Article

Comparison of the Design Results Requirement of RC Member between SP 52-101-2003

and GB 50010-2010 building code

Wang Li cheng1, Phoung sokeara1,*

1
Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China. E-mail:

wanglich@dlut.edu.cn.

* Correspondence: sssokeara1992@mail.dlut.edu.cn

Abstract: In this paper, study a comparison reinforcement area between the building regulations of the
Russian Federation (SP 52-101-2003) and Code for Design of Concrete structure (GB 50010-2010) building
codes. There are two methods in this paper used for this comparison. The first method is called direct
formulaic computation, which uses nearly the same date in the two different formulas. The second method
called all-around analysis method is to analyze the original data with concepts of the two-nation' s safety
degrees in structure respectively and then make the transformation; the latter method results in a relatively
more exact comparison. Also, The comparison included design cases of rectangular beam sections subjected
to combined loads of bending, shear and torsion, and punching shear at slab–column connections. It was
found that the GB code requires less reinforcement than the SP code does for the same value of design load.
However, when the impact of load safety factors is included in calculating the design loads, the values of the
resulting design loads become different for each code, and in this case, also the SP was found to require less
reinforcement than the GB. The punching shear strength of flat slab–column connections calculated using the
SP code was found to be more than that calculated using the GB code for the same material, geometry and
loading conditions. The minimum reinforcement ratio required by GB is larger than that of SP but the
minimum area of shear reinforcement required by SP was found to be greater than by GB. From this paper,
we can understand the differences in the calculating method between Russian code and Chinese code and
afterward we will have a new knowledge of the differences between the two countries.

Keyword: Comparative studies; Code comparison; Reinforced concrete design; Russian code; Chinese cod.

1. Introduction theoretical structure design specifications.

Along these lines, a near-complete of the
In March 2017, the Chinese
closeness and contrasts between the code
government put resources into the Belt
for the design of concrete structures (GB
and Road venture more than $ 50 billion,
50010-2010) and building guidelines of the
and 20% of it spent in the engineering
Russian Federation (SP 52-101-2003) is
section. China's construction industry is
valuable for taking care of the issue and
also gradually expanding foreign
improving morals for the Chinese concrete
engineering exchange. Not only more
structure by worldwide measures. The
domestic enterprises began to undertake
basic structure design codes for RC,
most international projects, but different
building guidelines of the Russian
design firms slowly entered the local
Federation (SP 52-101-2003), and Code for
market. Due to the differences between
Design of Concrete structure (GB 50010-
Chinese and international design
2010) are a similar idea in the limited state.
standards, their results found differently
Be that as it may, these both design
in structural analysis. Then code for design
guidelines differ in the design equations,
of concrete structures in Russian used in
particularly for shear and torsion. They
the Russian countries and some countries
also vary in factors of safety loads and
in Asia is a set of general, systematic,
material. The GB 50010-2010 code has the
 live load safety factor to equal 1.5,
whereas, in SP 52-01-2003, it is 1.3, 14%
greater. Also, the safety factor dead load of
GB 50010- 2010 is 1.2 bigger than SP 52-
101-2003 equal to 1.1. Subsequently, this
results in the value of the ultimate load
design also differs, which in turn affects
the amount of reinforcement in concrete.
In SP 52-101-2003, the material by a partial
factor of safety for concrete is 1.3 in
flexure, axial load, and 1.5 for shear and
torsion, whereas GB 50010-2010, the
material partial safety factor in concrete is
1.4 for flexure, axial load, shear, and
torsion. The maximum strain of concrete in
SP 52-01-2003 is 0.0035, whereas GB 50010-
2010, the limit maximum stain is 0.0033.
The GB 50010- 2010 considers properties
material to define the minimum area of
longitudinal reinforcement, As, min =
0.45ft/fy, whereas SP 52-101-2003 based on
the geometry of members, A s, min =
0.001bwh. The SP 52-101-2003 equation for
nominal shear force resisted by concrete
1.5  f t  b  h02
0.5  f t  b  h0  vc   2.5  f t  b  h0
c
The GB 50010-2010 equation
vc  0.7   h  f t  b  h0
1/ 4
 800 
h    for the calculation of this area results in various
that  h0  – the ih0 i< i800mm, taken ih0 i=
800mm i; if ih0 i>2000mm, taken ih0 i=2000mm.
YE Lie-ping (2008) directed a check study on
the maximum and minimum transverse
reinforcement ratios in a reinforced concrete
beam, using Chinses code (GB 50010-2002) and
American code ACI 318M-05. The outcomes show
that American code shear quality is additional
substantial than the Chinese code, which the
speed distinction within the affirmation of the
Chinese code and also the American code is
higher with the stirrup add.
LU Yi-qiu (2012), in the paper, presents a
comprehensive review of the shear-torsion
strength calculation methods using chinses code
(GB50010-2002) and American code (ACI 318-08).
It discovered that the Trilinear Model calculation
for shear and torsion behavior modeling in
Chinese code expands the shear-torsion envelop,
leading to an overestimation of concrete capacity
and safety margin. While American Code
provides a more conservative model and requires
a more significant amount of steel reinforcement,
hence is more traditional. Moreover, the American
Code can satisfy the strong demand for the 1/4
Circular Arc Model test, but Chinese code cannot.
HAN Jia-cheng (2019) investigated the setup
equation of punching shear limit with regards to
strong section structure associations between
Chinese code and worldwide code. The
exploration results show that the structural
formula and also the parameters in codes of
varied nations have evident contrasts. Also, the
consequences of the agreeable investigation show
that the estimation brings concerning different
codes that area unit additional traditionalist than
Chinese codes.
Benjamin (2007), This paper presents given a
comparison in the design of reinforcement beam
and slab different the GB 50010-2010, Eurocode 2,
and ACI 318:08. In flexure design, the results of
rebar areas are approximately similar. It appears
that Eurocode 2 is the most conservative code. In
shear design, the value of the calculated ratio
changes a lot according to the amount of the ratio
span/spacing between beams. ACI 318 is mainly
the most conservative design code.
Ameli and Ronagh (2007), the area in shear
flow calculation is determined differently in
different codes, which results in different torsional
shear strength — taking the centers of
longitudinal bars or center-to-center of stirrups
sizes of area.
Alnuaimi and Bhatt (2006) report that the
majority of scientists settle for that the whole
dimension of the cross-area opposes the shear
pressure thanks to coordinate shear, whereas the
external skin of the substantial section opposes
the torsional shear pressure. The distinction, in
any case, on the thickness of the surface.
Based on the literature review, it is clear that
numerous researchers worked have been carried
out on the comparison among GB code, ACI, BS,
and EU2 codes. For this reason, an attempt had
been carried out to find the best suitable
foundation to be used in the different between the
Chinses code and the Russian code. The study
would summarize the theory and principle design
requirements use in concrete between codes. In
this research, an intensive comparison work was
carried out to find out the design results on the
amount of area reinforcement as well as
comparative study for the flexure, shear, and
torsion reinforcements are carried out for a single
span rectangular reinforced concrete beams using 2010 as i i i i i i i i i i i i i
SP 52-101-2003 and GB 50010-2010 codes.  0.24  f t  b 
 for Vu  Vc and h  300mm 
Furthermore, this paper would like to be f yv
 
improving morals for the Chinese concrete Av  Vu  0.7  ft  b  h0 
structure by worldwide measures.  for Vc  Vu  Vmax 
s  f yv  h0 
 revise the section for V  V 
2. Design equation of bending moment, shear  u max 
and torsion   (5)

2.1. Bending moment In SP 52-01-2003‒8.60, the punching design of

members without transverse reinforcement for
The design equations in SP 52-101-2003 and GB concentrated force calculation by the equation :
50010-2010 are based on the simplified rectangular
Fb,ult  ft  um  h0
cross-section stress block as given in SP 52-101- (6)
2003 and GB 50010-2010 respectively. The punching shear connection slab-column in the
The area of required flexural reinforcement in SP flat slab is defined by iGB i50010-2010‒6.5.1.1:
52-01-2003‒8.40 is determined by the following
formula: F  0.7   h  f t   um  h0 (7)

 b1  f c  b  h0  (1  1  2   m ) With the following: in formula shall be
As  calculated in accordance with the following two
fy
(1) formula and the smaller value shall be taken:
M ult 1.2  h
m    min(0.4  ,0.5  s 0 )
 b1  f c  b  h02 s 4  um  s
; – the ratio of the
Where:
In GB 50010-2010‒6.2.10-1 the area of required long side to the short side of the critical section,
reinforcement is given 2   s  4 , if the section is round use  s  2 ;  s =
1  f c  b  h0  (1- 1  2   m )
As  40 for interior columns, 30 for edge columns and
fy 20 for corner columns.
(2)
Mu
m  2.3. Torsion
f c  b  h02
Where
2.2. Shear The equation gives the design provision for
torsional cracking strength of RC solid beam in GB
In SP 52-01-2003‒8.56, the nominal shear strength 50010-2010 :
of a section transverse reinforcement with vertical
stirrups following by equation: Tcr  0, 7  ft  Wt (8)
1.5  f t  b  h02
Vcs   0.75  qsw  c If Tu < Tcr, no torsional reinforcement is needed.
c (3)
f yw  Asv The torsion strength of a member is given by GB
qsw  50010-2010‒6.4.4-1 as:
sv f  min(0.8  f yv ,300MPa)
Where , sw , f yv  At
h0  c0  2h0 , qmin  0.25  f t  b . Tu  0, 7  ft Wt  1, 2     Acor
sv
(9)
In iGB i50010-2010‒6.3.3-1, the design nominal
b2
shear strength is given by: Wt   (3h  b)
Where 6 A  bcor  hcor and ζ = 1 if θ
, cor
Vc  0.7   h  ft  b  h0 (4) = 450 for RC member.
1/ 4 As per SP 52-101-2003‒6.76, it shall be permitted by
 800 
h    neglect torsion effects if,
Where i i i i i i i  h0  ‒ if ih0 i< i800mm,
Tu  0.1 ft  b 2  h (10)
taken ih0 i=800mm i; if ih0 i>2000mm, taken ih0
i=2000mm. Based on GB 50010-2010‒6.4.4-2, the required
The required shear reinforcement, Av i/s, for values longitudinal reinforcement was calculated by:
of shear force is calculated based ion iGB i50010-
   f yv  At  ucor In GB 50010-2010‒6.4.2-2 to prevent the over
Al 
fy  s reinforcement, the following section condition of
(11)
the member subject to shear and torque should be
As GB 50010-2010 specifies the minimum
satisfied:
longitudinal torsional reinforcement as:
Vu T
f  b  h0  u  0, 7  ft
Al ,min  0,85  t b  h0 Wt
fy (16)
(13)
0
The required stirrups, (by assuming θ = 45 ) is In the SP 52-101-2003 strength design of a member
given by GB 50010-2010 as between spatial sections is performed as follows :

At T  0, 7  f t  Wt  V 
 u T  T0 1  u 
s 1, 2    f yv  Acor  V0 
(14) (17)

By SP 52-101-2003 the calculation to the torsional 3. Deign Results and Discussions

reinforcement required for the equation:
The design results of rectangular beams with
At Tu various load combinations and span/depth ratios

s 2  x1  y1  f yw proportions are displayed. The SP 52-101-2003 and
(15)
GB 50010-2010 codes were used in the calculation,
For pure torsion, the minimum amount of closed
and results were passed judgment on dependent
stirrup is specified by GB 50010-2010 as the
on the measure of longitudinal and transverse
following by the equation:
fortification requirements. The material properties
At ,min ft using a comparison between two codes were the
 0, 28  b
s f yv characteristic cube compressive strength of
(16)
concrete, fcu =30 N/mm2 with a concrete density of
By SP 52-101-2003 the calculation to the torsional
24 kN/m3, characteristic yield strength of the
reinforcement required for equation,
longitudinal reinforcement and transverse
At Tu 2
reinforcement fyk = 500 N/mm .

s 2  x1  y1  f yw
(14) 3.2 Design for bending moment and shear force
S should not exceed the least of x1, y1/ 2 or 200mm. combined using SP 52-101-2003 and GB
50010-2010
The equation gave the calculation the additional
longitudinal reinforcement (Al), Tables 1-3 and Table 4 shows the calculation
2  ( x1  y1 )  At  f yw results of two groups of supported beams and one
Al  group of two-span continuous beams, and
s  fy
(15) different ultimate designs uniformly distributed
The SP 52-101-2003 states that the longitudinal load values shown in the caption of each table,
torsion reinforcement shall be distributed evenly respectively. In beam numbering, letter B indicates
around the perimeter of stirrups. the precise the type of member beam, and the letter Q
distance between these bars should not exceed 300 indicates the variable means uniformly distributed
mm. load. The rectangular beam cross-sectional
dimension was 350x700, with an effective depth of
640 mm.

Table 1. Simply Supported Beam with Ultimate Design UDL of 80 kN/m

Beam Spam Mu at Vu at As (mm2) As (%) Asv/s at Asv /s(%)

number (m) mid- suppor support (mm)
span t Mu/Vu SP GB SP GB
(kNm) (kN) (m)
B7Q80 7 490 280 1.75 2019 2773 3 min min ‒
B8Q80 8 640 320 2 2794 2850 2 0.44 0.44 22
B9Q80 9 810 360 2.25 3850 3788 2 0.579 0.488 16
Table 2. Simply Supported Beam with Ultimate Design UDL of 100 kN/m

Beam Spam Mu at Vu at As (mm2) As (%) Asv/s at Asv /s(%)

number (m) mid- suppor support (mm)
span t Mu/Vu SP GB SP GB
(kNm) (kN) (m)
B6Q100 6 450 300 1.5 1829 1848 1 0.371 0.272 27
B7Q100 7 613 350 1.75 2644 2692 2 0.544 0.452 17
B8Q100 8 800 400 2 3781 3748 1 0.718 0.631 12

Table 3. Simply Supported with Ultimate Design UDL of 120kN/m

Beam Spam Mu at Vu at As (mm2) As (%) Asv/s at Asv /s(%)
number (m) mid- suppor support (mm)
span t Mu/Vu SP GB SP GB
(kNm) (kN) (m)
B5.5Q120 5.5 454 330 1.375 1846 1866 1 0.475 0.38 20
B6.5Q120 6.5 634 390 1.625 2760 2814 2 0.683 0.595 13
B7.5Q120 7.5 844 450 1.875 4000 3922 2 0.892 0.811 9

Table 4. Fixed beam with Ultimate Design UDL of 140kN/m

Beam Spam Mu at Vu at As (mm2) As (%) Asv/s at Asv /s(%)
number (m) mid- suppor support (mm)
span t Mu/Vu SP GB SP GB
(kNm) (kN) (m)
B5Q140 5 292 350 0.84 1128 1135 1 0.544 0.452 17
B6Q140 6 420 420 1 1690 1706 1 0.787 0.703 11
B7Q140 7 572 490 1.167 2427 2466 2 1.031 0.955 7
 Fig.1 Shear reinforcement versus Mu/Vu using SP and GB codes (simply support)
The design carried out using SP 52-101-2003 and
GB 50010-2010 for the same ultimate design load
values. The design results for reinforcement
between two codes gave almost similar results for
bending moment with minimal effect of ratio
changes, giving a maximum difference of 3% in the
case of the simply supported beam and 2% in the
case of the fixed beam. However, the design results
differ primarily on the transverse reinforcement
with the change ratio using between two codes, as
can be seen for a typical beam in Fig. 1. The
percent differences become pronounced with the
increase of ratio, leading to continually diverging
curves. In most cases, show that the SP 52-101-2003
requires significant transverse reinforcement than
the GB 50010-2010. For the given geometry and
loads, the differences up to 27% in the case of
simply supported beams and 17% in the case of
two-span continuous beams in this research.
3.3 Design for Combined Bending Moment,
Shear Force, and Twisting Moment Using SP
52-101-2003 and GB 50010-2010
Table 5 and 6 shows the calculation result of
longitudinal reinforcement for three groups of the
fixed beam with a different span and ultimate
design load with a torsional moment of 20
kN.m/m. the beam section considered was
400x700mm with effective depth 640mm, and the
design result was calculation near the support. In
beam numbering, the first letter indicates the type
of member considered, e.g., B means beam; the
second letter indicates the variable, e.g., R means
span; the third letter indicates the type of loading,
e.g., Q, means uniformly distributed load. It is
shown that the required top reinforcement for GB
is bigger than that for SP, with a maximum
difference of 4% and the bottom and face
reinforcement required by GB is larger than SP,
with between 11-20% for the given load and beam
geometry. In all cases, it was found that SP
requires bigger transverse reinforcement than GB.
For the given geometry and loads, the difference
reached up to 23%.
3.4 Impact of load safety factor on design load
using SP 52-101-2003 and GB 50010-2010
The design results of rectangular beams with
different load combinations and span to depth
ratios are presented. The SP 52-101-2003 and GB
50010-2010 codes were used in the design. The
characteristic cube compressive concrete strength
was 25N/mm2, and characteristic yield strength
was 500N/mm2 for GB 50010-2010 and SP 50-101-
2003. Table 7 shows the design results for the
bending moment of five groups of simply
supported beams. In beam numbering, the first
letter indicates the kind of member considered, e. g
B means beam; the second letter indicates the
variable, e.g., R is the ratio of live load to deal load
(LL/DL); and the numeral gives the value of R; the
third letter indicates the kind of loading, e.g., W
means uniformly distributed load. The beam cross-
sectional dimension considered was selected as 300
x 600 mm with an effective depth of 540 mm. The
dead load considered as 5 kN/m, and the live load
values were varied from 20 to 60 kN/m.

Table 5. Fixed Beam with Ultimate Design Load 100 kN/m and Torsion of 20 kN.m/m
Beam Mu Vu Tu Top steel (mm2) (%) Bottom steel Face steel Asv/s (%) Differnce in
2 2
number (kN.m) (kN) (kN.m) (mm ) (mm ) botton/face

SP GB SP GB SP GB SP GB (%)
BR7Q100 408 350 70 1895 1943 2 284 320 284 320 1.885 1.453 23 11
BR8Q100 534 400 80 2503 2591 3 324 387 324 387 2.264 1.868 17 16
BR9Q100 675 450 90 3253 3392 4 365 455 365 455 2.644 2.84 14 20

Table 6. Fixed Beam with Ultimate Design Load 140 kN/m and Torsion of 20 kN.m/m
Beam Mu Vu Tu Top steel (mm2) (%) Bottom steel Face steel Asv/s (%) Differnce in
2 2
number (kN.m) (kN) (kN.m) (mm ) (mm ) botton/face

SP GB SP GB SP GB SP GB (%)
BR7Q120 490 420 70 2261 2316 2 284 320 284 320 2.128 2 32 11
BR8Q120 640 480 80 3029 3134 3 324 387 324 387 2.542 3 15 16
BR9Q120 810 540 90 4013 4195 4 365 455 365 455 2.956 4 12 20
 For the given service loads, the factored (ultimate)
design load using GB and SP were present similar
between two codes. Whereas a result, to these load
combinations, the required longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement is different, with a
maximum of 19% for beading and 20% for shear
reinforcements, respectively. The results for the
flexural reinforcement indicates slight diversion
due to the effect of increasing live load, while the
required shear reinforcement shows convergence
on the required transverse reinforcement with the
increase of the LL/DL ratio. In table 7, the required
flexural reinforcement for GB was more significant
than for SP, with differences varying from 5 to
19%. This difference is attributed to the different
load safety factors that are used in SP and GB for
dead and live load combinations. Similarly, as seen
in Tables 1–4, for the ultimate design loading, the
shear reinforcement required by GB is less
compared with SP, whereas for service loading
(Table 7), the result is reversed.
3.5. Punching Shear Strength (at Slab-Column
Connection)
Here, a parametric study of punching shear
capacity at slab–column connection, using SP52-
101-2003 and GB50010-2010 codes, was carried out
with different column aspect ratios, percentages of
flexural reinforcement, and slab thicknesses. The
characteristic cube compressive strengths were
taken as 35 N/mm2, respectively, and the
characteristic yield strength of reinforcement was
taken as 500N/mm2. From Eqs. (6) and (7), it can be
seen that unlike SP52-10-2003, GB50010-2010 does
not consider dowel action of flexural reinforcement
in the calculation of shear capacity. Fig.2 shows the
punching shear strength of a 300-mm-thick slab
with an effective depth of 270 mm at interior
column having column sizes of 300x300, 300x600,
300x900, and 300x1200 mm, resulting in different
aspect ratios using Russian and chinses codes. It
can be seen that punching shear strength for SP52-
101-2003 is larger than for GB50010-2010 for all
aspect ratios. This means that for the same ultimate
design punching shear force, SP52-101-2003
requires less slab thickness than GB50010-2003.
The largest difference is 56% when the column
aspect ratio is 1. It can also be seen that, in Russian
and chines code, punching shear strength increases
linearly as all column aspect ratio increases. Fig.3
shows punching shear strength of slab at the
interior column of size 400x400mm with very
depth. The effective depth of the slab is 30mm less
than the overall thickness. It can be seen that SP52-
101-2003 estimates more punching shear strength
than GB50010-2010. The differences, with the given
data, ranged between 40% and 50%. Both code
cures vary linearly with the increase of depth;
however, the rate of increase in the SP52-101-2003
results is more than in GB50010-2010 leading to a
diverging curve.

Beam Ratio Service Ultimate Wu Mu at mid-span Vu at support As (mm2) As Asv/s Asv /s

2
N.0 DL/ UDL Design UDL (%) qL /8 (kNm) (kN) (%) (%)

LL Wu(kN/m)
DL L SP GB SP GB SP GB SP GB SP GB

L 1.1D+ 1.2D+

1.3L 1.5L
BR4 4 5 20 31.5 53 40 31.5 53 94.5 160 646 753 14 min Min _
BR6 6 5 30 44.4 73 39 44.5 73 133.5 218 944 1118 16 min Min _
BR8 8 5 40 57.5 92 38 57.5 92 172.5 277 1267 1527 17 0.185 0.23 20
BR10 10 5 50 70.5 112 37 70.5 112 211.5 335 1621 2006 19 0.345 0.421 18
BR12 12 5 60 83.5 131 36 83.5 131 250.5 394 2109 2136 5 0.506 0.613 17

Table 7. Parametric study to compare steel required for bending and shear with DL+LL combination
3.6 The minimum reinforcement ratio between
SP 52-101-2003 and GB 50010-2010
Fig.4 was shown minimum reinforcement ratio for
different characteristic cube compressive strength
of concrete fcu = 25-50 N/mm2 and yield strength of
reinforcement was taken as 500 N/mm2. It can be
seen that the minimum reinforcement ratio
required by GB is larger than that of SP for all
values of fcu. The SP curve is constant with all
grades of concrete, while the GB cure is linear, and
the different values ranged between 24% to 50%
for grade concrete 25-50 N/mm2.
4. Concluding and Recommendation
In this research, the design results of the
rectangular RC beam subjected to bending, shear,
and torsion between SP52-101-2003 and GB50010-
2010 were compared. Conclusions can be drawn
as follows.
Design for Combined Bending Moment,
Twisting Moment and Shear Force
3.7. The minimum area of shear reinforcement
between SP 52-101-2003 and GB 50010-2010
Fig. 5. was developed based on Eqs. (4) and (6) for
different values of fcu = 25-50 N/mm2. The cross-
section of the beam dimension is 350x700mm with
an effective depth of 640mm. The yield strength of
reinforcement was taken as 300 N/mm2. It shows
that the minimum area of shear reinforcement
required by SP is larger than required by GB. The
maximum difference between the two codes for
the given beam geometry and concrete strength
was 10%.
The required flexural reinforcements for the same
design bending moment, using SP 52-101-2003
and GB 50010-2010 are almost the same regardless
of the Mu/Vu ratio.
In all cases, the required shear reinforcement by
the Russian code is larger than that by Chinese
code for the same geometry and load. This
difference becomes more pronounced with the
increase of the Mu/Vu ratio. It was also established
that owing to differences in material safety
factors, GB 50010-2003 equations lead to more
required shear reinforcement than SP 52-101-2003.
The transverse torsional reinforcement required
by SP was found to be larger than that required
by GB, and the difference in value between the
reinforcement of the two codes is almost constant.
It was found that these different safety factors of
material.
Impact of Safety Factors on Ultimate Design
Load
The difference in the factor of safety for the dead
load and live load between SP52-101-2003 and
GB50010-2010 resulted in lager design bending
moments and shear force by GB 50010-2010
equation than the SP 50-101-2003.
For the resulting different design loads, it was
found that both the longitudinal and transverse
required by the SP52-101-2003 are lower than
GB50010-2003 in all beam.
Punching Shear Strength (at Slab–Column
Connection)
For different column aspect ratios, the punching
shear strength of flat slab–column connections
calculated using the SP code was found to be
larger than that calculated using the GB code for
the same geometry, materials, and loading
conditions.
For different slab thicknesses, SP code estimates
more punching shear strength than GB code.
Minimum Reinforcement ratio
The minimum area of flexural reinforcement
required by GB 50010-2010 is larger than SP 52-
101-2003 for RC rectangular beams.
Minimum Area of Shear Reinforcement
The minimum area of transverse reinforcement
required by GB 50010-2010 is less than SP 52-101-
2003 for RC rectangular beams.
Recommendation
From the results of this research, it was found that
the SP and GB code similar reinforcement for the
same design load. Contrarily, when the load
safety factors are used in calculating the design
loads from the service loads, the resulting
factored loads using GP code is larger than the SP
code loads, which results in a larger area of
reinforcement by GB than the SP. Hence, it is not
easy to give preference of one code over the other
for use countries that do not have national codes
and allow both SP and GB codes to be used.
Additionally, By acknowledging all the countries
that have accepted to follow the rules of one given
code, the countries can still keep their current
level of safety by using the equivalence results of
this research. Going further in this kind of
research by studying, for example, more
structural members, design codes, may allow us
to create an international database which gives
the equivalence ratio for a given case. The unicity
is the requirements of each country.
References
[1]. GB 50010-2010. Code for design of concrete
structures. China Building Industry Press, Beijing,
Chinese, 2010.
[2]. SP 52-101-2003. Concrete and reinforced
concrete structures. Russian Ministry of
Construction, Moscow, Russian, 2003.
[3]. GB 50009-2012. Load code for the design of
building structures. China Building Industry Press,
Beijing, Chinese, 2012.
[4]. SNiP 2.01.07-85*. Load and Effects, Russian
Ministry of construction. Russian Ministry of
Construction, Moscow, Russian, 1996.
[5]. GB50011-2010. Code for Seismic Design of
Building. China Building Industry Press, Beijing,
Chinese. 2010.
[6]. SNiP II-7-81. Construction in Seismic Areas.
Russian Ministry of Construction, Moscow, Russian,
2001.
[7]. Alnuaimi, A. S.; Bhatt, P. Design of solid
reinforced concrete beams. Structures Buildings,
2006, 159(4), 197–216.
[8]. LU, Yi.; HUANG, L. Comparison between
Chinses code and American code in shear-torsion
strength of RC members. Engineering Mechanics,
2012, 29(2), 144‒119.
[9]. YE, L.; WANG, Y. Calculation and
comparison of shear strength of RC beam between
Chinses and American codes. Journal of
Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2008, 25(1), 88‒
95.
[10]. Ameli, M.; Ronagh, H. R. Treatment of [15]. Ankita, S.M.; Aloke, K.D. A Study on codal
torsion of reinforced concrete beams in current provisions applied to RCC structures: the need for
structural standards. Asian Journal of Civil the development of common codal provisions.
Engineering, 2007, 8(5), 507‒519. Journal of Civil Engineering and Environmental
Technology, 2015,2(4), 304-308.
[11]. HAN, J.; CHEN, J. Calculation, and analysis
of punching shear capacity of slab-column
connections with openings at home and abroad.
Journal of North China University of Science and
Technology, 2018, 41(1), 38‒41.

[12]. Bernardo, L. F. A.; Lopes, S. M. R. Torsion in

high strength concrete hollow Beams-Strength
and ductility analysis. ACI Structural Journal, 2009,
106(1), 39‒48.

[13]. SONG, Sh.; YE L. The Comparison of design

methods for flexure strength of RC beams
between Chinese and American design codes for
RC structures. Building Science, 2007, 23(7), 28‒33.

[14]. Ali S, A.; Iqbal I. P.; Mohammed C. A. Design

Results of RC Members Subjected to Bending,
Shear, and Torsion Using ACI 318:08 and BS
8110:97 building codes, ASCE, Practice Periodical
on Structural Design and Construction, 2013, 18(4),
213-224.