• KCI Concrete Journal
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.45-52
• /
• 1999

A Computer-based iterative method is provided for the calculation of minimum thickness values for one-way slabs to satisfy the maximum permissible limits given in the ACI Building Code. An algorithm includes the effects of cracking and time-dependent effects due to creep and shrinkage. Comparison of the calculated minimum thickness values with the current ACI limits is conducted to investigate limitations of the current tabulated minimum thickness. which are constant to a range of design conditions.

• Journal of the Korea Concrete Institute
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.365-376
• /
• 2011

The current Concrete Structural Design Code (2007) prescribe the equivalent rectangular stress block of the ACI 318 Building Code as concrete compressive stress distribution for design of concrete structures. The rectangular stress block may be enough for flexural strength calculation, but realistic stress-strain relationship is required for performance verification at selected limit state in performance-based design. Moreover, the ACI rectangular stress block provides non-conservative flexural strength for high strength concrete columns. Therefore a new stress distribution model is required for development of performance-based design code. This paper proposes a concrete compressive stress-strain distribution model for design and performance verification. The proposed model has a parabolic-rectangular shape, which is adopted by Eurocode 2 and Japanese Code (JSCE). It was developed by investigation of experimental test results conducted by the authors and other researchers. The test results cover high strength concrete as well as normal strength concrete. The stress distribution parameters of the proposed models are compared to those of the ACI 318 Building Code, Eurocode 2, Japanese Code (JSCE) and Canadian Code (CSA) as well as the test results.

• Proceedings of the Korea Concrete Institute Conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.255-258
• /
• 2005

The current ACI design code does not take into account the contribution of concrete for the torsional moment of reinforced concrete(RC) beams subjected to pure torsion. This code is not capable of evaluating the inter-effects between concrete and torsional reinforcement on the torsional resistance of the RC beams. In this study, 9 RC beams subjected to pure torsion were tested. The main parameter of the beams was the amount of torsional reinforcement and the angle of twist. Test results indicated that the current ACI code over-estimated the torsional strength of RC beams that had larger amount of torsional reinforcement.

• Magazine of the Korea Concrete Institute
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.64-69
• /
• 2003

• Magazine of the Korea Concrete Institute
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.164-174
• /
• 1995

Reliability of RC beanls designed for flexure under the provisions of ACI Building Code is analyzed. The results are compared with those obtained previously. It is shown that in some cases the reliability is inadequate and changes substantiallv with reinforcernent ratio. The probability of brittle failure appears to be rather high. The reasons for these phenomena are revealed and some measures to remedy the situation are recommentied. hluch attention is given to the conditions askthey stand at present in Korea.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2017.05a
• /
• pp.200-201
• /
• 2017

Generally, a lot of reinforcements are used in nuclear power plant concrete structures, and it may cause several potential problems when concrete is poured. Because of the congestion caused by hooked bars, embedded materials, and other reinforcements, it is too difficult to pour concrete into structural member joint area. The purpose of this study is to change ACI 349 Code for using the large-size(57mm) and high-strength(Gr.80) headed deformed bars instead of standard hooked bars in nuclear power plant concrete structures in order to solve the congestion problems.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2019.11a
• /
• pp.110-111
• /
• 2019

In ACI 318-19 published recently, the conditions and development length equation to use the headed deformed bars were changed considerably. Although the use of the larger-diameter(No.14 and 18) headed deformed bars isn't yet permitted, the use of the high strength(80,000psi) headed deformed bars is permitted and the effect of bar-diameter($d_b$) on the development length is increased considerably. Therefore, structures using larger-diameter headed deformed bars will be expected to be affected by this code change. We will study the effect of the code change on the development design and find out the design optimization method to minimize the effect of the changed conditions and development length equation.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.32 no.6
• /
• pp.705-724
• /
• 2009

The two major widely used building design code documents of reinforced concrete structures are the ACI 318-05 and Eurocode for the Design of Concrete Structures EC2. Therefore, a thorough comparative analysis of the provisions of these codes is required to confirm their validity and identify discrepancies in either code. In this context, provisions of flexural computations would be particularly attractive for detailed comparison. The provisions of safety concepts, design assumptions, cross-sectional moment capacity, ductility, minimum and maximum reinforcement ratios, and load safety factors of both the ACI 318-05 and EC2 is conducted with parametric analysis. In order to conduct the comparison successfully, the parameters and procedures of EC2 were reformatted and defined in terms of those of ACI 318-05. This paper concluded that although the adopted rationale and methodology of computing the design strength is significantly different between the two codes, the overall EC2 flexural provisions are slightly more conservative with a little of practical difference than those of ACI 318-05. In addition, for the limit of maximum reinforcement ratio, EC2 assures higher sectional ductility than ACI 318-05. Overall, EC2 provisions provide a higher safety factor than those of ACI 318-05 for low values of Live/Dead load ratios. As the ratio increases the difference between the two codes decreases and becomes almost negligible for ratios higher than 4.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2017.11a
• /
• pp.137-138
• /
• 2017

Generally, a lot of reinforcements are used in nuclear power plant concrete structures in order to improve the structural safety, but it may cause several potential problems due to the overcrowded reinforcement, such as the degradation of concrete quality, the construction delay and the increase of construction cost. In order to resolve these problems, structural test researches and code change studies on using high-strength reinforcement (Gr.80) in unclear power plant structures are under way, and there is good progress in code change of ASM BPVC.III.2 and ACI 349. This purpose of this study is to review the code change status ASM BPVC.III.2, ACI 349 under way to use the high-strength reinforcement in nuclear power plant structures. Also I will introduce the design optimization of NPP structures with high-strength reinforcements in order to maximize the effect and minimize the problem when using the high-strength reinforcements in NPP structures.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.467-477
• /
• 2013

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.