EN 1990-2023 vs Other Codes: Why Engineers Choose It in Real Projects

You’re sitting in a project kickoff meeting for a new mixed-use tower in Warsaw. The local Polish developer nods along as your multinational design team presents the structural concept. Then the client’s representative leans forward and asks the pivotal question: “Will you design to the Polish National Annexes of Eurocode, or will you use the full American AISC 360 and ACI 318?” The room goes quiet. This isn’t just a technical preference; it’s a decision that will dictate your material sourcing, your detailing philosophy, your safety verification process, and ultimately, your project’s legal standing. In this crucible of international engineering, EN 1990, the “Basis of Structural Design,” isn’t just another document—it’s the foundational logic that makes the entire Eurocode system cohere, and its 2023 revision sharpens that logic for modern challenges.

The choice often comes down to a fundamental philosophical difference in how safety and reliability are managed. Contrast EN 1990’s approach with, say, the traditional American Allowable Stress Design (ASD) still prevalent in some US standards. ASD applies a single global factor of safety to a nominal “working” load. It’s simple, historical, and feels intuitive. But where does that factor come from? It’s largely empirical, based on long experience with specific materials. EN 1990, and the Limit State Design (LSD) philosophy it codifies, dismantles this monolithic safety concept. It separates the uncertainties in loading from the uncertainties in material resistance. You apply partial safety factors (γ) to actions (loads) and other partial factors to material strengths. This granularity is its first major advantage. When you’re assessing an existing structure for a change of use—a common scenario in European city centers—you can adjust these factors based on more refined knowledge. The American Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) in AISC 360 follows a similar principle, but EN 1990’s framework is more explicitly probabilistic and transparent about its target reliability levels (like β=3.8 for a 50-year reference period for common buildings). This gives engineers a clearer mathematical backbone for justifying decisions in forensic analysis or when pushing design boundaries.

Where EN 1990-2023 really starts to pull ahead in practical decision-making is in its treatment of load combinations. This is the daily grind of design. The old British Standards, for instance, had prescribed combinations. You followed them. EN 1990 provides a generative framework. It gives you the fundamental combination rules (Eq. 6.10), but then it’s up to the National Annexes to specify the ψ factors (for reducing variable loads like wind, snow, or imposed loads when they are unlikely to act simultaneously at their full characteristic value). This sounds bureaucratic, but in practice, it creates a flexible yet consistent language across all materials. When your architectural team wants a dramatic, lightweight canopy, you’ll use the same combination logic for the steel frame (EN 1993), the glass (EN 16612), and the connections. You’re not juggling different combination philosophies from separate, siloed codes. The 2023 revision has further refined this, providing enhanced guidance for non-linear analysis and the combination of actions for persistent, transient, and accidental design situations, which is a godsend for complex geometries analyzed in sophisticated FEM software.

The clarity around “design working life” is another subtle but powerful differentiator. EN 1990 explicitly categorizes structures (e.g., 50 years for buildings, 100 years for monumental structures). This isn’t just a number; it directly influences the statistical determination of characteristic loads and the calibration of safety factors. Many national codes are vague on this. When you design a major piece of infrastructure—a bridge or a power plant—with a multinational consortium, having this explicitly defined avoids ambiguity in long-term maintenance and liability planning. It forces the client and designer to have a conversation about longevity from day one, which is better engineering practice.

Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: complexity. Critics, often from regions with long-established local codes, argue that Eurocodes, starting with EN 1990, are overly complex. There’s some truth in the initial learning curve. An engineer used to the prescriptive, table-heavy approach of some older national codes might find the principle-based, factor-driven approach of EN 1990 abstract. However, this complexity is the price of its flexibility and consistency. Once internalized, it allows for more rational optimization. For example, in designing a large warehouse, the combination rules for imposed loads and wind can be tuned more precisely than in a one-size-fits-all prescriptive combination, potentially leading to material savings without compromising safety. The 2023 version attempts to address past criticisms by improving clarity and user-friendliness in its explanatory notes, bridging the gap between high-level theory and daily design office use.

The final, and perhaps most decisive, reason engineers choose EN 1990 isn’t found in its text, but on the map. For any project within the European Union and increasingly in many Middle Eastern, African, and Asian markets influenced by EU practice, the Eurocodes are the mandatory or de-facto standard. EN 1990 is the keystone. You choose it because the building authorities in Berlin, Dubai, or Nairobi require it for permitting. But beyond mere compliance, you stick with it because it creates a unified engineering language. A Croatian detailer, a German steel fabricator, and a Spanish contractor can all work from drawings and calculations that share the same fundamental logic. When a Swiss geotechnical engineer provides a bearing capacity report using EN 1997’s partial factors, it plugs seamlessly into your superstructure design governed by EN 1990’s load combinations. This interoperability reduces risk and error in international projects.

So, back to that meeting in Warsaw. The argument for using EN 1990-2023 with the Polish National Annexes is compelling. It’s legally compliant, it’s based on a transparent and modern reliability philosophy, and it offers a consistent framework for the concrete, steel, and seismic design that will follow. Choosing an alternative code suite might offer short-term familiarity for one part of the team, but it would introduce translation errors at every interface—between materials, between disciplines, and between the design and the local regulatory environment. In the end, EN 1990 is chosen not because it’s perfect, but because it provides the most robust and integrated basis for structural decision-making in a complex, interconnected world. It’s the code that forces you to think probabilistically, to declare your assumptions, and to build a coherent safety argument from the ground up. That’s the mark of mature engineering.