailed survey of construction aspects (Article
C8A.1.A.2). It is noted that masonry, on a national scale, has a variety of construction techniques and
materials which may be used and a framework of preconceived types may be problematic. Normal (E) and
tangential (G) elastic modules are to be considered relating to uncracked conditions, so rigidity must be
properly reduced.
Table IV (Table C8A.2.1 - Reference values of mechanical parameters (minimum and maximum) and specific mean weight for
different types of masonry, referring to the following conditions: poor quality mortar, absence of bedding (listing), simply juxtaposed
or badly connected surfaces, unhardened masonry, texture (for regular elements) of the highest standard; f m = mean compressive
strength of masonry, τ0 = mean shear strength of masonry, E = mean value of normal elastic module, G = mean value of tangential
elastic module, w = mean specific weight of masonry)
Type of masonry
Disordered masonry stone (pebbles, erratic and irregular
stones)
Rough-hewn masonry, with surface of limited thickness and
inner core
Quarry-split stone masonry with good texture
Rough-hewn soft stone masonry (tuff, limestone, etc.)
Squared stone block masonry
Brick masonry filled with lime mortar
Semi-solid brick masonry filled with cement mortar (e.g.
double UNI drilling < 40 %)
Semi-solid brick masonry blocks (pear core, drilling < 45 %)
Semi-solid brick masonry blocks, with dry joints (pear core,
drilling < 45 %)
Concrete or expanded clay masonry blocks (pear core, drilling
between 45 % and 65 %)
Semi-solid concrete masonry blocks (drilling < 45 %)
fm
τo
E
G
w
(N/cm2)
(N/cm2)
(N/cm2)
(N/cm2)
(kN/m3)
min-max
min-max
min-max
min-max
100
2.0
690
230
180
3.2
1 050
350
200
3.5
1 020
340
300
5.1
1 440
430
260
5.6
1 500
500
330
7.4
1 980
660
140
2.8
900
300
240
4.2
1 260
420
600
9.0
2 400
730
800
12.0
3 200
940
240
6.0
1 200
400
400
9.2
1 300
600
500
24
3 500
875
800
32
5 600
1 400
400
30.0
3 600
1 030
600
40.0
5 400
1 620
300
10.0
2 700
810
400
13.0
3 600
1 030
150
9.5
1 200
300
200
12.5
1 600
400
300
13.0
2 400
600
440
24.0
3 520
830
19
20
21
16
22
18
15
12
11
12
14
In the case of historical masonry, the values given in Table C8A.2.1 (relating to the first six types) refer to
masonry conditions with mortar with poor characteristics, not particularly soft joints and in the absence of
coursing or listing which, constantly, regulate the texture and in particular the horizontality of courses. In
addition it is assumed that, for historical masonry, these surfaces are disconnected, or that there are
systematic elements of cross-section connections missing (or of meshing between wall surfaces).
The values indicated for set masonry are relative in cases where masonry weaving respects the highest
standard. In cases where there is incorrect weaving (vertical joints not properly staggered, horizontal nature
of rows is not respected), the values of the table must be suitable reduced.
In the case that the masonry presents better characteristics than said evaluation elements, the mechanical
characteristics will be obtained from the values in Table C8A.2.1, applying improved coefficients up to the
values indicated in Table C8A.2.2, according to the following methods:
- mortar with good characteristics: the coefficient indicated in Table C8A.2.2 is applied, differentiated for
different types, whether for strength parameters (fm and τ0), or for elastic modules (E and G);
- soft joints (< 10 mm): the coefficient is applied, differentiated for different types, whether for strength
parameters (fm and τ0), or for elastic modules (E and G); for shear strength
the percentage increase to be considered is half of that considered for compressive strength; for natural stone
masonry it is appropriate to check that the workmanship is carried out through the entire thickness of the
surface.
- presence of coursing (or listing): the coefficient indicated in the table is applied to the usual strength
parameters (fm and τ0); this coefficient is only significant for some masonry types, as in the others you do not
encounter this construction technique;
- presence of elements of cross-section connection between surfaces: the coefficient indicated in the table is
applied to the usual strength parameters (fm and τ0); this coefficient is only significant for historical masonry,
as more recent masonry is made with a specific and well-defined construction technique and the values in
Table C8A.2.1 already represent the possible variety of behaviours.
The different typologies in Table C8A.2.1 assume that the masonry is made from two juxtaposed surfaces, or
with an internal core of limited thickness (less than the thickness of the surface); exceptions are rough-hewn
masonry, for which the presence of an internal core is implicit (also significant but with discreet
characteristics), and that of solid brick masonry, which often presents an inner core with cohesive material
for reuse. Should the inner core be large compared to surfaces and/or particularly poor, it is appropriate to
properly reduce the strength and deformability parameters, through homogenisation of the mechanical
characteristics in thickness. In the absence of more accurate evaluations it is possible to discriminate against
said mechanical parameters through the coefficient indicated in Table C8A.2.2.
In the presence of hardened masonry, or should it be necessary to evaluate the safety of the reinforced
building, it is possible to evaluate the mechanical characteristics for some intervention techniques, through
the coefficients indicated in Table C8A.2.2, according to the following methods:
- consolidation with injection of binder mixture: the coefficient indicated in the table is applied,
differentiated by various types, whether strength parameters (f m and τ0), or elastic modules (E and G); should
the original masonry have been classified with mortar with good characteristics, said coefficient is applied to
the reference value for mortar with poor characteristics, as the result obtainable through this hardening
technique is, in the first approximation, independent from the original quality of the mortar (in other words,
in the case of masonry with mortar with good characteristics, the increase in strength and rigidity obtainable
is lower in percentage);
- consolidation with reinforced plaster: to define equivalent mechanical parameters it is possible to apply the
coefficient indicated in the table, differentiated by the various types, whether parameters of strength (f m and
τ0), or elastic modules (E and G); for parameters of departure for the unhardened masonry the relative
coefficient is not applied to the crossways connection, as the reinforced plaster, if correctly jointed with
hooked cross bars and the nodes of reinforcement nets on both sides, carry out this function, amongst others.
Should the cross-connection not satisfy this condition, the multiplication coefficient of the reinforced plaster
must be divided by the relative coefficient of the cross-connection given in the table:
- consolidation with artificial diatones: in this case the indicated coefficient is applied for the masonry fitted
with a good cross-connection.
The values indicated above for hardened masonry may be considered as a reference should they not be
proven with appropriate trial investigations, the actual effectiveness of the intervention, and with an adequate
number of proofs, the values in the calculation will be adopted.
Table V (Table C8A.2.2 - Corrective coefficients of mechanical parameters (indicated in Table C8A.2.1) to be applied in the
presence of: mortar with good or excellent characteristics; soft joints; coursing or listing; systematic cross-connections; particularly
poor and/or large internal core; hardening with injections of mortar; hardening with reinforced plaster).
Coursin
Crossg or
connectio
listing
n
Poor
and/or
large
core
Injection Reinforce
of binder d plaster
mixture
*
Mortar
good
Soft joints
(< 10 mm)
Disordered masonry stone (pebbles,
erratic and irregular stones)
1.5
-
1-3
1.5
0.9
2
2.5
Rough-hewn masonry, with surface of
limited thickness and
1.4
1.2
1-2
1.5
0.3
1.7
2
Quarry-split stone masonry with good
texture
1.3
-
1.1
1.3
0.3
1.5
1.5
Rough-hewn soft stone masonry (tuff,
limestone, etc.)
1.5
U|
-
1.5
0.9
1.7
2
Squared stone block masonry
1.2
1.2
-
1.2
0.7
1.2
1.2
Brick masonry filled with lime mortar
1.5
1.5
-
1.3
0.7
1.5
1.5
Type of masonry
* Values to be reduced conveniently in the case of walls of notable thickness (e.g. > 70 cm)
C8A.1.B REINFORCED CONCRETE OR STEEL CONSTRUCTIONS: NECESSARY DATA FOR
EVALUATION
In Paragraph C8A.1.B Reinforced concrete or steel constructions: necessary data for evaluation, from
annexes of the Ministerial Circular No 617 of 2 February 2009 are indicated the knowledge levels and values
for confidence factors for concrete and steel structures. In the following Table VI that which is reported there
is reproduced.
Table VI (Table C8A.1.2 – Knowledge level depending on the information available and consequent accepted analysis methods and confidence factor
values for reinforced concrete or steel buildings)
Level of
Geometry
Construction
Ownership of
Methods of
CF
Knowledge
(structural work)
details
materials
analysis
Simulated design in
Usual values for
accordance with the
construction practice
Static or dynamic linear
KL1
standards of the time
1.35
of the time and
analysis
and limited on-site
limited on-site tests
checks
From original
From the original
structural work
Incomplete
design specifications
designs with visual
construction designs
or from the original
KL2
survey sample or
with limited on-site
test certificates with
All
1.20
complete survey from
checks or extended
limited on-site tests
scratch
on-site checks
or extended on-site
tests
Complete
From the original test
construction designs
certificates or the
KL3
All
1.00
with limited on-site
original design
checks or exhaustive
specifications with
on-site checks
extended on-site tests
or exhaustive on-site
tests
C8A.1.B.3 Reinforced concrete or steel constructions: levels of knowledge
Below are Tables C8A.1.3a and C8A.1.3b relating to the initial definition of survey levels and tests for
reinforced concrete buildings and steel buildings. For the definition of the type of limited check, extensive or
exhaustive, please see the same Paragraph C8A.1.B.3 in Circular No 617.
Table VII (Table C8A.1.3a – Initial definition of survey levels and tests for reinforced concrete buildings)
Survey (of construction details)(a)
Tests (on materials)(b)(c)
For each type of "primary" element (beam, pillar...)
Limited checks
The quantity and structure of the reinforcement is tested for at
least 15 % of the elements
1 sample of concrete per 300 m2 of the floor
of the building, 1 sample of reinforcement
per storey of the building
Extended checks
The quantity and structure of the reinforcement is tested for at
least 35 % of the elements
2 samples of concrete per 300 m2 of the floor
of the building, 2 samples of reinforcement
per storey of the building
Exhaustive checks
The quantity and structure of the reinforcement is tested for at
least 50 % of the elements
3 samples of concrete per 300 m2 of the floor
of the building, 3 samples of reinforcement
per storey of the building
Table VIII (Table C8A.1.3b – Initial definition of survey levels and tests for steel buildings)
Survey (of joints)(a)
Tests (on materials)(b)
For each type of "primary" element (beam, pillar...)
Limited checks
The characteristics of joints are checked for at least 15 % of
the elements
1 sample of steel per 300 m2 of the floor of
the building, 1 sample of bolts or nails per
storey of the building
Extended checks
The characteristics of joints are checked for at least 35 % of
the elements
2 samples of steel for each storey of the
building, 2 samples of bolts or nails per
storey of the building
Exhaustive checks
The characteristics of joints are checked for at least 50 % of
the elements
3 samples of steel for each storey of the
building, 3 samples of bolts or nails per
storey of the building
EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR TABLE C8A.1.3 (a, b)
The percentage of elements to be checked and the number of samples to extract and subject to strength tests given in Table C8A.1.3
are indicative and are adapted in individual cases, taking account of the following aspects:
(a) In the check of reaching the percentage of elements investigated for the purposes of the survey of construction details, repetitive
situations are taken into account, which may be extended to a larger percentage of checks carried out on some structural elements
making part of a series with evident repeatability characteristics, for equal geometry and role in the structural scheme.
(b) The tests on steel are aimed at the identification of the class of steel used with reference to the existing law at the time of
construction. For the purpose of reaching the number of necessary tests on steel for the knowledge level it is appropriate to take
account of the most widely used diameters (in reinforced concrete structures) or profiles (in steel structures) in the main elements
with the exclusion of brackets.
(c) For the purpose of the tests on materials it is permitted to replace some destructive tests, not more than 50 %, with a larger
number, at least triple, of non-destructive, single or combined tests, weighted against destructive ones.
(d) The number of samples given in Tables 8A.3a and 8A.3b may vary, increasing or decreasing in relation to the characteristics of
homogeneity of the material. In the case of concrete works these characteristics are often linked to the typical construction method of
the time of construction and the type of component, which should be taken into account when planning the investigation. To this
effect, it will be appropriate to provide a second run of supplementary tests, should the results of the first be very patchy.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1998-4:2006
Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1998-4:2006
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for the design of silos, tanks and pipelines
for seismic actions
National Annex
UNI-EN-1998-4 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for seismic resistance.
Part 4- Silos, tanks and pipelines.
EN-1998-4 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistance.
Part 4: Silos, tanks and pipelines.
1) Background
This national annex contains the national parameters in UNI-EN-1998-4.
Further to the parameters described in Paragraph 3, more detail on the same is provided in Paragraph 4:
"observations", which contains, amongst other things, requirements relating to the text of the National
Legislation, given in full here. Paragraph 4 therefore indicates the numbering of national parameters as
well as the number of the text of the National Technical Legislation referenced.
The Annex has been approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN-1998-4, relating to the following paragraphs:
1. 1.1(4) Additional requirements for facilities associated with large risks to the population or
the environment.
2. 2.1.2(4)P Reference return period TNCR of seismic action for the ultimate limit state (or,
equivalently, reference probability of exceedance in 50 years, PNCR).
3. 2.1.3(5)P Reference return period TDLR of seismic action for the damage limitation state (or,
equivalently, reference probability of exceedance in 10 years, PDLR).
4. 2.1.4(8) Importance factors for silos, tanks and pipelines.
5. 2.2(3) Reduction factor ν, for the effects of the seismic action relevant to the damage
limitation state.
6. 2.3.3.3(2)P Maximum value of radiation damping for soil structure interaction analysis, ξmax
7. 2.5.2(3)P Values of φ for silos, tanks and pipelines.
8. 3.1(2)P Unit weight of the particulate solid in silos, ν, in the seismic design situation.
9. 4.5.1.3(3) Amplification factor on forces transmitted by the piping to region of attachment
on the tank wall, for the design of the region to remain elastic in the damage limitation state.
10. 4.5.2.3(2)P Overstrength factor on design resistance of piping in the verification that the
connection of the piping to the tank will not yield prior to the piping in the ultimate limit
state.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the use of UNI-EN1998-4 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to
in UNI-EN1998-4
3) National decisions
Paragraph
1.1(4)
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Reference
Note
In relation to risks to the environment and population, the competent
authorities may give additional requirements regarding the terms given in
this
regulation.
The rated life of the different types of work is given in Table I and must be
clarified in the design documents.
Table I - Rated life VN for different types of work
TYPE
1
2
3
DESCRIPTION
Temporary structures – Provisional works Structures in construction phase(1)
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and
dams, of small dimensions or normal
importance
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and
dams, of large dimensions, or of strategic
importance
Rated life VN
(in years)
 10
≥ 50
≥ 100
(1) Seismic
checks of provisional works or structures in construction phase may be omitted when the
foreseen design duration is less than 2 years
2.1.2(4)P
Note
Constructions are classified in four classes of importance, defined in the
Note to the following Point 2.1.4 (8).
Seismic actions are assessed in relation to a reference period V R which is
obtained, for each type of construction, by multiplying the rated life V N by
the coefficient of use CU, defined in addition to
VR=VNCU
For structures with VR=50 years, for the limit state of protection of life,
defined in Paragraph 4 of this national annex, the following suggested value
is adopted: TNCR = 475 years, PNCR =10 % in 50 years.
For structures with VR=75 years, TNCR = 712.5 years
For structures with VR=100 years, TNCR = 950 years
For structures with VR=50 years, for the damage limit state, defined in
Paragraph 4 of this national annex, the following suggested value is adopted
TDLR = 50 years, PDLR =63 % in 50 years.
2.1.3(5)P
Note
For structures with VR=75 years, TNCR = 75 years
For structures with VR=100 years, TNCR = 100 years
For structures where protection regarding serviceability limit states is of
primary importance:
for type 2 structures, TDLR = 92 years , PDLR = 42 % in 50 years
for type 3 structures, TDLR = 132 years, PDLR =31.5 % in 50 years
Importance coefficients as given in EN1998.1, where seismic action is
multiplied, are assumed to be equal to 1.
In this National Technical Annex the importance of treated structures
is directly taken into account in the definition of seismic action
changing the mean periods of return or dividing the associated
probability of excess for said Coefficients of use, Cu.
2.1.4(8)
Note
Coefficients of use are defined by the four classes of use. Class of use I has
coefficient of use Cu=0.7, Class of use II has coefficient of use Cu=1.0,
Classes III and IV have coefficients of use Cu=1.5 and Cu=2.0
respectively (Table II). In Paragraph 4 the definition of the classes of use is
given.
Table II – Coefficients of use Cu for different classes of use
Class of use Cu
I
0.7
II
1
III
1.5
IV
2
The Cu coefficients of use change by multiplying the mean return period
defined by Cu=1. Therefore it decreases for Class of use I and increases for
III and IV.
For structures in which protection regarding serviceability limit states
is of primary importance, factor Cu divides the value of PDLR with
which the return period is obtained.
Assessment of displacement by damage limit state is done with the relative
response spectrum assuming:
ν=1
2.2(3)
Note
For Class II and IV structures the check is also done with the action relative
to the operative limit state (OLS) assuming:
ν=1.5
2.3.3.3(2)P
Note
The recommended value is maintained
2.5.2(3)P
Note
The recommended values are maintained
3.1(2)P
Note
The values indicated in Table 3.1.I of the national technical standards are
adopted. For materials not included in the preceding table, reference may be
made to those indicated in Table E1 of EN 1991-4:2006 or to specific trial
investigations assuming the rated values as characteristic values.
4.5.1.3(3)
Note
4.5.2.3(2)P
Note
The recommended value is maintained
The recommended value is maintained
4) Non-contradictory additional information
2.1.2(4)P return period TNCR of seismic action on the ultimate limit state and 2.1.3(5)P for the damage
limit state and 2.1.4(8) classes of use
The terms of the Technical Standards for Construction (NTC-2008) reproduced here:
2.4 RATED LIFE, CLASSES OF USE AND REFERENCE PERIOD defines:
2.4.1 RATED LIFE
The rated life of a structural work VN is understood as the number of years in which the structure,
provided it undergoes normal maintenance, must be able to be used for its intended purpose. The rated life of
different types of works is given in Table 2.4.I and must be clarified in the design documents.
Table I - Rated life VN for different types of work
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
1
2
3
Temporary structures – Provisional works — Structures in construction phase(1)
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and dams, of small dimensions or
normal importance
Ordinary works, bridges, infrastructure and dams, of large dimensions, or of
strategic importance
Rated life
VN (in years)
 10
≥ 50
≥ 100
(1)
Seismic checks of provisional works or structures in construction phase can be omitted when the foreseen design duration is less
than 2 years.
2.4.2 CLASSES OF USE
In the presence of seismic action, with reference to the consequences of an interruption in operation or a
possible collapse, the constructions are sub-divided into classes of use defined as follows:
Class I: Constructions where people are only occasionally present, agricultural buildings.
Class II: Constructions used for normal levels of people, without contents which are a danger to the
environment and without essential public and social functions. Industries with activities which are not
harmful for the environment. Bridges, structural works and road networks not in Class of use III or Class
of use IV, rail networks whose interruption would not create an emergency situation. Dams whose
collapse will not have significant consequences.
Class III: Constructions used by significant amounts of people. Industries with activities which are
dangerous to the environment. Non-urban road networks which do not fall under Class of use IV.
Bridges and rail networks whose interruption may result in emergency situations. Dams whose collapse
would have significant consequences.
Class IV: Constructions with important public or strategic functions, also with reference to the
management of Civil Protection in case of calamity. Industries with activities which are particularly
dangerous for the environment. Type A or B road networks as stated in Ministerial Decree. No 6792 of
5 November 2001, “Functional and geometric standards for road construction" and type C networks,
when belonging to connecting routes between regional towns also not served by type A or B roads.
Bridges and railway networks of critical importance for maintenance of communication channels,
particularly after a seismic event. Dams connected to functioning of aqueducts and electrical plants.
2.4.3 REFERENCE PERIOD FOR SEISMIC ACTION
Seismic actions on each construction are evaluated in relation to a reference period V R which is obtained, for
each type of construction, for each type of building, by multiplying the rated life V N by the coefficient of use
CU:
VR=VN∙CU
(2.4.1)
The value of the coefficient of use CU is defined, when the class of use varies, as shown in Table II.
Table 1 (Table 2.4.II – Values of coefficients of use CU from the National Technical Standards)
Class of use
I
Coefficient CU
0.7
If VR ≤ 35 years, VR = 35 years is still to be used.
II
1.0
III
1.5
IV
2.0
Mean return periods of action for usual structures are defined on the basis of probability of exceedance of the
relevant limit state.
3.2.1 LIMIT STATES AND RELATIVE PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
Against seismic actions the limit states, whether serviceability or ultimate, are identified by referring to the
performance of the structure as a while, including structural and non-structural elements, and equipment.
The serviceability limit states are:
- Operative Limit State (OLS): following the earthquake the construction in its entirety, including structural and non-structural
elements and equipment related to its function, must not be damaged and must not suffer any significant interruption of usage;
- Damage Limit State (DLS): following the earthquake the construction in its entirety, including structural and non-structural
elements and equipment related to its function, suffers damage which does not put its users at risk and does not significantly
compromise its resistance and rigidity capacity towards vertical and horizontal actions remaining immediately usable even if use of
part of the equipment is interrupted.
The ultimate limit states are:
- Limit state of safeguarding of life (LLS): following the earthquake the construction sustains breaks and collapse of non-structural
components and installations and significant damage to structural components associated with a significant loss of rigidity in
horizontal actions; the building preserves part of the resistance and rigidity for horizontal actions and a safety margin against collapse
due to horizontal seismic actions;
- Collapse prevention Limit State (CLS): following the earthquake the construction sustains serious breaks and collapse of nonstructural components and installations and very serious damage to structural components; the construction still maintains a
significant safety margin for vertical actions and a narrow safety margin against collapse due to horizontal actions.
The probabilities of exceedance PVR in the reference period PVR, which relate to identifying the seismic action acting in each of the
limit states considered, are given in Table 2.
Table 2 (Table 3.2.I of the National Technical Standards–Probability of exceedance P*VR when the considered limit state
varies)
PVR : Probability of exceeding the reference period PR
Limit State
Serviceability
limit states
OLS
81 %
DLS
63 %
Ultimate limit
states
LLS
10 %
CLS
5%
Should protection against serviceability limit states be of primary importance the values of P VR provided in the table must be reduced
in relation to the protection rating you wish to reach.
3.2.1 LIMIT STATES AND RELATIVE PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
To the four limit states are attributed (see Table 3.2.I of the National Technical Standards) values of probability of exceedance P VR
equal to 81 %, 63 %, 10 % and 5 % respectively, values which remain unchanged whatever the class of use of the construction
considered; this probability, evaluated in the reference period VR of the considered construction, allows the corresponding design
seismic action to be identified for each limit state.
The reference period VR of the construction (expressed in years) is first rated, obtained as a product of the rated life VN prescribed in
the act of designing and the coefficient of use CU which competes with the class of use the construction falls under (v. Article 2.4 of
the National Technical Standards). Then for each limit state and relative exceedance probability PVR in the reference period VR, the
return period TR of the earthquake is obtained. The relationship is used for this purpose:
TR=-VR/ln(1-PVR) = -CU∙VN/ ln(1-PVR)
(C.3.2.I)
obtaining, for the various limit states, the expression of TR as a function of VR given in Table 3.
Table 3 (Table C.3.2.I.- Values
of TR expressed as a function of VR)
Limit States
Serviceability
Limit States (SLS)
Ultimate
Limit States (ULS)
OLS
DLS
LLS
CLS
Values in years of the return period TR
when the reference period VRvaries
(2) 30 years ≤TR=0.6∙VR
TR=VR
TR=9.5∙VR
TR=19.50∙VR≤2 475 years (1)
On the basis of the results obtained is the design strategy which requires, when the reference period V R
varies, constancy of the probability of exceedance PVR which competes with each of the limit states
considered (design strategy as a rule).
Should protection against serviceability limit states be of primary importance the values of P VR provided in
the table must be reduced in relation to the protection rating you wish to reach.
It is evident that reduction of the probability of exceedance attributed to the various limit states may not be
arbitrary but must align itself with precise concepts of safety theory; in particular, the levels of protection
which must eventually be increased are only those regarding Serviceability Limit States, whilst the levels of
protection regarding Ultimate Limit States (more directly linked to safety) may remain substantially
unchanged because they are already considered sufficient in law.
To respect the aforementioned limitations cited, when the class of use and coefficient CU varies, CU
may be used not to increase VN, bringing it to VR, but to reduce PVR.
In this way by varying CU it is possible to obtain the values of P*VR from the values of PVR; these values are
given, together with the corresponding values of TR, in Table 4.
Table 4 (Table C.3.2.II.- Values of P*VR and TR when CU is varied)
Values of P*VR
Limit States
CU=1.0
CU=1.5
OLS
81.00 %
68.80 %
SLS
DLS
63.00 %
55.83 %
LLS
10.00 %
9.83 %
ULS
CLS
5.00 %
4.96 %
CU=2.0
64.60 %
53.08 %
9.75 %
4.94 %
Corresponding values of TR
CU=1.0
CU=1.5
CU=2.0
0.60∙VR
0.86∙VR
0.96∙VR
VR
1.22∙VR
1.32∙VR
9.50∙VR
9.66∙VR
9.75∙VR
19.50∙VR
19.66∙VR
19.75∙VR
Should protection against SLS be of primary importance, the values of PVR may be replaced by those of P*VR,
so achieving better protection against SLS. The aforementioned design strategy hypothesis, however, leads
to a decidedly more costly work and therefore is only justifiably adopted in cases where the SLS is of
primary importance.
2.2(3)reduction factors for effects of seismic action relevant for structural damage
The terms of the Technical Standards for Construction (NTC-2008) reproduced here:
7.3.7.2 VERIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS IN TERMS OF DAMAGE CONTAINMENT
FOR NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
For constructions in Class of use I and II it must be verified that the design seismic action does not produce
damage to construction elements without a structural function so as to render the construction temporarily
unfit for service.
In the case of civil and industrial constructions, should temporary unavailability be due to excessive interstorey displacement, this condition may be satisfied when the inter-storey displacements obtained by the
analysis in the presence of design seismic action relating to the DLS (see Article 3.2.1 and Article 3.2.3.2)
are less than the following limits indicated.
a) for outer walls rigidly connected to the structure which interfere with the deformability of the same:
dr < 0.005 h
(7.3.16)
b) for outer walls designed not to suffer damages following inter-storey displacement drp , by virtue of
their intrinsic deformability or connections to the structure:
dr ≤ drp ≤ 0.1 h (7.3.17)
c) for constructions with load bearing structures in ordinary masonry
dr < 0.03 h (7.3.18)
d) for constructions with load bearing structures in reinforced masonry
dr < 0.004 h (7.3.19)
where:
dr is the inter-storey displacement, or the difference between the displacement of the upper and lower floors,
calculated according to Articles 7.3.3 or 7.3.4, h is the height of the storey.
In the case of coexistence of different types of external wall or load bearing structure on the same storey of
the construction, the most restrictive displacement limit must be assumed. Should the inter-storey
displacement be greater than 0.005 h (case b) the checks on displacement capacity of the non-structural
elements are to be extended to all external walls, to the internal partitioning and equipment.
For constructions in Class of use III and IV it must be verified that the design seismic action does not
produce damage to construction elements without a structural function so as to render the construction
temporarily inoperative.
In the case of civil and industrial constructions this condition may be deemed as satisfied when the interstorey displacements obtained by the analysis in the presence of design seismic action relating to the OLS
(see Article 3.2.1 and Article 3.2.3.2) are less than 2/3 of the previously indicated limits.
C7.3.7 CRITERI A FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE
For checks on the structural elements in terms of strength, as stated in Article 7.3.7.1 of the NTC, in the DLS
spectrum a value η=2/3 is to be considered to account for the overstrength of the structural elements.
For evaluation of the displacements aimed at verification of the structural elements in terms of damage
containment for non-structural elements, as stated in Article 7.3.7.2 of the NTC, η=1 is always used as, even
if limited damage to some structural elements is verified, it is assumed that the complete displacement of the
construction is equal to that which was calculated in the hypotheses of elastic structure.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1998-5:2005
Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
Part 5: Foundations, retaining
structures and geotechnical
aspects
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1998-5:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in foundations, retaining structures and
geotechnical aspects for seismic actions
National annex
UNI-EN-1998-5 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for seismic resistance. Part 5: Foundations,
retaining structures and geotechnical aspects
EN 1998-5 – Eurocode 8 – “Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 5: Foundations,
retaining structures and geotechnical aspects”
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1998-5 has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 24 September 2010
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1998-5, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1(4)
3.1(3)
4.1.4(11)
5.2(2)c
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1998-5 in Italy.
In the application of this standard reference must also be made to the information given
in Paragraph 4 of this Annex. Some of this information is aimed at determining seismic
coefficients for seismic pseudostatic verification of slopes and supporting works. Other
information better specifying some concepts given in EN 1998-5.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1998-5 – Design of structures for seismic resistance. Part 5:
Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects
3) National decisions
Paragraph
1.1(4)
3.1(3)
4.1.4(11)
5.2(2)c
Annex A
Annex C
Annex D
Annex F
Reference
NOTE 1-4
NOTE
NOTE
NOTE
National parameter - value or requirement The informative nature of annexes A, C and D is confirmed.
Annex F is not accepted.
Reference is made to partial coefficients on strengths defined
from the approaches of design DA1 or DA1 provided in EN
1997-1 and given in the Tables attached to national Annex EN
1997-1, with the same limitations indicated in said document.
For parameter τcy,u, not included in the Tables dedicated to
strength parameters of soil, the same coefficient provided for the
tangent of the angle of shear strength.
Should the verification of the limit state of slopes and retaining
walls be carried out with the dynamic analysis blocks (Newmark
method),the partial safety coefficients on all strength parameters
of soil must be placed as equal to 1.00. Use of said methods is
explicitly provided for in EN 1998-5 in Paragraph 4.1.3.3(1)P
for slopes, and implicitly for walls in Paragraph 7.3.1(1)P.
In verification of the ultimate limit state of slopes and support
works with pseudostatic methods, the seismic coefficients must
be determined by making reference to the information given in
Paragraph 4 of this annex.
The suggested value is accepted
The suggested value is accepted
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
The informative nature of this annex is confirmed.
The use of this annex is not accepted.
4) Non-contradictory additional information
4.1.Limitations of the scope of the document
EN 1998-5 is applied only for checks of the following situations and works: earth slopes
(with explicit exclusion of rocky ridges), slopes, direct and pile foundations, retaining
walls and bulkheads. Use is excluded for other works (tunnels, embankments, dams,
etc.).
4.2.Strength parameters of soil
For coarse-grained soil the use of strength parameters in terms of effective stresses is
advised, as indicated in Paragraph 3.1.(2), bearing in mind, in the case of saturated soil,
the interstitial overstrengths generated by cyclical loads.
4.3.Analysis of stability of slopes
This paragraph includes the details given in Article 4.1.3 of EN 1998-5 on verifications
of stability of slopes and presents a different formulation of pseudostatic coefficients of
the equations 4.1–4.3.
It is reiterated that the verifications of stability of slopes in seismic conditions may be
carried out using pseudostatic, displacement and dynamic analysis methods.
In the analyses the behaviour of fragile types must be taken into account, which shows
in over consolidated fine-grained soil and in thickened coarse-grained soils with a
reduction in the shear strength as the deformation increases, through an accurate
modelling of the mechanical behaviour of soils or through an appropriate choice of
mechanical characteristics. Furthermore, possible increases in interstitial pressure must
be taken into account, induced in seismic conditions in contracting soils (specifically, in
fine-grained soils which are normally consolidated and in coarse-grained loose soils).
4.4.Evaluation of design actions on foundations
The design actions are defined in the National Annex EN 1998-1
4.5.Verification of sliding onto the laying plan of direct foundations
Should you wish to take account of the passive strength of the soil placed in proximity to
the foundations in the verification of sliding (in inequality 5.2 of EN 1998-5), further to
the requirements in Paragraph 5.4.1.1(5), it must be verified that the displacements
required to mobilise passive strength are not greater than those which could induce an
ultimate limit state on the structure.
4.6.Load limit of direct foundations
In the calculation of the load limit of direct foundations the inclination and the
eccentricity of design forces transmitted onto the superstructure must be kept in mind, as
affirmed in Paragraph 5.4.1.1(8)P. The use of methodologies given in Annex F is not
permitted.
4.7.Direct foundation connecting beams
Connection between foundation structures is not obligatory for foundations on type A
subsoil and for zones with very low seismicity (as indicated in Point 3.2.1(5) of EN
1998-1).
As given in Article 5.4.1.2.(6), the lattice beam or connecting plate must be dimensioned
in such a way that it absorbs the following horizontal forces:
 0.3Nsd amax/gfor type B stratigraphic profile
 0.4Nsd amax/gfor type C stratigraphic profile
 0.6 Nsd amax/gfor type D stratigraphic profile
where amax is the maximum expected horizontal acceleration at the site and Nsd is the
mean value of the vertical forces of the design acting on the connected elements.
It is noted that, in the absence of specific studies on the local seismic response, the
maximum expected acceleration on-site may be evaluated with the relation
a max  S  S T  a g
where S is the coefficient of stratigraphic amplification, ST that of topographic
amplification and ag is the maximum expected horizontal acceleration on-site on hard
surfacing.
It is noted that, with the aim of the application of the preceding relationships, the type E
stratigraphic profile will be assimilated into that of type C if the soils placed on the
relevant substratum are averagely thickened (coarse-grained soils) or averagely
consistent (fine-grained soils) and to that of type D if the soils placed on the relevant
substratum are poorly thickened (coarse-grained soils) or poorly consistent (fine-grained
soils).
4.8. Partial safety coefficients for verification of pile foundations on seismic actions
In verifications of pile foundations under the actions derived from the seismic
combinations, independently of the design approach chosen, reference is made to the
partial safety coefficients R2, as stated in EN 1997-1, as they are modified in the relative
national annex.
4.9.Bending moments due to kinematic interaction between piles and soil
Kinematic interaction between piles and soil must be taken into account only in the case
of piles immersed in type D subsoil or worse, in zones of medium or high seismicity (ag
> 0.25 g) and in the presence of raised rigidity contrasts on contact between contiguous
soil layers.
4.10. Verifications on the ultimate limit state of retaining walls
This paragraph includes the details given in EN 1998-5 in Article7.3 with reference to
retaining walls and replaces the Formulas (7.1–7.3) dedicated to determining
pseudostatic coefficients.
It is reiterated that the safety analysis of the retaining walls in seismic conditions may be
carried out whether through pseudostatic methods or by using displacement methods.
4.11. Verifications on the ultimate limit state of bulkheads
This paragraph includes the details given in EN 1998-5 in Article 7.3 with reference to
bulkheads and replaces the Formulas (7.1–7.3) dedicated to determining pseudostatic
coefficients.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1998-6:2005
Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
Part 6: Towers, masts and
chimneys
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1998-6:2005
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for the design of towers, masts and
chimneys for seismic actions
National Annex
UNI-EN-1998-5 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for seismic resistance.
Part 6- Towers, masts and chimneys
EN-1998-1 – Eurocode 8 – Design of structures for earthquake resistancePart 6: Towers, masts and chimneys
1) Background
This national annex contains the national parameters in UNI-EN-1998-6.
Further to the parameters described in Paragraph 3, more detail on the same is provided in Paragraph 4:
"observations", which contains, amongst other things, requirements relating to the text of the National
Legislation, given in full here. Paragraph 4 therefore indicates the numbering of national parameters as
well as the number of the text of the National Technical Legislation referenced.
The Annex has been approved by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1998-6, relating to the following paragraphs:
1. 1.1(2) Informative Annexes A, B, C, D, E and F.
2. 3.1(1) Conditions under which the rotational component of the ground motion should be taken into
account.
3. 3.5(2) The lower bound factor β on design spectral values, if site-specific studies have been carried
out with particular reference to the long period content of the seismic action.
4. 4.1(5)P Importance factors for masts, towers, and chimneys.
5. 4.3.2.1(2) Detailed conditions, supplementing those in 4.3.2.1(2), for the lateral force method of
analysis to be applied.
6. 4.7.2(1)P Partial factors for materials.
7. 4.9(4) Reduction factor ν for displacements at damage limitation limit state.
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the use of UNI-EN1998-6 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to
in UNI-EN1998-6.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
1.1(2)
Reference
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Note
The informative value of the Annexes is retained
3.1(1)
Note
Note 1: the recommended conditions are adopted
Note 2: Annex A is of an informative nature.
3.5(2)
Note
In accordance with national Annex EN-1998-1 (3.2.2.5 (4)P) the
suggested value β = 0.2 is accepted. For complete expressions of design
spectra please refer to the information given in Paragraph 4 of this
national annex.
4.1(5)P
Note
Importance coefficients as given in EN1998.1, where seismic action is
multiplied, are assumed to be equal to 1.
In this National Technical Annex the importance of treated structures is
directly taken into account in the definition of seismic action changing
the mean periods of return or dividing the associated probability of
excess for said Coefficients of use, Cu.
Coefficients of use are defined by the four classes of use. Class of use I
has coefficient of use Cu=0.7, Class of use II has coefficient of use
Cu=1.0, Classes III and IV have coefficients of use Cu=1.5 and Cu=2.0
respectively (Table II). In Paragraph 4 the definition of the classes of
use is given.
Table II – Coefficients of use Cu for different classes of use
Class of use Cu
I
0.7
II
1
III
1.5
IV
2
The Cu Coefficients of use change by multiplying the mean return
period defined by Cu=1. Therefore it decreases for Class of use I and
increases for III and IV.
For structures in which protection regarding serviceability limit states is
of primary importance, factor Cu divides the value of PDLR with which
the return period is obtained.
4.3.2.1(2)
Note
the recommended conditions are adopted.
4.7.2(1)P
Note
In accordance with the information given in National Annex EN-1998-1
follows:
5.2.4(3) The values γM are adopted for fundamental load conditions
contained in 1992 -1-1 for checks on the ULS
6.1.3(1) For checks on the ultimate limit states, the partial safety factor
of steel resistance is equal to γs = 1.05
7.1.3(1), (3) For the conglomerate and reinforcement for the relevant
reinforced concrete, the values γM are adopted for the fundamental load
conditions contained in 1992-1-1 for ULS checks γc = 1.50, γs = 1.15
For parts made of structural metal the value γM is adopted for the ULS
checks contained in 1993 -1-1: γs = 1.05.
9.6(3) The partial safety coefficient of the masonry m for the safety
check on constructions designed according to EN-1998-1 may not be
less than 2.
For the conglomerate and reinforced steel used in reinforcement and
confinement the values γM are adopted for the fundamental load
conditions contained in 1992-1-1 for ULS checks: γc = 1.50, γs = 1.15
4.9(4)
Note
Assessment of displacement by damage limit state is done with the
relative response spectrum assuming:
ν=1
For Class II and IV structures the check is also done with the
action relative to the operative Limit State (OLS) assuming:
ν=1.5
4) Non-contradictory additional information
4.1.(5) P Classes of use
The information in the Technical Standards for Construction (NTC-2008) is given here:
2.4.2 CLASSES OF USE
In the presence of seismic action, with reference to the consequences of an interruption in operation or a
possible collapse, the constructions are sub-divided into classes of use defined as follows:
Class I: Constructions where people are only occasionally present, agricultural buildings.
Class II: Constructions used for normal levels of people, without contents which are a danger to the
environment and without essential public and social functions. Industries with activities which are not
harmful for the environment. Bridges, structural works and road networks not in Class of use III or Class
of use IV, rail networks whose interruption would not create an emergency situation. Dams whose
collapse will not have significant consequences.
Class III: Constructions used by significant amounts of people. Industries with activities which are
dangerous to the environment. Non-urban road networks which do not fall under Class of use IV.
Bridges and rail networks whose interruption may result in emergency situations. Dams whose collapse
would have significant consequences.
Class IV: Constructions with important public or strategic functions, also with reference to the
management of Civil Protection in case of calamity. Industries with activities which are particularly
dangerous for the environment. Type A or B road networks as stated in Ministerial Decree. No 6792 of
5 November 2001, "Functional and geometric standards for road construction" and of Type C, when
belonging to connecting routes between regional towns also not served by Type A or B roads. Bridges
and railway networks of critical importance for maintenance of communication channels, particularly
after a seismic event. Dams connected to functioning of aqueducts and electrical plants.
2.4.3 REFERENCE PERIOD FOR SEISMIC ACTION
Seismic actions on each construction are evaluated in relation to a reference period V R which is obtained, for
each type of construction, for each type of building, by multiplying the rated life VN by the coefficient of use
CU:
VR=VN∙CU
(2.4.1)
The value of the coefficient of use CU is defined, when the class of use varies, as shown in Table II.
Table 1 (Table 2.4.II – Values of coefficients of use CU from the National Technical Standards)
Class of use
I
Coefficient CU
0.7
If VR ≤ 35 years, VR = 35 years is still to be used.
II
1.0
III
1.5
IV
2.0
Mean return periods of action for usual structures are defined on the basis of probability of exceedance of the
relevant limit state.
4.9(4)reduction factors for effects of seismic action relevant for structural damage
The information in the Technical Standards for Construction (NTC-2008) is given here:
7.3.7.2 VERIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS IN TERMS OF DAMAGE CONTAINMENT
FOR NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
For constructions in Class of use I and II it must be verified that the design seismic action does not produce
damage to construction elements without a structural function so as to render the construction temporarily
unfit for service.
In the case of civil and industrial constructions, should temporary unavailability be due to excessive interstorey displacement, this condition may be satisfied when the inter-storey displacements obtained by the
analysis in the presence of design seismic action relating to the DLS (see Article 3.2.1 and Article 3.2.3.2)
are less than the following limits indicated.
e) for outer walls rigidly connected to the structure which interfere with the deformability of the same:
dr < 0.005 h
(7.3.16)
f) for outer walls designed not to suffer damages following inter-storey displacement drp , by virtue of
their intrinsic deformability or connections to the structure:
dr ≤ drp ≤ 0.1 h (7.3.17)
g) for constructions with load bearing structures in ordinary masonry
dr < 0.003 h (7.3.18)
h) for constructions with load bearing structures in reinforced masonry
dr < 0.004 h (7.3.19)
where:
dr is the inter-storey displacement, or the difference between the displacement of the upper and lower floors,
calculated according to Articles 7.3.3 or 7.3.4, h is the height of the storey.
In the case of coexistence of different types of external wall or load bearing structure on the same storey of
the construction, the most restrictive displacement limit must be assumed. Should the inter-storey
displacement be greater than 0.005 h (Case b) the checks on displacement capacity of the non-structural
elements are to be extended to all external walls, to the internal partitioning and equipment.
For constructions in Class of use III and IV it must be verified that the design seismic action does not
produce damage to construction elements without a structural function so as to render the construction
temporarily inoperative.
In the case of civil and industrial constructions this condition may be deemed as satisfied when the interstorey displacements obtained by the analysis in the presence of design seismic action relating to the OLS
(see Article 3.2.1 and Article 3.2.3.2) are less than 2/3 of the previously indicated limits.
C7.3.7 CRITERIA FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE
For checks on the structural elements in terms of strength, as stated in Article 7.3.7.1 of the NTC, in the DLS
spectrum a value η=2/3 is to be considered to account for the overstrength of the structural elements.
For evaluation of the displacements aimed at verification of the structural elements in terms of damage
containment for non-structural elements, as stated in Article 7.3.7.2 of the NTC, η=1 is always used as, even
if limited damage to some structural elements is verified, it is assumed that the complete displacement of the
construction is equal to that which was calculated in the hypotheses of elastic structure.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1999-1-1:2007
Eurocode 9:
Design of aluminium structures
Part 1-1: General structural rules
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1999-1-1:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for aluminium structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1999-1-1 – Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-1: General structural
rules
EN-1999-1-1 – Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-1: General structural rules
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1999-1-1, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1999-1-1, relating to the following paragraphs:
1.1.2 (1)
5.2.1 (3)
8.1.1 (2)
2.1.2 (3)
5.3.2 (3)
8.9 (3)
2.3.1 (1)
5.3.4 (3)
A.2 (1)
3.2.1 (1)
6.1.3 (1)
C.3.4.1 (2)
3.2.2 (1)
6.2.1 (5)
C.3.4.1 (3)
3.2.2 (2)
7.1 (4)
C.3.4.1 (4)
3.2.3.1 (1)
7.2.1 (1)
K.1(1)
3.3.2.1 (3)
7.2.2 (1)
K.3(1)
3.3.2.2 (1)
7.2.3 (1)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1999-1-1 in Italy.
2.2.Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1999-1-1 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-1: General
structural rules
3) National decisions
Paragraph
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Reference
1.1.2 (1)
Note
The following limits are adopted, except in cases otherwise specified by the
regulation:
– components with thickness of material not less than 0.6 mm;
– welded components with thickness of material not less than 1.5 mm;
– connections
 steel bolts and pins with a diameter not less than 5 mm;
 aluminium bolts and pins with a diameter not less than 8 mm;
 rivets and self-tapping screws with a diameter not less than 4.2 mm
(recommended values)
2.1.2 (3)
Note
No additional clarification.
2.3.1 (1)
Note
Specific actions for particular regional, climatic or accidental situations are not
provided.
3.2.1 (1)
Note 1
No additional information
3.2.2 (1)
Note
No additional information
3.2.2 (2)
Note 1
No additional clarification
3.2.3.1 (1)
Note 2
No additional clarification
3.3.2.1 (3)
Note 1
3.3.2.2 (1)
Note 1
5.2.1 (3)
Note
5.3.2 (3)
Note
5.3.4 (3)
Note
6.1.3 (1)
Note 1
6.1.3 (1)
Note 2
6.2.1 (5)
Note 2
7.1 (4)
Note
No additional clarification, saving that for use of aluminium bolts it is necessary to
refer to a harmonised product standard or, failing this, to the requirements in Point C
of Section 11.1 of the NTC 2009
No additional information
No additional information
The recommended values in Table 5.1 are adopted.
Elastic analysis
Plastic analysis
Class instability
e0/L
e0/L
A
1/300
1/250
B
1/200
1/150
The following is adopted:
k = 0.5
(recommended value)
The following values are adopted:
γM1 = 1.15
γM2 = 1.25
No additional information
The following is adopted:
C = 1.20
(recommended value)
No additional information
7.2.1 (1)
Note
7.2.2 (1)
Note
7.2.3 (1)
Note
8.1.1 (2)
Note
8.9 (3)
Note
A.2 (1)
Note
C.3.4.1 (2)
Note
C.3.4.1 (3)
Note
C.3.4.1 (4)
Note
K.1(1)
Note
The vertical displacements must be congruent with performance required of the
structure in relation to the intended use, with reference to static, functional and
aesthetic requirements. As regards the limit values, these must be appropriate to the
specific requirements and may be inferred from technical documentation of proven
validity.
For buildings, the following limits are adopted for vertical shifts max deflection in
final state, effects of the initial lift; 2 variation due to application of variable loads):
- roofs in general: max/L  1/200, 2/L  1/250
- roof space: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/300
- floors in general: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/300
- floors or roofs bearing plaster or other fragile finishing materials or inflexible
partitions: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/350
- floors which support columns max/L  1/400, 2/L  1/500
Should shifting compromise the appearance of the building: max/L1/250
In the case of specific technical and/or functional requirements whose limits must be
suitably reduced.
The horizontal displacements must be congruent with performance required of the
structure in relation to the intended use, with reference to static, functional and
aesthetic requirements. As regards the limit values, these must be appropriate to the
specific requirements and may be inferred from technical documentation of proven
validity.
For buildings, the following values are adopted for horizontal shifting ( horizontal
movement at the top; relative displacement of floor):
- single-storey industrial buildings without overhead travelling crane: /h  1/150;
- other single-story buildings: /h  1/300;
- multi-storey buildings: /h1/300; /H  1/500
In the case of specific technical and/or functional requirements whose limits must be
suitably reduced.
As regards vibration limits, these must be congruent with performance required of
the structure in relation to the intended use, with reference to static, functional and
aesthetic requirements. As regards the limit values, these must be appropriate to the
specific requirements and may be inferred from technical documentation of proven
validity.
For buildings, the following limits relating to vibration of decks are adopted:
- floors loaded by people: lowest natural frequency of the structure must not in
general be inferior to 3 Hz;
- floors loaded by cyclical excitations: lowest natural frequency of the structure must
not in general be inferior to 5 Hz;
As an alternative to such restrictions an acceptability check may be conducted on the
perception of vibrations.
The recommended values in Table 8.1 are adopted with the exception of the values of
γM4 γM5 and γM7
Other types of unions are not permitted
No additional requirement
The following are adopted:
γMo,c = 1.15
γMo,c = 2.1
The following are adopted:
γM2,cu = γMu,c = 2.1
γM2,cu = γMu,c = 1.15
The following are adopted:
γMp,co= γMp = 1.3
γMp,cu= γMu,c = 2.1
The effects of the “shear lag” on the wings of the frame may be neglected if b0 < Le /
50, in which b0 is the width of the free wing or the half width of the internal wing and
Le is the distance between the points of zero moment.
For verifications on the ultimate limit state the recommended values are adopted
K.3(1)
Note 1
K.3(1)
Note 3
The effects of the "shear lag" for verifications on the ultimate limit state may be
determined by evaluating them in elastic conditions, as defined for the serviceability
and fatigue limit states .
No additional requirement
Annexes A and B retain an regulatory value.
Annexes C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M retain an informative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1999-1-2:2007
Eurocode 9:
Design of aluminium structures
Part 1-2: General rules -Structural
fire design
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1999-1-2:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for aluminium structures exposed to fire
NATIONAL ANNEX
UNI-EN1999-1-2 – Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-2: Structural fire design
EN 1999-1-2 – Eurocode 9 : Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-2: Structural fire design
1. BACKGROUND
This national annex contains the national parameters in the UNI-EN-1999-1-2 and was approved by
the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the Decisions on National Parameters which must be
prescribed in UNI-EN 1999-1-2 relating to the following paragraphs:
2.3(1) note
2.3(2) note
2.4.2(3) note 1
4.2.2.1(1) note
4.2.2.3(5) note
4.2.2.4(5) note
Said National Decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be observed when UNI-EN
1999-1-2 is used in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This Annex should be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN1999-1-2: Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-2: Structural fire design
3. NATIONAL DECISIONS
Listed below are the national parameters which must be adopted by use of Eurocode UNI-EN 19991-2
Paragraph
Reference
2.3(1)
note
2.3(2)
note
2.4.2 (3)
note 1
National parameter - value or requirement The recommended value is adopted:
M,fi = 1.0
The recommended value is adopted:
M,fi = 1.0
The values indicated in national Annexes EN1990 and EN1991-1-2 are
adopted
4.2.2.1 (1)
note
No specific information is provided
4.2.2.3 (5)
note
No specific information is provided
4.2.2.4 (5)
note
No specific information is provided
Use of information annexes
Annexes A and B retain an informative nature.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1999-1-3:2007
Eurocode 9:
Design of aluminium structures
Part 1-3: Structures susceptible to
fatigue
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1999-1-3:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used in aluminium structures subject to fatigue
National annex
UNI-EN-1999-1-3 – Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-3: Structures
susceptible to fatigue
EN-1999-1-3 – Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-3: Structures susceptible to
fatigue
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1999-1-3, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1999-1-3, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1 (1)
5.8.1 (1)
A.3.1 (1)
2.2.1 (3)
5.8.2 (1)
E (5)
2.3.1 (3)
6.1.3 (1)
E (7)
2.3.2 (6)
6.2.1(2)
I.2.2 (1)
2.4 (1)
6.2.1 (7)
I.2.3.2 (1)
3 (1)
6.2.1 (11)
I.2.4 (1)
4 (2)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1999-1-3 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly
referred to in UNI-EN 1999-1-3 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-3: Structures
susceptible to fatigue.
3) National decisions
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Paragraph
Reference
2.1.1 (1)
Note
2.2.1 (3)
Note
2.3.1 (3)
Note 2
2.3.2 (6)
Note
2.4 (1)
Note 1
2.4 (1)
Note 2
3 (1)
Note 1
No additional information
4 (2)
Note 1
No additional information
5.8.1 (1)
Note
5.8.2 (1)
Note
6.1.3 (1)
Note 1
6.1.3 (1)
Note 2
The damage tolerant design method is not accepted. Also for structures where damage
is acceptable the verification regarding the duration of rated life must be carried out.
The recommended value is adopted: Dlim=1.0
No additional requirement
The recommended values are adopted:
kF = 2
kN = 2
The recommended value is adopted:
γFf = 1
The recommended values in Table 2.1 are adopted.
The  to be considered in the verifications must be coherent with those considered
for the determination of the S-N curves. Different assumptions must, however, be
precautionary: it is not permitted therefore to consider rated delta stresses if the S-N
curves make reference to peak tensions.
The equivalent damage coefficients must be obtained from appropriate calibrations,
considering gradient values m of the S-N curve coherent with those of the S-N curves
of the details to be verified
The recommended values given in Annex J are adopted
No additional information
For partial coefficients Mf the recommended values in the table are adopted.
Consequences of breaking
Evaluation criteria
6.2.1(2)
Moderate consequences
Significant consequences
Acceptable damage
γM = 1.00
γM = 1.15
Useful fatigue life
γM = 1.15
γM = 1.35
Note 2
6.2.1 (7)
Note
No additional information
6.2.1 (11)
Note
No increases in classes of fatigue strength are accepted
A.3.1 (1)
Note
E (5)
Note
E (7)
Note
The damage tolerant design method is not accepted. Also for structures where damage
is acceptable the verification regarding the duration of rated life must be carried out.
For partial coefficients Mf the values in the table given in Note 2 of Paragraph 6.2.1(2)
are adopted, multiplied by 3.0.
No additional information
I.2.2 (1)
Note
No additional information
I.2.3.2 (1)
Note 2
No additional information
I.2.4 (1)
Note
No additional information
Annex A retains a normative value.
Annexes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K retain an informative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1999-1-4:2007
Eurocode 9:
Design of aluminium structures
Part 1-4: Cold-formed structural
sheeting
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1999-1-4:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for cold-formed structural aluminium
sheeting
National annex
UNI-EN-1999-1-4 – Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-4: Cold formed
structural sheeting
EN-1999-1-4 – Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-4: Cold-formed structural
sheeting
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1999-1-4, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1999-1-4, relating to the following paragraphs:
2(3)
7.3(3)
2(4)
A.1(1)
2(5)
A.3.4(3)
3.1(3)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1999-1-4 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN 1999-1-4 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-4: Cold-formed structural sheeting.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Reference
2(3)
Note
2(4)
Note
2(5)
3.1(3)
Note 1
Note 1
7.3(3)
Note
A.1(1)
A.1(1)
Note 2
Note 3
A.3.4(3)
Note
The recommended values are adopted:
γM1 = 1.15
γM2 = 1.25
γM3 = 1.25
The recommended value is adopted:
γM,ser = 1.0
No additional information
No additional information
The vertical displacements must be congruent with performance required of the
structure in relation to the intended use, with reference to static, functional and
aesthetic requirements. As regards the limit values, these must be appropriate to the
specific requirements and may be inferred from technical documentation of proven
validity.
For buildings, the following limits are adopted for vertical shifts max deflection in
final state, effects of the initial lift; 2 variation due to application of variable loads):
- roofs in general: max/L  1/200, 2/L  1/250
- roof space: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/300
- floors in general: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/300
- floors or roofs bearing plaster or other fragile finishing materials or inflexible
partitions: max/L  1/250, 2/L  1/350
- floors which support columns max/L  1/400, 2/L  1/500
Should shifting compromise the appearance of the building: max/L1/250
In the case of specific technical and/or functional requirements whose limits must be
suitably reduced.
No additional information
No additional information
Partial factors M must be determined by following the information in EN 1990, but
will not however be less than M1  1.5 ; M2  1.5 ; M3  1.25. For sys the
recommended value is adopted: sys = 1.0
Annex A retains a normative value.
Annex B retains a normative value.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
The High Council of Public Works
UNI EN 1999-1-5:2007
Eurocode 9:
Design of aluminium structures
Part 1-5: Shell structures
ITALIAN NATIONAL ANNEX
to UNI EN 1999-1-5:2007
Parameters adopted at national level
to be used for aluminium shell structures
National annex
UNI-EN-1999-1-5 – Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-5: Shell structures
EN-1999-1-5 – Eurocode 9 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-5: Shell structures
1) Background
This national annex, containing the national parameters to UNI-EN-1999-1-5, has been approved
by the High Council of Public Works on 25 February 2011.
2) Introduction
2.1.Scope
This national annex contains, in Point 3, the decisions on national parameters which
must be prescribed in UNI-EN 1999-1-5, relating to the following paragraphs:
2.1(3)
2.1(4)
These national decisions, relating to the paragraphs cited above, must be applied by the
use of UNI-EN-1999-1-5 in Italy.
2.2. Normative references
This annex must be kept in mind when using all the normative documents explicitly referred to in
UNI-EN 1999-1-5 – Design of aluminium structures – Part 1-5: Shell structures.
3) National decisions
Paragraph
National parameter
- value or requirement -
Reference
2.1(3)
Note
2.1(4)
Note
The following are adopted:
γM1 = 1.15
γM2 = 1.25
(recommended values)
The following is adopted:
γM,ser = 1.0
(recommended value)
Annex A retains a normative value.
Annex B retains a normative value.