ACMC PART I ON DESIGN:

PRINCIPLES, STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION

K.H. TAN1, T. UEDA2, M. YOSHIMURA3, K. TAKEWAKA4, T. CHAISOMPHOB5,

C.L. CHIANG6, H. MUTSUYOSHI7, G.H. KUSUMA8 and G.F. ZHAO9

ABSTRACT: Part 1 of the Asian Concrete Model Code deals with the design of structural
concrete components and systems. It adopts a performance-based design approach that
provides greater flexibility and autonomy in design. The basic concepts are described in a
Level 1 document. Further details on material properties and models, actions due to normal
loads, winds, earthquakes and environmental effects, and design checks on serviceability,
restorability and safety are given in a Level 2 document. Several examples of Level 3
documents, intended for adoption by sub-regions or individual countries, have also been
developed in accordance to the principles given in Level 1 and 2 documents. Though more
elaborate, the three-tier document is compatible with the contents of “Performance and
Assessment Requirements for Structural Concrete” that is currently being drafted by the ISO
Technical Committee TC 71. Further links with ISO and related networks are envisaged.
Also, future tasks would include the refinement of Level 1 and 2 documents and the
development of Level 3 documents that would become workable codes and standards, thus
facilitating cross-border construction and research activities in various nations.

KEYWORDS: concrete, design, model code, performance, structures.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Asian Concrete Model Code [1, 2] consisted of three parts: Part I on Design, Part II on
Materials and Construction, and Part III on Maintenance. Each part is presented in a three-
tier document. Level 1 documents provide the basic concepts while Level 2 documents
present the general requirements pertaining to each of the three parts of the Code. Level 3
documents give the specific requirements in accordance to the general principles given in
Level 1 and 2 documents, and are intended for use for a particular sub-region or for a
particular structural system. The purpose of Level 3 documents is to cater for the difference
in construction practices in various countries and the emergence of advanced construction
materials.
1
Dept. of Civil Enginneering, National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore, Dr.Eng.
2
Division of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Hokkaido University, Japan, Dr.Eng.
3
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan, Dr.Eng.
4
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kagoshima University, Japan, Dr.Eng.
5
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sirindhorn Int. Inst. of Tech., Thammasat University, Thailand, Dr.Eng.
6
School of Engineering & Science, Monash University Malaysia, Malaysia, PhD.
7
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Saitama University, Japan, Dr.Eng.
8
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Petra Christian University, Surabaya, Indonesia, M.Eng.
9
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, China.
2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

2.1 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

The Code is formulated on a performance-based design (PBD) philosophy, the concept of

which is illustrated in Fig. 1. As first explained by Ueda [3], the performance-based design in
fact encompasses the concept of limit state design, just as the latter encompasses that of
working stress design or ultimate strength design.

In working stress design (WSD), one is interested in ensuring that the material stresses when
the structure is subjected to working loads is less than the allowable values, taken as the
ultimate material strength divided by a safety factor. On the other hand, in the ultimate
strength design (USD) approach, the designer would check that the ultimate load carrying
capacity would be in excess of the factored loads that would be expected on a structure or
structural component, to ensure that the structure would not collapse. Thus, in one case, the
focus is on the service load conditions, while in the second, it is the ultimate load condition
that is of primary concern. Since the satisfaction for one condition does not necessarily imply
that for the other due to the variety of construction materials, the limit state design (LSD) has
been intended to cover this by considering both the serviceability limit states and ultimate
limit states. Serviceability limit states cover checks for cracking, deflection, vibration and the
like that would affect the ability of the structure to function under service loads while ultimate
limit states include strength, ductility, and structural robustness and integrity.

As it is, the requirements for limit state checks are expressed in relatively rigid terms. For
example, the allowable crack width is normally specified as 0.3 mm for reinforced concrete
structures for exterior exposure condition. This results from the requirement for aesthetics as
well as corrosion inhibition of the internal steel reinforcement. However, for concrete
structures reinforced with fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement, for example, the
crack width may be governed by aesthetics rather than durability. In this case, it may be
acceptable to accept the allowable crack width as 0.5 mm. Also, crack control can be
achieved by specifying allowable crack width, as well as by crack intensity, that is the total
length of crack per unit area of the concrete. Thus, to cater for such deviations, the
performance-based design approach specifies the requirement in non-technical terms such as
aesthetics, water-tightness and durability as far as crack control is concerned.

Serviceability WSD
LSD

Restorability Damage Control

Safety USD

PBD

Fig. 1 Concept of Performance-Based Design Philosophy

2.2 PERFORMANCE AND PERFORMANCE INDEX

The performance required of a structure or structural element is classified into three

categories: (a) serviceability; (b) restorability; and (c) safety. Serviceability refers to the need
for the structure or structural member to be useable under the effects of normal actions and
includes performance such as floor levelness, aesthetics, and riding comfort. Restorability
requires the structure or structural element to remain physically and economically repairable
when subjected to damages due to moderate level of actions. It includes structural
characteristics such as resilience and strength. Safety requires the structure or structural
member to remain standing under extreme loads so that no harm would be inflicted on the
occupants or persons in the vicinity. It includes characteristics such as strength, structural
integrity and ductility.

Each performance may be quantified by one or more indices, as shown in Table 1. For
example, aesthetics may be satisfied by considering crack width, crack length and/or crack
intensity. Resilience can be quantified by permanent deformation and ductility by energy
absorption capacity. The required performance must be provided for by the inherent
characteristics of the structure or structural element. Defining the performance index in such
a manner that a higher index indicates a better performance, the required performance would
be satisfied if

PIP > PIR (1)

where PIP and PIR are the possessed and required performance indices respectively.

Table 1 Performances and Performance indices

Performances Performance indices (PI)

Category Items (Examples)
Serviceability Aesthetics Crack width, Crack length, Crack intensity,
(Functionability) Dampness, Deformation
Comfort (vibration, Vibration (natural period), Noise intensity,
noise, odor) Permeability/porosity
Shielding Crack intensity, permeability/porosity
(water/liquid
tightness, air/gas
leakage)
Restorability Resilience Permanent deformation, Damage index
(Damage control) (hysteresis curve)
Strength Axial force, bending moment, shear force,
torsion, stress range
Durability Permeability/porosity, crack intensity
Safety Strength Axial force, bending moment, shear force,
(Prevention torsion, stress range
against total Deformability Ductility index, Cumulative ductility index,
collapse) Energy absorption capacity, Reinft. index
Integrity Robustness/stability (overturning/restoring
actions), Redundancy, Tie reinft. index
Fatigue Stress range
The performance-based design (PBD) philosophy adequately covers the provisions of limit
state design (LSD) as well as those of working stress design (WSD), ultimate strength design
(USD) and the damage control philosophy currently adopted in seismic design. It provides
greater flexibility for design including the use of new materials and structures. It can also
cater for the vast diversity in design and construction practices within the Asian region.

3 CODE STRUCTURE

3.1 LEVEL 1 DOCUMENT

Level 1 document describes the basic concepts, which are meant for all types of concrete
structures including both structural and nonstructural elements subjected to physical,
mechanical and environmental actions. Structures should be designed, constructed and
operated to maintain their performance in safety, economical restorability and serviceability.
Special considerations are to be given to the protection of environment. The material
properties and models necessary for design analysis should be specified. Four groups of
actions, that is, actions in normal use, wind actions, seismic actions and environmental actions
are identified. Several levels of design ranging from the use of a three-dimensional analysis
with consideration of material and geometrical non-linearity and time effects, to simplified
methods such as one or two dimensional analysis, linear analysis and static analysis that are
use in most current practices, are listed. The examination and evaluation of performance are
described.

3.2 LEVEL 2 DOCUMENT

This document describes in more details, the provisions outlined in the Level 1 document for
the four types of actions. It provides all the necessary items for design. These items are
common for any type of structures in any sub-regions.

(1) Design for Actions in Normal Use

Under this heading, actions are further classified as permanent loads, variable loads and
accidental loads. Material properties to be prescribed include static and fatigue strength,
stiffness, time-dependent properties (creep, relaxation and shrinkage) and thermal properties
of concrete, reinforcement and interface materials. Stress-strain relations ranging from a
three-dimensional one considering the loading history and effect of cracking to simplified
ones may be used. Models for composite materials could be used instead of those separately
for concrete, reinforcement and interface materials. The performance index in terms of action
effects to satisfy restorability is usually only slightly different from that required for safety,
making the check for restorability unnecessary in most cases.

(2) Design for Wind Actions

Depending on the importance and design life, structures and components are divided into: (a)
extremely important structures and components; (b) regular structures and components; (c)
small-scale, light residences and stores and the like; and (d) temporary facilities. Further,
structures are classified into: (a) normal, bulky and relatively stiff structures; (b) tall and
slender or flexible structures; (c) irregular structures. To evaluate the wind pressure, three
approaches are listed: (a) equivalent static approaches based on tabulated coefficients; (b)
dynamic approaches based on the natural frequency and geometry of the structure; and (c)
wind tunnel tests. Provisions for materials and examination of performance are essentially the
same as those given for the design for actions in normal use. Inter-story drift has been
recognized as one of the performance indices for restorability.

(3) Design for Seismic Actions

The provisions are meant for structures designed for a planned yield mechanism, in which
shear failure of all members shall be prevented. Material properties and models are
essentially the same as for the design for normal actions, but the effects of confinement and
strain hardening are not explicitly mentioned. Three levels of seismic actions are defined: (a)
minor-to-moderate earthquake, as that occurring several times during the lifetime of the
structure; (b) severe earthquake, as that occurring once in the lifetime of the structure; and (c)
ultimate earthquake, as the strongest feasible for the site of the structure.

For each of the required serviceability, restorability and safety, an appropriate level of seismic
action depending on the purpose and importance of the structure is chosen and performance
evaluation made. In general, the nonlinear pushover analysis shall be used to evaluate the
structural response. Nonlinear dynamic analysis may be used for better accuracy while
simplified methods such as linear analysis and plastic limit analysis may be used with
appropriate considerations.

For serviceability, substantial damages are confined to non-structural elements, and plastic
hinges should not form although cracks are acceptable. For restorability, damage to design
hinge zones should be within repairable limits and other non-hinge zones should not yield or
fail in shear. To satisfy safety, the structure should not suffer significant loss of lateral load
resistance and maintain integrity to support gravity loads.

(4) Design for Environmental Actions

This applies to concrete structures for which durability is of primary concern. The
environmental actions leading to deterioration of material properties include chloride ion
penetration, carbonation, freezing and thawing, chemical attack, and abrasion. Material
properties and models necessary for performance evaluation need to account for long-term
properties of materials.

Depending on the technical, economical and social significance of the structure, the desired
performance with respect to environmental actions shall be classified into three categories: (a)
Durability Grade 1, for which the structure does not require any remedial action during its
service life; (b) Durability Grade 2, for which the structure is in need of simple repair at most
twice during its service life; and (c) Durability Grade 3, for which the structure would require
appropriate remedial actions during its service life.

The effects of environmental actions may be examined in two ways. The first is to consider
the long-term performance indices such as long-term deflection and strength incorporating
directly the effect of environmental actions on the material properties. The second, a
simplified approach, is to consider deterioration indices, which focus on the effect of
environmental actions directly. For example, to consider chloride induced reinforcement
corrosion, the deterioration index is the depth of chloride ingress, which should be limited to
less than the critical value to depassivate the reinforcing steel, and/or the degree of
reinforcement corrosion.
3.3 LEVEL 3 DOCUMENTS

The level 3 documents are meant to facilitate the design process. Each of these contains the
detailed design provisions including equations, tables and charts. It may be prepared for a
particular form of structure or for a particular region or country.

Four examples of level 3 documents have been prepared [2]. These are: (a) Design for
Actions in Normal Use based on current practice for civil engineering in Japan; (b) Design for
Actions in Normal Use based on current practice in Thailand; (c) Design for Wind Actions
based on current practice in Malaysia and Singapore; (d) Design for Seismic Actions based on
current practice in Thailand; (e) Design for Actions in Normal Use for Concrete Flat Plates
with Spandrel Beams with punching shear force as a performance index.

The level 3 documents would serve the specific needs of the respective countries and for
particular structures. Other examples that are currently being prepared include: (a) Design for
Seismic Actions based on current practice in Japan; (b) Design for Seismic Actions based on
current practice in Indonesia; and (c) Design for Prestressed Concrete Structures based on
practices in Japan.

3.4 COMPARISON WITH ISO DOCUMENTS

The International Standards Organization (ISO) has a technical committee ISO/TC71, which
oversees the codes for the design and construction of concrete structures. Presently, it is
preparing a draft document on “Performance and Assessment Requirements for Structural
Concrete”, which provides the basis for the design of concrete structures in addition to
another document on the “Simplified Design of Buildings”. The former is similar to Levels 1
and 2 documents of the ACMC, while the latter to a Level 3 document. Both these codes are
drafted on a limit state design concept, but the contents do not conflict with those of ACMC.

4 FUTURE TASKS AND IMPLEMENTATION

(1) Common Code for Level 1 and Level 2 Documents

Arising from a review of the ACMC Part I documents [3], it was deemed appropriate to revise
and refine the contents of Levels 1 and 2 documents. A suggested proposal is to have a
“Common Code” replacing these documents, and “Specific Codes” for Level 3 documents, as
shown in Fig. 2.
SPECIFIC COMMON CODE

General
Principles Replacing
current Level 1
and Level 2
Materials & documents
Design Construction Maintenance

Specific Specific Specific

code code code Current Level
3 documents

Fig. 2 Suggested Revision of ACMC Document Structure

In the suggested revision, the current Level 1 documents for the three parts of ACMC, that are
the Design, Materials and Construction, and Maintenance, would be collapsed into a single
entity while Level 2 documents would be retained and refined for each of these parts.

While retaining its uniqueness in terms of a performance-based design philosophy, it is

prudent that such a revision be carried out with due considerations to other similar code
development activities in the international arena. As such, further co-ordination with the
International Standards Organization, in particular with the technical committee ISO/TC71, is
essential. Reference should be made to ISO standards such as the ISO 2398, General
Principles on Reliability for Structures [4]. Also, the works of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-
operation (APEC) network on Harmonization of Loading Standards should be examined [5].

(2) Development of Specific Codes

It has been suggested [3] that specific codes in the document structure (or level 3 documents
in the old structure) be prepared by organizations or countries and not necessarily by the
International Committee on Concrete Model Code for Asia (ICCMC). Two types of specific
codes may be identified. The first would comprise those that may be transformed from
existing codes in accordance with the concept and provisions in ACMC. Examples would be
“Design of Structural Concrete in Country A”, “Design of Concrete Bridges for Seismic
Actions in Region B”, and the like, which serve for practical use. The second consisted of
those that are based on the latest technological development in concrete engineering.
Examples are “Design of Concrete Structures using Non-Compaction Concrete” and “Design
of Concrete Structures Reinforced or Prestressed with Fibre-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement”. These would also serve as future directions for the research on structural
concrete.

Once several workable specific codes are in place, it would be possible to upgrade some of
the provisions such as those for material properties and models, as well as general design
formulae in the Common Code.

5 CONCLUSION

The design principles adopted in Part 1 of the Asian Concrete Model Code, which deals with
the design of structural concrete components and systems, are explained. It adopts a
performance-based design approach that provides greater flexibility and autonomy in design.
The basic concepts, detailed provisions and requirements are described in a three-tier
document, which is compatible with the contents of “Performance and Assessment
Requirements for Structural Concrete” that is currently being drafted by the International
Standards Organization (ISO). Further links with ISO and related networks are envisaged.
Also, future tasks would include the refinement of Level 1 and 2 documents as a “Common
Code” and the development of Level 3 documents as “Specific Codes” that would become
workable codes and standards, thus facilitating cross-border construction and research
activities in various nations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ACMC Part I on Design has been prepared by working group, WG1, of the International
Committee on Concrete Model Code for Asia (ICCMC). The authors would like to express
their sincere gratitude to all other members of the working group who have contributed in one
way or another and to various organizations for their constructive feedback.
 REFERENCES

[1] International Committee on Concrete Model Code (ICCMC), “Asian Concrete Model
Code, Level 1 and 2 Documents – Second Draft,” ICCMC, March 1999, 82 pp.
[2] International Committee on Concrete Model Code (ICCMC), “Asian Concrete Model
Code, Level 3 Documents – Examples,” ICCMC, March 1999, 114 pp.
[3] Ueda, T., “The Design Part of Asian Concrete Model Code (ACMC) – Performance-
Based Design Concept with Limit State Design Methodology,” International Symposium
on Asian Concrete Model Code, ICCMC, Colombo, Sri Lanka, March 27, 2000, pp. 8-
22.
[4] International Standards Organization, “General Principles on Reliability for Structures
(ISO/FDIS 2394),” Final Draft, 1998, 78 pp.
[5] Tan, K.H., “Harmonization of Loading Standards and Design Codes in Asia-Pacific
Regions”, HAKI Conference 1997 on Civil and Structural Engineering, Jakarta, Indonesia,
August 13-14, 1997, pp. 96-101.