Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison between reinforced concrete designs based on the ACI 318 and BS 8110 codes

  • Tabsh, Sami W. (Department of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah)
  • Received : 2012.01.10
  • Accepted : 2013.10.26
  • Published : 2013.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Municipalities in the United Arab Emirates approve reinforced concrete design of building structures to follow either the ACI 318 or the BS 8110 code. Since the requirements of these codes are different from each, there is a need to compare the structural demand in the two codes. The main objective of this study is to compare the design requirements of the ACI 318 code with the BS 8110 code for the flexural, shear and axial compression limit states. The load factors and load combinations in the two codes are also compared. To do so, a large number of cross-sections with different geometries, material properties, and reinforcement ratios are analyzed following the procedures in the two codes. The relevant factored load combinations in the two codes are also investigated for a wide range of live-to-dead load ratios and for various wind-to-dead load ratios. The study showed that the differences between the design capacities in the ACI 318 and BS 8110 codes are minor for flexure, moderate for axial compression, and major for shear. Furthermore, the factored load combinations for dead load, live load and wind in the two codes yield minor-to-moderate differences, depending on the live-to-dead load ratio and intensity of wind.

Keywords

References

  1. ACI318M-11 (2011), Building code requirement for structural concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
  2. Al-Rodan, A.K. (2004), "Comparison between BS5400 and EC4 for concrete-filled steel tubular columns," Advances in Structural Engineering, 7(2), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369433041211110
  3. American Forest and Paper Association (1996), Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Manual for Engineered Wood Construction, 1st Ed., Washington, D.C..
  4. AS3600 (2009), Concrete Structures, Australian Standard, Standards Association of Australia, Sydney, December.
  5. ASCE7 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Structural Engineering Institute, ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
  6. BSI1881 (1983), Method for determination of the compressive strength of cores, Part 120, British Standards Institution, London.
  7. BSI8110 (1997), Structural use of concrete. Part 1 -code of practice for design and construction, British Standards Institution, London.
  8. CAN/CSA-A23.3 (2004), Design of Concrete Structures, National Standard of Canada, Canadian Standards Association, Reaffirmed year 2010.
  9. Eurocode-EC2 (2002), Design of Concrete Structures - Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, April.
  10. Ganesan, N. and Shivananda, K.P. (1996), "Comparison of international codes for the prediction of maximum width of cracks in reinforced concrete flexural members", Indian Concrete Journal, 70(11), 635-641.
  11. Hawileh, R.A., Malhas, F.A. and Rahman, A. (2009), "Comparison between ACI 318-05 and Eurocode 2 (EC2-94) in flexural concrete design", Journal of Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 32(6), 705-724. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2009.32.6.705
  12. Heger, F.J. (1993), "Public safety - is it compromised by new LRFD design standards?", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(4), 1251-1264. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:4(1251)
  13. Lindsey, S.D. (1984), "Plastic design under present ASD and future LRFD", Proceedings of Structures Congress '84, ASCE, New York.
  14. Lwin, M.M. (1999), "Why the AASHTO load and resistance factor design specifications?", Transportation Research Record, No. 1688, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C..
  15. Ma, X.B. and Zhang, S.M. (2007), "Comparison of design methods of load-carrying capacity for circular concrete-filled steel tube beam columns in typical codes worldwide", Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, 39(4), 536-541.
  16. Malhas, F.A. and Rahman, A. (2003), "A comparative investigation of the provisions of the ACI and EC2 for flexural deflection", ACI Special Publication, SP-210, American Concrete Institute, 93-114.
  17. Miller, L.J. and Durham, S. (2008), "Comparison of standard load and load and resistance factor bridge design specifications for buried concrete structures", Transportation Research Record, No. 2050, TRB, Washington, D.C..
  18. Nielsen, R.J. and Schmeckpeper, E.R. (2002), "Single-span prestressed girder bridge: LRFD design and comparison", Journal of Bridge Engineering, 7(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2002)7:1(22)
  19. Nowak, A.S., Eom, J., Sanli, A. and Till, R. (1999), "Verification of girder-distribution factors for short-span steel girder bridges by field testing", Transportation Research Record, No. 1688, Washington, D.C.
  20. Nowak, A.S. and Collins, K.R. (2000), Reliability of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  21. Pellicane, P.J. and Criswell, M.E. (2000a), "Comparison of ASD and LRFD Codes for wood members. I: axial loading", Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 5(2), 54-59. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2000)5:2(54)
  22. Pellicane, P.J. and Criswell, M.E. (2000b), "Comparison of ASD and LRFD codes for wood members. II: flexural loading", Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 5(2), 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2000)5:2(60)
  23. Pellicane, P.J. (2000), "Comparison of ASD and LRFD codes for wood members. III: connections," Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, 5(2), 66-69. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2000)5:2(66)
  24. Roeder, C.W. (1990), "Comparison of LRFD and Allowable Stress Design methods for steel structures", 5th Seminario de Ingenieria Estructural, San Jose, Costa Rica, November.
  25. Shahawy, M.A. and Batchelor, B.D. (1996), "Shear behavior of full-scale prestressed concrete girders: comparison between AASHTO specifications and LRFD code," PCI Journal, 41(3), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.05011996.48.62
  26. Showalter, J.B., Manbeck, H.B. and Pollock, D.G. (1998), "LRFD versus ASD for wood design," Proceedings of the 1998 ASAE meeting,Orlando, Paper No. 984006, Michigan.
  27. Soulages, J.R., Heintz, J.A. and Malley, J.O. (1996), "Comparison of seismic design using ASD and LRFD," Proceedings of Structures Congress '96, ASCE, 1, 542-549.
  28. Tabsh, S.W. (1996), "Reliability of composite steel bridge beams designed following AASHTO's LFD and LRFD specifications", Structural Safety, 17(4), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(95)00012-7
  29. Tan, K.H. and Lu, H.Y. (1999), "Shear behavior of large reinforced concrete deep beams and code comparisons", ACI Structural Journal, 96(5), 836-845.
  30. Tong, X.D., Zhang, C.Y. and Li, B. (2011), "Comparison of compression member design between Chinese and American reinforcement concrete design codes", International Conference on Electric Technology and Civil Engineering (ICETCE), Lushan, April.
  31. Warren, H., Manbeck, H.B., Janowick, J.J. and Witmer, R.W. (1998), "Differences in LRFD and ASD outcomes for hardwood glue-laminated bridges", Transactions of ASAE, 41(3), 803-811. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.17218
  32. Wight, J.K. and MacGregor, J.G. (2011), Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, 6th Ed., Pearson.
  33. Zachar, J.A. and Naik, T.R. (1996), "The strength design method for reinforced concrete around the world", Journal Materials and Structures, 29(4), 250-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02485947
  34. Zhang, W. and Shahrooz, B. (1999), "Comparison between ACI and AISC for concrete-filled tubular columns", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 125(11), 1213-1223. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:11(1213)
  35. Zhou, S.P. and Chen, W.F. (1984), "Comparative study of beam-columns in ASD and LRFD", Technical Report, No. CE-STR, Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering. 477

Cited by

  1. Comparison of actions and resistances in different building design codes vol.7, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2015.11.001
  2. Nonlinear numerical simulation of RC columns subjected to cyclic oriented lateral force and axial loading vol.53, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.53.4.745
  3. Comparison of Analysis Specifications and Practices for Diaphragm Wall Retaining System vol.40, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2018-0004