© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.

org (ISSN-2349-5162)

DESIGN COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT

REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBER USING
DIFFERENT COUNTRY CODES
1
Adil Azim Siddiqui 2Naresh Nischol Harry,3Yeetendra Kumar Bind
1
P.G Sstudent 2Assistant Professor,3Assistant Professor
Department Of Civil Engineering,
Vaugh Institute o f Agricultural Engineering And Techno lo g y, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture,
Technology and Sciences, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Abstract : The aim of this thesis is to compare the design code of IS 456:2000 and BS 8110, in this comparison we consider
different element in structure beam and column, we compare maximum compressive and tensile stress in beam, percentage of steel
in column and we also compare which code is economical IS 456:2000 or BS 8110.

1. INTRODUCTION

In this current era one of the most important point is for human kind to tackle many forces while designing the structure, now a
day due to global warming we are facing a very big climate change so we need a very good and high performance structure and
designing is an art and science of understanding the behavior of structure members, it is subjected to load and we design them
economy to give safety, serviceability and durability. Structure design is the very big task to investigate different things in the
structure like stability, strength and rigidity of structures. Basic objective in the structural analysis and for designing is to produce
an structure capable of resisting all load without failure during its life. Structural design of any structure involves stablishing the
loading other types of design conditions, which is necessary to be supported by structures and must be considered in design. It is
followed by the analysis and computation of an internal gross forces like (shear, thurst, bending moment and twisting moment) as
well as creep, shrinkage, change in temperature, reactions produced by load, deflection, stress-strain behaviour, stress intensities
and other design conditions.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the present study, the research articles and journals that are studied for understanding of the work to be carried out
are discussed and these papers are presented as per the reference of this study in this chapter.

 Temple Nwofer.et.al.(2015): - compare BS 8110and EC 2 for the design of a continuous reinforced concrete beam
to find out the area of tension and shear reinforcement with the aim of determining which is most economic using
Microsoft excel spreadsheet. In this study the self weight of the beam was taken as the dead load while the live
load was assumed to be a unity. Table 6 shows the basic span/effective depth ratios for rectangular beams.

 A. C. Nwofer (2015):- Compare BS8110-97 and Eurocode2 for the design of reinforced concrete beam with a
particular interest on the area of tension and shear reinforcement required from economical point of view. For the
analysis and design, a six- span continuous beam from the roof of a three story shopping complex with the help
of programmed excel spread sheet. The self-weight of the beam was taken as the dead load while the live load
was assumed to be unity. They found that Eurocode2 require less amount of tension reinforcement at span as well
as support as. The average percentage of both cases is 3.08% and -2.83% respectively. The percentage of shear
reinforcement for BS 8110 is more than Eurocode2. For the combination of dead load and impose load are
considered, average percentage difference for the span moments of the BS8110 exceed that of the Eurocode2 is
more conservative in terms of the partial factor of safety for loading. For a combination of live and dead load
considered in this study, the BS8110 required about 1.3% more of the ultimate design loads than that of the
Eurocode2 .thus Eurocode2 is more economical design with the required margin of safety.

 S. Karthiga.et.al.(2015):- present the analysis and design of G+10 for seismic forces using four 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.

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g325
© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
 Rajmahendra Manikaro Sawant.et.al.(2015):- assess the effectiveness of steel fibre along with shear
reinforcement in the formation of high grade fibre reinforced concrete. Direct shear test using push off specimens
is used to find out the shear strength of concrete. Shear stress (strength) is calculated as the ratio of shear load per
unit area of shear plane. The study was carried out on M60 grade of concrete to find out the workability, density
and shear strength with different volume of concrete. The shear strength increased up to 29.42% and 28.76% at 7
and 28 days respectively over normal concrete at 1.5% fibre content. Fibre content reduces the deformation at all
load levels, reduced spalling, maintain the ductility and overall integrity of the structure.

 Swajit Gaud.et.al.(2016):- present a comprehensive literature review on the design strength of materials,
stressstrain curve for concrete, steel and confined concrete, partial safety factor and limitations of grade of
concrete and grade of steel reinforcement as per Indian Standards, American Standards, European Standards, New
Zealand Standards and Japanese Standards. The effect of high grade concrete on material properties and stress
block parameters is not mentioned in IS code. With respect to time, the material properties which affects the
strength of concrete, curing temperature in respect to strength of concrete and tensile strength of concrete is not
properly mentioned. Only New Zealand has minimum and maximum value of concrete strength in seismic
environment which is 20N/mm2 and 70N/mm2 respectively. The provisions of IS code are more close to New
Zealand standards. From the above standards it was found that the recommended concrete strength lie between
20MPa to 50MPa and for steel it lies between 420MPA to 500MPa. The use of high strength concrete and steel
in building construction has many advantages such as, increased strength of structures, reduced strength of cross-
sections, more durable material and therefore substantial savings.

 C. U. Nwoji.et.al. (2017):- compare BS 8110 and Euro code (EC 2) to find outthe relatives gains and shortcomings
of EC 2 and BS 8110 under loading analysis, ease of use and technical advancement. Loading summary for each
span of the beam for the ultimate limit states and the serviceability limit states.

 Iqbal Rasool Dar (2018) :- The aim of this project is to compare the design codes of IS 456-2007, ACI 318-
11code and Eurocode II. The broad design criteria (like stress strain block parameters, L/D ratio, load
combinations, formula will be compared along with the area of steel for the major structural members like beams,
slab, columns, footing to get an over view how the codes fair in comparison with each other. The emphasis will
be to put the results in tabular and graphical representation so as to get a better clarity and comparative analysis.

 Muhammad Mostafijur Rahman.et.al.(2018):- compare the seismic design procedure for Bangladesh
(BNBC1993), India (1893) and US (ASCE 7-10) to analyse, design and seismic performance of reinforced
concrete buildings on the basis of the type of allowable analysis procedure, zoning system, site classification,
fundamental vibration period of structure, response reduction factor, importance factor, minimum design lateral
force, allowed story drift and design response spectra. Three dimensional non-linear dynamic analysis of designed
structure were conducted. The structural performance of each building was compared in terms of roof
displacement, inter storey drifts, and load carrying capacity of beam and columns and overall energy dissipation
characteristics. The result shows that the Indian code performed better than when subjected to the ground motion
that it is intended to represent the Indian design response spectrum.

 Neha Mumtaz (2019) :- . In this paper, a comparative study is presented for analysis and design of reinforced
concrete building under seismic forces for four codal Guidelines (IS 1893:2002, Euro code 8, Japan-2007 and
ASCE: 7-10) using Staad Pro. The comparative study includes the comparison building base shear, bending
moment, shear force, percentage of steel, required area, displacement, and story-drift. For seismic Analysis and
design, the building elements like beam and column is also compared using these countries RC building code.

3. METHODOLOGY AND MODELLING

This work comparative study of design parameters varis element of structure such as column, beam and slab done by RC
building design codes of different countries. These codes are studied IS 456:2000 and BS 8110. Differences in important
parameter noted and represented.

As we know there is practices for designing a structure. Structural design of building mainly based on national codes and
international codes of practices. That codes provide guidelines to engineers in appraisal of structural scheme, the detail
analysis and design. Experienced engineer and allied professionals they provide frame work for safety and serviceability
in building design.

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g326
© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
This paper reviewed a comparison of different design building codes like India, British . The considered code include IS
456:2000 from India, BS 8110 from British, It is the duty of structural engineers to provide designs that would lead to
maximum performance and economy by employing the most efficient design method in accordance with a relevant design
code available, in order to satisfy the requirements.

 IS code:- Indian standard(Fourth Revision) was adopted by the Bureau of Indian Standards, after they finalized by the
Cement and Concrete and Concrete Sectional Committee had been approved by the Civil Engineering Division Council.
This type of Standard was first published in 1953 under the little ‘Code of plain and reinforced concrete for general
building construction’ subsequently revised in 1957. The code further revised in 1964 and published under title ‘Code of
plain and reinforced concrete’, enlarging the scope use of code to structures other than general building construction .
Third revision was published in 1978, and it included limit state approach to design. The fourth revision of the standard.
This revision was taken up view to keeping with the rapid development in the field of concrete technology and to bring
further modification/improvement in the light of experience gained while using earlier version.

 British code:- This part bs8110 has been prepared by subcommittee B/525/2. It is revision of BS 8110-1:1985 which
withdrawn BS 8110-1:1997 incorporates all published amendments made to BS 8110-1:1985. Amendment No. 1 (AMD
5917) published on 31 May 1989; Amendment No. (AMD 6276) published on 22 December 1989; amendment no 3 (AMD
7583) published on 15 march 1993; Amendment No. 4 (AMD 7373) published on 15 September 1993. It includes changes
made by incorporating Draft Amendments no’s 5 & 6 issued public comment during 1994 and 1995.Amendment No. 5
detailed the insertion of various reference to different cement used in concrete construction, covered by BS 5328 and
recommendations of BS 5328 for concrete as a material to the point of placing, curing and finishing in the works.
Amendment no. 6 dealt with the change the partial safety factor for reinforcement beam, from 1.15 to 1.05. it has been
assumed the drafting of this British standard that the execution of provisions will entrusted to appropriately qualified and
experienced people.

3.1 The modelling details of the buildings are as discussed below.

 The modelling of the buildings are done using Staad Pro v8i software.
 In this model we consider two structures.
 Model -1 G+3 structure is design by using IS 456:2000 code.
 Model -2 G+3 structure is design by using BS 8110 code.

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g327
© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
Table (1) :- Multi-Storey Building Geometrical Dimensions

MEMBER DIMENSION

COLUMN 300 X 600

BEAM 400 X 300

SLAB 150mm
 BRICK INFILL IN WALLS 230mm
 FLOOR HEIGHT 2.5m

 TOTAL HEIGHT OF BUILDING 9.9m

 TOTAL AREA OF BUILDING 225m2

 Unit weight of brick infill 20 KN/m2

 Unit weight of concrete 25 KN/m2

Grade of rebar Fe550D


Grade of concrete M 25
 

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Different codes are analyzed and the difference of maximum tensile stress for beam, percentage of steel in column, average for
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement for slab, total quantity of concrete, total weight of concrete, total cost of concrete and
total cost of steel is represented in for of graphs.

Chart 1 Maximum Compressive Stress In Beam

MAXIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN BEAM

(N/mm2) (+ve)
35
16.665
30

25 11.884
11.884 11.499
20

15

10
12.077
9.824 9.499 9.824
5

0
BEAM-17 BEAM-18 BEAM-19 BEAM-20

IS 456 BS 8110

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g328
© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
Chart 2 Maximum Tensile Stress In Beam

MAXIMUM TENSILE STRESS IN BEAM

(N/mm2) (-ve)
16.573
18
16
14 11.755 11.757
11.414
12
10 12.01
8
9.717 9.432 9.717
6
4
2
0
BEAM-17 BEAM-18 BEAM-19 BEAM20

IS 456 BS 8110

Chart 3 Percentage Of Steel In Column

PERCENTAGE OF STEEL IN COLUMN

(%)
1
0.9
0.8 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
COLUMN- 1 COLUMN- 2 COLUMN- 3 COLUMN- 4

BS 8110 IS 456

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g329
© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
Chart 4 Total Volume Of Concrete

TOTAL VOLUME OF CONCRETE (m3)

300
272.1

250

200

150
102.7
100

50

0
IS 456 BS 8110

TOTAL VOLUME OF CONCRETE (CUM)

Chart 5 Total Weight Of Steel

TOTAL WEIGHT OF STEEL (Kg)

12000
10815

10000

8000 7117

6000

4000

2000

0
IS 456 BS 8110

TOTAL WEIGHT OF STEEL (Kg)

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g330
© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

Chart 6 Total Cost Of Concrete

TOTAL COST OF CONCRETE (Rs)

1600000
1360500
1400000

1200000

1000000

800000

600000 513500

400000

200000

0
IS 456 BS 8110

TOTAL COST OF CONCRETE (Rs)

Chart 7 Total Cost Of Steel

TOTAL COST OF STEEL (Rs)

800000
702975
700000

600000

500000 461500

400000

300000

200000

100000

0
IS 456 BS 8110

TOTAL COST OF STEEL (Rs)

5. CONCLUSIONS

After comparing the codes and by keeping the live load and dead load same for both codes, we find out that Percentage of steel in
column is least for BS 8110 and is maximum for IS 456:2000. Maximum compressive and tensile stress in beam is least for IS
456:2000 and maximum for BS 8110. Total volume of concrete is least for IS 456:2000 and maximum for BS 8110. Total weight
of steel is least for BS 8110 and maximum for IS 456:2000. Total cost of concrete is least for IS 456:2000 and maximum for BS
8110. Total cost of steel is least for BS 8110 and maximum for IS 456:2000. This clearly show that IS 456:2000 Indian code have
upper hand in this comparison.

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g331
© 2021 JETIR May 2021, Volume 8, Issue 5 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)
6. FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK

Future scope in this work is comparison of beam and column with wind and seismic load while considering this load how our
structure response in IS 456 2000 code and BS 8110 code. There is scope also on comparison with slab to find how slab is perform
when we use IS 456 2000 and BS 8110.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all I would like to acknowledge the gratefulness of our guide Er. Naresh Nischol Harry, Assistant Professor, Department
Of Civil Engineering, SHUATS, Allahabad for his valuable guidance and advices. I am glad to express that I have been able to
deepen my knowledge regarding the subject of my present work through his constant suggestion. His guidance has enable me to
evolve my ideas and have also helped in several other ways without which i would not have been in this position of completing this
work.
I would also like to express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Yeetendra Kumar Bind, Er. Yogendra Kumar Kushwaha, Er. Akash
Agarwal, Department Of Civil Engineering, VIEAT, SHUATS, Allahabad for being supportive and helpful to me during my
association with them for the academic session 2019-2021.
Last but not the least I would like to thank my classmates, staffs of the Department Of Civil Engineering, SHUATS for their co-
operation and finally I thank almighty for his grace and strength to complete the project successfully.

8. REFERENCES
 “Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice IS: 456: 2000”
 “BS 8110 code for concrete design”
 C.U. Nwoji and A.I. Ugwu, “Compare And Study Of BS8110 And Eurocode 2 In Structural Design And Analysis”,
Nigerian Journal Of Technology (NIJOTECH), vol36,pp. 758-766, 2017.
 T.C. Nwofar.et.al, “A comparative study of BS8110 and Eurocode 2stanandards for the design of a continuous reinforced
concrete beams”, International journals of civil engineering and technology, vol 6, no.5,pp. 76-84, 2015, ISSN Online:
0976-6316, ISSN Print:0976-6308.
 Ali S. Alnuaimi.et.al, “Design results of rc members subjected to bending shear and atorsion using ACI 318:08 and BS
8110 building code”, Practice periodical on structural design and construction, vol. 18, no. 4, 2013, ISSN: 1084-0680.
 Weizi Zhang and Bahram M. Sahrooz, “Comparison between ACI and AISC for concrete-filled tubular columns”, Journals
of structural engineering, vol.125, no. 11,1999, @ ASCE, ISSN: 0733-9445.
 Shodolapo Oluyemi Franklin.et.al, “A comparative study of EC2 and BS8110 beam analysis and design in a reinforced
concrete four story building”, Journals of basic and applied scientific research, vol. 1, no. 12,pp. 3172-3181, 2011.
 Muhammad Mostafijur Rahman, Sagar m. Jadhav, Bahram M. Shahrooz, “Seismic performance of reinforces concrete
building designed according to codes in Bangladesh, India and U.S. University of Cincinnati, USA".
 Kamarul, A. (2010). “Comparison of slab design between BS8110 and Eurocode 2 by using Microsoft excel”.

JETIR2105843 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org g332