Sirte University Scientific Journal Vol. 13, No.

1 (2023) 46-54

Sirte University Scientific Journal (SUSJ)

Journal home page: http://journal.su.edu.ly/index.php/SUSJ/index

DOI: 10.37375/ISSN:2518-5454
Article

Comparative Study of Reinforced Concrete Design of Short Columns

between BS 8110 and ACI 318-11 (Codes)
Imhemmed H. Algott 1, Ghusen M. AL Kafri 2

1
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering Misrata University, Libya.
2
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering Sirt University, Libya.
© SUSJ2023.
A B S T R A C T
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37375/susj.v13i1.1372

In several countries around the world and Libya on of them the absence of a national
ARTICLE INFO: design code, these leads structural engineers to use BS 8110, ACI 318 and quite a
number of other structural design codes for the design of reinforced concrete structures.
Received 15 September 2022. The principles and design approaches of these codes differ from one another. Also,
Accepted 10 April 2023. some codes are more economical than others. This study compared BS 8110-97 and
Available online 01 June 2023. ACI 318M-11 in terms of the analysis and design of short column with particular
emphasis on the area of longitudinal reinforcements required, with the aim of
determining which of the two codes provides the most economic design. The super-
Keywords: Short Columns, Area of Steel structure of a seven-story reinforced concrete service building was modeled, analyzed
Required, BS 8110-97, ACI 318M-11, Robot and design using Auto Desk Robot Structural Analysis (2015) program taking into
account dead, live and seismic loads. The percentage difference between the areas of
steel required by the two codes was calculated with the ACI code as the base line. The
average percentage difference for all columns was found to be about 21.5% indicating
that the BS 8110 code requires less amount of reinforcement.

1 Introduction
in the field of concrete. The ACI publishes many
different standards, but the most commonly referenced
1.1 Background of Study
standard used by architects and civil engineers is the
Structural Design codes of different countries provide ACI 318 "Building Code Requirements for Structural
the engineers with data and procedures for design of the Concrete." It is updated every 3 years and the latest
structural components. Differences, sometimes large version is ACI 318-19 updated in 2019 [1]. Whereby,
differences, could be noticed between the codes in the British Standard is produced by BSI British Standard, a
data given for actions, in the provisions for evaluating division of BSI Group that is incorporated under a
resistance of sections, and also in other code Royal Charter and is formally designated as the
requirements for durability, detailing, there are many National Standard Body (NSB) for the UK. In 1901
existing codes for design are currently using all around under the led of James Mansergh, BSI group had
the world, for example, Canadian Code (CSA-A23.3- become Engineering Standard Committee, to
94), Euro code 2 (EC), British Standard BS 8110 and standardize the number and type of steel Sections, in
also American Code (most recently ACI 318-19, and order to make British manufacturers more efficient and
older version ACI 318-99). Among the existing codes, competitive. Over time the standard developed to cover
Standard ACI 318 is the most common code that has many aspects of tangible engineering, and then
been used for structure design in our country currently. engineering methodologies including quality systems,
The American Code is produced by governing agency safety and security. Throughout the year BS become
for all concrete construction in the U.S. It was more common design tool all around the world.
established in 1904 to serve and represent user interests This research focused on the analysis and design of
reinforced concrete columns by using software.

46
Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

Columns are vertical members supporting axial design using Eurocode 2. Several types of columns
compression forces, bending moments and shear forces. were designed according to the two codes and
The vertical loads from the various floors are resulting area of steel reinforcements were
cumulated and transmitted by the columns to the compared. Results showed that although the design
foundations. Columns play a major role in structural process of EC2 was more technical, they were still
safety. As a compression member, the failure of a easy to understand and follow and design using EC2
column is more dangerous than that of a beam. The was much more economical [18].
code of practice for column design based on British
Standard is included under the BS 8110–97 [11]. while • C. Nwofer (2015): Compare BS8110-97 and
in American Code, it is under ACI318-11. Eurocode2 for the design of reinforced concrete
beam with a particular interest on the area of tension
and shear reinforcement required from economical
1.2 Objectives point of view. For the analysis and design, a six-
span continuous beam from the roof of a three-story
The main objectives of this research drawn as the shopping complex with the help of programmed
following: excel spread sheet. The self-weight of the beam was
taken as the dead load while the live load was
• To analysis and design of reinforced assumed to be unity. They found that Eurocode2
concrete columns for seven story service require less amount of tension reinforcement at span
building according to BS 8110-97 and as well as support as. The average percentage of
ACI 318M-11 by using software (Robot both cases is 3.08% and -2.83% respectively. The
2015). percentage of shear reinforcement for BS 8110 is
• To compare the column design output more than Eurocode2. For the combination of dead
obtained (with emphasis on the Area of load and impose load are considered, average
steel required). percentage difference for the span moments of the
• To determine which code provides the BS8110 exceed that of the Eurocode2 is more
most economical design. conservative in terms of the partial factor of safety
for loading. For a combination of live and dead load
2 Literature Review considered in this study, the BS8110 required about
• Yao sheng (2009) “British standard and Eurocode 1.3% more of the ultimate design loads than that of
for slender reinforced concrete column design”. the Eurocode2. thus, Eurocode2 is more economical
This investigation evaluates the design steps for design with the required margin of safety Neha
slender columns according BS8110 and EC2. Mumtaz (2019): In this paper, a comparative study
Analytical and experimental methods were used to is presented for analysis and design of reinforced
study the behavior of pin-ended slender reinforced concrete building under seismic forces for four
concrete columns subjected to uniaxial bending codes Guidelines (IS 1893:2002, Euro code 8,
about the minor axis. Buckling failure caused by the Japan-2007 and ASCE: 7-10) using Staad Pro. The
instability of a member of structure under perfectly comparative study includes the comparison building
axial compression and without transverse load is base shear, bending moment, shear force,
being analyzed in this project. The conclusion percentage of steel, required area, displacement, and
derived from the analytical investigation on slender story-drift. For seismic Analysis and design, the
reinforced concrete columns that columns with high building elements like beam and column is also
slenderness ratio tend to have low load capacity, the compared using these countries RC building code.
higher the eccentricity ratio the lower the load
capacity. It was also observed that columns cast • Iqbal Rasool Dar (2018): The aim of this project is to
with higher concrete strength and higher grade of compare the design codes of IS 456-2007, ACI 318-
reinforcement are able to sustain higher load 11code and Eurocode II. The broad design criteria (like
capacity.EC2 was found to be more conservative as stress strain block parameters, L/D ratio, load
compared to BS8110 in terms of the study of load • combinations, formula will be compared along with the
capacity ratio with slenderness ratio [29]. area of steel for the major structural members like
• Liew (2009) “British standard (BS 8110) and beams, slab, columns, footing to get an over view how
Eurocode 2 (EC2) for reinforced concrete column the codes fair in comparison with each other. The
design”. The study carried out in Malaysia tried to emphasis will be to put the results in tabular and
address the perception designers over there have graphical representation so as to get a better clarity and
that design using EC2 is very difficult and that it is comparative analysis.
not very different from BS 8110. The study • S. Karthiga.et.al. (2015): present the analysis and
conducted a review of the design steps for column design of G+10 for seismic forces using four

47
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

international building standards IS1893, Euro Code 8,

ASCE7-10 and British Code using STAAD.PRO.V8i.
After the design of building a pushover analysis was
done in SAP2000 to check the seismic performance of
building. After the analysis it was found that
maximum shear is obtained from IS code and it
undergo minimum displacement than other standards

3 Project Description

The framing plan of the seven-story reinforced concrete

building was provided and can be seen in figure 3.1. As
shown in the framing plan, the building is five spans
Figure 3.2: Front Elevatio
5.0m, 4.5m, 6.0m, 4.5m and 5.0m respectively from
left to right center-to-center. The spans along the three-
span side are 4.0m center-to-center. The height of all
the stories of the building is 3.2m. An elevation view of
the building is shown in Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3: Column ID

For the structures with different height, different

dimensions are taken for structural elements. Table 3.1
shows the dimensions taken for different structural
elements in this study.
Figure 3.1: Floor plan
Table 3.1: Dimension of structural elements
Owing to the symmetrical geometry of the building as Size of Size of Size of Size of Thickness of
can be seen from the floor plans, some columns have Corner Edge Interior beams slabs(mm)
Story
the same loading conditions; these columns were Columns columns Columns (mm)
categorized and numbered from C01 to C06 in a (mm). (mm). (mm).
1 250 * 300 250 * 300 300 * 500 250*700 150
convenient way from left to right and from the lower to
the upper part of the plan. To differentiate the columns 250*700 150
2 250 * 300 250 * 300 300 * 400
located on specific stories, the columns are identified as
250*700 150
101, 201, 301, 401 and 501 with the first digit 3 250 * 300 250 * 300 300 * 400
indicating the story number while the last two digits 250*700 150
4 250 * 300 250 * 300 300 *300
indicate column number. Therefore, column with ID
305 is a column numbered 05 in third floor. 250*700 150
5 250 * 300 250 * 300 250 * 300
250*700 150
6 250 * 300 250 * 300 250 * 300
250*700 150
7 250 * 300 250 * 300 250 * 300

48
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

While designing any building, different loads acting on 5 Results and Discussion
it play a major role. An error in estimation of these
loads can lead to the failure of the structure. Therefore, Depending to the climatic conditions in Misurata
a careful study of loads that are acting on the structure Libya, live, dead and earthquake loads were
becomes necessary. The loads in particular area must be considered. Analysis was run and axial loads, shear
selected properly and the worst combination of these forces and bending moments acting on the columns for
loads must be evaluated. The dead load in a building different loads combinations as stipulated by the codes
should be comprised of the weight of all walls,
were obtained as shown in the following Figures.
partitions, floors, roof and should include the weight of
all other permanent constructions in that building.
Based on the materials used in the building, the dead
load (DL) is calculated as 3 KN/m2. Live Load (LL) is
taken 4 KN/m2 on the typical floors and 1.5 KN/m2 on
the roof, Wall of unit weight 7kN/m. The seismic
parameters used in this study are taken according to
ASCE 7-10 and are shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Seismic parameters

Site Class D
Acceleration Parameter for 1-sec Period, S1 0.059g
Acceleration Parameter for short Period, Ss 0.162g
Risk Category III
Importance Factor, I 1.25
Long-Period Transition Period, TL 12s
Response Modification Factor, R 3.0 Figure5.1: Plan shows section taken

4 Computer Model Using Autodesk Robot

Structural Analysis Professional 2015

The computer model for the building as shown in

Figure (4.1) consists of panel elements to model the
slab and bar elements to model the beams and columns.
After defining the structure type, axis, section
properties, boundary conditions and loading as shown
in figure (4.1), the problem is analyzed and designed by
the software for the two Codes.

Figure 5.2: Axial Forces on Columns – Section A-A

Figure 4.1: Model building

49
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

Figure 5.5: Bending moment for section B-B

Figure 5.3: Axial Forces on Columns – Section B-B

Figure 5.6: Bending moment for section C-C

Figure 5.4: Bending moment for section A-A

50
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

The results of the design of the columns of the most

critical load cases as determined automatically by the
RSA program, for comparative analysis, the percentage
difference between the areas of steel required was
calculated for worst design case. The ACI 318M-11
values are kept as a baseline, therefore a positive value
of percentage difference indicates that the amount of
steel required by ACI 318M-11 is less than that
required by BS 8110-97 and vice-versa. To further
illustrate these results, graphs of area of steel required
by each design codes for selected corner, edge and
interior columns were plotted as shown in the next
figures and tables.

Table 5.1: Area of Steel Required for Corner Column

Required Area of Steel Percentage

Column
(mm2) Difference
ID
ACI BS (%)
101 2460 2289 6.95
201 3456 2548 26.27
301 3216 2074 35.51
Figure 5.7: Bending moment for section D-D 401 3624 2081 42.58
501 3431 2164 36.93
601 1733 1599 7.73
701 990 1065 -7.58
Average 26.92

Figure 5.8: Bending moment for section E-E Figure 5.9: Area of Steel Required for Corner Column

51
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

Table 5.2: Area of Steel Required for Edge Column Table 5.3: Area of Steel Required for Interior Column

Required Area of Steel Required Area of

Colum Percentage Percentage
(mm2) Column ID Steel (mm2)
n ID Difference (%) Difference (%)
ACI BS ACI BS
102 3945 3308 16.15 104 6960 5670 18.53
103 4200 3203 23.74 106 7125 5700 20
204 6348 5472 13.8
105 4515 3375 25.25
206 6912 5448 21.18
202 4230 3323 21.44
304 4680 4260 8.97
203 3990 3068 23.11
306 5304 4200 20.81
205 4058 3113 23.29 404 3870 3555 8.14
302 3548 2640 25.59 406 4302 3546 17.57
303 3555 2213 37.75 504 2468 2490 -0.89
305 2933 2258 23.01 506 2835 2513 11.36
402 3758 2498 33.53 604 750 968 -29.07
403 2543 1928 24.18 606 750 953 -27.07
405 2550 1860 27.06 704 750 330 56
502 4043 2303 43.04 706 750 308 58.93
503 2535 1718 32.23 Average 15.6
505 2648 1620 38.82
602 2340 1463 37.48
603 750 1095 -46
605 1223 960 21.5
Area of Steel Required For Interior
702 833 893 -7.2
703 750 720 4
Columns
705 750 645 14 8000

Area of Steel Required

25.95 6000
Average
4000

2000

Area of Steel Required For Edge 0

706
704
606
604
506
504
406
404
306
304
206
204
106
Columns 104

5000
Column ID
Area of Steel Required

4000
3000
Figure 5.11: Area of Steel Required for Edge Column
2000
1000
0
705 702 603 505 502 403 305 302 203 105 102
Column ID

Figure 5.10: Area of Steel Required for Edge Column

52
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

Table 5.4: Area of Steel Required for Each Story stipulations in these codes seeking points of similarities
and differences. Economy is also a major point of
Required Area of Steel concern. This study compared BS 8110-97 and ACI
Percentage
Story (mm2) 318M-11 in terms of the analysis and design of short
Difference (%)
ACI BS column with particular emphasis on the area of
1 116820 94180 19.38 longitudinal reinforcements required, with the aim of
2 115976 91888 20.77 determining which of the two codes provides the most
3 92944 70580 24.06 economic design. The super-structure of a seven-story
reinforced concrete service building was modeled and
4 92460 71832 22.31 analyzed using Robot Structural Analysis program
5 71840 51232 28.69 taking into account dead, live and seismic loads; the
6 30184 28152 6.73 result of the analysis was used to design the columns
7 19292 15844 17.87 time with the aid of Robot Structural Analysis program.
Average 19.97 The percentage difference between the areas of steel
Total 539516 423708 21.47 required by the two codes was calculated with the ACI
code as the base line. The average percentage
difference for all columns was found to be about 21.5%
indicating that the BS 8110 code requires less amount
Area of Steel Required For Each of reinforcement.
Storey The results of this comparative study led to the
following conclusions:
150000 The basic design principles of the two codes are the
Area of Steel Required

100000 same; they are both based on the limit-states design

50000 principle. Their design approaches are very similar;
both are aimed at designing safe and economic
0
structures. The only differ in details.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The ACI code is more conservative in terms of the
Storey partial factors of safety for loads, for a combination of
live and dead load considered in this study.
Considering the fact that the overall average for all
Figure 5.12: Area of Steel Required for Each Story columns was found to be about 21.5%, design of the
columns using the BS code is more economical as it
The percentage difference between the areas of steel requires less reinforcement than the ACI code.
required by the two codes was calculated with the ACI
code as the base line. For the combination of loads
considered in this study; the average percentage Recommendation
difference for corner, edge and interior columns are
about 26.92%, 25.95% and 15.6% respectively. The The BS code is recommended over the ACI code for
overall average for all columns was found be about the design of short columns in Libya as it provides a
21.5 %. The results show that ACI code requires more more economical design with the required safety.
area of steel for all columns. As some of the provisions of these codes do not tally
This difference in trend is attributed to the different with the conditions in Libya, there is a need for Libya
manner adopted by both codes to determine the design to develop its own national codes which will be suitable
loads. In BS 8110 design moment are determined as the to its conditions.
moment in either the major or minor axis increased by
a certain percentage (β) of the moment from the other References
direction as opposed to the approximate methods used
by the ACI 318. Therefore, the design moments [1]. ACI Committee, American Concrete Institute, &
considered by ACI 318 are much larger. International Organization for Standardization. (2011).
Building code requirements for structural concrete
6 Conclusions and recommendation (ACI 31811) and commentary. American Concrete
Institute.
[2]. Adiyanto, M. I., Majid, T. A., & Zaini, S. S.
In the absence of a national design code, the structural (2008). Analysis and design of 3 story hospital
engineers in Libya use the BS 8110, Euro code 2, ACI structure subjected to seismic load using STAAD PRO.
318 and quite a number of other structural design codes In proceedings of the international conference on
for the design of reinforced concrete structures. construction and building technology, (pp.377-388).
However, these engineers frequently compare the Malaysia: University Sains Malaysia.
53
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.
SUSJ Vol. 13, No. 1 (2023) 46-54 Algott et al 2023

[3]. Ahmad A., J. (2010). Comparative studies of [18]. Liew Y. H. (2009). British standard (BS 8110)
reinforcement concrete beam design using BS 8110 and and Eurocode 2 (EC2) for reinforced concrete column
ACI 318. Doctoral dissertation, University Malaysia design. University of Technology Malaysia.
Pahang. [19]. Mac Gregor, J. C. (2012). Reinforced concrete
[4]. Ajayi, O. O., Fagbenle, R. O., Katende, J., Aasa, S. mechanics and design, Sixth Edition. Pearson
A., & Okeniyi, J. O. (2013). Wind profile Education.
characteristics and turbine performance analysis in [20]. McCormac, J. C., & Nelson, J. K. (2014). Design
Kano, north-western Nigeria. International Journal of of reinforced concrete. ACI 318-11 Code Edition.
Energy and Environmental Engineering, 4(1), 1-15. Wiley. (pp.281).
[5]. Allen, A. (2002). Reinforced Concrete Design to [21]. Nawy, E. (2005). Reinforced Concrete. Fifth
BS 8110 Simply Explained. CRC Press. edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. United States of
[6]. Alnuaimi, A. S., Patel, I. I., & Al-Mohsin, M. C. America. (pp.714).
(2012) . Design results of rc members subjected to [22]. Nawy, E. (2006). Prestressed concrete: A
bending, shear, and torsion using ACI 318: 08 and BS fundamental approach, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
8110: 97 building codes. Practice Periodical on Prentice-Hall, (pp.38).
Structural Design and Construction, 18(4), 213-224. [23]. Nilson, A. (1997). Design of concrete structures
[7]. American Society of Civil Engineers, (2010). (12th Edition). McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Minimum design loads for buildings and other [24]. O’Brien, E.J. and A.S. Dixon, (1995). Reinforced
structures, ASCE 7-10. Reston, VA: American Society and prestressed concrete design the complete process,
of Civil Engineers. 1st Edition. Longman Scientific and Technical, United
[8]. Ariffin, K., & Mahpal, M. (2010). Comparison of Kingdom, (pp.492)
slab design between BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 by using [25]. Reynolds, C.E., J.C. Steedman & A.J. Threlfall,
Microsoft excel. Doctoral Dissertation, university (2008). Reynolds’s Reinforced Concrete Designer’s
Malaysia Pahang. Handbook, 11th Edition. Taylor and Francis, London,
[9]. Atiyah R. S. (2013). General comparison and (pp401).
evaluation of TEC-2007 and EC8 Using Sta4-Cad [26]. Shah, H. J., & Jain, S. K. (2009). Design example
V12.1 in respect of cost estimation. Master’s Thesis, of a six-story building. Department of Applied
Near East University TRNC. Mechanics MS University of Baroda, Vadodara.
[10]. British Cement Association, (1994). Worked [27]. Shodolapo O. F. & Kenneth K. M. (2011). A
examples for the design of concrete buildings. BCA comparative study of EC2 and BS8110 beam analysis
Publication 43.505, British Cement Association, and design in a reinforced concrete four story building.
Crowthorne, (pp.258). Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research,
[11]. British Standards Institution, (1997). BS8110 - 1(12), 3172-3181.
1997 Structural use of concrete, Part 1: code of practice [28]. Sia, K. S. (2010). Comparative study of reinforced
for design and construction. British Standards concrete design of column between American Code
Institution, London. (ACI 318-05) and British Standard (BS 8110-97).
[12]. Choi, K. K. (2002). Reinforced concrete structure university Malaysia Pahang.
design assistant tool for beginners. Doctoral [29]. Yaosheng Y. (2009). British standard and
dissertation, University of Southern California. Eurocode for slender reinforced concrete column
[13]. Choo, B. S., & MacGinley, T. J. (2002). design. Nanyang Technological University Singapore.
Reinforced concrete: design theory and examples. CRC
Press.
[14]. Dorsey, N. J. (2008). Flexural comparison of the
ACI 318-08 and AASHTO LRFD structural concrete
codes. Master's Theses and Graduate Research at San
Jose State University Scholar Work.
[15]. Habibullah, A., & Wilson, E. (2005). SAP 2000
static and dynamic finite element analysis of structures.
Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley, California.
[16]. Jamaludin, A. (2010). Comparative studies of
reinforced concrete beam design using BS 8110-97
And ACI 318-05. FYP, University Malaysia
Pahang.
[17]. Jawad A. A. (2006). Strength design requirements
of ACI-318M-02 Code, BS8110, and EuroCode2 for
structural concrete: A comparative Study. Journal of
Engineering and Development, 10(1), 22-28.

54
Open Access Article is distributed under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.