Static analysis and design of reinforced concrete structure of a city archive

Tema završnog rada je napraviti statički proračun i dimenzionirati trokatnu armiranobetonsku konstrukciju zgrade gradskog arhiva. Zadatak ovog završnog rada bio je napraviti usporedbu rezultata ručnog proračuna i proračuna u odabranom računalnom programu. Proračun je proveden u skladu sa Eurokod normama, za računalni program je odabran SAP2000. Ploče koje su upete s tri strane trebaju manje armature nego manje upete ploče. Ploče koje imaju slučaj upetosti po dužem rasponu, ručnim proračun zahtijevaju duplo više armature u tom smjeru nego u okomitom smjeru, to nije slučaj kod računalnog programa gdje je situacija obrnuta. Rubne ploče također zahtijevaju više armature u odnosu na druge. Analizom rezultata za potrebnu količinu uzdužne armature u gredama, ručni proračun za grede smještene ispod stropne ploče zahtijeva duplo više armature u odnosu na proračun u računalnom programu, to nije slučaj za grede krovne ploče gdje su rezultati za potrebnu količinu uzdužne armature približno isti. Rezultati poprečne armature ručnog proračuna i proračuna u programu se dobro poklapaju uz manja odstupanja u količini potrebne ploštine poprečne armature. Zaključak ove usporedbe je da je ručni proračun nešto konzervativniji u odnosu na proračun u računalnom programu, s tim se postiže dodatna sigurnost, ali se smanjuje ekonomičnost konstrukcije.The topic of this final work is the structural analysis and design of the three-story reinforced concrete structure of the city archive building. The task of this work was to compare the results of the manual calculation and the calculation in the selected computer program. The calculation was performed in accordance with the Eurocode standards, and SAP2000 was chosen as the computer program. Panels restrained along three sides require less reinforcement than less restrained panels. Panels that are fully restrained along a longer span require twice as much reinforcement in this direction as in the vertical direction according to the manual calculation, this is not the case with the computer program where the situation is reversed. Also the edge slabs need more reinforcement than others. When analyzing the results for the required longitudinal reinforcement of the beams, it can be seen that the manual calculation for the beams under the floor slab requires twice as much reinforcement as the calculation in the computer program, which is not the case for the beams of the roof slab, where the results for the required longitudinal reinforcement are approximately the same. The results of the transverse reinforcement of the manual calculation and the calculation in the program agree well, with minor differences in the amount of the required area of the transverse reinforcement. The conclusion from this comparison is that the manual calculation is slightly more conservative compared to the calculation in the computer program, achieving additional safety but reducing the economy of the design