applied

sciences
Article
Calculation of Safety Factors of the Eurocodes
Tuomo Poutanen 1, * , Tim Länsivaara 1 , Sampsa Pursiainen 2 , Jari Mäkinen 1 and Olli Asp 1

1 Faculty of Built Environment, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland;
[email protected] (T.L.); [email protected] (J.M.); [email protected] (O.A.)
2 Computing Sciences, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University,
P.O. Box 692, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This study concerns the safety factor and the reliability calculation for structural codes. The
Eurocodes are used as a reference. Safety factor calculation is a demanding task which necessitates
using an appropriate root-solving algorithm with a sufficient numerical accuracy. This article
introduces a simple algorithm to calculate the safety factors directly, as previously there has been
no means to control the accuracy. Presently, the safety factors are defined indirectly through the
reliability index. The basic safety factor calculation is presented here in six different equations with
the same outcome but differences regarding the numerical calculation, which provides a method
to check the accuracy and select a proper equation for the root solver. The safety factor calculation
for the permanent and the variable load in the Eurocodes is based on the independent, i.e., random,
load combination and single load pairs. The current approach of safety factor calculation applied in
the Eurocodes is disclosed here. Simple analytical equations based on the convolution equation are
presented. Those can be used instead of the computer programs applied currently.

Keywords: safety factor; reliability; independent load combination; structural code

1. Introduction





 This study concerns safety factor calculation for structural codes. The Eurocodes [1]
Citation: Poutanen, T.; Länsivaara, T.;
are used as a reference.
Pursiainen, S.; Mäkinen, J.; Asp, O.
The structural codes and articles regarding codes are divided into three accuracy
Calculation of Safety Factors of the levels: I, II, and III [1–5]. The Eurocodes were earlier based on level I, i.e., on deterministic,
Eurocodes. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208. historic, and empiric methods. However, the safety factors of the current Eurocodes
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010208 are based on level II, i.e., on the first order reliability method. The primary assumption
of this method is the independent load combination where a load reduction occurs. It is
Received: 24 November 2020 implemented by sensitivity factors αE and αR , which decrease the target reliability as in this
Accepted: 23 December 2020 load combination it is improbable that the highest permanent load and the highest variable
Published: 28 December 2020 load occur simultaneously. Also the Eurocodes include dependent load combinations.
In the serviceability limit state (SLS), all loads are combined dependently, i.e., without
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- a reduction factor, and in the ultimate limit state (ULS), permanent loads and multiple
tral with regard to jurisdictional claims variable loads are combined dependently, too. The issue of the dependent load combination
in published maps and institutional is not addressed in this article. The accuracy level III is a full probabilistic method. Such a
affiliations. method has not been implemented in any structural codes yet but was allowed for in [1].
The safety factors of the Eurocodes are defined currently by using the reliability
index [1–6] as a reference. A safety factor set is selected, and the reliability index is
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li-
calculated for each load case, which must match well enough with the target reliability.
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This Such safety factor setting is difficult, and a program was developed recently to set the
article is an open access article distributed safety factors by minimizing the deviations of the actual reliability indexes from the target
under the terms and conditions of the index [6]. In this article, a simple method for the safety factor calculation is presented. It
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) offers a possibility to calculate the safety factors directly without using the reliability index
license (https://creativecommons.org/ as the reference. This article introduces the following three novel aspects for the safety
licenses/by/4.0/). factor calculation and setting:

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010208 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208 2 of 9

• A set of simple equations is introduced to refine the previously presented one [7,8]
which can have several forms and are useful in accuracy checking and root solvers.
• The equations offer direct calculation of the safety factors without using the reliability
index as a reference. The annex C of [1] explains that the safety factors are set indirectly
by using the reliability index as a reference.
• The equations can be used to calculate the reliability, or the safety factor in special
cases like in cases with questionable resistance, proof loading, limited loading, and
exceptional service time.

2. Materials and Methods

The assumptions, terms, and symbols of the Eurocodes [1] apply. The target one-year
reliability index is β0 = 4.7, meaning that the 50-year reliability index is β50 ≈ 3.83 and the
50-year failure probability is Pf50 ≈ 1/15,400.
In the calculation algorithm explained here one value must be selected to associate all
distributions, i.e., the permanent load, the variable load, and the material property, with
the same value. In the Eurocodes, the characteristic values of the distributions, the mean of
the permanent load, the 0.98 fractile of the one-year variable load, and the 0.05 fractile of
the material property are the same. This value is here set to unity. Such selection is possible
as all distributions can be multiplied by an arbitrary number and the calculation result
remains unchanged. This value is called here a design point. This selection means that all
materials have the same value i.e., unity, at the 0.05 fractile. Other material parameters,
like means, are different as explained later. In this calculation, the design point is unity in
the ULS, too, which means that the load distributions must be divided by the load factors
and the material distribution must be multiplied by the material factors.
The permanent load distribution, cumulative distribution G(x,µG ,σG ), and density
distribution g(x,µG ,σG ) are assumed to be normal, µG = 1, σG = 0.1, and VG = 0.1 [1–5]. The
permanent load safety factor is γG = 1.35.
The variable load distribution, cumulative distribution G(x,µQ ,σQ ), and density distri-
bution g(x,µG ,σG ) are assumed to be Gumbel distributions. The characteristic load is the
50-year return load, i.e., the one-year 0.98-fractile is set to the design point, µQ = 0.4909,
σQ = 0.1964; VQ = 0.4. This distribution applies to the one-year loads. In the current
Eurocodes, the variable load distribution corresponds to 5-year loads and distribution is

µQ σQ 5
Q = (x; , )
γG γG

which is due to the reliability reduction by the sensitivity factor αE = 0.7. The variable load
safety factor is γQ = 1.5.
The distribution of the material property is assumed to be log-normal. The 0.05
fractile is set at the design point. The safety factors are calculated for three materials with
coefficients of variation: VM = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, assumed to apply to steel, timber, and concrete.
The parameters are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters of the material properties.

VM µM σM
0.1 1.1841 0.1184
0.2 1.4125 0.2825
0.3 1.6921 0.5076

The load ratio α and the variable load proportion in the total load is
µQ
α= (1)
(µ G + µ Q )
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208 3 of 9

3. Results
3.1. One Load
The general equation for the reliability calculation is [1–13]
Z ∞
f(x)M(x)dx = Pf , (2)
0

where f(x) is the density distribution of the load, M(x) is the cumulative distribution of
the material property, and Pf is the failure probability. This equation can be written in an
alternative form Z ∞
F(x)m(x)dx = 1 − Pf , (3)
0

where F(x) is the cumulative distribution of the load, and m(x) is the density distribution
of the material property. The general design equation for a single load is

M
γL L = (4)
γM

where γL is load factor, L is load, M is material property, and γM is material factor. This
equation can be written in two different forms with the same result

M
L = (5)
γM γL

and
γL γM L = M (6)
These equations suggest that the reliability equation can be written in several forms.
When the actual distributions are fixed in Equations (2) and (3), Equations (7)–(12) are
obtained to calculate the reliability Pf50 or the safety factors for the permanent load and the
material property [7,8]:
Z ∞
µG σG
g(x, , )M(x, µM γM , σM γM )dx = Pf50 (7)
0 γG γG
Z ∞
g(x, µG , σG )M(x, µM γM γG , σM γM γG )dx = Pf50 , (8)
0
Z ∞
µG σG
g (x, , )M(x, µM , σM )dx = Pf50 , (9)
0 γG γM γG γM
Z ∞
µG σG
G(x, , )M(x, µM γM , σM γM )dx = 1 − Pf50 , (10)
0 γG γG
Z ∞
G(x, µG , σG )m(x, µM γM γG , σM γM γG )dx = 1 − Pf50 , (11)
0
and Z ∞
µG σG
G(x, , )m(x, µM , σM )dx = 1 − Pf50 . (12)
0 γG γM γG γM
The material factors for the variable load are calculated analogously, when the perma-
nent load distribution is changed to the variable load distribution.
Analytically, these alternative equations all provide the same outcome. Numerically,
some expressions are more suitable for the root solvers than the others, and the accuracy of
the actual calculations depend, for example, on the integral bounds and the accuracy of the
calculation device. In practice, cross-checking between two or more equations can be used
to estimate and validate the numerical accuracy.
These equations disclose that the reliability calculation is arbitrary if the loads are
multiplied or the material properties are divided by the load factors. It is also arbitrary if
the material properties are divided or the loads are multiplied by the material factors. This
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 9

of the actual calculations depend, for example, on the integral bounds and the accuracy of
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208 the calculation device. In practice, cross-checking between two or more equations can be 4 of 9
used to estimate and validate the numerical accuracy.
These equations disclose that the reliability calculation is arbitrary if the loads are
multiplied or the material properties are divided by the load factors. It is also arbitrary if
means
the thatproperties
material the partialare
safety factor
divided method
or the loads and the allowable
are multiplied by thestress method
material yield
factors. the same
This
means
design that the partial
outcome safety factor
regarding method and
the reliability the allowable
analysis. stress
Material method
factors foryield the same load
the permanent
design
and foroutcome regarding
the 1-year the reliability
and 5-year variableanalysis. Material
loads are given factors
in Tablefor2.the permanent load
and for the 1-year and 5-year variable loads are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Material safety factors for single loads.
Table 2. Material safety factors for single loads.
Variable Load t = 1 Variable Load t = 5
VM VMPermanent Load Variable
Permanent Load Load t = 1 Year Variable Load t = 5 Years
Year Years
0.1 1.031 1.123 1.279
0.2 0.1 1.218 1.031 1.106 1.123 1.285 1.279
0.2 1.218 1.106 1.285
0.3 1.472 1.163 1.382
0.3 1.472 1.163 1.382

The distributions are shown in Figure 1 in the SLS and in Figure 2 in the ULS.
The distributions are shown in Figure 1 in the SLS and in Figure 2 in the ULS.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9

Figure
Figure 1. 1.
TheThe distributions
distributions in the
in the serviceability
serviceability limitlimit
state state
(SLS).(SLS). Solidpermanent
Solid line, line, permanent
load; load; dashed
line, variable
dashed load; load;
line, variable dotted lines,lines,
dotted material property,
material steel,
property, timber,
steel, and
timber, andconcrete.
concrete.

Figure 2. The distributions in the ultimate limit state (ULS), solid line, permanent load, γG = 1.35;
Figure 2. The distributions in the ultimate limit state (ULS), solid line, permanent load, γG = 1.35;
dashed line, variable load, γQ = 1.5; dotted lines, material property, steel, timber, and concrete,
dashed line, variable load, γQ = 1.5; dotted lines, material property, steel, timber, and concrete, γM
= 1.0,
γM 1.3,
= 1.0, 1.41.3, 1.4 [13–15].
[13–15].

3.2. Two Loads

The permanent load G(x), g(x) and the variable load Q(x), q(x,) are combined in-
dependently using the convolution equation to obtain the cumulative distribution of the
combination load GQ(x) [7,8].
 The permanent load G(x), g(x) and the variable load Q(x), q(x
dependently using the convolution equation to obtain the cumulativ
combination load GQ(x) [7,8].
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208 5 of 9
∞
GQ(x)= -∞
G(x-r)q(r) dr,
∞
3.2. Two Loads
GQ(x)= G(r)q(x-r) dr,
-∞(x), q(x,) are combined inde-
The permanent load G(x), g(x) and the variable load Q
∞
pendently using the convolution equation to obtain the cumulative distribution of the
combination load GQ(x) [7,8]. GQ(x)= -∞ g(x-r)Q(r) dr,
Z ∞
and GQ(x) = G(x − r)q(r)dr, (13)
−∞
∞
GQ(x) =
Z ∞
GQ(x)= g(r)Q(x-r) dr.
G(r)q(x − r)dr,-∞ (14)
−∞
Z ∞
One equation applicable
GQ(x) = in calculating
g(x − r)Q(r)dr, the combination(15)
load in
−∞
∞
and
GQ(x, α)= -∞ G x-r, G (1 -
Z ∞ ),G (1 - ) q r, Q ,Q
GQ(x) = g(r)Q(x − r)dr. (16)
−∞
TheOnefailure probability
equation applicable or the
in calculating thesafety factors
combination load inare
load calculated
proportion α is indep
bination load usingZEquations ∞ (7)–(17).
GQ(x, α) = G(x − r, µG (1 − α),σG (1 − α))q(r, µQ α, σQ α)dr (17)
In Figure 3, the−∞reliability index β50 for VM = 0.15, γM = 1.15 is
presented in Figure
The failure probability5 orofthe[3] and
safety thearecurves
factors calculatedare the same
independently within
in the combi- grap
nation load using Equations (7)–(17).
accuracy, which
In Figure 3, themeans
reliabilitythat
index the equations
β50 for VM = 0.15, γMgiven above
= 1.15 is yield
given. The the
curve is same
presented inalgorithms.
calculation Figure 5 of [3] and the curves are the same within graphical and calculation
accuracy, which means that the equations given above yield the same result as the current
calculation algorithms.

Figure 3. The reliability index calculated for VM = 0.15, γM = 1.15. The horizontal dashed line denotes
Figure 3. The
the target reliability
reliability index β50 =index
3.83. calculated for VM = 0.15, γM = 1.15. The horizo

notes the target4, reliability

In Figure index
a complementary β50 = 3.83.
calculation is given, i.e., the material safety factor is
given as a function of the target reliability β50 = 3.83.
The equations above give the same result as given in [12]. In Figure 5, the material
In Figure
factors 4, aEurocodes
of the current complementary
are given usingcalculation
the combinationis given,
rule (8.12) ofi.e., the
the Eu- ma
given as a[1].function
rocodes ofconcrete
The curve for the target
matchesreliability β50 = 3.83. value of safety
well with the recommended
factor γM = 1.4. The recommended value for timber γM = 1.3 looks high and the steel γM =
1.0, low for the loads where the variable load is dominating.
 notes the target reliability index β50 = 3.83.

In Figure 4, a complementary calculation is given, i.e., the m

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208
given as a function of the target reliability β50 = 3.83. 6 of 9

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 9

Figure 4. The material factor calculated for VM = 0.15, β50 = 3.83. The horizontal dashed line denotes 146
γM = 1.15. 147

The equations above give the same result as given in [12]. In Figure 5, the material 148
factors of the current Eurocodes are given using the combination rule (8.12) of the Euro- 149
codes [1]. The curve for concrete matches well with the recommended value of safety fac- 150
tor γM = 1.4. The recommended value for timber γM = 1.3 looks high and the steel γM = 1.0, 151
low for the loads where the variable load is dominating. 152
In some recent calculations [6], the reliability and the safety factors of the Eurocodes 153
were calculated for one-year loads β1 = 4.7. Such calculation necessitates other sensitivity 154
factors than disclosed in the Eurocodes (αE = 0.7). Here αE = 0.89, i.e., β1 = 4.2, is selected as 155
it results in about the same outcome as presented above and the safety factors are given 156
in dotted lines Figure 5. 157
When the material safety factor is used as a reference, both calculation methods lead 158
Figure 4. The
to about thematerial factor calculated
same outcome for VM
for variable = 0.15,
loads, = 3.83.
β50the
and The horizontal
one-year dashed
calculation line in
results denotes
159
M = 1.15.
γhigher safety factors for the permanent loads. 160

161
Figure 5. Material
Figure 5. factorsγγ
Material factors MMofof
thethe current
current Eurocodes
Eurocodes using
using the combination
the combination rule (8.12).
rule (8.12). Solid line,
Solid line, 162
steel;
steel; dashed line, timber; and dash-dotted line, concrete. The dotted lines denote the safety factorsfactors
dashed line, timber; and dash-dotted line, concrete. The dotted lines denote the safety 163
ofthe
of the one-year
one-year calculation.
calculation. 164

In some6 discloses
Figure recent calculations [6], the reliability
the complementary calculationand
i.e., the reliability
safety factors of the
indexes are Eurocodes
given 165
were calculated
as a function forload
of the one-year
ratio. loads β1 = 4.7. Such calculation necessitates other sensitivity 166
factors than disclosed in the Eurocodes (αE = 0.7). Here αE = 0.89, i.e., β1 = 4.2, is selected
as it results in about the same outcome as presented above and the safety factors are given
in dotted lines Figure 5.
When the material safety factor is used as a reference, both calculation methods lead
to about the same outcome for variable loads, and the one-year calculation results in higher
safety factors for the permanent loads.
Figure 6 discloses the complementary calculation i.e., the reliability indexes are given
as a function of the load ratio.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208 7 of 9

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 9

(%) 1
Figure 6. Reliability indexes as a function of the load ratio. Solid line, steel, γM = 1.0; dashed line, 1
(%)
γM = 1.3, timber; and dash-dotted line concrete, γM = 1.4. Dotted lines apply to the one-year calcula- 1
Figure 6. Reliability indexes as a function of the load ratio. Solid line, steel, γM = 1.0; dashed
Figure 6. Reliability indexes as a function of the load ratio. Solid line, steel, γM =1
tion.
line, γM = 1.3, timber; and dash-dotted line concrete, γM = 1.4. Dotted lines apply to the one-year
γM = 1.3, timber; and dash-dotted line concrete, γM = 1.4. Dotted lines apply to th
calculation.
The current safety factor for steel is γM = 1. Figure 5 shows that the calculated value 1
tion.
is 27%Thehigher. However, Figure 6 shows that the reliability index for the current reliability 1
current safety factor for steel is γM = 1. Figure 5 shows that the calculated value is
calculation is 3.01
27% higher. However, and for the one-year
Figure 6 shows that calculation 3.50, i.e.,
the reliability indextheforrelative deviations
the current are 26% 1
reliability
and 20%,The
calculation is current
respectively. safety
Using
3.01 and for the the factor for steel
safetycalculation
one-year factor vs. the
3.50,is γMthe= relative
reliability
i.e., 1.index
Figure as the5reference
deviations shows
are 26% that the
leads 1
toand
a different
is 27% outcome.
higher. However,
20%, respectively. In this case,
Using the safety the
Figure reliability
factor6vs.shows index option
that the
the reliability index results
reliability in a
as the referencelower
index safety
leadsfor the1
factor
to a different outcome. In this case, the reliability index option results in a lower safety is 1
for the variable load. It is obvious that using the safety factor as the reference
calculation
more
factorcorrect
for the which
is 3.01 and for
variableconfirms
load. It isthe
the one-year
earlierthat
obvious observation
calculation
by the
using the safety authors
factor
3.50,
as the
i.e., themore
[7]reference
relative d1
that theisreliability
andis20%,
correct
index which
a biasedrespectively.
confirms the earlier
abstraction, Using
when it isthe
observation usedsafety
byasthe
the factor
authors
reference vs.
[7] inthe
that thereliability
the reliability
safety factor index
index is
setting.as th
1
a
The biased
tosame abstraction,
a different
is disclosed when
outcome. it is used
in Figure 7 In as the reference
thisthecase,
where the
relative in the safety
reliability
deviation factor
regarding setting.
index The
the option same results1
target is given
is disclosed
for both in Figure 7i.e.,
calculations, where
there theare
relative
cases deviation
where the regarding
safety the target
factors are is
thegiven
same forasboth
shown
factor fori.e., the variable load.the It safety
is obvious
factors arethat using the in safety
Figure factor a1
incalculations,
Figure 5, but the there are cases
relative where
deviations are different. the same as shown 5, 1
more
but correct
the relative whichare
deviations confirms
the earlier observation by the authors [7] t
different.
index is a biased abstraction, when it is used as the reference in the saf
The same is disclosed in Figure 7 where the relative deviation regarding
for both calculations, i.e., there are cases where the safety factors are th
in Figure 5, but the relative deviations are different.

1
Figure 7. Relative deviation of the calculated material factors and reliability indexes regarding the
Figure 7. Relative deviation of the calculated material factors and reliability indexes regarding the 1
recommended values. Solid line, steel, γ = 1.0; dashed line, γ = 1.3, timber; and dash-dotted line
recommended values. Solid line, steel, γMM = 1.0; dashed line, M γM = 1.3, timber; and dash-dotted line 1
concrete,γγMM==1.4.
concrete, 1.4.The
Thedotted
dottedlines
lines display
display the
thecorresponding
correspondingdeviations
deviationsof of
thethe
reliability indexes.
reliability indexes. 1

4. Discussion 1
The calculations above are based on the dependent load combination (8.12) of [1]. In 1
the independent load combination (8.13a,b), load reduction of approximately 10% occurs 1
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208 8 of 9

4. Discussion
The calculations above are based on the dependent load combination (8.12) of [1]. In
the independent load combination (8.13a,b), load reduction of approximately 10% occurs
which means that the lines of Figure 5 lie about 10% higher when the load consists of equal
permanent and the variable load, i.e., in this load combination, the lines are almost straight
between the cases when the permanent load or the variable load is acting alone.
Using these equations, designers can verify existing partial safety factors or calculate
new ones or calculate reliabilities accounting for the true distribution of properties. A need
for such a calculation may occur in many special cases, e.g., the following ones:
• If the resistance of a structure is uncertain, and therefore, the structure is proof-loaded,
the equations can be used to determine the required proof-load for the target reliability.
• In the current Eurocodes, the safety factors are set for 50-year loads. If the actual
service time is different, the equations modify the safety factors.
• In case the resistance of a roof girder is uncertain, a feasible concept is to remove
the snow load if it exceeds a critical value. The present equations can be applied to
calculate this critical value.
The authors have suggested that the loads are combined dependently [7,8]. The de-
pendent load combination results in the same outcome as presented here for the permanent
loads and about 20% higher safety factors for the variable loads.

5. Conclusions
The safety factor calculation presented can be performed in a simple manner. The
calculation is based on analytic equations, requiring no special computer programs. The
numerical accuracy of the safety factor calculation is a challenging task. The algorithm
explained here is accurate, as such, and various alternative equations present an option for
accuracy control. The reliability index is a biased abstraction used as the reference in the
safety factor setting.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.P. and T.L.; methodology, T.P.; software, T.P.; validation,
T.P., S.P., and O.A.; formal analysis, T.P.; investigation, T.P.; data curation, T.P.; writing—original draft
preparation, T.P. and J.M.; writing—review and editing, T.P., O.A., and J.M.; visualization, T.P. and
O.A.; supervision, T.L.; project administration, T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article. The data presented in the figures
of this study can all be reproduced using the equations given in the study.
Acknowledgments: Keijo Ruohonen, Tampere University, collaborated for the mathematical formu-
lation of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. CEN. Draft prEN 1990:2020 Eurocode—Basis of Structural Design; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
2. Gulvanessian, H.; Calgaro, J.-A.; Holicky, M. Designer’s Guide to EN 1990, EUROCODE: Basis of Structural Design; Thomas Telford
Publishing: London, UK, 2002.
3. Gulvanessian, H.; Holicky, M. Eurocodes: Using reliability analysis to combine action effects. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build.
2005, 158, 243–252. [CrossRef]
4. Joint Committee on Structural Safety. Reliability-Based Code Calibration. Available online: http://www.jcss.byg.dtu.dk/codecal
(accessed on 3 October 2020).
5. JRC. Implementation of Eurocodes, Handbook 2, Reliability Backgrounds; JRC: Prague, Czech Republic, 2005. Available online:
https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/showpublication.php?id=63 (accessed on 3 October 2020).
6. Köhler, J.; Sørensen, J.D.; Baravalle, M. Calibration of existing semi-probabilistic design codes. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Application of Statics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ICASP13, Seoul, Korea, 26–30 May 2019.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 208 9 of 9

7. Poutanen, T. Calculation of partial safety factors. In Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering; Faber, M., Köhler,
J., Nishijima, K., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK, 2011; pp. 303–304.
8. Poutanen, T.; Pursiainen, S.; Mäkinen, J.; Länsivaara, T. Combination of permanent and variable loads. Raken. Mek. 2018, 51, 1–9.
Available online: https://rakenteidenmekaniikka.journal.fi/article/view/65175/35889 (accessed on 3 October 2020). [CrossRef]
9. Ferry Borges, J.; Castanheta, M. Structural Safety; Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil: Lisbon, Portugal, 1971.
10. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 8930 General Principles of Reliability of Structures; International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1987.
11. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 2394, General Principles of Reliability of Structures, List of Equivalent Terms;
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
12. Ranta-Maunus, A.; Fonselius, M.; Kurkela, J.; Toratti, T. Reliability Analysis of Timber Structures. VTT Research Notes 2109,
Espoo 2001. Available online: https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2001/T2109.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2020).
13. CEN. EN 1992-1-1:2005, Eurocode 2. Design of Concrete Structures; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
14. CEN. EN 1993-1-1:2005, Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
15. CEN. EN 1995-1-1:2004, Eurocode 5. Design of Timber Structures; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.