Design results of RC members subjected to bending, shear, and torsion using ACI 318:08 and BS 8110:97 building codes

In this research, a comparative study was conducted on the amount of required reinforcement using American Concrete Institute (ACI) and British Standards Institution (BSI) building codes. The comparison included design cases of rectangular beam sections subjected to combined loads of bending, shear and torsion, and punching shear at slab-column connections. In addition, the study included comparison of the differences in the amount of reinforcement required owing to different codes' factors of safety for design loads. It was found that the BS code requires less reinforcement than the ACI code does for the same value of design load. However, when the load safety factors are included in calculating the design loads, the values of the resulting design loads become different for each code, and in this case, the ACI was found to require less reinforcement than the BS. The punching shear strength of flat slab-column connections calculated using the ACI code was found to be more than that calculated using the BS code for the same geometry, material, and loading conditions. The minimum area of flexural reinforcement required by ACI was found to be greater than by BS, while the opposite was found for the minimum area of shear reinforcement. In case both codes unify the load safety factors while keeping the other design equations as they are now, the BS code will have preference over the ACI code owing to lower reinforcement requirements, which leads to cheaper construction while maintaining safety. The study showed that both codes are good choices for design in Oman. Because SI units are becoming more and more enforced internationally, material that is available in Oman is conversant more toward SI units; to unify the knowledge of design among municipality and site engineers, it is recommended to use the BS code as a first choice until a national code is established.