huangyhg

deep beam design
does anyone know of an alternate to using the strut and tie model for deep beams?
i don't think there is one.
there was a post a week or two ago in this forum regarding strut and tie. look it up- it has several good resources.
the only other way i know is by fem

you can use elasticity to solve for deep beams but if you're not familiar with it, it's probably best to use commercial fea assuming you have knowlege of those capabilities.
generally speaking the whitney stress block and linear stress strain are not valide for deep beams. you can follow aci references and with proper detailing achieve the necessary results. key areas are the achorage zones for reinforcing into the walls or columns that frame/support the deep beam. otherwise the majority of the reinforcing is similar to that of a retaining wall stem. you will find that you won't get bundles of reinforcing in the tension areas of a deep beam as you might expect for a conventional beam.
regards,
qshake
eng-tips forums:real solutions for real problems really quick.

the pca or aci used to have a publication on deep wall beams (30+ years ago). i don't have a copy anymore... but it may be out there...
dik
i personally think the strut & tie method is conceptly simple and straight forward, but practically confusing because lack of clarity by code (many years ago i used canadian code, which was better than the first issuing by the aci - in a later date).
we used to treat the deep beams as regulars but to add more facial bars (horiz & vert), and use the minimum for the flexural as permitted by the earlier aci. i think that old designs worked, never get a call complaints about it. but, i think the strut & tie method would save some steel, and make the design more enjoyable (for creative engineers).
aci sp-208 has a bunch of examples for the strut and tie method. i find it useful. the other is you can try the following link

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]