Comparison of actions and resistances in different building design codes

Bakhoum, Mourad M.; Mourad, Sherif A.; Hassan, Mona M.

doi:10.1016/j.jare.2015.11.001

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the results show that Eurocode is better and preferable than ACI by (Waris, Al-Jabri and EL-Hussain, 2017;Bakhoum, Mourad and Hassan, 2016;Hawileh, Malhas and Rahman, 2009;Jawad, 2006;Izhar and Dagar). Jawad, 2006 presented that the ACI Code outcomes diverge on the less economical side.…”

Section: B Economic Aspectmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Prescriptive and performance requirements are the two types of requirements that are commonly found in codes (Al-Fahad, 2012;Meijer and Visscher, 2008;Bartlett, Halverson and Shankle, 2003;Melkers and Willoughby, 1998). Differences, at times significant, might be found between the codes in the data provided for actions, in the requirements for assessing section resistance, as well as other code requirements for details, durability, and so on (Bakhoum, Mourad and Hassan, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation and Assessment of Existing Design Codes and Standards for Building Construction

Abdulqader

Atrushi²

2022

ARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building design codes (BDC) are used to control the construction industry in general and building design in particular. The BDC offers the construction sector with a standard language and set of requirements. There are several BDCs developed and utilized for construction purposes throughout the world. Certain design codes are employed in structural design to assure the structure’s health and safety, as well as its cost-effectiveness. It also assures that the structure is sufficiently sturdy to endure all potential climatic conditions, bear its intended load, and is integrated to ensure effective use of building materials and resources. This research aims to compare various building construction design codes to identify and explore the most appropriate standard in terms of safe design, economics, and availability of details. In Kurdistan and different parts of Iraq, many international companies have designed building structures with various codes during the past 20 years. This is a bad condition since the government has no control over the construction of the buildings, which includes both the code and the building materials. There is currently no overview of the design codes in use in Kurdistan, nor is it clear whether they are congruent with what students’ study in institutions.

show abstract

Section: B Economic Aspectmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and Assessment of Existing Design Codes and Standards for Building Construction

Abdulqader

Atrushi²

2022

ARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fellenius [17] compared the provisions included in various codes for pile foundations and observed that there is lack of consistency regarding the determination of real pile capacity. Bakhoum et al [3] studied the specifications concerning the structural actions and resistances in different building codes. They compared design building codes of USA, Europe and Egypt.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Analysis Specifications and Practices for Diaphragm Wall Retaining System

James¹,

Kurian²

2018

Studia Geotechnica Et Mechanica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diaphragm walls are deep embedded earth retaining structures. They also act as a part of the foundation. Geotechnical codes of practice from various countries provide procedures for the analysis of deep foundations. Not many standards are available that directly regulate the analysis of diaphragm walls. This paper compares the analysis of diaphragm walls performed using the foundation codes of different countries. Codes including EN 1997-1, BS 8002, BS 8004, BS EN 1538, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, AS 4678, AS 5100.3, Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, CAN/CSA S6, IS 9556 and IS 4651 are chosen for the study. Numerical studies and calculations are done using the finite element software Plaxis 2d. Comparative study is performed based on the values of displacements and the forces developed. Study also evaluates the effect of differences in partial safety factors. The outcome of research emphasises the need for development of comprehensive analysis procedures.

show abstract

“…Other researchers have focused on dealing with unbraced steel frames primarily by numerous structural analysis approaches [4]. Building construction codes in the USA, Europe, and Egypt are compared, with emphasis on action (loads) values and section resistance in bending and compression axial loads [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Different Steel Codes in Design of Bolted Connection Under Shear and Tension.(Dept.C)

Eltawil

Salem

Mahmoud

2021

MEJ. Mansoura Engineering Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of actions and resistances in different building design codes

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Evaluation and Assessment of Existing Design Codes and Standards for Building Construction

Evaluation and Assessment of Existing Design Codes and Standards for Building Construction

Comparison of Analysis Specifications and Practices for Diaphragm Wall Retaining System

Comparison Between Different Steel Codes in Design of Bolted Connection Under Shear and Tension.(Dept.C)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About