UNIVERSITY OF GUYANA

Faculty of Engineering and

Technology
Department of Civil Engineering

Comparative Study of the Design of Structural

Members using Contemporary Codes of Practice

Name: Siddiq Khan Supervisor (int.): Mr. S. Sukha MSc.

Date: October 26, 2018 Supervisor (ext.): Mr. M. Permaul MSc.

 Presentation Outline
• C.0 Acronyms  3.0 Research Design
 1.0 Introduction • 3.1 Research Methodology
• 1.1 Background • 3.2 Data Analysis
• 1.2 Statement of Problem • 3.3 Gantt Chart
• 1.3 Research Question • 3.4 Critical Path Analysis
• 1.4 Aims • 3.5 Budget and Resources
• 1.5 Objectives
 4.0 Conclusion
• 1.6 Scope
 5.0 References
 2.0 Literary Review
List of Acronyms
• ACI – American Concrete Institute

• BS – British Standards

• ECs – Eurocodes

• IBC – International Building Code

• RC – Reinforced Concrete
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
• Design and analysis of structures worldwide are typically executed
using national and/or international codes of practice.

• In the absence of a regulated national design code, design of

structures, in Guyana, have popularly been based on BS.

• ECs which replaced BS are requisite for European public works

(2010), and are expected to become the standard for the private sectors
both in Europe and the World at large (Nwofor et al., 2015). Since
they are analogous in scope, it is crucial to apprehend their variances.
1.1 Background
• Since the supplanting of BS with ECs, the IBC is becoming more
popular in the Caribbean. It has been adopted by Jamaica and was
used as the basis for the formation of CUBiC (Thomson, 2011)
• The use of IBC in Guyana should be considered given its geography
and increasing American economic interest.
• Since BS are not being further developed, if engineers, are to remain
current to trends and technological advances, they must, replace the
utilisation of BS with more regularly updated codes of practice.
1.2 Statement of Problem
In Guyana, designs of structural systems are commonly based on BS
for RC and steel. With the supplanting of the given standards by ECs
in 2010, it is imperative that structural engineers employ regularly
updated codes of practice so as to benefit from contemporary
technological advances. In order to appreciate which of the more
popular codes of practice are more favorable for application in
Guyana, a comparative study is of paramount importance.
1.3 Research Question
Is it more expedient for the design and analysis of structural
systems in Guyana to be executed according to IBC or ECs for
reinforced concrete and structural steel members?
1.4 Aim of Study
To determine whether ECs or IBC is more pragmatic to
supplant BS for the design and analysis of reinforced
concrete and structural steel members in Guyana and to
recommend the most expedient codes of practice for tutelage
at the U.O.G.
1.5 Objectives
• To delineate design procedures.

• To design structural members and conduct structural analyses.

• To provide an engineer’s estimate and structural drawings.

• To conduct comparative analyses.

• To recommend the more expedient codes of practice.

1.6 Scope
• The reference model shall be simple and consist of 2-storeys of
18m×18m with 6 rooms per storey.

• Only beams, columns and slabs shall be compared. The

substructure shall NOT be considered.

• Loading types and categories shall be equivalent. Dead loads

shall be considered to be the structure’s self weight only.

• Structural elements shall be analogous, in properties.

1.6 Scope
• Structural designs to be executed according to BS 8110-1997, BS
EN 1992-1-1:2004 (Eurocode 2) and ACI 318-14 for RC
members.

• Structural designs for steel members shall be conducted

according to BS 5950:2000, BS EN 1993-1-1:2005 (Eurocode
3) and ANSI/AISC 360-16.

• A detailed analysis of the design formulae shall not be attempted.

2.0 Literature Review
nce Factor Design (LRFD) method in the USA. This design philosophy is an amalgam of the two earlier philosophies, namely, the permissible stress design and load factor method. The term limit state
stance Factor Design (LRFD) method in the USA. This design philosophy is an amalgam of the two earlier philosophies, namely, the permissible stress design and load factor method. The term limit sta

2.1 Codes of Practice

• Design of structural systems worldwide is typically performed with the
aid of codes of practice which guide the engineer by providing a model
for impeding failure, guaranteeing safety and addressing serviceability
(Nwofor, Sule, and Eme, 2015).

2.2 British Standards

• BS have been the most popular design code in the world and has been
employed almost exclusively with few nationally determined
parameters. (Shodolapo and Kenneth, 2015).
2.3 Eurocodes
• The Eurocodes are produced by the European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), will replace existing national standards
in 28 countries and consists of ten parts (Bond, 2006)

• Mahpal (2010) asserts that since the development of Eurocodes

in 1975, the codes have significantly evolved and are now
known as the most technically advanced structural codes in the
world.
2.4 International Building Code
• In contrast with many other industrialized nations, the USA
does not have an official, national code (Darwin et al., 2016).
• McCormac and Brown (2013) declare that the IBC, which was
first published in 2000 by the ICC is the most popular code of
practice in the USA.
• It is used in many countries around the world including Puerto
Rico, Jamaica, Republic of Georgia and United Arab Emirates,
and is used as a basis for CUBiC (Thomson 2011).
2.5 Advantages
• Based on same design philosophy
• Less prescriptive.
• Similar in scope.
• More technologically advanced.
• More economical.
• Increased safety.
• Regularly updated to reflect recent findings.
• Increased job opportunities.
(Jawad, 2006)
2.5 Disadvantages
• Different design approach.

• Learning curve.

• Increased design process cost.

• Increased design duration.

(Jawad, 2006)
3.0 Research Design
3.1 Methodology
Figure 1: Flowchart outlining project methodology
3.1.1 Theoretical Work
• The principal method for research shall be a literature review.

• This review shall include an analysis of the design codes as

well as other pertinent studies executed on the given issue –
This analysis shall be both quantitative and qualitative.

• Investigate assumptions made by the programmers of

Autodesk®RobotTM Structural Analysis Professional as well as
its limitations.
3.1.2 Practical Work
• Structural drawings using Autodesk®AutoCAD®.

• Design of structural members with the aid of Microsoft Excel.

• Structural analysis of designed members employing

Autodesk®RobotTM Structural Analysis Professional Software.

• Prepare bill of quantities.

• Comparative analysis of generated outputs. .

3.1.3 Gantt Chart

Figure 2: Gantt Chart

3.1.4 Critical Path Analysis

Figure 3: Critical path analysis

 3.1.5 Budget and Resources
No. Resources Amount ($GYD)
1 Internet Access $100,000
2 Online Journal Access $30,000
3 Printing and Binding $10,000
4 Autodesk® RobotTM Structural Analysis Software (Student ed.) $0
5 Autodesk® AutoCAD® (Student ed.) $0
6 Microsoft Office $30,000
7 Microsoft Project $10,000
8 Transportation $20,000
Total $200000
3.2 Data Analysis
3.2.1 Design Method
• Loads shall be assumed to transferred from slabs to the
supporting beams to columns to the substructure. Loadings shall
be taken in accordance with there respective codes.

• Materials grade/strength shall be equivalent in order to facilitate

comparison.

• Designs shall be completed with the aid of Microsoft Excel.

3.2.2 Structural Analysis
• Autodesk® RobotTM Structural Analysis Professional
Software to be used for analyses. All outputs shall be
represented, accordingly.

• Resulting internal stresses, deflections and support reactions

shall be evaluated to ensure that they are within the tolerable
range recommended by the respective codes.

• Stiffness methods in Microsoft Excel to ascertain outputs..

3.2.3 Comparative Analysis
• Comparative analysis shall be both quantitative and qualitative.

• Designed members to be compared regarding their design method,

construction cost, section magnitude, amount of reinforcement,
internal stresses and resultant deflections and support reactions.

• Data to be presented on appropriate graphs, charts and tables.

• Conclusions shall be drawn and recommendations presented.

4.0 Conclusion
4.0 Conclusion
• The researcher intends to model, design and analyse a simple
structural model composed of reinforced concrete and steel
structural members, independently, according to BS, ECs and IBC.

• This project shall illustrate the differences and comparisons

between the aforementioned codes, and assist the relevant
authorities in determining which is more applicable for institution
in Guyana and for tutelage at the University of Guyana.
5.0 References
5.0 References
Bond, AJ, O Brooker, AJ Harris, T Harrison, RM Moss, RS Narayanan, and
R Webster. 2006. How to design concrete structures using Eurocode 2:
Concrete Center.
Darwin, David, Charles W Dolan, and Arthur H Nilson. 2016. Design of
Concrete Structures. 15th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Jawad, Ali Abdul Hussein. "Strength design requirements of ACI-318M-02
Code, BS8110, and EuroCode2 for structural concrete: A comparative
Study." Journal of Engineering and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1
(2006): 136-150.
5.0 References
Mahpal, Kamarul Ariffin Mohd. 2010. "Comparison of SLAB Design
Between BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 by Using Microsoft Excel." UMP.
McCormac, Jack C, and Russell H Brown. 2013. Design of Reinforced
Concrete. 9th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nwofor, TC, S Sule, and D Eme. 2015. "A Comparative Study of BS
8110 and Eurocode 2 Standards For Design of A Continuous Reinforced
Concrete Beam." International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology
6 (5):76-84.
Shodolapo, OF, and KM Kenneth. 2015. A comparative study of EC2
and BS8110 beam analysis and design in a reinforced concrete four storey
building.
Thank You

The End