Türk betonarme şartnamesi (TS-500-82) ve Amerikan betonarme şartnamesi (ACI-318-83)'nin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, betonarme yapı elemanlarının yeni Türk Betonarme Yönetmeliği (TS-500) kullanılarak yapılan tasarımı, Amerikan Betonarme Yönetmeliği (ACI) ile kara laştırılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçların karşılaştırılmasında aşa ğıdaki konular gözönüne alınmıştır. 1. Malzeme, 2. Yapı Güvenliği, 3. Taşıma Gücü Yönteminin Temel Varsayımları, 4. Eğilme ve Eksenel Yüklü Eğilme, 5. Narin Kolonlar, 6. Kayma, 7. Zımbalama, 8. Donatının Kenetlenmesi ve Eklen mesi. Karşılaştırma sonunda, Türk Yönetmeliği sonuçla rının ACI Yönetmeliği sonuçlarından pek farklı olmadığı görülmüştür. Bazı durumlarda Türk Yönetmeliğinin ACI Yö netmeliğine göre daha az güvenli sonuçlar vermesi Türkiye ile Amerika'nın ekonomik seviyeleri gözönüne alındığında doğal olarak karşılanmıştır.

In this study, design of members using the new version of Turkish Reinforced Concrete Building Code (TS-500 Code) was compared with the American Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI-318-83). Comparisons of results obtained using ACÎ Code were made in the following subjects: 1. Materials, 2. Structural Safety, 3. Basic Assumptions in Ultimate Strength Design, 4. Flexure and Axial Loads, 5. Slender Columns, 6. Shear, 7. Punching Shear, 8. Development Length and Splices for Reinforcement. Firstly, without depending on the geometry of sections, calculation principles are determined on xii general sections Secondly, the sections that are used more in practical works are considered land, the charts which are used for these sections are introduced. Comparisons made revealed that, the results obtained using the Turkish Code were not very different from ACI Code. In certain cases, the Turkish Code yielded less conservative results as compared to the above mentioned ACI Code. This was found to be natural, considering the relative economical levels of Turkey and USA. The safety approach in TS-50Q Code is similar to ACI Code. The stress approaches is very similar in each Code. Codes use different equivalent stress blocks. In ACI Code and TS-500 Code rectangle are recommended as equivalent blocks. Studies made have revealed that the rectangle is as good as the rectangle parabola. fiber is Code (0 constant purposes The maximum concrete strain at the extreme assumed to be constant in TS-500 Code and ACI,003). Case studies made indicate that the value of 0.003 is satisfactory for all practical For the members subjected to pure flexure, the tension steel areas required using the provision (including safety provisions) of different codes were compared. In the light of such comparisons it was concluded that almost the same steel area is obtained regardless of the code used. columns can The genral be summarized conclusions as: reached for short Xlll For gravity loads, capacities obtained from two codes are not very different from each other, except near balanced conditions. ACI Code yields the most conservative results. When seismic loading is also present, ACI Code yields lower capacities than this obtained using TS- 500 Code. But not too far from them. For the slender columns bent in double curvature in braced frames. trends of ıh.? interact" icn curves obtained from the different codes are similar to the once obtained for short columns. For the slender columns bent in single curvature in braced frames subjected to graviry loading. TS-50Û Code yields larger capacities in the compression failure zone. When high steel grades are used in these columns, ACI Code yields safe values at low axial load levels. When seismic loading is present, TS-500 Couy yields largest capacities. For columns in unbraced frames TS-500 Code yields larger capacities than ACI Code for gravity loading. TS-500 Code yields also larger capacities than ACI Code for seismic loading. It should be noted that it would be veiy wrong to conclude that TS-500 Code results are unsafe, since the capacities obtained by using TS-500 Code are greater than ACI Code. Each country depending on the social, economical and technical level accepts different risk levels. It is very reasonable for Turkey to take more risk in seismic design as compared to USA. xiv The shear resistances obtained by using the TS-500 Code and ACI Code are not very different. The stirrup areas required by the ACI Code and TS-500 Code are not very different from each other. For punching shear, highest resistance is obtained when the ACI Code is used. For the development length on common bar sizes, it can be concluded that, the development length obtained using TS-500 Code is 15 - 30 % greater than the other code values. For larger bar sizes, ACI Code results in greater development lengths as compared to other. For splice length of S420 deformed bars, ACT Code results in larger lap lengths. For smaller bar s ize ACI Code results in smaller lap lengths. In future studies comparison of column, design using different codes should be investigated further. Different cross-sectional geometries, different steel arrangements should be considered. As far as long columns are concerned larger slenderness ratios should be included in the comperative studies. Notations used in the new version are international and units are in SI system. While in the old version of the code working stress method was the only design method, the ultimate strength desiui: procedure is introduced in the new version. The basic assumptions made for the ultimate strength theory are similar to the once made in the ACI Code. xv A new and realistic structural safety concept is adopted. In the new version of TS-500 Code, subjects like torsion, shear, bond, slender columns and slabs are treated in the light of new developments in these fields. The basic sources in the preparation of the new version of TS-500 Code have been; international codes, research results and past experience in Turkey. The certain subjects ACI Code has also been influencial.