ACI 314 COMMITTEE

Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings

Design of a Building using ACI IPS-1 and validation

with ACI 318-05 requirements
Summary

ACI Committee Meeting – Atlanta Convention

Monday, April 23, 2007
 SCOPE

Design a specific building using the “Essential Requirements for Reinforced

Concrete Buildings (ACI IPS-1)” (based on ACI 318-02) and establish
comparison parameters for the same building with the corresponding ACI
318-05 requirements.

The Essential Requirements are intended for the planning, design, and
construction of reinforced concrete structures to be used in new low-rise
buildings of restricted occupancy, number of stories, and area.
 CASE STUDY

Use and occupancy: Group B - Business. Building for use as offices, or

professional services containing eating and drinking
establishments with less than 50 occupants.
Number of stories: Five (5).
Area per floor: 9.600 ft2 (891 m2).
Story height: 13 ft (3.96 m) measured from the floor finished to the
floor finished of the story immediately below.
Number of spans: Four (4) spans in each of the principal directions in
plan of the building.
Span length: 20 ft (6.1 m) in one direction and 25-30 ft (7.5 – 9 m)
in the other one.
Difference in span length Maximum 20%.
Cantilever span: The cantilever span will be 5 ft (1.52 m).
Slope of the members: No slope.
 SOIL AND MATERIALS
Slope of the terrain: No slope in both directions.
Floor system: Joist floor system with the joist having the same
depth of the girders.
Seismic forces: Seismic risk with the value of effective peak ground
acceleration Aa=0.25 (lower limit of the higher
seismic risk zone in Colombian Standards).
Soil profile: Type of soil classified as Sc.
Foundations: Spread footings and wall footings with grid of grade
beams. Bearing capacity is 6.000 lb/ft2 (0.3 MPa).
Foundation depth: 5 ft (1.52 m)
Steel reinforcement: Deformed reinforcement: Specified yield strength of
reinforcement: 60.000 psi (420MPa)
Plain reinforcement: Specified yield strength of
reinforcement: 40.000 psi (280MPa)
Concrete: Specified compressive strength of concrete: 3.000
psi (21.1 MPa).
FLOOR STRUCTURAL LAYOUT
FLOOR STRUCTURAL LAYOUT (Detail)
 JOIST FLOOR SYSTEM
IPS-1 ACI 318-05
Requirement Used Revision
h min (in) l/21 = 360/21 =17,5 18 Num. 9,5,2 OK
b (in) ≥5 6 Num. 8,11,2 OK
clear depth (in) ≤ 3,5b ≤3,5*6=21 15,5 Num. 8,11,2 OK
s (in) ≤ 30 27,5 Num. 8,11,3 OK
 5th floor finish

4th floor finish

BUILDING ELEVATION

3rd floor finish

2nd floor finish

1st floor finish

 LOADS
DEAD LOADS
Reinforced concrete 24,00 (kN / m3) (IPS-1 Table 4,1)
Plain concrete 23,00 (kN / m3) (IPS-1 Table 4,1)
Mortar cement 21,00 (kN / m )
3
(IPS-1 Table 4,1)
Suspended metal lath and gypsum plaster 0,50 (kN / m2) (IPS-1 Table 4,2)
Exterior stud walls (5/8in, gypsum, insulated) 3,50 (kN / m )
2
(IPS-1 Table 4,9)
Floor finish and ceiling - Group B Bussiness 1,80 (kN / m2) (IPS-1 Table 4,11)
LIVE LOADS
Offices 2,40 (kN / m2) (ASCE 7-02 Table 4,1)

GEOMETRY
Span length (center to center) L = 9,140 (m)
Minimum depth h = L / 19 0,481 0,46 (m) (Table 6.2)
Joist web width bw = 0,155 (m) (Fig. 6.5)
Thin top slab ln/12 0,065 (m)
Clear depth of joist 0,395 (m)
Clear separation between parallel joists 0,700 (m) (Fig. 6.5)
Separation between parallel joists (center to center) s = 0,855 (m)

According to ASCE7-02 Dead Loads correspond to those from local code

(IPS-1) and Live Loads depend on use of the building.
 LOADS (by joist)
Slab between joists 0,065 * 24 1,56 (kN / m^2)
Joists 0,155 * 0,395 * 24 / 0,855 1,72 (kN / m^2)
Ceiling 0,50 (kN / m^2) (IPS-1 Table 4,2)
Ceramic or quarry tile 1,1 (kN / m^2) (IPS-1 Table 4,4)
Exterior stud walls 3,50 (kN / m^2) (IPS-1 Table 4,9)
DEAD LOAD 8,38 (kN / m^2)
LIVE LOAD 2,40 (kN / m^2)
TOTAL 10,78 (kN / m^2)

Distributed Dead Load (D) 8,38*0,855 7,16 (kN / m) By joist

Distributed Live Load (L) 2,4*0,855 2,05 (kN / m) By joist

Required factored strength 1,4D 10,03 (kN / m) By joist

Required factored strength 1,2D+1,6L 11,88 (kN / m) By joist

Load factors and load combinations are the same in both standards (IPS-1
and 318-05).
 JOIST TYPE 1 DESIGN
Apoyos A=E B=D C

ln (m) 1,525 6,955 8,5

 Mn (-) (kN * m) 20,72 86,54 86,54
3*Wu*ln^2/4 Wu*ln^2/10 Wu*ln^2/10
As sup. (mm^2) 214,8 641,3 641,3
sup. 0,0033 0,0099 0,0099

 Mn (+) (kN * m) 35,92 54,09

Wu*ln^2/16 Wu*ln^2/16
As inf. (mm^2) 266,14 400,80
 inf. 0,0041 0,0062

 sup. 2#12M 1#22M + 1#20M 1#22M + 1#20M

 inf. 1#16M + 1#12M 2#16M

Vu (kN) 18,1 41,3 47,5 50,7 50,7

Wu*ln Wu*ln/2 1.15Wu*ln/2 Wu*ln/2 Wu*ln/2
Vd (kN) 13,1 35,9 42,1 45,7 45,7
 Vs (kN) 0,00 0,00 4,77 8,33 8,33
Av (m) 10M c/ 0,43 0,43 1,45 0,83 0,83
s (m) 10M c/ 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,21

Factored moment and shear for one-way joists are established (in function
of the length of the clear span) in tables 8.9 and 8.10 depending on the
location of supports and spans.
 JOIST TYPE 1 (Partial detail)

For comparing the results, the same building was designed according the
requirements of ACI 318-05 with a commercial software.
 JOIST TYPE 1 (Design Comparison)
NEGATIVE MOMENT (kN*m)
Support
Joist Type A B C E D
20,7 86,5 86,5 86,5 20,7 IPS-1
1 17,3 77,9 85,2 77,9 17,3 ACI 318-05

20,1% 11,1% 1,6% 11,1% 20,1% Difference

12,8%

POSITIVE MOMENT (kN*m)

Support
Joist Type A B C E D
35,9 54,1 54,1 35,9 IPS-1
1 37,4 42,4 42,4 37,4 ACI 318-05

-3,9% 27,4% 27,4% -3,9% Difference

11,8%

SHEAR (kN)
Support
Joist Type A B C E D
18,1 41,3 47,5 50,7 50,7 50,7 50,7 47,5 41,3 18,1 IPS-1
1 20,2 36,0 52,3 53,5 55,1 55,1 53,5 52,3 36,0 20,2 ACI 318-05
-11% 15% -9% -5% -8% -8% -5% -9% 15% -11% Difference

-3,7%
 JOISTS (Design Comparison)

Joist Type 1
Type of reinforcement IPS-1 (kg) 318-05 (kg) Difference
Longitudinal 187,74 162,77 15,3%
Transversal 97,80 91,59 6,8%
Total 285,54 254,36 12,3%

All joists
Type of reinforcement IPS-1 (kg) 318-05 (kg) Difference
Longitudinal 4340,40 3914,25 10,9%
Transversal 2250,86 2131,34 5,6%
Total 6591,26 6045,59 9,0%
The main difference (longitudinal reinforcement) due to the largest cut-off
points and development length on IPS-1.
 DIMENSIONING OF ELEMENTS
The initial dimensions of girders were established with the requirements of
num. 8.7.2 and the special reinforcing details for seismic zones of num.
11.5.2.

The initial dimensions of columns were established with the requirements of

num. 10.3.3 and the special reinforcing details for seismic zones of num.
11.5.3.

The initial dimensions of structural concrete walls were established with the
requirements of num. 11.4, 11.5 y 12.3.

In all cases, those initial dimensions were adjusted by design requirements

(more cross-section need). Then the corresponding loads were recalculated
and the iterative process of design was initiated.
 SEISMIC FORCES

Seismic Force and Shear in every story were calculated according to num.
4.11.4 and 11.2.3 and distributed in the same way in both standards (IPS-1
and 318-05).
Vs 7028 kN Seismic design base shear (4.11.3.3)

Story mx hx  mi*hi Cv Fx = Fy Viu

(i) (kg) (m) (kg*m) (kN) (kN)
1 1000 5.48 65254 0.08398 590.24 7028.37
2 975 9.44 65254 0.14105 991.35 6438.13
3 971 13.40 65254 0.19940 1401.44 5446.78
4 971 17.36 65254 0.25832 1815.59 4045.34
5 971 21.32 65254 0.31725 2229.75 2229.75

IPS-1 establishes (num. 11.4.4.2) that frames in seismic risk zones (Aa>0.10)
shall resist a minimum lateral force equal to 25% of the factored lateral forces
in each direction in plan. This fraction of the factored story shear (Vu) is
distributed to each column depending on its location (c=center e=edge) and
causes a factored column moment (Mu) respectively.
 OVERTURNING MOMENT

IPS-1 also includes the factored overturning moment calculation (num. 11.2.4)
for every story and for the base of the building.
n
M x   Fi  (hi  hx )
F5 M5

M4 ix
F4
n

F3 M3 M ot   Fi  hi
i 1
h5 M2
h4 F2
h3 M1
h2 F1
h1
Mot
0
Mot

Reinforced concrete walls shall resist the overturning moment due to the
seismic lateral loads. Based on this restriction, this moment must be
divided by the number of walls (on each direction) and by the 1.43 factor
established on num. 14.5.2.1.
 OVERTURNING MOMENT (Cont.)

Story hx Fx = Fy Miu Mux Muy

(i) (m) (kN) (kN*m) (4 walls) (3 walls)
Base 0 110423.2 19304.8 25739.7
1 5.48 590.2 71909.8 12571.6 16762.2
2 9.44 991.3 46416.2 8114.7 10819.6
3 13.4 1401.4 24848.0 4344.1 5792.1
4 17.36 1815.5 8829.3 1543.6 2058.1
5 21.32 2229.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

The Mux and Muy moments corresponds to those that must be resisted by
each separated concrete wall on every story and on each direction (see
interaction diagram for a reinforced concrete wall, slide # 32, which reflects
the overturning base moment on x-direction).

The overturning base moment must be used on the dimensioning of

foundation elements for reinforced concrete walls.
 GIRDER 101 DESIGN
GEOMETRY AND DESCRIPTION VERTICAL LOADS

Function Frame girder Dead Load (Wd) 48,67 (kN / m)

Location A Axis (Y-Direction) Live Load (Wl) 12,80 (kN / m)
Number of supports 5
Width b= 0,360 (m)
Heigth h= 0,460 (m) U = 1,4*D 68,14 (kN / m)
d`= 0,060 (m) U = 1,2*D + 1,6*L 78,90 (kN / m)
Effective heigth d= 0,400 (m)
f`c 21,1 (MPa)
fy 420,0 (MPa)
 Vc 82,7 (kN)

Vertical loads corresponding to distributed joist reactions multiplied by load

factors established in Eqs. (4-1 and 4-2). Dead load includes the self weight
of the girder.
 GIRDER 101 DESIGN (FLEXION)
Support 1=5 2=4 3
ln (m) 5,305 2,5625
 Mn (-) (kN * m) (verticales loads) 138,77 222,04 43,172
Wu*ln^2/16 Wu*ln^2/10 Wu*ln^2/12
 M (-) (kN * m) (seism) 237,52 237,52 237,52
As sup. (mm^2) 1848,15 1848,15 1848,15
 sup. 0,0128 0,0128 0,0128
 Mn (+) (kN * m) 158,60 32,38
Wu*ln^2/14 Wu*ln^2/16
As inf. (mm^2) 1234,03 475,20
 inf. 0,0086 0,0033
Check 11.5.2.2.d (Asinf≥Assup/2) 1234,03 924,07
Check 11.5.2.2.e (As≥Máx Assup/4) 1234,03 475,20
As inf. (mm^2) 1234,03 924,07
 sup. 4#25M 4#25M 4#25M
 inf. 4#20M 4#18M

Moment due to vertical loads (calculated with coefficients of table 8.11) are
compared with distributed moment due to lateral forces (num. 11.4.4.2 a to
e). Reinforcement area is calculated with Eq. (8-10) and the reinforcement
is disposed according to special seismic details for frame girders defined in
num. 11.5.2.2.
 GIRDER 101 DESIGN (SHEAR)
Support 1=5 2=4 3
ln (m) 5,305 2,5625
Vu (kN) (vertical loads) 209,27 240,66 101,08 101,08
Wu*ln/2 1.15Wu*ln/2 Wu*ln/2 Wu*ln/2
 Ve (kN) (seism) 297,25 297,25 298,94 298,94
Vu (kN) (máx) 297,25 297,25 298,94 298,94
Vd (kN) 252,43 252,43 205,61 205,61
 Vs (kN) 169,74 169,74 122,93 122,93
Av (m) 10M c/ 0,12 0,12 0,16 0,16
Av min (m) 10M c/ 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20

Av conf. (m) 10M c/ 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10

lo (m) long. conf. 0,92 0,92 0,92 0,92

Shear due to vertical loads (calculated with coefficients of table 8.12) are
compared with re-distributed shear due to the development of the maximum
probable flexural strength at the supports (num. 11.5.2.4. and Eq. 8-10).
Reinforcement area is calculated according to num. 8.5.4.5 and the
reinforcement is disposed according to special seismic details for frame
girders defined in num. 11.5.2.3.
 GIRDER 101 (Partial detail)

Location and cut-off points of reinforcement according to num. 8.7.5.

 GIRDER 101 (Design Comparison)
NEGATIVE MOMENT (kN*m)
Support
GIRDER 1 2 3 4 5
237,5 237,5 237,5 237,5 237,5 IPS-1
101 209,8 234,8 271,4 234,8 209,8 ACI 318-05

13,2% 1,2% -12,5% 1,2% 13,2% Difference

3,3%

POSITIVE MOMENT (kN*m)

Support
GIRDER 1 2 3 4 5
158,6 32,4 32,4 158,6 IPS-1
101 101,0 185,6 185,6 101,0 ACI 318-05

57,1% -82,6% -82,6% 57,1% Difference

-12,7%

SHEAR (kN)
Support
GIRDER 1 2 3 4 5
297,3 297,3 298,9 298,9 298,9 298,9 297,3 297,3 IPS-1
101 256,6 259,7 303,9 318,3 321,7 308,1 259,6 256,7 ACI 318-05
16% 14% -2% -6% -7% -3% 15% 16% Difference

5,4%
 GIRDERS (Design Comparison)

Girder 101
Type of reinforcement IPS-1 (kg) 318-05 (kg) Difference
Longitudinal 666,94 682,55 -2,3%
Transversal 225,01 225,51 -0,2%
Total 891,95 908,06 -1,8%

All girders
Type of reinforcement IPS-1 (kg) 318-05 (kg) Difference
Longitudinal 8157,50 8127,50 0,4%
Transversal 2633,20 2678,30 -1,7%
Total 10790,70 10805,80 -0,1%
Due to the special reinforcing details for frames girders in seismic zones
(num. 11.5.2) the strength differences are minimized, especially on the
positive moment, conducing to very similar results.
 COLUMN A1 DESIGN
(Unbalanced moment from vertical loads)
factored live load factored live load

factored dead load

Case A

M uA M uA
M uA M uA

factored live load factored live load

factored dead load

Case B

M Bu M Bu

M Bu  M Bu

The moment reaction on columns is evaluated using the unbalanced

factored moment described in num. 8.7.6.2.
 COLUMN A1 DESIGN
(Unbalanced moment from vertical loads)
SUPPORT 1 2 3 4 5
l (m) 6,095 6,095 6,095 6,095
GIRDER
101-501 ln (m) 5,31 2,56 2,56 5,31
Ru (kN) 240,43 529,50 480,87 529,50 240,43
M(-). CASE A (kN.m) 120,58 192,93 27,65 23,04 37,46 44,95 118,68 74,18
M(-). CASE B (kN.m) 74,18 118,68 44,95 37,46 23,04 27,65 192,93 120,58
Mu 120,58 165,28 14,42 165,28 120,58

The unbalanced moment is distributed to the columns above and below,

according to num. 8.7.6.3. This distributed moment is compared with the
one caused by lateral forces, according to the requirements of num.
11.4.4.2.

I h  I h pi 
 M u up  M u down
c pi c
 M u   M u 
up down

I c hpi   I
up c hpi 
down
I h 
c pi up
  I c h pi 
down
 COLUMN A1 DESIGN
(Interaction diagram)

X- Direction Y- Direction

An interaction diagram is drawn for every column, on each direction on

plan and for each floor, according to the requirements of num. 5.12.6. If
the coordinates of (Mu, Pu) are inside the interaction design strength
surface it supposes an accomplishment of the design requirements.
 COLUMN A1 DESIGN
(Biaxial moment strength)

M u y
M u x Pu Columns subjected to moments
about each principal section
axis simultaneously shall
comply with the verification for
biaxial moment established on
num.5.12.8.

 M u x  M u y
  1.0
   M n x    M n y
 COLUMN A1 DESIGN
(Shear)
TOP JOINT
 Mpr girders 267,45 (kN.m)
Shear is calculated for the
Mpr column 626,23 (kN.m) development of the probable
Mpr 267,45 (kN.m) moment strength of the column
BOTTOM JOINT according to num 11.5.3.6.
 Mpr girders 267,45 (kN.m)
Mpr column 626,23 (kN.m)
Mpr 133,73 (kN.m)

SHEAR M 
pr   M pr 
Ve 
top bottom
Vu (vertical loads) 6,81 (kN)
Vu (lateral loads) 22,30 (kN) hn
Ve 114,62 (kN)
Vn 114,62 (kN)
Vs 0,00 (kN)
Av 1#10M 0,177 (m) Shear is determined for both
s max 1#10M 0,096 (m) principal directions in plan.
s conf. 1#10M 0,100 (m)
lo 0,60 (m)
 COLUMN A1 DESIGN
(Partial detail)

Reinforcement disposed according to constructive practices, complying

with separation and lap splices established in num. 11.5.3 and
transversal reinforcement in joints of num. 11.5.4.
 COLUMNS DESIGN
(Design comparison)
IPS-1
Element Quantity Item Reinforcement  (by item)  (total) Subtotal
(kg) (kg/m^3) (kg/m^3) (kg) Main differences due
Column A1 4 Long. Reinf. 822,7 123,0 173,2 3290,6
Transv. Reinf. 335,1 50,1 1340,4
to the longitudinal
Column C1 2 Long. Reinf. 1149,7 172,0 218,3 2299,3 reinforcement
Transv. Reinf. 309,9 46,4 619,8
Column A2 4 Long. Reinf. 1127,2 161,8 208,3 4508,7
distribution according
Transv. Reinf. 323,8 46,5 1295,3 to comply with the
Column B2 8 Long. Reinf. 1317,8 130,3 166,2 10542,5
Transv. Reinf. 363,3 35,9 2906,5
biaxial moment
TOTAL 26803,2 strength of num.
ACI 318-05
Element Quantity Item Reinforcement  (by item)  (total) Subtotal
5.12.8.
(kg) (kg/m^3) (kg/m^3) (kg)
Column A1 4 Long. Reinf. 618,8 92,5 136,6 2475,0
Transv. Reinf. 294,6 44,1 1178,5
According to num
Column C1 2 Long. Reinf. 618,8 92,5 136,6 1237,5 11.4.4.2, the frames
Transv. Reinf. 294,6 44,1 589,2
Column A2 4 Long. Reinf. 870,9 125,0 171,1 3483,6
shall resist a minimum
Transv. Reinf. 320,8 46,0 1283,3 lateral force equal to
Column B2 8 Long. Reinf. 924,3 91,4 127,6 7394,3
Transv. Reinf. 366,2 36,2 2929,3
25% of the factored
TOTAL 20570,7 lateral forces.
Difference 30,3%
 REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS DESIGN
(Interaction diagram)

X- Direction Y- Direction

Interaction diagrams for every reinforced concrete wall is calculated

according to the requirements of num. 12.5.3. (the same way of
columns established on num. 5.12). Lateral forces are defined in num.
12.2.3 and walls are designed to resist 100% of these forces.
 REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS DESIGN
(Partial detail)

Design of walls includes the requirements of num. 11.5.5 and chapter

12 of IPS-1. Walls requires boundary elements proportioned to resist all
factored gravity loads on the wall, as well as the vertical load resulting
from resisting the seismic overturning moments, according to num.
11.5.5.2.

Boundary elements were disposed within the same depth of the wall
without any modification in the cross section.
 REINFORCED CONCRETE WALLS DESIGN
(Design comparison)
IPS-1
Wall Quantity Item Reinforcement  (by item)  (total) Subtotal
(kg) (kg/m^3) (kg/m^3) (kg)
Axis 1,5 4 Long. Reinf. 2889,4 109,3 166,8 11557,4
Transv. Reinf. 1520,7 57,5 6082,7
Axis A, C, E 3 Long. Reinf. 2975,3 104,7 165,4 8925,9
Transv. Reinf. 1726,2 60,7 5178,6
TOTAL 31744,6
ACI 318-05
Wall Quantity Item Reinforcement  (by item)  (total) Subtotal
(kg) (kg/m^3) (kg/m^3) (kg)
Axis 1,5 4 Long. Reinf. 2889,4 109,3 166,1 11557,4
Transv. Reinf. 1504,0 56,9 6015,9
Axis A, C, E 3 Long. Reinf. 2975,3 104,7 163,1 8925,9
Transv. Reinf. 1661,6 58,4 4984,7
TOTAL 31483,8

Difference 0,8%
Longitudinal reinforcement is the same in both standards even with
differences in the length and reinforcement of the boundary elements.
Main differences are in transversal reinforcement but they are not
representative.
FOUNDATIONS DESIGN (Footings)

Footings are
dimensioned to
resist the
unfactored vertical
loads and transmit
it to the soil,
according to the
bearing capacity
established.

Walls footings shall

resist the
unbalanced
moment due to
lateral forces.
FOUNDATIONS DESIGN (Walls)

Walls footings include foundation piles due to

the overturning moment calculated according
to num. 11.2.4.
 FOUNDATIONS DESIGN
(Design comparison)
IPS-1
Footing Quantity Reinforcement  (total) Subtotal
(kg) (kg/m^3) (kg)
A1 4 125,4 58,0 501,5
A2 4 189,2 45,4 756,9
Differences are not
C1 2 218,9 52,9 437,8
B2 8 568,5 58,6 4547,8
representative and are
B1 4 671,4 50,7 2685,7 caused by the bigger
A3 3 1028,6 48,5 3085,7 moment on IPS-1 due
TOTAL 12015,4 to the distribution of
seismic lateral forces in
ACI 318-05
Footing Quantity Reinforcement  (total) Subtotal Y-direction (A3 footing).
(kg) (kg/m^3) (kg)
A1 4 137,99 79,30 552,0
A2 4 173,94 67,68 695,7
C1 2 225,24 68,46 450,5
B2 8 606,66 61,65 4853,2
B1 4 767,89 58,62 3071,6
A3 3 746,90 34,34 2240,7
TOTAL 11863,7

Difference 1,3%
 GLOBAL DESIGN COMPARISON
(total weight of reinforcement )

IPS-1 Main differences are in

Element Reinforcement Partial vertical elements (specifically
(kg) difference in columns) and are caused
Floor slab 86909,8 3,15% by the requirements to
Columns-walls 58547,7 12,47% comply with the biaxial
Foundations 12015,4 1,28% moment strength of num.
Total weight 157472,9 5.12.8.
ACI 318-05
Main differences in
Element Reinforcement
foundations due to the
(kg)
method of calculation and
Floor slab 84256,8
distribution of the lateral force
Columns-walls 52054,5
moments (earthquake)
Foundations 11863,7
according to num. 4.11 and
Total weight 148175,0
num. 11.2 of IPS-1.
Difference 6,27%
 CONCLUSIONS

• The building designed in this study case (located in a Colombian high

seismic risk zone) by the use of the essential requirements established on
ACI IPS-1 complies in a satisfactory way with the requirements of ACI
318-05.

• Due to its approximated character, the ACI IPS-1 method is a simplified

alternative for the design of reinforced concrete buildings (of limited size
and height) for places without computer or software availability. This
simplification conduces to very similar results compared with those
obtained with a structural analysis software.

• The simplified method of ACI IPS-1 allows to design a building in a

relative short time and with a simple (and sequential) calculation routine,
but it demands a larger quantity of steel reinforcement (6.27% in this
case).
 CONCLUSIONS

• The simplification method of ACI IPS-1 is oriented to the calculation of

shear and moments, but the detail and distribution of reinforcement
process is based on the same considerations of ACI 318-05.

• Although the global difference in total weight of reinforcement is

acceptable (6.27% compared to the same building designed with the ACI
318-05 requirements) there are particular cases in which this difference is
around 30% (columns).

• The difference in total weight of reinforcement in columns is bigger due

to the requirements of resistance of 25% of the factored lateral forces.

• The method is more accurate for vertical loading, but in presence of

earthquake combinations it produces considerable differences in short
spans that must be studied and adjusted.
 ACI 314 COMMITTEE
Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings

THANK YOU

Jorge I. Segura
FACI