×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Deep Beam Design

Deep Beam Design

Deep Beam Design

(OP)
Does anyone know of an alternate to using the Strut and Tie model for deep beams?  

RE: Deep Beam Design

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.

RE: Deep Beam Design

the only other way I know is by fem
 

RE: Deep Beam Design

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
pipe
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
 

RE: Deep Beam Design

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

RE: Deep Beam Design

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).

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources