The aim of the Diploma thesis is elaboration of design documentation for execution of an multifunkcional building.It is a building with four above ground floors and one partly under-ground floor. In the underground floor, individual garages are designed. The entrance is on the first floor, where there are also business premises. Office space is located on the second floor, and flats are placed on the third and fourth floors. The roof above the 4th floor is designed as flat roof. The underground part of the building and some other structures are designed from concrete. The other load-bearing masonry is made of ceramic blocks. The partitions are made of plasterboard or ceramic fittings. The shafts are also made of plasterboard. The ETICS system is used on the facade. The ceiling structures are monolithic reinforced concrete slabs. The roof is made as an extensive green roof.

It is a new kindergarten in semi developed area. The building is located in Southern Bohemia in the village Strakonice. Kindergarten is divided to two buildings, the garden house and kindergarten. The building has only one floor and a without basement. In object kindergarten is the main building and two individual pavilions. In the main building is office for headmistress of the school, utility room, workshop, cloakroom for employees, store dirty laundry, food warehouses and food preparation and sanitary facilities. From the connecting corridors to get to the individual departments, where you can find children's cloakroom, toilet and washroom for children, isolation room, storage beds and bedding, office for teacher, WC for teacher, store toys and games room and place to relax for children. Pavilion A is the same as pavilion B, only mirrored. The building is based on the footings of plain concrete class C20/25. It is a brick structure of building system called LIVETHERM. Building has a flat roof and roof aisle also with slope 7 ° and 10 . Aisle roof is made of wooden glued trusses. Roofing is made up of modified bitumen belt. Built-up area is 947.6 square meters

The subject of the diploma thesis is the elaboration of project documentation for the construction of a multifunctional building. The building is concerning three floors in one part and two floors in the other part. Entrances for residential area and services are separate. On the first floor there is a barrier-free apartment, technical facilities and there is also space for trade and services. On the second floor there are three residential units and office space. On the third floor there are housing units. The roof above the 3rd floor and partly above the 2nd floor is designed as a flat vegetation with limited access. The load-bearing and non-load-bearing masonry in the above-ground floors is made of ceramic blocks. Overhanging walls, as well as shaft walls, are designed from plasterboard. The facade is solved by the ETICS system. Ceiling structures are composed of pre-tensioned SPIROLL panels. The roof is vegetative, flat.

The diploma thesis deals with the design documentation of new Multifunctional house in terraced houses on the level of documentation for building permit. The living area is designed for housing eight people. Part with shops and with offices are designed for seventy three people. The building will be located in the Zlín Region, District of Uherské Hradiště, in the city of Uherský Brod. The Cadastral area is Uherský Brod - the town. The bulding has four aboveground floors and he hadn't cellar. The building is designed like a brick structure with column and girder. Vertical structures aboveground parts are made of bricks Porotherm and column and girder are from reinforced concrete C16/20 and shoring B500B. Platform of a multifunctional house in terraced houses is of rectangular shape with dimensions of 25,20 x 16,30 m. The main entrance to the building is located on the south side. Part with shops in first floor have four shops. In the second floor are four offices. Whole building are roofed helped three diferent roof construction. Above living part is gabled roof and above technical room and staircase is compact flat roof and the rest of building is vegetation roof with terrace.

Sedan 1900-talets mitt har användandet av tegelkonstruktioner i bostadsbyggandet minskat kraftigt; materialet har under modernismen upplevts otidsenligt och byggnadssättet har ansetts ineffektivt. Trots att kanalmurstekniken, som är en byggteknik med bärande tegelkonstruktion och högt isoleringsvärde, togs fram på 1930-talet för att följa hårdare energihushållningskrav, har ändå lätta träregelkonstruktioner dominerat det svenska småhusbyggandet. Kraven på energihushållning har under åren ökat successivt och livscykelanalysen (LCA) har utvecklats. LCA är en metodik som analyserar produkters eller tjänsters klimatbelastning ur livscykelperspektiv. Svårigheter har dock funnits i att omsätta metodiken på större komponenter än enskilda material. Därför har europastandarder tagits fram som enkom tjänar till att systematisera livscykelanalyser av hela byggnader och de kommer att följas i denna studie. Syftet med examensarbetet är att jämföra hur ett typhus med tegel som stommaterial belastar miljön under produktion och drift i en livscykel satt till 100 år, jämfört med ett motsvarande trätyphus. Till tegelhusets nackdel talar den höga energiåtgången vid materialframställningen. Trä å sin sida löper stor risk för förkortad livscykel i och med riskerna för fuktskador. För att undersöka skillnaderna i trä- och tegelkonstruktioner har en typhusritning i kanalmurskonstruktion analyserats mot en motsvarande träkonstruktion, där byggnadstyperna har samma boarea och väggkonstruktionerna samma värmemotstånd. För att få fram husens skillnad energiåtgång under driftskedet har energibehovsberäkningar utförts för byggnaderna. Livscykelanalysen har utförts i programvaran Anavitor utifrån 3D-modeller med byggnadsinformation som matchas mot en materialdatabas med livscykeldata. Ur jämförelsen har resultat kunnat hämtas på vilken av konstruktionerna som belastar miljön minst över livscykeln, med avseende på klimatbelastning räknat i koldioxidekvivalenter. Resultat visar att ett tegelhus belastar miljön dubbelt så mycket som ett trähus i produktionsfasen medan tegelhuset är miljövänligare avseende underhåll och drift. Efter 100 år är skillnaden 7,3 ton koldioxidekvivalenter, till trähusets fördel. Enligt livscykelanalysen har byggnaderna, enligt de antaganden som gjorts, belastat miljön lika efter 168 år. Till tegelhusets fördel talar dess säkerhet gällande livslängd, beständighet, fuktsäkerhet och goda möjlighet till återbruk av stommaterialet. / Since the mid-1900s has brick building marginalized; the material has in the modernist era been experienced as dated and the construction method considered inefficient. In the 1930s the canal wall technique were developed to meet the coming stringent energy requirements. Despite opportunities to meet modern building norms have yet lightweight timber structures dominated the Swedish construction sector concerning single-family houses since then. The requirements for energy conservation have increased over the years to an even greater degree, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been developed; a methodology that analyzes products from a life cycle perspective. There have been difficulties to put the methodology on larger components than individual materials. Therefore, European Standards have been developed that specifically serve to systematize Life Cycle Assessments of entire buildings, which will be followed in this study. The purpose of this study is to compare which impact a standard house with brick structure has a on the environment in a lifecycle set to 100 years, compared with a corresponding timber structure. To the disadvantage for a brick house speaks the high energy consumption in material production. Timber structures at their part are at high risk for shortened life cycle due to risk of moisture damage. To examine the differences in wood and brick structures has a standard house drawing in canal wall technique been analyzed against a corresponding wooden construction. The building types have the same floor area and the wall constructions have the same heat resistance. To receive the differences in energy use during the operational phase between the buildings has energy calculations been made. The life cycle analysis has been performed in the software Anavitor based on 3D models with building information that is matched against a database of materials life cycle data. The results from the comparison are measured in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents, and will show which construction type will make least impact on the environment. Results show that a brick house has doubled environmental impact compared to a wooden house in the production phase. The brick house is a better alternative concerning environmental impact during operational phase and maintenance. After 100 years, the difference is 7,3 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents to the advantage of the wooden house. According to the LCA and the assumptions made, the buildings have charged the environment equally after 168 years. To the advantage of the brick house speaks its longevity, durability, moisture resistance and good opportunity for reuse of the bricks.

It is about a new building, Free times activits center 3710/3 in a catastral Pardubice 717657. The building has two floors, withount any cellar. The structure system of walls is bassed on the basse passes. Horizontal structures are made from prestessed panels. The roof is flat, only one – coated. Floors are hooked uz by concrete stairs and by lift.