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

Ali S. Alnuaimi, Iqbal I. Patel, Mohammed C. Al-Mohsin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-224
Number of pages12
JournalPractice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume18
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Torsional stress
Reinforcement
Concretes
Punching
Safety factor
Shear strength
Loads (forces)
Engineers
Geometry

Keywords

  • ACI code
  • BS code
  • Code comparison
  • RC design equations
  • Reinforced concrete design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Building and Construction
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Design results of RC members subjected to bending, shear, and torsion using ACI 318 : 08 and BS 8110:97 building codes. / Alnuaimi, Ali S.; Patel, Iqbal I.; Al-Mohsin, Mohammed C.

In: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 18, No. 4, 11.2013, p. 213-224.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c91880a83d1e4c3296cdef7250f60217,
title = "Design results of RC members subjected to bending, shear, and torsion using ACI 318: 08 and BS 8110:97 building codes",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "ACI code, BS code, Code comparison, RC design equations, Reinforced concrete design",
author = "Alnuaimi, {Ali S.} and Patel, {Iqbal I.} and Al-Mohsin, {Mohammed C.}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000158",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "213--224",
journal = "Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction",
issn = "1084-0680",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Design results of RC members subjected to bending, shear, and torsion using ACI 318

T2 - 08 and BS 8110:97 building codes

AU - Alnuaimi, Ali S.

AU - Patel, Iqbal I.

AU - Al-Mohsin, Mohammed C.

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - ACI code

KW - BS code

KW - Code comparison

KW - RC design equations

KW - Reinforced concrete design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886537827&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886537827&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000158

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000158

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84886537827

VL - 18

SP - 213

EP - 224

JO - Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction

JF - Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction

SN - 1084-0680

IS - 4

ER -