In the master's thesis, we present the procedure and results of the earthquake-resistant design of a tall reinforced concrete (RC) building according to the Eurocode 8 standard (EC8). The analysed building has 22 storeys and a dual structural system equivalent to a wall system. A linear-elastic spatial model of the building structure was developed in the ETABS program and used for seismic analysis of the building, which we conducted based on the modal response spectrum method considering the design and elastic acceleration response spectra. Fundamental periods of the structure for the X and Y directions are 2,10 s and 3,24 s, and the total design seismic force is about 6,5 % of the weight of the building, regardless of the horizontal direction of the seismic load. In verifying the seismic performance of the building, we focused on the verification of interstorey drifts and the design of the reinforcement of RC core in the ground floor, where the energy dissipation area is foreseen. We found that seismic requirements in terms of interstorey drifts were met only if the interstorey drifts were calculated on the basis of the elastic acceleration response spectrum. In the case of tall buildings, such an approach of verifying interstorey drifts makes sense. In the design of the RC core, we assumed ductility class medium (DCM). The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the core wall was first calculated by an independent "hand" calculation in accordance with the EC2 and EC8 standards and then by an automatic calculation in the ETABS program. With the "hand" calculation, we obtained 0,63 % for the longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the RC core, while the calculation in the ETABS program resulted in about 8 % more longitudinal reinforcement. This difference was mainly influenced by the different considerations of the reinforcement distribution across the cross section. There were slightly larger differences in the calculation of the transverse reinforcement. With an independent "hand" calculation, we determined 166 cm2/m of the required transverse reinforcement in the entire core cross section, while the ETABS program calculated approximately 22 % more transverse reinforcement. This difference is mainly due to the consideration of the shorter length of individual parts of the wall (length based on centroidal axes) and the shorter lever arm of internal forces considered in the ETABS calculations.
|
