A particular challenge in earthquake engineering is posed by buildings of special importance, such as healthcare facilities, which need to remain functional after an earthquake in order to provide essential medical services. The forthcoming new generation of Eurocodes 2 and 8 introduces significant changes in this field. Therefore, this master's thesis compares the structural design procedure for a reinforced concrete hospital building in Ljubljana, featuring a dual structural system composed of reinforced concrete frames and core walls. The structure was fully designed and dimensioned for ductility class DCM according to the currently applicable standards and for ductility class DC3 according to the draft version of the new generation of Eurocodes. The thesis systematically presents the structural design, material and load definition, structural analysis and design of the floor slabs, as well as a detailed global seismic analysis and seismic design of selected reinforced concrete structural. A central part of the study is the comparison of the dimensions and reinforcement quantities of beams, columns and the reinforced concrete core walls designed according to the current and new generations of Eurocodes. The new generation of Eurocode 8 introduces several important changes, including a new definition of the acceleration spectrum, updated ductility classes, and a modified approach to determining design actions, including bending moment and shear force envelopes in walls. Importance factors have been replaced by performance factors. The investigated structure belongs to consequence class CC3b, the highest consequence class considered in the new generation of the standard, and is designed for the location of Ljubljana and ground type B. For the investigated structure, the performance factor is reduced from 1.4 to 1.25, resulting in a lower seismic action. Consequently, smaller quantities of required reinforcement were obtained for the frame elements. For the walls, however, the modified procedure for determining design actions leads to higher design demands; therefore, despite the lower seismic action, the required reinforcement quantities remained comparable. The presented findings apply exclusively to the investigated building, consequence class CC3b, and the selected site category (ground type B).
|
