british code vs ibc

huangyhg

british code vs ibc
i work in the us and i am currently packaging a cost estimate for a structure in south america. according to the specifications supplied they will be using british standards/codes. at this moment i have zero familiarity with the british codes and i am curious as to the differences between design criteria, specifically wind and seismic. is there a difference in steel shapes/sizes? where would i find a good single resource without purchaing serveral codes?
thanks in advance.
a few starters:
1] typically uk codes are ultimate limit state which is similar to us lrfd, one notable exception is timber which is still permissable stress.
2] section sizes are completely different, as are designations.  see:
i suppose i should have added:
steelwork - bs 5950
concrete - bs 8110
water retaining - bs 8007
masonry - bs 5628
timber - bs 5268
foundations - bs 8004
loadings - bs 6399
dead weights - bs 648
steel grades - bs en 10025
thanks ussuri,
this will be steel and concrete, so i will not worry about the timber.
i had thought the shapes were different but i could not find the thread.
i typically use ibc, international building code, which is strangely us specific (there are not any world maps for wind or seismic coefficients...should be called usbc) i have a couple of coworkers visiting the job site this week and  the wind/seismic load was on my list of questions.
again thanks for the link. and the list of specs will aid in my search.

another question: are there different concrete reinforcemnet designations and grade? in the us we use #3,#4....#14 which typically has a yield strength of 60 ksi and the diameter for most bars is such that a #3 bar is 3/8" dia. and a #4 is 4/8" or so forth? (this does not hold for larger bars)?
the concrete grades and bars will be metric....
concrete will be in mpa (n/mm2).  typical strengths are 25, 30, 40 & 50.  the conversion is psi*6.894757mpa/1000psi
thus for 4000psi ~ 27.5mpa
rough equivalence (very rough, you can't just convert a design) is available on lots of sites.  wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on rebar, if not very technical and not especially useful for seismic considerations.  check out
thanks ys,
currently i am putting together a proposal and quantity take-off, so i am doing a generic design using imperial units (quick and easy). i appreciate the advise because my mind set tends to do the design imperically than convert to metric. the metric system is logically a better system; however,when all you use are english units it is hard to do otherwise. you are correct about the documents, everything shall be done in metric units. i am looking into what is available(both reinf and steel shapes).
again, thanks for advice and the luck!  
glad to help.  i know how difficult the change over between systems can be; a good trick is to work out your "gut feel" loads in your more familiar system, then convert them.  work out your actual loads in the system of measure that is standard for the project, but use your "gut feel" cheat sheet as a check.
if you're not familiar with metric, you might stumble.  producing your own cheat sheet makes it more likely that you'll catch the goofs.  we're all human!
hope you get the job, the project goes well and the metric change over doesn't get you down.  *smiles*
cheers,
ys
b.eng (carleton)
working in new zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
one thing not mentioned is that concrete strengths in bs codes are cube strength while us is cylinder. cylinder is about .8 * cube.
i thought ibc stood for intranational building code as it is only written for usa and is not recognised by anyone else of any significance!!!
to their credit, the international building code is intended to be without any specific jurisdictional limits... the only problem is it is by nature american, being both in imperial measurements and with wind, seismic, etc provisions that only work in the us.
i'm canadian, so i'm the opposite of biased towards the us, however this naming isn't a result of arrogance, it's the result of over-shooting the mark and underacheiving in order to ensure that us engineers would actually behave when their jurisdiction adopt the code.
and damn good point re cube strength!  it's actually common to use cylinder strength outside of the uk, as best as i know.  although metric countries, canada, new zealand and australia all use cylinder strength as standard practice.  the south american country in question could very well do the same.
cheers,
ys
b.eng (carleton)
working in new zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
ys,
cylinder strength is used in europe, cubes are a uk thing.
mrpid
if you are speccifying concrete you should also look at bs en 206 (specifying concrete) and bs 8500 (the complementary specification).  reinforcement is bs4449:2005.