Leaderboard

In our opinion, the observation made below is correct and thus a designer is allowed to increase the minimum steel ratio depending upon the restraint of the structure. "Where structural walls or columns provide significant restraint to shrinkage and temperature movements, the restrain of volume changes causes tension in slabs, as well as displacements, shear forces, and flexural moments in columns or walls. In these cases, it may be necessary to increase the amount of slab reinforcement required by 7.12.2.1 due to the shrinkage and thermal effects in both principal directions (see References 7.7 and 7.16)." Thus for crack control (as serviceability limit) one can use the following "For a maximum design crack width of 0.3 mm (as is commonly specified in codes of practice), it appears that for the restrained slabs tested in this study a reinforcement area of greater than about 270 mm2 (ρ = 0.0045) would be satisfactory" Best wishes Zenith International

The answer by Waseem is correct and clear. Best wishes Zenith International

The response of Umar Makhzuni is comprehensive, clear and correct. In addition, following should be noted. It is advisable that all designs in Pakistan adhere to IBC rather than UBC-97, which is now considered defunct. Use of UBC-97 with latest resistance codes for structural concrete (like ACI 318-05, 318-08, 318-11) and AISC codes with publication dates after 1997 is technically incorrect and must be avoided. I hope that structural design community should adapt to the IBC and the appropriate use of resistance codes.

Attach your calculation and basis of calculation. Like Umar said you don't even need comparative study. Its obvious that new Saudi Code based on IBC will give higher base shears.