MasterProject IST VeraOliveiraMachado

Analysis and design of a reinforced concrete deep beam
with high thickness
Vera Lúcia Oliveira Machado
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Civil Engineering
Supervisor: Professor Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues (IST)

and Professor Dr. Aurélio Muttoni (EPFL)
Júri
Chairperson: Prof. Dr. José Joaquim Costa Branco de Oliveira Pedro

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues
Members of the Committee: Prof. Dr. José Manuel de Matos Noronha da Câmara
March 2018
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I first thank Prof. Aurélio Muttoni who accepted to take me under his direction for my pre-study and
Master project. I also thank him for allowing me to continue my master's project at the University of
Lisbon, putting myself in contact with Prof. Vaz Rodrigues. It has been, and still is, an unforgettable life
experience.
I thank Prof. Rui Vaz Rodrigues for agreeing to supervise me and for providing me a subject to study
and related documents. I also thank him for his remote follow-up during my pre-study project at EPFL,
but I thank him first and foremost for his follow-up during my Master's project. Thanks to his availability
and the patience, he showed during our meetings, he was able to transmit me fundamental knowledge
and helped me to orient myself throughout this project. This made this work enjoyable and allowed me
to strengthen my knowledge for my future career as a civil engineer.
I thank also my friends for their help in correcting my English and their moral support.
i
ii
ABSTRACT
The objective of this work concerns the analysis and design of an existing deep beam with a high
thickness in reinforced concrete, according to the standards defined in the Eurocode. The structure is
inserted in a hydroelectric plant in the Alentejo region of Portugal. The initial data is used to define the
geometries parameters and the loads based on the deep beam.
The analysis began with a study of its environment, in order to determine the different actions and the
loading for the ultimate limit state and the state of service.
The analysis is followed by a study of numerical values known for simple cases in the elastic domain,
then by an elastic analysis with finite element software IConc and finally with the strut and tie models.
During the dimensioning step, the modeling of the structure was performed by the SAP2000 finite
element software, in the order to evaluate the stresses resulting from the defined actions.
This is followed by performing of the safety checks and reinforcement calculations for the ultimate and
serviceability limit states, for the deep beam, but also for the columns.
A detailed reinforcement plan could thus be created. Subsequently, thanks to the considered
reinforcement arrangement, a verification at failure was performed by using the IConc software again
and assuming an increase in the mobile loading.
An optimization of the thickness of the web was also reflected, as well as the possibility of removing one
of the columns, with the establishment of prestressing.
Keywords: Deep beam, structural design, reinforced concrete, strut-and-tie, stresses field
iii
iv
RESUMO
O objetivo deste trabalho é a análise e dimensionamento de uma viga parede em betão armado com
uma elevada espessura dimensionada, de acordo com as regras definidas nas normas Europeias. A
estrutura está inserida em uma central hidrelétrica na região do Alentejo em Portugal. Os dados iniciais
são usados para definir as geometrias e as ações na estrutura.
A análise começou com um estudo preliminar, a fim de determinar as diferentes ações e o

carregamento para o estado limite último e o estado limite de serviço.
A análise é seguida por um estudo de valores numéricos conhecidos para casos simples no domínio
elástico, depois por uma análise elástica com software de elementos finitos IConc e, finalmente, com
os modelos de escoras e tirantes.
Durante a etapa de dimensionamento, a estrutura foi modelada pelo software de elementos finitos
SAP2000, por forma a ser possível realizar uma análise aos esforços resultantes das ações definidas.
Seguem-se as verificações de segurança e os cálculos de reforço para os estados limite ultimo e de

serviço, para a viga parede, mas também para as colunas.
Procedeu-se de seguida ao desenho das armaduras. Posteriormente, efetuou-se uma análise

fisicamente não linear usando o software IConc novamente e assumindo um aumento no carregamento
móvel.
Foi também refletida uma otimização da espessura da viga parede, bem como a possibilidade de
remover uma das colunas, com a utilização do pré-esforço.
Palavras-chave: viga parede, dimensionamento estrutural, betão armado, escores e tirantes, campo de
tensões
v
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................. 2
2. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 GEOMETRIC DEFINITION ........................................................................................................ 6
2.2 MATERIALS AND SUSTAINABILITY......................................................................................... 7
2.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS ............................................................................................................ 8
2.3.1 WEIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE ............................................................................................ 10
2.3.3 SUMMARY OF THE LOAD................................................................................................... 10
2.3.4 LOAD COMBINATION.......................................................................................................... 11
2.4 BEHAVIOR OF THE DEEP BEAM........................................................................................... 12
3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 13
3.1 THEORETICAL VALUES ........................................................................................................ 13
3.1.1 Case 1 .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.1.2 Case 2 .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 STRESS FIELD METHOD....................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 MODELING ELASTIC BEHAVIOR IN IMESH SOFTWARE ............................................... 23
3.3 STRUT AND TIE MODELS...................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 INDIVIDUAL LOAD ........................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 ENTIRE LOADS................................................................................................................ 30
3.3.3 ELASTIC-PLASTIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 32
4. NUMERICAL MODELING ............................................................................................................. 33
4.1 MESH ..................................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................... 33
4.3 LOADS.................................................................................................................................... 34
4.4 STRESS FIELD....................................................................................................................... 34
4.5 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 35
4.6 TORSIONAL MOMENT ........................................................................................................... 38
5. DESIGN OF THE DEEP BEAM..................................................................................................... 39
5.1 BAND ...................................................................................................................................... 39
vii
5.2 BENDING WITH AXIAL FORCE .............................................................................................. 40
5.3 STEP OF CALCULATION OF THE REINFORCEMENT .......................................................... 41
5.4 CRACK CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 41
5.5 INPUT PARAMETER .............................................................................................................. 42
5.6 MINIMAL REINFORCEMENT .................................................................................................. 43
5.7 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REINFORCEMENT ....................................................................... 45
6. DESIGN OF THE COLUMNS........................................................................................................ 46
6.1 COLUMN 1 ............................................................................................................................. 46
6.1.1 MINIMAL REINFORCEMENT ........................................................................................... 47
6.1.2 CONFINED CONCRETE................................................................................................... 48
6.1.3 BEHAVIOR OF SLENDER COLUMNS.............................................................................. 49
6.1.4 GEOMETRIC IMPERFECTIONS....................................................................................... 51
6.1.5 ECCENTRICITY DUE TO SECOND ORDER EFFECTS ................................................... 51
6.2 COLUMN 2 ............................................................................................................................. 55
7. SHEAR REINFORCEMENT.......................................................................................................... 58
7.1 TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT OF COLUMN 1 ................................................................ 61
7.2 MAXIMUM EFFORT ON SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 62
8. DETAIL......................................................................................................................................... 63
8.1 CROSS REINFORCEMENT OF THE DEEP BEAM ................................................................. 63
8.1.1 FRAME CORNERS........................................................................................................... 63
8.2 HEATING OF THE CONCRETE DURING THE SETTING ....................................................... 63
8.3 ANCHOR LENGTH ................................................................................................................. 64
9. FAILURE OF THE DEEP BEAM ................................................................................................... 66
10. OPTIMIZATION .......................................................................................................................... 68
10.1 THICKNESS OPTIMIZATION ................................................................................................ 68
10.2 PRESTRESS ........................................................................................................................ 72
10.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE INITIAL STRUCTURE AND THE OPTIMIZED MODEL ....... 77
11. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 79
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 80
ANNEX ............................................................................................................................................. 82
Annex A – Results for the vertical reinforcement for the initial deep beam in the verification of the ULS
and SLS ........................................................................................................................................ 82
viii
Annex B – Results for the horizontal reinforcement for the initial deep beam in the verification of the
ULS and SLS ................................................................................................................................ 84
Annex C - Results for the vertical reinforcement for the optimal deep beam with prestressing in the
verification of the ULS and SLS ..................................................................................................... 86
Annex D - Results for the horizontal reinforcement for the optimal deep beam with prestressing in the
verification of the ULS and SLS ..................................................................................................... 87
Annex E Reinforcement of the model 1 and 2 with the strut and tie analysis, their position and the
support reaction ............................................................................................................................ 89
Annex F Normal effort and reinforcement for a SAP200 model under vertical load ......................... 91
Annex G Stresses, Normal effort and bending moment in the critical zone for the initial and optimized
model ............................................................................................................................................ 92
Annex H Drawing plans ................................................................................................................. 93
ix
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 View of the dam nearby [13] .................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2 Sketch of the location of the deep beam in the central [1] ...................................................... 4
Figure 3 Forces for the flotation stability .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 4 Geometry of the studied structure ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 5 Load application .................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6 Schematization of the load of the beam and the cover slab ................................................... 9
Figure 7 Schematization of the slab behind the deep beam ................................................................. 9
Figure 8 Equivalent static system for the mobile load ........................................................................ 11
Figure 9 Envelope of bending moment for the mobile load ................................................................ 11
Figure 10 Schematization of the geometry of the studied elements - On the scale on the plane P1.... 12
Figure 11 Section of a square deep beam, simply supported, under a uniformly distributed [8] .......... 13
Figure 12 Comparison of stresses with a mesh of 0.1m..................................................................... 14
Figure 13 Comparison of stresses with a 0.5m mesh ........................................................................ 15
Figure 14 Summary of the results obtained; Moment and stresses .................................................... 15
Figure 15 Section of a continuous deep beam under a uniformly distributed load [8].......................... 16
Figure 16 Comparison of horizontal stresses for case 2 .................................................................... 17
Figure 17 Comparison of horizontal stresses for case 2 with a sensitivity analysis of the supports ..... 18
Figure 18 Summary of results for case 2 ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 19 Results obtained during the balance of forces ................................................................... 19
Figure 20 Principal stresses for a simple case of a deep beam and a continuous case [14] ............... 19
Figure 21 Représentation du modèle champs de contrainte et de celui des bielles-et-tirants [2]......... 20
Figure 22 Representation of the rigid-plastic law (concrete (b) et steel (d)) [6] ................................... 21
Figure 23 Elastic-plastic behavior of steel and concrete [6]................................................................ 21
Figure 24 Types of strut [2] ............................................................................................................... 22
Figure 25 The four categories of nodes [5] ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 26 Position of forces .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 27 Mesh every 500mm........................................................................................................... 23
Figure 28 Relative stresses in IConc (Elastic analysis) ...................................................................... 24
Figure 29 Elastic concrete [6] ............................................................................................................ 24
Figure 30 Strut-and-tie model for simple case, the stress field, nodes and reinforcement [15] ............ 24
Figure 31 Stresses for the three loading cases (respectively G1, Q (in the center) and gk) under an elastic
behavior (Blue: Compressive; Red: Tensile)...................................................................................... 25
Figure 32 Strut and tie for load case 1............................................................................................... 27
Figure 35 Normal effort for the model 2 (STATIK) ............................................................................. 30
Figure 36 Normal effort for the model 1 (STATIK) ............................................................................. 30
Figure 37 For a simple case, two struts and ties model ..................................................................... 31
xi
Figure 38 Strut and tie model chosen ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 39 Relatives stresses pour 250 itérations (Error = 2.784)........................................................ 32
Figure 40 Mesh................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 41 Schematization of the different supports, with 2D mesh ..................................................... 33
Figure 42 Stress fields under ULS loading with IConc software (pre-study) ....................................... 34
Figure 43 Stress fields [kN/m2] under ULS loading (2D) with SAP2000 software ............................... 34
Figure 44 Stress fields [kN/m2] under ULS loading (3D) with SAP2000 software ............................... 35
Figure 45 Sign convention used by the SAP2000 software ................................................................ 35
Figure 46 Force F11 [kN/m] under ULS loading................................................................................. 36
Figure 47 Force F22 [kN/m] under ULS loading................................................................................. 36
Figure 48 Moment M11 [kNm/m] under ULS loading ......................................................................... 37
Figure 51 Schematization of the bands chosen vertically (along the x axis) ....................................... 39
Figure 52 Schematization of the bands chosen horizontally (along the x axis) ................................... 39
Figure 53 Diagram of the Eurocode [2] used to determine the deformations and stresses of a reinforced
concrete section ............................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 54 Horizontal stresses and normal effort integrated at each mi-span ...................................... 41
Figure 55 Schematization of a section............................................................................................... 44
Figure 56 Interaction diagram Ned-Med without the second order effect ............................................... 53
Figure 57 Interaction diagram Ned-Med with the second order effect................................................. 53
Figure 58 Interaction diagram Ned-Med (according to SIA 262)............................................................ 54
Figure 59 Interaction diagram Ned-Med without the second order effect, with a focus on the area of
interest ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 60 Interaction diagram Ned-Med with the second order effect, with a focus on the area of interest
......................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 61 Schematization of the sections where the verification of the shear force is done ................ 58
Figure 62 Shear effort V13 [kN/m] et V23 [kN/m] ............................................................................... 58
Figure 63 SAP2000 value of the shear force on the link with column ................................................. 62
Figure 64 Distance to ensure proper transmission of effort ................................................................ 65
Figure 65 Representation of the failure with an increase of the crane effort ....................................... 67
Figure 66 Results of each increase of the crane effort with the software IConc .................................. 67
Figure 67 Localization of the most solicited strut in the model 1 from chapter 3.3 .............................. 69
Figure 68 Schematization of the main forces ..................................................................................... 72
Figure 69 Schematization of the prestressing disposition .................................................................. 73
Figure 70 Horizontal stress and normal effort at mi-span for the optimized model without prestressing
......................................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 71 Horizontal stresses and normal effort at each mi-span for the initial model......................... 78
Figure 72 Horizontal stress and normal effort at mi-span for the optimized model with prestressing ... 78
Figure 73 Horizontal stress and normal effort at mi-span for the optimized model with prestressing ... 78
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Ratio for the consideration of a column ................................................................................. 12
Table 2 Results of the moment for the case 2 ................................................................................... 17
Table 3 Results of the bending moment at the support ...................................................................... 19
Table 4 Density for the case 1 to 3 and unitary.................................................................................. 26
Table 5 Results for the strut width and reinforcement for the case 1 .................................................. 27
Table 8 Strain energy for both models............................................................................................... 31
Table 9 Minimal reinforcement of the deep beam .............................................................................. 44
Table 10 Result of the reinforcement................................................................................................. 45
Table 11 Results of the design of the column 1 ................................................................................. 47
Table 12 Value for the confinement ................................................................................................... 49
Table 13 Values found for the stability of column 1............................................................................ 50
Table 14 Eccentricity result for calculating the second order moment ................................................ 52
Table 15 Results of the design for the column 2 ................................................................................ 55
Table 16 Values found for the stability of column 2............................................................................ 56
Table 17 Eccentricity result for the calculation of the second order moment for column 2 .................. 56
Table 18 Calculation results for the need of shear reinforcement ....................................................... 60
Table 19 Results for the shear force of column 1............................................................................... 61
Table 20 Alpha parameter for calculating the anchor length .............................................................. 64
Table 21 Anchor length according to diameter and location ............................................................... 65
Table 22 Length of anchorage and cover chosen .............................................................................. 65
Table 23 Displacement horizontal and vertical for each increase of the crane effort........................... 66
Table 24 Maximum compressive resultant of the critical bands.......................................................... 69
Table 25 Result of the thickness for the critical band ......................................................................... 69
Table 26 Effort in the critical section initially (2.8m) and after a thickness optimization (2.3m) ............ 70
Table 27 Effort in the critical section initially (2.8m) and after a thickness optimization (1.8m) ............ 71
Table 28 Vertical and horizontal bars with the optimization ................................................................ 76
Table 29 Comparison between the initial model and the optimized model.......................................... 77
xiii
xiv
SYMBOLS
Latin upper case letters
!" Cross sectional area of reinforcement
!",$%& minimum cross sectional area of reinforcement
!"' Cross sectional area of shear reinforcement
( Effect of action
()$ Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
(* Design value of modulus of elasticity of prestressing steel
+, Characteristic value of permanent action
- Length
. Bending moment
./0 Design value of the applied internal bending moment
1 Axial force
1/0 Design value of the applied axial force (tension or compression)
2 Prestressing force
23 Initial force at the active end of the tendon immediately after stressing
4, Characteristic value of the variable action
5 Torsional moment
6 The overload of the power plant
7 The lifting force
89 The weight of the power plant
8: The weight of the volume of water in the central unit
6-6 Serviceability limit state
7-6 Ultimate limit state
Latin lower case letters

; Distance
< Width
= Diameter; Depth
= Effective depth of a cross-section
>),, Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days
>),0 Design value of concrete compressive strength
>)?$ Mean value of axial tensile strength of concrete

>* Tensile strength of prestressing steel
>*, Characteristic tensile strength of prestressing steel
>* A,B 0,1% proof-stress of prestressing steel
>C Yield strength of reinforcement
>C0 Design yield of shear reinforcement
xv
D Height
E Thickness
F the lever arm
Greek lower case letters

G Angle
HI,J the partial factor for permanent action equal at 1.35[-]
HK,B the partial factor for variable actions equal to 1.5[-]
L) Compressive strain in the concrete
L)B Compressive strain in the concrete at the peak stress
L)M Ultimate compressive strain in the concrete
LM Strain of reinforcement or prestressing steel at maximum load
LM, Characteristic strain of reinforcement or prestressing steel at
maximum load
N Slenderness ratio
O Strength reduction factor for concrete cracked
P) Compressive stress
HI,J the partial factor for permanent action equal at 1.35[-]
HK,B the partial factor for variable actions equal to 1.5[-]
QA,B the factor for combination value of a variable action, equal to 1[-]
xvi
1. INTRODUCTION
This project occurred in two stages: a pre-study and a Master Project. The pre-study was performed in
Lausanne, Switzerland at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne (EPFL- École Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne) under the direction of Prof. Dr. Aurelio Muttoni and in parallel with the semester
courses. The objective is to carry out some researches and to acquire some knowledge on the subject
treated during the Master project. The second stage was done at the Technical University of Lisbon
(IST- Instituto Superior Técnico), under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues.
This Master project focuses on the analysis and design of a reinforced concrete of a deep beam with
high thickness. This deep beam is placed on two columns, with a span of about 9 m and restrained
against a wall at one of these ends. The particularities of this deep beam are its consistent geometries,
its vertical and horizontal loading.
The deep beam is one of the elements of the hydropower central located in the Alentejo, region of
Portugal. This one has already been built and is in operation now. However, it is not accessible to visitors
and the provision of information is limited to available data [1], including the geometry of the deep beam
studied, its loading and its operating limits at serviceability limit state.
The analysis of this deep beam began with a study of its basic properties, in order to understand these
important dimensions, but also to gather information for its designing, such as design loads. Then an
analysis was carried out, in order to parallel the deep beam with numerical values known for simple
cases, in the elastic domain. It was followed by an analysis using the struts-and-tie method, based only
on the loading in the plane and an elastic analysis with the finite element software IConc.
During the dimensioning step, the models of the deep beam was performed by the SAP2000 finite
element software. After a comparison with the results obtained with the previous analyzes, off-plan loads
were considered. This is followed by a dimensioning of the bars for the deep beam and a check of the
serviceability limit state and a verification of the stability of the various elements. A check of different
sections with shear force was also carried out. A detailed reinforcement plan could thus be created.
Subsequently, thanks to the considered reinforcement arrangement, a verification of the deep beam at
failure was performed by using the IConc software again and assuming an increase of the mobile
loading.
An optimization of the thickness of the deep beams was also reflected, as well as the possibility of
removal of one of the columns with the establishment of prestressing.
1
In contrast to the pre-study, the entire project is based on European Eurocode standards, in particular
concrete, EN1992-1-1. However, in some cases, the results obtained with Swiss standards will be
compared.
1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT
This project is divided into 11 chapters:
Chapter 1 - The introduction, with the general aspects of the work and its course are described, as well
as the work objectives.
Chapter 2 - The description of the situation, where the studied structure is located, as well as the general
stability of the central are discussed. The geometry, the materials and the sustainability of the deep
beam, as well as the different loads.
Chapter 3 - This chapter on methods of analysis has three main subchapters. The first analyzes the
calculation method based on the theoretical values of simple case. It allows to have a first approach for
the dimensioning of the deep beam, by giving an order of magnitude of the internal forces and by
validating certain choices on the modeling process, like the type of support or the mesh used. The
second analysis is based on the study of stress fields under vertical loading, based on the finite element
software IConc. This analysis makes it possible to have an approach on the internal behavior of the
deep beam under vertical loading. The last method is that of the strut and tie. It allows to determine a
certain layout and amount of reinforcement.
Chapter 4 - Numerical modeling by the SAP2000 finite element software is first explained in this chapter,
then the internal forces of the structure obtained are analyzed.
Chapter 5 - The design of the deep beam starts with a separation of the element by band, then with the
theoretical explanation for the ultimate limit state verification and the service state. Finally, the results
found are presented.
Chapter 6 - Design of the two columns, with verification of stability is performed.
Chapter 7 - Shear force verification of the deep beam and the column, as well as the choice of the
transverse reinforcement arrangement for the different elements.
Chapter 8 - Some constructive details are presented.
Chapter 9 - A study on the possible increase of the mobile loading is carried out, in order to study the
behavior of the deep beam with a possible local rupture under increasing loading.
2
Chapter 10 - An optimization of the thickness of the deep beam is studied, using an initial approach of
the possible struts of the wall. Then, some critical sections are checked to see if the reinforcement is
sufficient. Finally, a different model of the structure is thought: The removal of the central column and
the installation of prestressing cable is imagined.
Chapter 11 - The conclusion and the final considerations are enumerated, with a general summary of
the work done, with the definition of a possible future line of work.
3
2. BACKGROUND
The studied deep beam is inserted into the structure of a hydroelectric power station in the Alentejo
region of Portugal. This project consists of the construction of a new underground hydraulic circuit and
an open-air power central. The entire facility consists of a buried structure with a depth of 52m, a width
of 40m and a length of 80m.
This structure consists of three independents structures of reinforced concrete, separated by expansion
joints. The studied deep beam constitutes one of these parts. The dimensions of this one are one of
these great particularities; 13.1 m high, 1.8 to 2.8 m wide and 25.5 m long.
This is only a brief description of the station, the objective being to design the deep beam only from the
initial values provided. The various constituent elements of the station are presented by the following.
The information base is available in the reference [1].
Figure 1 View of the dam nearby [13]
Figure 2 Sketch of the location of the deep beam in the central [1]
4
The global stability of the central will be seen only briefly, due to the limited availability of information on
the other elements geometry and on the geology of the surrounding terrain. However, it will help to
understand and justify such a consistent thickness of deep beam.
It is important to check the instability of the structure to the risk of flotation, due to the water just next to
the structure.
Figure 3 Forces for the flotation stability
This creates a lifting force (7), which must be subtracted from the weight of the water above the surface
of the structure. It must be offset by the weight of the power plant (89 ) and its overload (6), but also by
the volume of water in the central unit (8: ). This is also the reason for the backfill behind the studied
deep beam; create weight to counterbalance the lifting force [3].
89 + 8) + 6 (1)
T6U = ≤ 1.3 (7]^;_); 1.2(7b^]^;_); 1.1 ((cEdefe)
7 − 8I
The thickness is also a consequence of the fact that the walls surrounding the station are retaining walls.
This same geometry is found in the studied deep beam, which is parallel to the retaining walls, to make
the structure homogeneous. This consequent thickness brings a certain weight to the structure, which
brings stability to the whole. However, the thickness is not essential for the stability in the case of the
studied deep beam. In sub-chapter 10 of this project, a study for the optimization of the thickness of the
deep beam will be carried out. The difference in the weight removed will be compensated by the
embankment.
5
2.1 GEOMETRIC DEFINITION
The deep beam is supported by two columns, with a span of 9.4m and 11.5m. On the end, it is restrained
at the extension of a retaining wall. On the other end, the deep beam is separated by an expansion joint
with a structure almost identical to that studied. The first column has a section of 0.6m by 2.5m and the
second, a section of 4m by 1m. Not knowing the exact height of the columns, a height of 9m was
assigned to them. At the top of the deep beam, 13 prefabricated beams with a span of 20m and height
of 1.6m and a cover slab are arranged. Above, we are outside of the central.
The deep beam has two layers; 1.8m on the first 6.25 meters and 2.8m on the next 6.85. It is therefore
a height of 13.1m and a total length of 25.5m. At almost half height, on the 1m of thickness’s difference,
a mobile crane is arranged. On the other side, at the bottom of the deep beam, a slab is restrained.
Above, embankment is arranged, and comes to rest on the outer face of the deep beam.
The detail of the geometry is presented on plan P1 in annex. In the following figure, the studied structure
is represented.
Figure 4 Geometry of the studied structure
6
2.2 MATERIALS AND SUSTAINABILITY
The standards used to determine the different durability criteria for reinforced concrete are Eurocode
1992 1-1 [2]. Due to the importance of the work, both in its geometry and in its social utility, a period of
life of 100 years is granted, i.e a structural class S6.
The determination of the exposure class will consider the physical and chemical conditions for which
the work may be exposed and will define appropriate treatments accordingly. Albeit being in a
hydroelectric station, the deep beam remains underground and is therefore exposed to a weak humidity
level. Thus, exposure class XC1 (Concrete inside buildings with low air humidity) is chosen. This results
in a choice of minimal concrete cover, which should prevent corrosion of the steel and ensure an
adequate transmission of adhesion forces. The determination of the covering is made according to the
adhesion and environmental requirements: [4.4.1.2 [2]]
- Minimum concrete cover with respect to the adhesion requirements: Bar diameter: 40mm.
- Minimum concrete cover with respect to environmental requirements: With exposure class XC1 and
structural class S6, the minimum coating is 25 mm.
Thus, the maximum value is 40 mm. A safety margin was not added [4.4.1.2(6)[2]]. With an XC1
exposure class, the use of concrete with a strength class of C30 / 37 is recommended. It is also advisable
to have a maximum cement water content of 0.65. The different characteristics are essentially from
Table 3.1 [2]. The most important are:
- Characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days: >),, = 30 1/ffi

- Design value of concrete compressive strength [3.1.6 [2]]:
>),, 30 (2)
>),0 = G)? ∗ = 1∗ = 20 1/ffi
H) 1.5
with H) the partial safety factor for concrete and G)? the coefficient taking into account of long term effects
on the tensile strength and unfavorable effects resulting from the way the load is applied.
- Mean value of axial tensile strength of concrete: >)?$ = 2.9 1/ffi

- Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete: ()$ = 33 +2;
With regards to the steel used for reinforcement, no requirement is necessary. The choice consequently
fell on steel A500NR, with the following characteristics:
- Yield strength of reinforcement: >C = 500 1/ffi

- Design yield of shear reinforcement: >C0 = 435 1/ffi
7
2.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS
The different loads on the deep beam are primarily due to the cover of the central. This consists of the
system of prefabricated beams and the cover slab, which rest on each end on a deep beam, including
that of this study.
The crane placed on the eccentricity of 1 m wide, generates a vertical force, but also a moment on the
lower part of the deep beam, due to its eccentricity against the axis of the deep beam. However, this
eccentricity will not be considered in our final model. Indeed, it is will be directly considered in the anchor
frame.
The embankment generates a horizontal load against the deep beam and a vertical load, due to the
proper weight, at the bottom of the wall.
It is also necessary to consider the weight of the structure. This one is modeled at half height, but on
the two thicknesses of the deep beam.
Figure 5 Load application
8
2.3.1 WEIGHT
Deep beam
The self-weight of the top and the bottom of the deep beam are distributed on the different supports and
has as value:
n′,,B = [1.8 f ∗ 6.25 f] ∗ 25 t1/fu = 281.3 t1/f (3)
n′′,,B = [2.8 f ∗ 6.85 f] ∗ 25 t1/fu = 479.5 t1/f (4)
Beam and cover slab
Weight of the cover slab under on a beam with the overload of 15t1/fi :
n,,i = 2 f ∗ [0.4 f ∗ 25 t1/fu + 15t1/fi ] = 50 t1/f (5)
Weight of a beam:
n,,u = (0.45 f ∗ 1.6 f) ∗ 25 t1/fu = 18 t1/f (6)
Supporting reaction on the top of the deep beam due to the weight of the cover and the beams and the
overload:
+,,B = [20 f ∗ (50 t1/f + 15 t1/f)]/2 = 680 t1 (7)
The distribution of these concentrated charges is as follows:
Figure 6 Schematization of the load of the beam and the cover slab
Supporting reaction on the bottom of the deep beam
0.92 f + 1.15 f (8)

6f;__ ]_;< ;de; = (7.6 f ∗ 1.65 f) − w ∗ 7.1 fx = 5.2 fi
2
This reaction involves the weight of the embankment, the weight of the slab and the overload:
n,,y = [( 10.3 f ∗ 10.1 f ∗ 23 t1/fu ) + (5.2 fi ∗ 25 t1/fu ) + (10.1 fi (9)
∗ 15 t1/fi )]/2 = 1337 t1/f
Figure 7 Schematization of the slab behind the deep beam
9
2.3.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
The embankment generate a pressure of the structure in the vaccun (active earth pressure). This lateral
pressure can be find with the formula [Annex C [16]]:
1 1 (9)
2z,, = ∗ H ∗ D i ∗ {| = ∗ 23 t1/fu ∗ (9 f)i ∗ 0.27 = 253 t1/f
2 2
In our case, the wall face is considered smooth, so the structure-ground interface friction angle } is equal
to zero and, with a density of H" 23 t1/fu and a friction angle of ~ 35°, the coefficient of horizontal
active earth pressure can be estimated by the Rankine formula:
É ~ (10)
{| = tani( − ) = 0.27 [−]
4 2
It gives on the depth a force of:

Ñ(F), = H ∗ F ∗ {| = 23 t1/fu ∗ F ∗ 0.27 = 6.21 t1/fu ∗ F (11)
2.3.3 SUMMARY OF THE LOAD
In the plan
- n,,B = 281.3 t1/f + 479.5 t1/f: Self-weight of the deep beam over the piles;
- n,,y = 1337 t1/f: Support reaction along the bottom of the deep beam due to the weight of
the embankment, the slab and the overload acting above the slab bottom recessed at the bottom
of the deep beam;
- +,,B = 680 t1: Support reaction acting as a concentrated load every 2 meters at the top of the
deep beam. Reaction due to the weight of the beams, reinforced concrete cover and overload.
There are 13 in all;
- 4 = 340 t1: Punctual loads due to mobile crane acting along crane support. There are 8
charges.
Off the plan

- Eccentricity due to the point load 4;
- Ñ(F), = 6.21 t1/fu ∗ F : Earth pressure acting horizontally on the height of the deep beam and
2, = 253 t1/f the resulting.
10
2.3.4 LOAD COMBINATION
Before considering combinations for the limit state, it is necessary to determine what the most
unfavorable position of the moving load is over the length of the deep beam. For this, the Statik1 software
is used on a chosen equivalent static system.
Figure 8 Equivalent static system for the mobile load
There are therefore three possibilities of position; one with the load Q in the middle of the first span, one
in the center and the last on the second span. Comparing the bending moments, the following envelope
is obtained:
Figure 9 Envelope of bending moment for the mobile load
Subsequently, it is chosen to have the moving load at the center of the length, because it maximizes
the moments on the two spans. However, it should be noted that in a more advanced stage of verification
of this project, it would be wise to check the reinforcement implemented with all possible positions of
the mobile load.
For the ultimate limit state, the charge combination is as follows and follows the indications of the
European standard NP EN 1990 [12]:
(12)
(0 = Ö HI,J ∗ +,,J + HK,B ∗ 4,,B
JÜB
With HI,J the partial factor for permanent action equal at 1.35[-], HK,B the partial factor for variable actions
equal to 1.5[-], +,,J the characteristic value of permanent action j and 4,,B the characteristic value of the
mobile crane.
For the serviceability limit states, the combination of load is [12]:

(13)
(0 = Ö +,,J + QA,B ∗ 4,,B
JÜB
With QA,B the factor for combination value of a variable action, equal to 1[-].
1
Program use for the linear-elastic analysis of general three dimensional frame, belongs of the Cubus Engineering software
11
2.4 BEHAVIOR OF THE DEEP BEAM
The behavior of the deep beam must be referred to the existing standards. For this, the Eurocode is
used. It stipulates:
"ECN 1992-1-1: 9.6.1 General: (1) This clause refers to reinforced concrete walls with a length to
thickness ratio of 4 or more and in which the reinforcement is taken into account in the strength analysis.
The amount and proper detailing of reinforcement may be derived from a strut-and-tie model (see 6.5).
For walls subjected predominantly to out-of-plane bending the rules for slabs apply (see 9.3)."
This article can then be simplified in the following points:
- 2D modeling of the wall (deep beam): Only with vertical loads. The wall is similar to flexural beams;
- 3D modeling: With vertical and horizontal loads. In this case, the wall is like a slab.
In regard to the elements that will be called Column 1 (C1) and Column 2 (C2) throughout the report,
these have a relationship between their long side of the cross section and their short side, as well as a
ratio between the height and the long side, which are shown in the next table:
Table 1 Ratio for the consideration of a column
Column 1 Column 2 EC 5.3.1

Long side/Short side 4,2 4 <4
Height/Long side 3,6 2,3 <3
According to section 5.3.1 [2], the first element should be considered as a deep beam and not as a
column. However, considering the dimensions of the studied deep beam, these elements will be
considered and dimensioned as columns.
Figure 10 Schematization of the geometry of the studied elements - On the scale on the plane P1
12
3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In this sub-chapter, the theory will be shortly reminded [9].
Elastic analysis method: For any type of walls under a vertical load, elastic analysis primarily consists
of visualization of stress fields and tensile zones, thanks to software using finite elements. It is therefore
possible to determine the reinforcement necessary for the satisfaction of the limit states, such as the
deformation and cracking for the SLS, but also for the determination of the reinforcement necessary for
the resistance to the ULS, in the tensile zones of the concrete.
Plastic analysis method: The theorems used for the plastic methods are based on the distribution of the
internal forces and ensure that the conditions of balance, supports and plasticity of the materials are
satisfied. The methods used, especially for the walls, are the struts and tie models. This last model can
give different results, but with a judicious parallel carried out with the results obtained with the elastic
methods, it is possible to obtain an optimal choice of reinforcement arrangements.
3.1 THEORETICAL VALUES
In order to design this work for the unfavorable loads, the internal efforts must be defined through three-
dimensional linear elastic numerical modeling. In this project, the SAP 2000 program will be used. SAP
2000 (Structural Analysis Program [7]) is a software used for reinforced concrete structures, but also for
other types of materials, under any type of loading.
In order to validate our models and trust the obtained results, it is initially advantageous to check the
choices made during its process, such as the choice of mesh size (0.5m / 0.5m) and type of support. To
do this, the elastic solutions known theoretically will be used. First, a simple case of deep beam on two
supports (fixed and mobile) under a uniformly distributed loading will be compared with the solutions
obtained with the software SAP2000. Then, we will proceed in the same way, with a continuous deep
beam on 6 supports.
Figure 11 Section of a square deep beam, simply supported, under a uniformly distributed [8]
13
3.1.1 Case 1
Theoretical solutions were taken from reference [8], thanks to table 55, which provides theoretical values
of stresses at different coordinates of a simply supported square wall. In view of the dimensions of the
deep beam, a 0.5m mesh size is chosen, to reduce the calculation time of the program. However, we
must be aware that a finer mesh usually would give more accurate results. However, a 0.1m / 0.1m
mesh is analyzed, in order to observe the sensitivity of the results obtained, but only in this case. In a
first step, the support reactions found with the SAP 2000 software are compared with the á ∗ -/2
formulations (formula for the support reaction of a beam supported at both ends). The results are
substantially the same. In a second step, the constraints in the middle of the span are determined. These
are visible in the graph below, with the superposition of the theoretical constraints for the same position:
Section S2 - Vertical Stresses Section S2 - Horizontal Stresses
Stresses [kN/m2] Stresses [kN/m2]

-3500 -2500 -1500 -500 500 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0.0 0.0
2.0 2.0
Height [m]
Height [m]
4.0 4.0
6.0 6.0
8.0 8.0
10.0 10.0
Table 55 Mesh 0.1/0.1 (9.4m) Table 55 Mesh 0.1/0.1 (9.4m)
Figure 12 Comparison of stresses with a mesh of 0.1m
It is possible to observe an almost identical superposition of the two graphs, except at the ends, where
the theoretical equivalence gives more significant values: 7'301 kN/m2 pour 6’561.4 kN/m2 in the case
from the mid-span at the bottom of the deep beam.
In a second step, we want to validate the moments. For a single beam on two supports, the maximum
mid-span moment is (á ∗ -i )/8. By carrying out the integral of the horizontal stresses multiplied by the
lever arm on the section of the deep beam, the horizontal moment can be determined, thanks to the
following relation:
(14)
.C = à Pâ ∗ F =!
ä
A mesh of 0.5m / 0.5m was also used. This coarser mesh is chosen because it is the one used during
the modelizations with the software IConc. A finer mesh became complicated for the search of solution
and useless in front of using 0.5m mess.
14
Section S2 - Vertical Stresses Section S2 - Horizontal Stresses
Stresses [kN/m2] Stresses [kN/m2]

-3500 -2500 -1500 -500 500 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0.0 0.0
2.0 2.0
Height [m]
Height [m]
4.0 4.0
6.0 6.0
8.0 8.0
10.0 10.0
Table 55 Mesh 0.5/0.5 (9.4m) Table 55 Mesh 0.5/0.5 (9.4m)
Figure 13 Comparison of stresses with a 0.5m mesh
As for the 0.1m mesh, the two curves are superimposed, except for the ends. Regarding the integral
giving the moment at the center of the span, this numerical model gives a value of 36’651 [kNm]. This
is slightly higher (4.7‰) than the results with a coarser mesh. These values are considered similar.
Figure 14 Summary of the results obtained; Moment and stresses
15
3.1.2 Case 2
As shown in previous section, the model presented can be used to give values of the center mid-span
moment and deformations. As far, the gap between the model and the reality must be filled and a more
sophisticated model is set up.
Figure 15 Section of a continuous deep beam under a uniformly distributed load [8]
So, the study continues now in the comparison of a model that is closer to our final modeling. Table 67,
of [8], for a multi-span deep beam under a uniformly distributed load, is used to obtain theoretical values
of the stresses and of the bending moment. The results obtained will allow to validate the use of the
SAP 2000 software for the modeling of this project, but also to have theoretical values as a reference.
In our modeling with SAP software, we consider a deep beam resting on six supports, the first of which
is fixed and the other mobiles. The span length remains 9.4m (2*a), but the height is fixed at 13m in this
study. This choice is taken, because the table 67, gives results for a rectangular wall and that our final
deep beam has as height 13.1m.
These models are under the same total load of 3'334 kN/m. Thus, we extract the values on the third
half-span and compare them with the theoretical values, which gives us the following results:
16
Cut 2 - Horizontal Stresses
Stresses [kN/m2]
-1000.00 -500.00 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00
0
2
4
Height [m]
6
8
10
12
14
Table 67 - c/a=0.5 Mesh 0.5/0.5 (13m) Table 67 - c/a=0.2
Figure 16 Comparison of horizontal stresses for case 2
In figure 16, two curves from table 67 are plotted. This corresponds to the ratios c/a of 0.2 and 0.5. The
model dimensions give a ratio is of c/a=0.3, where c is half of the support thickness and a is half of the
span.
It can thus be observed that with the ratio c/a equal to 0.2, the two curves are very close, even at the
ends. However, by integrating the horizontal stresses found by the SAP software on the area of the
section, we find a value of 21'279 kNm, whereas for the theoretical values, we should find the following
values:
Table 2 Results of the moment for the case 2
MOMENT
c/a 0.5 0.2
On the span [kNm] 18708 23946
The value found with SAP2000 is between those two ratios. As we are dealing with linear elasticity, a
linear interpolation can be safely done between the both value of the table 2. This give a moment of
20’454 kNm for a ratio c/a=0.3. The relative difference between SAP2000’s value and linearly
interpolated analytical results is 3.8%, which is acceptable for a numerical analysis. It can be said so
that modeling is a good representation of theoretical values.
A rapid sensitivity analysis is also carried out on the supports of the deep beam on 6 supports, in order
to show the importance of introducing supports in the model. This way the model is closer to reality and
enhance the most unfavorable case representation. Thus, in our SAP2000 model, fixed supports
everywhere have been replaced, instead of fixed support at the end and mobile support on others. In
17
the following graph and in comparison, with that presented in figure 16, the curve no longer follows the
theoretical values. For the integral, we find a value of 12'966 kNm, a smaller value than table 2, so
unfavorable.
Cut 2 - Horizontal Stresses

Stresses [kN/m2]
-1500.00 -1000.00 -500.00 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00
0
4
Height [m]
10
12
14
Table 67 - c/a=0.5 Mesh 0.5/0.5 (13m) - Sensitivity analysis of the supports Table 67 - c/a=0.2
Figure 17 Comparison of horizontal stresses for case 2 with a sensitivity analysis of the supports
Here is a summary of the values obtained.
Figure 18 Summary of results for case 2
18
In order to complete this evaluation of the data, a balance of forces is performed on the section S1 for
the moments:
á ; åi (15)
Ö . = 0 → .9B − ∗ (; + å)i + á ∗ ∗ + .9i = 0
2 å 2
The value determined by a balance of forces is in the order of magnitude of the values found with the
SAP2000 software and not far from the theoretical values.
Table 3 Results of the bending moment at the support
.9B,ç|é|&)/ 37è 885 t1f

.9|*iAAA − 36è 824 t1f
.B −18è 708 Eê − 35è 919 t1f
Figure 19 Results obtained during the balance of forces
In the last point of this chapter, the reference [14] will be used to complete the previous theoretical study.
It provide, for the two cases studied, the representation of the principal constraints (See figure 20).
Thanks to the study of the same reference, it is finally possible to affirm that the deep beam for cases 1
and 2 have a relatively plane tensile direction. What provides as last information that the main frame
can be arranged mainly horizontally.
The stresses field for these simple cases will allow to introduce the stresses field for the case studied in
the next chapter. Moreover, these simple models have stress distribution characteristics that are
regularly found in different structures. Thus, to recognize such common features of structures is
“pedagogical value and very helpful to the design engineer” [3.3.4 [15]].
Figure 20 Principal stresses for a simple case of a deep beam and a continuous case [14]
19
3.2 STRESS FIELD METHOD
The stress field method "has proved to be incomparably effective for the analysis of structural elements
having a certain geometric discontinuity, but also for the introduction of stress analyzes into
structures."[4] Today, these methods are increasingly used by professionals and although these
methods may be simplistic, they require some experience. Indeed, when sizing certain choices must be
made, which have significant consequences on the behavior at the limit state of service and on the local
resistance of the constructive details.
Thus, the stress field method is a tool used to size and predict the behavior of a reinforced and
prestressed concrete structure. It is based on the theory of plasticity, as the method of strut and tie.
Thus, in order to correctly define the method of the stress fields, a parallel with the strut and tie method
will be carried out.
This latter consists in an analogy with the structural idealization of truss which considers that each
element under given actions only takes a normal effort. All the elements must satisfy the equilibrium
conditions and respect the border conditions of the actual structure. The struts and tie model uses the
resulting forces.
Figure 21 Représentation du modèle champs de contrainte et de celui des bielles-et-tirants [2]
Figura 1 Représentation du modèle champs de contrainte et de celui des bielles-et-tirants [2]

The constraint field model, on the other hand, is "a structural idealization where the stresses in steel
and concrete are imposed or verified."[5] It must also satisfy the equilibrium conditions and the border
conditions, as well as the static conditions of plasticity. The construction of a stress field is based on the
hypothesis of a perfectly plastic rigid behavior, which facilitates its development in discontinuous
environments. The idealization of the concrete compression behavior therefore involves the use of an
equivalent plastic resistance >)* . The idealization of the behavior of steel is also defined by the rigid-
plastic law and therefore by its flow limit for the representation of the plastic resistance.
20
Figure 22 Representation of the rigid-plastic Figure 23 Elastic-plastic behavior of steel and
law (concrete (b) et steel (d)) [6] concrete [6]
The representation according to the model strut and tie and according to the field of stress provide two
schematizations of the reality. When simultaneously considered, it allows to understand the operation
of the concrete structure. In the stress field model, each concrete zone subjected to compression is
represented by a zone with homogeneous stress (blue zone). In the strut and tie model, the same zone
is represented by a strut (blue line), i.e. a compressed element. With regards to the tensile zones, the
model stress fields schematize it with a uniformly distributed element; the red lines. As for the model
rods and tie, the tensile zone is schematized by a single tie. The illustration of these methods is shown
in figure 21.
By having a structure modelled by stress fields, it turns out to be possible to derive a model strut and
tie, by installing elements compressed and stretched at the position of the resultants of the stresses.
Thus, the development of a stress field seems to be a good initial approach for the determination of a
strut and tie model. However, in view of the various possible solutions, reverse model development
seems more complex. The resolution by the method of the stress fields is complementary to that of the
strut and tie, because it allows a good visual preparation to the possible truss. Ultimately, this approach
gives a good understanding of the resistant mechanisms of a concrete structure.
In order to explain the process of application of the stress fields, it is necessary to enumerate the various
elements of bases used during the construction of stress fields, whether the struts, the tie and the nodes.
21
First, the strut are the elements corresponding to the compressed concrete parts. There are two types:
constant-load strut and fans. Their resistance is strongly influenced by the lateral deformations imposed
in the concrete.
Figure 24 Types of strut [2]
The ties are responsible for transmitting tension. This can thus represent either the reinforcement or a
prestressing cable. It is necessary to determine for each tie if its resistance is greater than the stress,
but also that the anchoring capacity of the tie is sufficient.
The last element of this model is the node. This is simply the meeting point of the connecting rods and
tie rods. There are four types:
- CCC: only connecting rods and only the verification to the resistance is necessary
- CCT: two connecting strut and a tie. It is necessary to check their resistance, the anchorage length,
but also that the angle formed by the tie with the connecting strut is not less than 45 °, if there is no
constructive reinforcement that is placed or 25 °, if there is a minimal reinforcement arranged. A lower
angle creates the risk of very open cracks. This would suddenly cause a reduction in the strength of the
strut.
- CTT: A connecting strut and two ties. These nodes can also become critical and require a thorough
study of their situation. Indeed, there is a risk of development of a crack with a large opening, which also
leads to the verification of compliance angles.
- TT: only tie rods. The main problem of these nodes is the anchor zone of the rebars.
Figure 25 The four categories of nodes [5]
22
3.2.1 MODELING ELASTIC BEHAVIOR IN IMESH SOFTWARE
IMesh is a program using the Java application, available on the website "i-concrete.epfl.ch". The
purpose of this software is the 2D modeling of reinforced concrete structures and the creation of a mesh
using the principles of finite elements. The created models are loaded by point loads acting in the plane.
Its modeling can then be used by the finite element software IConc, available also on the website "i-
concrete.epfl.ch". This one makes possible the visualization of the stresses, thanks to an elastic analysis
or an elastic-plastic analysis of the structure.
Although this software gives very satisfactory results, its use must be meticulous, because the
divergence of the creation of the mesh or IConc results are sensitive to any manipulation error. Its mode
of use is detailed in the help of the site, as well as on documents provided by EPFL assistants, taking
care of the projects related to the fields of constraints. [6]
The distributed loads, which are the self-weight of the deep beam and the self-weight of the embankment
on the lower zone, are illustrated by concentrated loads of length of 2m. The moving load is shown in
the middle because it is the most unfavorable position for the bending moment in the center. For point
loads, representing beams and top cover, they are positioned according to their actual location.
Figure 27 Mesh every 500mm Figure 26 Position of forces
The mesh is positioned every 500mm. A weaker mesh has been tested (200mm), but the program did
not work, probably due to the large number of points. Smaller are the meshes, better is the convergence.
Moreover, in order to successfully optimize a result, the mesh must be as regular as possible. Thus,
some elements have been shifted to coincide with the desired points. In order to determine if a mesh is
sufficient, it is necessary to check a regularity in the triangulation. In our case, the mesh is assumed be
regular. It is thus possible for us to use the IConc software.
23
As a first step, IConc will be used to determine the behavior of the concrete thanks to an elastic analysis
in compression and tension of the material.
Figure 29 Elastic concrete [6]
Figure 28 Relative stresses in IConc (Elastic analysis)
An arched zone can be observed in tension in the lower part of the deep beam. Indeed, the efforts in
the lower zone must partly go up and then move towards the supports. The working of the stresses will
allow to help the determination and visualization of a model strut and tie close to reality.
Figure 30 Strut-and-tie model for simple case, the stress field, nodes and reinforcement [15]
In the figure 20, the elastic stresses and principal stress directions are shown for a simple case, like the
case 1 in chapter 3.1.1. The direction of struts can be taken in accordance with the mean direction of
principal compressive stresses, which give the struts C and the same for the ties T. The figure 30 [15]
illustrate the typical strut-and-tie for the case 1 resulting and it is possible to observe the same arched
area as in figure 29. This is due to the arrangement of struts in rhombus. This idealization of reality can
be accommodate according to the forces. For example in reducing the straight lengths of the struts in
refining the model (See figure 30, a2 and a3).
24
3.3 STRUT AND TIE MODELS
3.3.1 INDIVIDUAL LOAD
The strut and tie model requires the balance between applied forces, reactions and elements in tension
and compression. However, in view of the large number of forces applied and the lack of experience in
the creation of connecting strut and tie, it is initially necessary to view the load cases separately.
First, each load will be analyzed separately thanks to the results of the IConc software (elastic analysis).
In the following figures, the charges G1, Q (in the center) and gk are visible. The last load case combines
the weight of the deep beam and of the embankment. Indeed, although the self-weight is positioned at
the gravity center. It is in this case arranged as if it acted only down.
Figure 31 Stresses for the three loading cases (respectively G1, Q (in the center) and gk) under an elastic behavior
(Blue: Compressive; Red: Tensile)
The tension zones make it possible to orient the choice of the positions of the tie. With manual setup
and then with Statik software, equilibrium models are determined. This process is especially useful for
allowing final gatherings of loads. However, for each model, the compressive and tensile forces make it
possible to determine the width of the strut and the approximate reinforcement that would be necessary.
It is quickly observed that these are very weak. The concrete thickness is such that the dispersion of
25
efforts is consistent. It is important to note that at this level of the study, the determined frame does not
reflect the final choice or its location. Indeed, during this study, the frame is positioned over its entire
span.
The following formulations allow the determination of the widths of the strut and the necessary section
of reinforcement.
Strut width (Concrete C30/37)
The stresses in concrete must be lower than its reduced strength [6.5.2 [2]]:
Pë0,$|â = >)0 ∗ 0.6 ∗ O è = 20 .2; ∗ 0.6 ∗ 0.88 = 20 .2; ∗ 0.528 = 10.56 .2; (16)
With the factor O è = 1 − >), /250.
At this point, it will be mentioned that the Swiss norms, proposes a reduction of 0.55 (SIA 2622013-
4.2.1.7) instead of 0.528.
The strut width can therefore be determined by the following formulation:

1)3$*í/""%3& (17)
<$%& =
Pë0,$|â ∗ E
Passive reinforcement area required (Steel A500NR)
P?,$|â,0 ≤ >"0 (18)

1?í|)?%3& (19)
!",$%& =
>"0
Results
Comparing the principal reinforcement for the three following cases, the third case (Load gk,4 et gk1) is
the one that requires the most reinforcement. However, by reducing the quantity to 1kN, it turns out that
the second case (Load Q) has the most important reinforcement ratio according to the load.
Table 4 Density for the case 1 to 3 and unitary
kg/m3 for 1 kN [kg/m3]

Case 1 0.393 0.0000445
Case 2 0.565 0.0002075
Case 3 10.153 0.0001898
Thus, the study for individual load and for each span has allowed to familiarize with the creation of a
strut and tie model on the Statik software, in order to create one for all the loads. This is also allowed to
highlight the reinforcement ratio according to the load.
26
Case 1: Load G1
24
Figure 32 Strut and tie for load case 1
Table 5 Results for the strut width and reinforcement for the case 1
Width of minimal strut [mm]

Elements Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc (swiss)
Bars (Number, diameter, spacing)
1 -680 Compression 0.55 35
11 495 Traction 14 ɸ 12 @200
22 -684 Compression 0.55 1138
23 639 Traction 12 ɸ 14 @200 (2.8m)
24 73 Traction 8 ɸ 8 @200 (1.8m)
27
Case 2: Load Q

Factor kc Width of minimal strut [mm]

Element Effort [kN] Kind of effort
(swiss) Bars (Number, diameter, spacing)




10 266 Traction - 8 ɸ 12 @200 (1.8m)
11 85 Traction - 13 ɸ 12 @200 (2.8m)
12 306 Traction - 13 ɸ 12 @200 (2.8m)


18 0 Compression 0.55 0

23 503 Traction - 8 ɸ 14 @200 (1.8m)
24 378 Traction - 13 ɸ 12 @200 (2.8m)
25 378 Traction - 13 ɸ 12 @200 (2.8m)
28
Case 3: Load gk,4 et gk1
Width of minimal strut [mm]
Elements Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc (swiss)
Bars (Number, diameter, spacing)
1 -10961 Compression 0.55 554
2 -7088 Compression 0.55 358
3 -3600 Compression 0.55 182
4 -3036 Compression 0.55 154
5 -6176 Compression 0.55 312
6 -10000 Compression 0.55 506
7 7270 Traction - 39 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
8 7270 Traction - 39 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
9 7270 Traction - 39 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
10 7270 Traction - 39 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
11 7270 Traction - 39 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
12 7270 Traction - 39 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
13 4200 Traction - 16 ɸ 28 @200 (1.8m)
14 4200 Traction - 16 ɸ 28 @200 (1.8m)
15 4200 Traction - 16 ɸ 28 @200 (1.8m)
16 4200 Traction - 16 ɸ 28 @200 (1.8m)
17 4200 Traction - 16 ɸ 28 @200 (1.8m)
18 -12622 Compression 0.55 638
19 -9968 Compression 0.55 504
20 -6216 Compression 0.55 314
21 -6221 Compression 0.55 315
22 -9968 Compression 0.55 504
23 -12622 Compression 0.55 638
24 7001 Traction - 39ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
25 7001 Traction - 39ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
26 5794 Traction - 39ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
27 5797 Traction - 39ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
28 7001 Traction - 39ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
29 7001 Traction - 39ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
30 4200 Traction - 16 ɸ 28 @200 (1.8m)
31 6011 Traction - 24 ɸ 28@200 (1.8m)
32 5559 Traction - 24 ɸ 28@200 (1.8m)
33 6011 Traction - 24 ɸ 28@200 (1.8m)
34 7001 Traction - 24 ɸ 28@200 (1.8m)
29
3.3.2 ENTIRE LOADS
After observing the behavior for each individual load, it is easier to create a model that groups all the
forces applied on the deep beam. Two models are found and modeled using the Statik software. These
models make possible to check whether the system is mobile or not.
Figure 36 Normal effort for the model 1 (STATIK)
Figure 35 Normal effort for the model 2 (STATIK)
In order to compare both models, it is necessary to determine the strain energy over the total load. As
a reminder, the forces in a structure loaded by external forces and by its own weight, will be distributed
that the deformation energy is minimized. The stresses will therefore normally go from the weakest path,
to the support reactions. Thus, a good comparison criterion for the strut and tie models can be based
on their deformation energy [page 56, [4]]:
i&
>"0 (20)
Ö ∗ 1J ∗ _J = min [t1f]
("
JìB
30
For the comparison between the two models, only the energy provided by the ties will be considered. It
gives the following values:
Table 8 Strain energy for both models
Strain energy [kNm]

Model 1 1269.6
Model 2 1882.5
Model 1 is thus the model that comes closest to reality. This deduction could also be made by visualizing
only the stresses provided by the elastic analysis of the deep beam. Indeed, the tie follow the arched
form. There are no absolute optimum solutions, because the approximation of the smooth curves by
individual polygonal lines, lead “to ample room for subjective decisions” [Page 96 [15]]. However, there
are always a reinforcement layout, which give a satisfactory solution for a skilled engineer. For example,
for the simple case of the chapter 3.1, the figure 37 illustrate two kind of path, with the first one with the
least forces and deformation, so the least and shorter reinforcement ties.
Figure 37 For a simple case, two struts and ties model
The reinforcements obtained for the model 1 and 2 are provided in the appendix E.
Nhoriz= 8’462 kN
Nmid span = 13'632 kN Nmid span = 3’006 kN
Figure 38 Strut and tie model chosen
Considering only the main reinforcement found by the struts and ties under vertical loading, a total
density of 16.1 kg/m3 is found. In order to have a comparison, a modeling with the SAP2000 software
under a vertical loading was also carried out. The main reinforcement found, whose values are provided
in Appendix F, provides a concrete volume density of 6.8 kg/m3, which is less than half. These values
highlight the fact that the struts and ties model remains a conservative method. In none of them is the
framework for the ELS considered.
31
3.3.3 ELASTIC-PLASTIC ANALYSIS
In order to check the models’ validity, an equivalent reinforcement able to take up the effort of the tie
attributed in model 1 is initially determined. It is then inserted in the modeling of our deep beam on the
IMesh application, at the locations of the tie.
Figure 40 Mesh Figure 39 Relatives stresses pour 250 itérations

(Error = 2.784)
Figure 40 shows the mesh after the bars addition. This one seems to give coherent results. It is important
to note that there is no minimum reinforcement, not even in the columns. The aim here is to ensure that
the reinforcement set up thanks to the struts and tie model matches the mechanical needs. Figure 39
presents the results according to elastic-plastic analysis. This allows to determine the behavior of the
reinforced concrete. This study suggests arched form again.
Some triangular elements are colored in gray, dark gray and even black. The darker the element is
colored, the more it indicates that it is subject to large distortions or too large compressive stresses. In
our case, these areas are concentrated on the columns. It is however not significant, because these
elements are not sized to take the effort. In addition, the red shades and the width of the line, indicate
the amount of yielding or the maximum strength. In our case, the red is not dark, so it is mean that the
stresses in the bars are less than the yield limit. The calculation is the result of an iterative computation.
In our case, 250 iterations were chosen. This makes it possible to ensure better convergence to the
software calculations, with a reasonable calculation time (less than one hour). The error is 2.784[-]. This
value indicates the level of accuracy reached by the solution. It is a value that is relatively low and can
thus be accepted (good converged of the system). Above 5[-] the error becomes too excessive.
32
4. NUMERICAL MODELING
Sap2000 software would be used to determine the numerical model. The modeling that we considered
for the deep beam is similar to that considered in the IConc software. Moreover, following the analysis
of the elastic behavior with the theoretically known values, the following criteria are considered:
4.1 MESH
This mesh remains coarse, but in view of the consequent dimensions, this mesh allows good data
analysis, with a calculation time of a few minutes. Moreover, thanks to the study of case 1, in the previous
chapter, it has been shown that the values obtained remain acceptable and in the same order of
magnitude. Thus, the mesh is cubic, but it is important to specify that on the depth of the deep beam,
only one element is modeled. For the study of our project, this modeling is sufficient. However, if a
development had to be done on the depth, it would be necessary to refine the mesh and to have the
cubes of 0.5m / 0.5m / 0.5m.
4.2 CONDITIONS
After determining the sensitivity of the supports with the study of case 2 in the previous chapter, it was
decided to let free to move in one direction (direction x) two of the three supports at the bottom of the
columns (see figure 41). Indeed, it gave more important stresses. In 3D modeling, the extension of the
slab, where the embankment is posed, and the wall of the extremity are also modeled, in order to allow
the introduction of efforts. In both cases, it was decided to have mobile supports, blocked according to
z and y for the wall of the extremity and according to z for the slab. The beams resting at the top of the
slab are represented by mobile supports, blocked according to y.
Figure 41 Schematization of the different supports, with 2D mesh
33
4.3 LOADS
The charges arranged are the same as those set up in the IConc software, but with the difference that
in this software, instead of local load, continuous loads have been allocated. Thanks to the modeling of
the slab, the loading +,,y , associated with the weight of the embankment, was placed directly on the
slab and no longer at the bottom of the wall. However, the combination for ULS and SLS are the same.
4.4 STRESS FIELD
After using the SAP2000 software, a quick comparison of the results obtained is undertaken with those
obtained during the pre-study with the IConc software. First of all, with the support reactions forces,
which turn out to be essentially the same, then with the stress fields of the main forces in the deep beam.
Thanks to the following diagrams, it is possible to observe the same vaulted behavior, with a stress
concentration of the zones in tension between the columns. In figure 44, where off-plane loading is
inserted, the behavior remains the same, but with a higher intensity.
Figure 42 Stress fields under ULS loading with IConc software (pre-study)
Figure 43 Stress fields [kN/m2] under ULS loading (2D) with SAP2000 software
34
Figure 44 Stress fields [kN/m2] under ULS loading (3D) with SAP2000 software
4.5 RESULTS
In order to determine the necessary reinforcement, the values used are the moments along the x and z
axis. In view of the different conventions that may exist, it is important to know what the SAP2000
software uses. In the next figure, the orientation of forces and moments for a certain element is shown.
Figure 45 Sign convention used by the SAP2000 software
The results extracted from SAP2000 are the forces F11 [kN/m’], F22 [kN/m’], M11 [kNm/m’], M22
[kNm/m’], M12 [kNm/m’], whose following figures illustrate the results (Figure 46 to 49). It is important
to note some features, such as the extreme values that occur very locally to the first column. These
values are taken with precaution because they influence the results of reinforcement in the bands and
can overestimate the necessary reinforcement. It should be noted that the modeling of the first column
includes the fact that numerically no border condition is introduced on these outer faces. The borders
are free of any movement. Thus, the deep beam can’t introduce horizontal forces to the column. This
causes a stress concentrator on the wall in the region of the column.
To solve this problem, several options are available. The first would be to refine the mesh on the area
of the first column. This will avoid this stress concentration and give more satisfactory results. However,
it would be necessary to refine until obtain similar stress to the previous refinement.
35
The second option is to not consider the local extreme values on the joints, but only the one around it.
This approach can be validated if the data used are in the same order of magnitude as the values found
in case 2 of chapter 3. In the study of this project, this second option is used.
It should also be noted that this region has the characteristic of having a high compression strut and
that it will be normal to obtain the highest values in this region.
Figure 46 Force F11 [kN/m] under ULS loading
Figure 47 Force F22 [kN/m] under ULS loading
36
Figure 48 Moment M11 [kNm/m] under ULS loading
37
4.6 TORSIONAL MOMENT
The torsional moment M12 was considered for the determination of reinforcement, thanks to its addition
to the bending moment. This is due to the approximation made with the behavior of the slabs. Indeed,
these, like the studied deep beam, are subjected to a combination of bending moment and torsion
moment. The bars are not arranged in the principal direction of the moments, but orthogonal to the edge
of the element. So, it is necessary to consider the moment of torsion. Civil Engineering Treaty 8 [9]
proposes a simplified and conservative combination of bending and torsional moments, which results in
the following formulation:
fâë fâë (21)

.â0 = fâ0 + ñfâC0 ñ ≤ ; −fâ0 + ñfâC0 ñ ≤
Hë Hë
fCë fCë (22)
.C0 = fC0 + ñfâC0 ñ ≤ ; −fC0 + ñfâC0 ñ ≤
Hë Hë
38
5. DESIGN OF THE DEEP BEAM
In this chapter, the objective is to determine the main frame of the deep beam, so that it checks the
limits to the ultimate state and serviceability state. A verification of the minimum reinforcement required
by the Eurocode will also be calculated. The efforts used are those determined in the previous chapter,
thanks to the modeling of the SAP software. A final reinforcement plan is visible on the P2 plan in annex.
5.1 BAND
The choice of bands was made according to the largest moments, but also in order to make easier the
calculations and the future implementation. For example, it was considered that the maximum length of
a reinforcement bar should not exceed 6-7-8m, anchor length included. Indeed, even if it is possible to
place rebars up to 12m, it is often better for the contractor to have shorter bars. A band thickness of 1m
was chosen because the results obtained by SAP2000 are given per meter.
Figure 52 Schematization of the bands chosen horizontally (along the x axis)
Figure 51 Schematization of the bands chosen vertically (along the x axis)
39
5.2 BENDING WITH AXIAL FORCE
The Eurocode [2] is followed for determining the resistance of our sections to bending with axial force.
The different points of subchapter 6.1 [2] will be listed:
1. One of the criteria for the application of the formulations that will follow to size a section to
bending with axial force is that it must remain plane before and after loading;
2. Determining the ultimate resistance moment must follow certain assumptions, including:
a. Plane sections remain plane;
b. The bars move along with the surrounding concrete;
c. The tensile strength of concrete is neglected;
d. The constraints in the compressed concrete are deduced by the following formulations:
L) & (23)
P) = >)0 ó1 − ó1 − ò ò >êd 0 ≤ L) ≤ L)i , ôöEℎ b = 2 >êd ú30/37
L)i
P) = >)0 >êd L)i ≤ L) ≤ L)Mi (24)
e. The constraints in concrete reinforcements are deduced by the following diagrams:
Figure 53 Diagram of the Eurocode [2] used to determine the deformations and stresses of a reinforced concrete section
Thus, the limits of the strain of the concrete corresponds to the ultimate compressive strain in the
concrete L)M,i = 0.35%. For the strain in the reinforcing steel, the limit is the value of the maximum strain
of the reinforcement LM0 = 0.9 ∗ 2.5 % [2].
By varying the distribution lines of the deformations between its boundary values, it is possible to
determine the resistance of the compressed zone and the reinforcement, based on respectively non-
linear and elastic-plastic behavior. Thus, at each deformation state, a stress regime can be integrated
in order to obtain the interaction between the bending moment and the normal force .ë − 1ë .
40
5.3 STEP OF CALCULATION OF THE REINFORCEMENT
In a first step, a very rough approximation thanks to the following formulation, makes possible to
determine the reinforcement necessary to satisfy the yielding limit of reinforcement.
1/0 ./0 (25)
± ± ≤ !9 ∗ >C0
2 0.8 ∗ ℎ
In a second step, the reinforcement and its arrangement, as well as the moment and the normal force
of dimensioning, are introduced in the spreadsheet provided by the Prof. Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues. This
file has a macro that allows to find thanks to an integration according to the limits of the deformations of
the Eurocode [2], to give the diagram of interaction between the normal effort and bending moment.
Thus, it is checked at the ultimate limit state if the determined reinforcement is reasonable.
The results obtained are provided in the appendix A and B. But in the following picture, we can see the
horizontal stresses and normal effort at each mi-span, in order to have an order of magnitude of the
values found.
Figure 54 Horizontal stresses and normal effort integrated at each mi-span
5.4 CRACK CONTROL
The crack is generally limited to allow a good functioning. For this, it is customary to define a value that
takes into account the nature, but also the intended operation of the structure
For our element, the maximum crack opening is limited to 0.3mm. Thanks also to the spreadsheet used
for the ULS, crack opening will be determined. Input parameters include normal forces and moments
under a load of service. The output parameters are thus the maximum tensions obtains in the concrete
and the reinforcement and the crack opening. By varying the reinforcement arranged for the ultimate
limit state, it is possible to make the opening be less than the requested limit. The calculation to access
it is that described in section 7.3.4 of the reference [2].
41
5.5 INPUT PARAMETER
The tables resulting from the spreadsheet for the determination and validation of reinforcement are in
Annex A and B. The explanation of the macro used is not detailed in this project. However, here are the
different input parameters needed:
- Normal effort and bending moment at ULS and SLS for a specific section
- Geometry:
o Section height (thickness), section width, effective depth for each reinforcement
surfaces
- Bars:
o Diameter and spacing, for all reinforcement layers
- Materials:
o Concrete type
o Design yield strength of reinforcement: >C0 = 500 .2;
o Coefficient taking account of long term effects on the compressive strength and
unfavorable effect resulting from the way the load is applied: G)) = 1
o Design value of the modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel: (" = 200è 000.2;
o Equivalent diameter (see formula 7.12 EC2 [2]): ∅/†
o Cover: å = 40 ff
o Factor dependent on the duration of the load: t? = 0.4 (long term loading)
o Spacing of bars: ] = 200 ff (ecåeÑE >êd ]eåEöêb úD − ! − 3: ] = 125ff)
o Coefficient which takes into account the bond properties of the bonded reinforcement:
tB = 0.8 (bars with an effectively plain surface)
o The limiting calculated crack: ¢,,é%$ = 0.3ff
o Elasticity modulus of concrete: ()$ = 33è 000.2;
o Compressive strain in the concrete: L) = 0,2 %
o Ultimate compressive strain in the concrete: L)M = 0,35 %
o Characteristic strain of reinforcement steel at maximum: LM, = 2,5 %
42
5.6 MINIMAL REINFORCEMENT
The minimal reinforcement is an essential point for the case of our deep beam. Given its large thickness
and the applied loads, a large surface of its frame will be conditioned by the establishment of the
minimum reinforcement. This latter is essential in the ductile behavior of the deep beam, but especially
in the limitation of the opening of the cracks. [10]
During the pre-study, a percentage of minimal reinforcement of 0.35% was used. This included the total
area of the reinforcement for a certain concrete section. Indeed, this value was to respect a certain rate
of reinforcement which would generate a moment of cracking lower than the moment of rupture. This
avoids that with only one cracking, its propagation and opening become uncontrolled.
As part of this project, the Eurocode [2] is used, so the minimum rates are as follows:
Deep beam
- Vertical bar [9.6.2 (1) [2]]:
!9,$%& = 0.002 ∗ !) ; equally distributed on each side. (26)
- Horizontal bar [9.6.3 [2]]:
!9,$%&,£3í%§. = 0.25 ∗ !9,$%&,•/í?%. or !9,$%& = 0.001 ∗ !) (27)
Slab
The minimum steel percentage in the main direction is the same as that applied to a beam. [9.6.2[2]].
Beam
- Longitudinal bar [9.2.1.1[2]]:
>)?$ (28)
!",¶ß® = 0.26 ∗ ∗ <? ∗ = = 0.0016 ∗ <? ∗ = ;
>C,
!",¶ß® ≥ 0.0013 ∗ <? ∗ = (29)
With !9,$%& the minimum area of reinforcement, <? the mean width of the tension zone and d the effective
height.
Thus, it is preferable to consider the worst minimum rate, which is the one the beam.
The following table represents the number of layers and the diameters respecting the minimum rates
considered, per face over a width of 1m.
43
Table 9 Minimal reinforcement of the deep beam
ρmin 0,0016 -
AC1 1800000 mm2
AC2 2800000 mm2
1 BEDS
φ [mm] d (1800) [mm] d (2800) [mm] ρmin (As1) ρmin (As1) Check Check
8 1756 2756 0,0001 0,0001 NO NO
10 1755 2755 0,0002 0,0001 NO NO
12 1754 2754 0,0003 0,0002 NO NO
16 1752 2752 0,0006 0,0004 NO NO
20 1750 2750 0,0009 0,0006 NO NO
25 1747,5 2747,5 0,0014 0,0009 NO NO
2 BEDS
8 1752 2752 0,0003 0,0002 NO NO
10 1750 2750 0,0004 0,0003 NO NO
12 1748 2748 0,0006 0,0004 NO NO
16 1744 2744 0,0012 0,0007 NO NO
20 1740 2740 0,0018 0,0011 Yes NO
25 1735 2735 0,0028 0,0018 Yes Yes
3 BEDS
8 1748 2748 0,0004 0,0003 NO NO
10 1745 2745 0,0007 0,0004 NO NO
12 1742 2742 0,0010 0,0006 NO NO
16 1736 2736 0,0017 0,0011 Yes NO
20 1730 2730 0,0027 0,0017 Yes Yes
25 1722,5 2722,5 0,0043 0,0027 Yes Yes
Figure 55 Schematization of a section
44
5.7 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REINFORCEMENT
First, the necessary reinforcement was determined in order to check the resistance to the ULS, but also
to the SLS cracking, in the vertical and horizontal direction of the deep beam. The values found were
then modified to take into account the minimum reinforcement rate, but also arranged to facilitate the
constructive layout and make it as regular as possible. For more detail, the plan P2 in Annex
Table 10 Result of the reinforcement
OUTSIDE INSIDE
BARS HORIZONTAL
1 2 ɸ 32 @2002 1 2 ɸ 20 @200
2 2 ɸ 25 @200 2 2 ɸ 20 @200
3 2 ɸ 20 @200 3 2 ɸ 20 @200
4 2 ɸ 25 @200 4 2 ɸ 20 @200
5 2 ɸ 20 @200 5 2 ɸ 20 @200
6 2 ɸ 25 @200 6 3 ɸ 20 @200
7 2 ɸ 20 @200 7 3 ɸ 32 @200
8 2 ɸ 25 @200 8 3 ɸ 40 @200
9 2 ɸ 20 @200 9 3 ɸ 20 @200
10 2 ɸ 25 @200 10 3 ɸ 32 @200
11 2 ɸ 20 @200 11 3 ɸ 40 @200
12 3 ɸ 20 @200 12 3 ɸ 20 @200
13 3 ɸ 32 @200 13 3 ɸ 32 @200
14 3 ɸ 40 @150 14 3 ɸ 20 @200
15 3 ɸ 20 @200 15 3 ɸ 32 @200
16 3 ɸ 25 @200 16 3 ɸ 40 @200
17 3 ɸ 32 @200 17 3 ɸ 20 @200
18 3 ɸ 40 @200 18 3 ɸ 32 @200
19 3 ɸ 25 @200 19 3 ɸ 40 @200
20 3 ɸ 32 @200
21 3 ɸ 40 @200
22 3 ɸ 32 @200
23 3 ɸ 40 @150
BARS VERTICAL
1 2 ɸ 20 @200 1 2 ɸ 40 @200
2 3 ɸ 20 @200 2 2 ɸ 32 @200
3 3 ɸ 40 @200 3 2 ɸ 25 @200
4 3 ɸ 32 @200 4 2 ɸ 20 @200
5 3 ɸ 40 @200 5 3 ɸ 40 @200
6 3 ɸ 32 @200
7 3 ɸ 20 @200
8 3 ɸ 32 @200
2
number of layer ɸ diameter @ space
45
6. DESIGN OF THE COLUMNS
In this chapter, the design of the two columns has been done. The risk of buckling and the effect of the
second order are considered and the confined concrete is also defined.
6.1 COLUMN 1
In the case of our column 1, the compressive force is such that the longitudinal reinforcement has a
great importance in the dimensioning. To recall, the mechanical behavior of steel as a material in
compression has the same characteristics as in tension, except in its phase of hardening, where the
behavior differs. It is important to consider the phenomenon of buckling in the compressed bars,
because it reduces the carrying capacity and the ductility of the column. Indeed, although the
reinforcement is surrounded by concrete, when it reaches its ultimate strength and the propagation of
the micro cracks makes the covering concrete unable to retain the rebar, the risk of buckling must be
checked. For this, it should be verified that the ratio between the slenderness of the bars and the
diameter of the bars is less than a value of 10-15. To prevent this phenomenon, the arrangement of
stirrups is necessary. These elements also allow a holding of the vertical reinforcements, during the
establishment of the concrete and improve the behavior of concrete in the confinement. It is therefore
possible to consider increasing the strength of a column by its vertical reinforcement, only if the risk of
buckling has been eliminated.
From there, the resistances of the two materials can be simply summed. This is because when the
concrete reaches its resistance for a certain deformation (~3ff/f), then the frame is already in its
plastic phase (~2.5 ff/f). This gives the following wording:
1ë = −>) ∗ !) − >" ∗ !" ≥ 1/0 (30)
It is possible to add the effect of confinement, which is explained in the following paragraphs. However,
it is customary to neglect this favorable effect in a first dimensioning.
46
Table 11 Results of the design of the column 1
Design of column 1
1/0 -39408 kN
>)0 20 N/mm2
>"0 435 N/mm2
(" 200000 N/mm2
!) 15000 cm2
!",&/) 216 cm3
6Ñ;åe 125 mm
1^f<ed ê> _;´ed] 1 -

1^f<ed ê> <;d] 40 -
∅&/)/""|íC 26,2 mm
∅)£3%)/ 32 mm
!" 36995 mm2
1ë ≥ 1/0 YES
¨ 2,5 %
To summarize, with a normal force equal to the support reaction of the column 1, an unique layer of
reinforcement bars surrounding the entire column of diameter 32, with a spacing of 125 mm is
determined.
6.1.1 MINIMAL REINFORCEMENT
In order to ensure a certain capacity of deformation, to distribute the cracks in case of bending of the
column, but also in order to take back any bending forces in case of accidental action, it is necessary to
have a minimum reinforcement in the elements.
In the case of columns, the Eurocode stipulates that the minimum area is:
1/0 (31)
!",$%& = 0.10 ∗ ê^ 0.002 ∗ !)
>C0
Thus, the minimum reinforcement area is 0.2 percent of a concrete section. However, it is good to notice
that in Swiss standards this percentage is 0.6%.
Due to the very substantial normal effort, there is an obligation to maintain the geometry of the column
and a will to maintain the same type of concrete as the deep beam, the minimum reinforcement layout
will not be a problem, but the boundary of the maximum reinforcement will have to be checked. This
47
rate according to sub-chapter 9.5.1 of Eurocode [2] amounts to four percent of the concrete section,
excluding the cover area.
6.1.2 CONFINED CONCRETE
The stirrups in the column oppose the opening of the cracks which are created in the direction of the
stress and thus allow the increase of the resistance of the concrete. The tension, produced by the lateral
deformation of the concrete when it is compressed, activates the stirrups, which in return display a lateral
compressive stress on the concrete.
By increasing the lateral pressure, it is possible to increase the longitudinal resistance, which is
accompanied by an increase in the ductility of the column.
The confinement stress for the cylindrical elements can be estimated by the following formulation [11]:
2 ∗ !"" ∗ >" (32)
P)% =
<) ∗ ]
Where !"" corresponds to the section of the stirrups, <) the width of the concrete core at the center of
the stirrups and ] the maximum space between columns.
However, in the square columns, the shape of the stirrups causes an action on the concrete which
focuses on the corners. Therefore, the effective surface area affected by confinement must be reduced
by a factor. The reference [11] give us by the following approximation:
1 ] (33)
t) = ≤ 1−
2 <)
However, the following stress-strain relationship [2] will be applied because it comes from the Eurocode
and the final value is similar to that found via Swiss standards. This precision is made because the
formulation for the confinement stress is taken from Swiss references.
P)% (34)
>),,) = >), ∗ ó1.125 + 2.5 ∗ ò >êd P)% ≤ 0.05 ∗ >),
>),
48
The following values can thus be determined:
Table 12 Value for the confinement
Confined concrete
6Ñ;åe 200 mm
∅"?%ííM*" 16 mm
!"" 201 mm2
<) 504 mm
P)% -1,74 N/mm2
t) 0,60 -
>),,) 36,4 N/mm2
>)0,) 24,2 N/mm2
The increase in strength through the confinement of stirrups would allow considering the class of
concrete above. However, one must be careful with the results obtained. Indeed, this value is admissible
if the arrangement of the stirrups is uniform throughout the cross section. Except in our case, the stirrups
will be arranged especially for constructive purposes. The use of this increase in resistance could be
considered for a bigger normal effort or if there is a need in seismic design.
6.1.3 BEHAVIOR OF SLENDER COLUMNS
For slender columns, the phenomenon of buckling on the whole can be visible even before the
resistance of the elements composing it is reached. Buckling is characterized by parameters such as
flexural stiffness, critical column length, and initial eccentricity. For the column being compressed, the
effect of the actions can cause lateral displacements which generate additional forces and uncontrolled
lateral displacement. The desired eccentricity comes from three effects, listed below.
i) The imprecisions of the element of structure (eA0 )

ii) First order effects (eB0 )
iii) Effects due to deformations of the flexed structural element (second order effects) (ei0 )
As first, the question is, if it is necessary to consider the second order effect in the design of the column.
The subchapter 5.8.3.1 must therefore be verified:
Né%$ = 20 ∗ ! ∗ ≠ ∗ ú/√b ≤ N = _A /ö (35)
with ! = 0.7; ≠ = 1.1; ú = 0.7; 1 = 1.31
49
Two cases can occur in the stability of column 1. The first case is that of the column statically equal to
a console, when it is under construction, with a load up one third of its own weight. In the second case,
the column is considered supported at both ends, with the design load that the deep beam produces.
Table 13 Values found for the stability of column 1
Supported Cantilever
! 0.7 - 0.7 -
≠ 1.1 - 1.1 -
ú 0.7 - 0.7 -
b 1.3 - 0.00375 -
Né%$ 9.4 - 176.0 -
_3 6.3 m 12.6 m
ö 0.17 m 0.17 m
N 36.37 - 72.7 -
Né%$ ≤ N NO YES
The results show that the column must be dimensioned taking into account the second order effects,
when the deep beam is arranged and put under load. Indeed, in view of the consequent effort at the top
of the column during loading is significant as well as the relationship between the height and the
relatively small section; the lateral deformation can become problematic.
However, in order to understand how much the second order effects can be problematic, the critical
force has been computed and compared to the normal force at the top of the column. Thus, a ratio of
almost 10 separates the two efforts. This allows us to affirm that although there is a need to verify the
second-order effect, the margin between the efforts is large enough that it is not the critical state of the
element.
50
6.1.4 GEOMETRIC IMPERFECTIONS
The possible geometrical imperfection of the structure or the differences in the position of the loads
cause unfavorable effects on the structure, which must be considered in its design at the ultimate limit
state. In the service limit state, it is not required to consider these imperfections. At first step, it is
necessary to determine the inclination, with the following formulation [5.2[2]]:
Ø% = ØA ∗ G£ ∗ G$ (36)
with ØA the basic value, G£ the reduction factor for the height and G$ the reduction factor for number of
members.
It is then possible to determine the eccentricity e% with the following formulation [5.2[2]]:
e% = Ø% ∗ _A /2 (37)
6.1.5 ECCENTRICITY DUE TO SECOND ORDER EFFECTS
There are two methods of analysis to determine the second order effects; the method based on the
internal forces and the flexional stiffness EI and the approach based on the distribution of the curvature
along the compressed element. The second method is chosen because it is suitable for isolated
elements, but also for structures, if the curvature distribution is chosen appropriately. Moreover, this
method makes it possible to obtain dimensioning in a more direct way, because this one is less
influenced by the reinforcement ratio than the method of the rigidity of the sections.
Thus, in this project, the second approach is used with the use of a very simplifying phase, which
consists of approximating the curvature and its distribution along the column. This is determined by the
following formulation [5.8.8.3 [2]].
1/d = {í ∗ {∞ ∗ 1/dA (38)
1/dA = >C0 /(0.45 ∗ = ∗ (" ) (39)
With {í a correction factor depending on axial load, {∞ a correction factor depending on axial load,
which are determined by the following formulations:
bM − b (40)
{í = ≤ 1 ; {∞ = 1 + ± ∗ ~/U ≥ 1
bM − bç|é
The eccentricity that results from the deformation of the flexed element, i.e. the distance between the
neutral axis of the deformed element and a straight line passing through the points of inflection, can be
calculated by means of the following formulation:
ei = (1/d) ∗ _3i /å (41)
With å a factor depending on the curvature distribution, which can be approximated to É i . This means
that the curvature distribution is sinusoidal, which is the case when the rigidity is constant and when the
stability problems are important. Although this last point is not the case, this approximation is still used,
because it remains conservative and allows a good approximated solution.
51
The different values found are shown in the following table.
Table 14 Eccentricity result for calculating the second order moment
Geometric imperfection
ØA 0,005 -
G£ 0,667 -
G$ 1 -
Ø% 0,003 -
e% 0,0105 m
Eccentricity of the second order
b 1,31 -
!" 36995 mm2
¢ 0,536 -
bM 1,54 -
bç|é 0,4 -
± 0,2575 -
~/U 1 -
{í 0,196 -
{3 1,26 -
d 544 mm
LC0 0,002175 -
1/d3 0,0000089 1/mm
1/d 0,000002 1/mm
ei0 0,0088 m
By summing the eccentricities ei0 and e% , then multiplying by the axial force at the top of the column 1,
we determine the moment generated. This one is worth:
.i0 = 1/0 ∗ (ei0 + e% ) = 761 t1f (42)
The determined moment can thus be put in parallel with the normal effort 1/0 in order to create an
interaction diagram 1/0 − ./0 . This will allow us to assess if the longitudinal reinforcement for the
column in sub-section 6.1 is sufficient.
52
Interaction diagram 1e= − .e=
60 000
50 000
40 000
Msd=0 kN.m
Nsd=39400 kN
30 000
20 000
1R= [kN]
10 000
0
-10 000 -8 000 -6 000 -4 000 -2 000 0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000
-10 000
-20 000
-30 000
.R= [kNm]
diam 40 diam 32
Figure 56 Interaction diagram Ned-Med without the second order effect

60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000 Msd=761 kN.m

Nsd=39400 kN
1R= [kN]
20 000
10 000
0
-10 000 -8 000 -6 000 -4 000 -2 000 0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000
-10 000
-20 000
-30 000
.R= [kNm]
diam 40 diam 32
Figure 57 Interaction diagram Ned-Med with the second order effect
53
This last graph shows that the addition of the moment of second order doesn’t influence the
dimensioning of the reinforcement set up, even if it approaches a value where it is necessary to increase
the diameter of reinforcement.
In order to compare these last results, the calculation of the second order eccentricity with the method
described in reference [11], which is based on Swiss standards, is also computed. The moment resulting
from the calculations of the first phase (terminology from the reference [11]) show a need to increase
the diameter of the reinforcements (see figure 56 and 57). However, it should be noted that this first
phase remains very approximate and conservative. Moreover, in view of the margin with the critical
normal effort, the choice is made to leave a diameter 32.

Norme SIA 262 [10]
60 000
50 000
40 000
Msd=2126,8 kN.m
Nsd=39400 kN
30 000
20 000
1R= [kN]
10 000
0
-10 000 -8 000 -6 000 -4 000 -2 000 0 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000
-10 000
-20 000
-30 000
.R= [kNm]
diam 40 diam 32
Figure 58 Interaction diagram Ned-Med (according to SIA 262)
54
6.2 COLUMN 2
The design of the second column follows the same process as that of the first. It must also be design
considering the effect of the second order. This effect will cause an increase in diameter. Thus, the final
longitudinal reinforcement disposed is a layer of diameter 20, with a spacing of 200 mm all around the
column. Here are the different results obtained.
Table 15 Results of the design for the column 2
Design for the column 2

1/0 -82884 kN
>)0 20 N/mm2
>"0 435 N/mm2
(" 200000 N/mm2
!) 40000 cm2
!",&/) 66 cm3
6Ñ;åe 200 mm
1^f<ed ê> _;´ed] 1 -

1^f<ed ê> <;d] 38 -
∅&/)/""|íC 14,9 mm
∅)£3%)/ 16 mm
!" 7640 cm2
1ë ≥ 1/0 OUI
¨ 0,2 %
55
Table 16 Values found for the stability of column 2
Supported Cantilever
! 0.7 - 0.7 -
≠ 1.1 - 1.1 -
ú 0.7 - 0.7 -
b 1,0 - 0,00375 -
Né%$ 10,6 - 176,0 -
_3 6,3 m 12,6 m
ö 0,29 m 0.29 m
N 21,82 - 43,6 -
Né%$ ≤ N NO YES
Table 17 Eccentricity result for the calculation of the second order moment for column 2
Geometric imperfection
ØA 0,005 -
G£ 0,667 -
G$ 1 -
Ø% 0,003 -
e% 0,0105 m
Eccentricity of the second order
b 1,04 -
!" 7640 mm2
¢ 0,042 -
bM 1,04 -
bç|é 0,4 -
± 0,3545 -
~/U 1 -
{í 0,009 -
{3 1,35 -
d 952 mm
LC0 0,002175 -
1/d3 0,0000051 1/mm
1/d 0,000000 1/mm
ei0 0,0002 m
56
86 000
84 000
Msd=921 kN.m
82 000
Nsd=82884 kN
80 000
1R= [kN]
78 000
76 000
74 000
72 000
70 000
-15 000 -10 000 -5 000 0 5 000 10 000 15 000
.R= [kNm]
diam 20 diam 16
Figure 59 Interaction diagram Ned-Med without the second order effect, with a focus on the area of interest

86 000
84 000
Msd=0 kN.m
82 000
Nsd=82884 kN
80 000
1R= [kN]
78 000
76 000
74 000
72 000
70 000
-15 000 -10 000 -5 000 0 5 000 10 000 15 000
.R= [kNm]
diam 20 diam 16
Figure 60 Interaction diagram Ned-Med with the second order effect, with a focus on the area of interest
57
7. SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
In the connection zone of column 1 with the web, the shear force will be checked in four sections, shown
in the following figure:
Figure 61 Schematization of the sections where the verification of the shear force is done
1) On the section at the top of the column

2) Section of the deep beam at 2.8m
3) Section of the deep beam at 1.8m
4) Section in the slab
Figure 62 Shear effort V13 [kN/m] et V23 [kN/m]
The SAP2000 software provides us with shear forces in two directions; ≤Bu [t1/f] et ≤iu [t1/f]. In the
following calculations, the value used is the result of these two efforts:
i i
(43)
≤/0 = ≥≤Bu + ≤iu
58
Generally, the shear reinforcement is disposed in the beam structural elements in the form of stirrups.
However, it is necessary to dispose them only if the design value of the shear force does not exceed a
certain limit value. On the other hand, it is recommended to have a shear reinforcement in the deep
beam, in order to avoid a brittle fracture. [11] Thus, at first, it will be determined the need for a shear
reinforcement. For this we determine the shear resistance of the element in the absence of shear
reinforcement ≤ë0,: , thanks to the following formulation [6.2.2 [5]].
B (44)
≤ë0,) = ¥úë0,) ∗ t ∗ µ100 ∗ ¨| ∗ >), ∑u + tB ∗ P)* ∏ ∗ <' ∗ =
With the following parameters:

t = 1 + π200/= ≤ 2.0 (Describes the size effect, d in [mm]) (45)
¨| = !"é /(<' ∗ =) (Bending reinforcement ratio) (46)

úë0,) = 0.18/H) (47)
tB = 0.15 (48)
P)* = 1/0 /!) < 0.2 ∗ >)0 (49)
And a minimum value according to

≤ë0,) = ªO$%& + tB ∗ P)* º ∗ <' ∗ = (50)
Ω
B/i
with O$%& = 0.0035 ∗ t æ ∗ >), [.2;]
According to Eurocode 6.2.1 (8) [2], at a distance less than = from a support, a shear test isn’t necessary
in the case of elements subjected to uniformly distributed loads. However, the required shear
reinforcement must be maintained up to the right of the support. Thus, the calculation value for the
sections around the support between the web and the first column is determined at a distance equal to
the effective height for each of them. With regard to the shear force of column 1, the value corresponds
to the support reaction of the element in the y axis.
59
This gives us the following values:
Table 18 Calculation results for the need of shear reinforcement
Parameter Column 1 Deep beam (2.8m) Deep beam (1,8m) Slab

1/0 -39408 -7705 -7964 -5573 kN
>), 30 30 30 30 MPa
>)0 20 20 20 20 MPa
= 540 2760 1680 1600 mm
t 1,61 1,27 1,35 1,35 -
18850
!",é 18498 18850 12566 mm2
(estimate)
<' 2500 1000 1000 1000 mm
¨| 0,0137 0,0068 0,0075 0,0118 -
P)* 26,3 2,8 4,4 2,8 MPa
úë0,) 0,12 0,12 0,12 0,12 -
O$%& 0,39 0,27 0,30 0,30 MPa
tB 0,15 0,15 1,15 2,15 -
≤ë0,) 6219 2289 9313 10438 kN
≤ë0,),$%& 5848 1896 9050 10069 kN
≤/0 3314 668 3278 5677 kN
≤ë0,) ≥ ≤/0 NO NO NO NO
Despite the non-necessity of having shear reinforcement in the sections, stirrups will be positioned on
the entire deep beam to facilitate the placement of the bars, from a constructive point of view.
60
7.1 TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT OF COLUMN 1
According to sub-chapter 9.5.3 [2], different points allow to choose the diameter and the arrangement
of the stirrups necessary for a correct transversal reinforcement for the column.
Thus, stirrups of 12 mm, with a spacing of 100 mm over a length of 1m at each end and a spacing of
200mm over the rest of the length are chosen. A stirrup surrounding the entire column, as well as five
stirrups on the cross section along the y-axis and one along the x-axis are arranged. This implementation
ensures that the shear resistance will be reached, which should respect the following equation [6.2.3[2]].
!"' (51)
≤ë0," = ∗ F ∗ >C'0 ∗ åêEØ
]
With Ø the angle between the concrete compression strut and the beam axis perpendicular to the shear
force, chosen at 30°
An excessive angle could lead to an underestimation of the force in the longitudinal reinforcement, with
the danger of a brittle fracture. In order to limit the amount of stirrups, it is reasonable to choose a small
inclination of the struts. It is possible to consider this when the system is internally hyperstatic and when
a redistribution of effort is possible. It is also important to consider an angle that will lead to plastic
deformations in stirrups already at ELS. In other words, an angle with 25° range requires a larger amount
of longitudinal reinforcement, whereas an angle in the 40° range requires a larger amount of stirrup.
However, for the case of columns, it is usual to use a value of åêEØ = 2 (26.5°). Indeed, the columns
being subjected to large normal compressive forces, the angle can be reduced. This generates the
following results:
Table 19 Results for the shear force of column 1
åêEØ 2 -
F 486 mm
>C'0 435 MPa
] 200 mm
Number of stirrups 6 -
!"' 2413 mm
≤/0 3314 kN
≤ë0," 4417 kN
≤ë0," ≥ ≤/0 YES
61
7.2 MAXIMUM EFFORT ON SUPPORT
In the support zone, according to Eurocode [6.2.2[2]], it is also necessary to check that the shear force
does not exceed the calculated value of the maximum shear force ≤ë0,$|â . In the case of our slab and
deep beam, no shear reinforcement is required, so the following equivalence must be respected:
≤/0 ≤ 0.5 ∗ <' ∗ = ∗ O ∗ >)0 (52)
With <' , the smallest width of the cross-section in the tensile area; = the effective depth of the deep
beam; O the strength reduction factor for concrete cracked in shear.
Regarding the design effort to be considered, the SAP2000 software gives us extreme values on
supports (see figure 62 of shear forces). These values are also greater than ≤ë0,$|â , if we look at the
localized values.
However, these results must be taken with caution. In the first place, physically, the verification of the
shear force at this point is not relevant, due to the continuity of the deep beam and the slab. Moreover,
the extreme value reported by the software is arranged too concentrated in one point. It would have
been reasonable to consider only the average value of the area around.
Figure 63 SAP2000 value of the shear force on the link with column
However, these local extremes lead to a reflection on the importance of the reinforcement anchoring, in
order to ensure a transmission of the adhesion forces between the elements and to avoid longitudinal
cracking and bursting of the concrete.
62
8. DETAIL
8.1 CROSS REINFORCEMENT OF THE DEEP BEAM
According to sub-chapter 9.6.4 [2], it is necessary to have transverse reinforcement according to the
same requirements as the columns, for all the zones whose reinforcement rate on both sides is higher
than 0.02 ∗ !) . In the case of the deep beam, the rate of reinforcement varies between 0.2% to 0.73%
for each face.
Thus, according to the section 9.5.3 [2], it is chosen to have stirrups with a diameter of 16 mm, with a
spacing of 400 mm in the center and with a spacing of 200 mm to a height of 1.8 m at the top and 2.8
m at the bottom of the deep beam. Along the section, the stirrups will be placed every 500mm, in order
to keep a certain regularity in the establishment.
Regarding the zone of continuity of the longitudinal bars of the column 1 in the deep beam, the stirrups
will be arranged as an extension of those arranged at the top of the column.
8.1.1 FRAME CORNERS
Between the deep beam and the slab, it is reasonable to ask if the junction requires particular
constructive elements. According to Eurocode J.2.2 (1) [2], the dimensions of the elements are within
the limit, where no reinforcement check of connection or length of anchor in the wall-slab connection is
necessary; 2/3 < ℎi /ℎB = 1.4 < 3/2. However, it is still necessary for all tensile reinforcement to be
folded correctly.
8.2 HEATING OF THE CONCRETE DURING THE SETTING
The construction of this deep beam will require a large volume of concrete. It is therefore important to
take precautions to prevent heating of the concrete by hydration of the cement during the setting. Indeed,
this hydration can cause significant cracking, due to the faster hardening on the facings than in the
center of mass. Two measures can be undertaken to limit the cracking between the various phase of
concreting of the deep beam [13]:
- The reduction of the maximum temperature reached after setting.

- The accelerated cooling so that the contraction takes place while the concrete is still deformable.
In order to lower the temperature, it is possible to envisage artificial cooling, such as a circulation of cold
water in pipes placed between each concreting. Depending on the outside temperature, it may be also
possible to cool the various constituents of the concrete before the mixing. For example, the use of cold
water or the protection of aggregates from insolation. In the case of accelerated cooling of concrete, the
use of low heat cements may be considered, such as pozzolan cements or blast furnace slag cements,
with fly ash. The consequence of these cements is a slower setting, thus a more delayed formwork.
Although the resistances are weaker at the beginning, they are satisfactory in the end. It is up to the
company to take the best option, while considering the ambient temperatures and volumes arranged.
63
8.3 ANCHOR LENGTH
Anchoring of longitudinal reinforcement
The ultimate stress of adhesion is determined by the following formulation for the largest diameter. This
must be sufficient to prevent adhesion failure [8.4.2 [2]].
132 − 40 (53)
>ç0 = 2.5 ∗ øB ∗ øi ∗ >)?0 = 2.25 ∗ 1.0 ∗ ∗ 1.31/ffi = 2.76 1/ffi
100
With øB the coefficient related to the quality of the bond condition and the position of the bar during
concreting.
The design anchorage length is defined by the following formulation [8.4 4 [2]]:
_ç0 = GB ∗ Gi ∗ Gu ∗ Gy ∗ G¿ ∗ G¡ ∗ _ç,í†0 ≥ _ç,$%& (54)
With the coefficients GB for the effect of the form of the bars, Gi for the effect of concrete minimum cover,
Gu for the effect of confinement by transverse reinforcement, Gy for the influence of one or more welded
transverse bars, G¿ for the effect of the pressure transverse to the plane of splitting, G¡ for the proportions
of overlapping bars and _ç,í†0 the basic anchorage length, which can be defined by the formula [8.4.3[2]]:
_ç,í†0 = (¬/4) ∗ (P"0 />ç0) (55)
And _ç,$%& the minimum anchorage length:

_ç,$%& > max≈0.3 ∗ _ç,í†0 ; 10 ∗ ¬; 100ff∆ >êd ;båℎêd;ne] öb Eeb]öêb (56)
_ç,$%& > max≈0.6 ∗ _ç,í†0 ; 10 ∗ ¬; 100ff∆ >êd ;båℎêd;ne] öb åêfÑde]]öêb (57)
_ç,$%& > max≈0.3 ∗ G¡ ∗ _ç,í†0 ; 15 ∗ ¬; 200ff∆ >êd _;Ñ _ebnEℎ (58)
The results obtained are shown in the following tables for the lap length, the bends at the extremity.
Table 20 Alpha parameter for calculating the anchor length
Lap Bends Column 1

GB 1 1 1
Gi 1 1 1
Gu 1 1 1
Gy 1 1 1
G¿ 1 1 1
G¡ 1,5 - -
64
Table 21 Anchor length according to diameter and location
According to the diameters 20 25 32 40

_ç,í†0 725 906 1160 1576 mm
Lap _ç0 1088 1359 1740 2175 mm
_ç,$%& 300 375 480 473 mm
_ç,í†0 725 906 1160 1576 mm
Bends _ç0 725 906 1160 1576 mm
_ç,$%& 218 272 348 473 mm
_ç,í†0 - - 1160 - mm
Column 1 _ç0 - - 1160 - mm
_ç,$%& - - 696 - mm
Table 22 Length of anchorage and cover chosen
According to the diameters 20 25 32 40

Lap 1100 1400 1740 2180 mm
Bends _A,)£3"/& 725 910 1160 1580 mm
Column 1 - - 1160 - mm
As in the deep beam, several layers of longitudinal reinforcement are superimposed, the differences in
recovery distances respected are shown in figure 64. These follow the instructions in section 8.7.2 of
the Eurocode [2]. These distances make it possible to ensure transmission of forces, without producing
bursting of the concrete near of the junctions’ zone and without the appearance of open cracks. In order
to facilitate the setting up, these distances will be the same for all the deep beam.
Figure 64 Distance to ensure proper transmission of effort
65
9. FAILURE OF THE DEEP BEAM
In this part of the project, a study was carried out concerning the sensitive areas of the deep beam at a
potential increase of the mobile load over time. To do this, the IConc software was used. Indeed, it has
the advantage of having a visualization of the crushing of the concrete and the yielding of the bars.
Table 23 Displacement horizontal and vertical for each increase of the crane effort
Crane effort
% «[»] … [ÀÀ] …Ã [ÀÀ]
0 -510000 3,2 7,7
10 -561000 3,4 8,0
20 -612000 3,4 8,0
50 -765000 3,4 8,1
70 -867000 3,4 8,1
100 -1020000 3,5 8,2
120 -1122000 3,5 8,2
150 -1275000 3,5 8,3
1000 -5100000 5,0 9,9
1500 -7650000 7,9 12,0
1700 -8670000 9,6 14,0
1900 -9690000 12,1 21,5
2000 -10200000 15,7 36,3
The load increase was up to 20 times the mobile load. After this step, the numerical results were no
longer stable and physically consistent. The curve of figure 65 represents the vertical displacement for
the same point on the slab, whether in the middle of the first span. A difference in rigidity can be observed
between an increase of 15 to 20 times the crane effort. By observing the figures of the results obtained
(see figure 66), the reinforcement in the studied zone of the deep beam has not yet reached its yielding
limit and the concrete the crushing. However, the concrete of the center column was crushed over the
entire surface. This may be an explanation for the change in rigidity.
Still, by observing the evolution of material characteristics through the results of figure 65, it can be seen
that the columns are the weak elements of the structure. Thus, the deep beam has a substantial reserve
for an increase in the crane effort, but the columns could become problematic. It is also important to
note, that this study only allows to encompass the general behavior and that it doesn’t take into account
the cracking that can cause an increase of the mobile load.
66
Figure 65 Representation of the failure with an increase of the crane effort
Figure 66 Results of each increase of the crane effort with the software IConc
67
10. OPTIMIZATION
10.1 THICKNESS OPTIMIZATION
After dimensioning and analyzing the behavior of the deep beam, an optimization of the thickness of the
deep beam was studied. The thickness is substantial, but it ensures the stability of the central, as
explained in sub-chapter 2.1 of this project. However, in order to find the best ratio between concrete
thickness and the rate of reinforcement, a thickness optimization study is undertaken on a selected part
of the deep beam.
To start the optimization, a parallel with the strut and tie model is done. This model proves to be very
effective for the dimensioning of reinforcement, due to its simplicity and computational effectiveness. [9]
However, for struts, the problem is more complex and must be undertaken with caution, due among
other things to the choice of the model and the value of compressive strength. As mentioned in chapter
3.3.1, a reduction of this resistance is necessary, to consider the state plane of constraints. Thus, the
resistance is influenced by several factors such as the oblique cracks in the struts, the local mechanisms
of concentration and stress diffusion generated by the transverse tension and also the anchoring of the
tensioned reinforcing bars.
It is important to note that this approach is very subjective and that it only allows to have a first value of
thickness to introduce. Indeed, the strut and tie model is based on the plastic theory and the direction
of the strut is essential to check the resistance of the concrete. In the results obtained with the SAP2000
software modeling, the direction of the efforts is three-dimensional. However, the equation 17 gives a
first approach, to determine the thickness t necessary to absorb the compressive force.
Firstly, the section with the highest compression stress is found, thanks the results of the previous
chapters. For each horizontal band, the combination of the normal maximum compression force with
the maximum moment, according to the following formulation, is determined:
|.11$|â | (59)
T11)3$*í/""%3&,$|â − = Õ),B [t1/f]
F
|.22$|â | (60)
T22)3$*í/""%3&,$|â − = Õ),i [t1/f]
F
With z the lever arm, which is approximated to 0.8 times the initial thickness.
Thus, a compression force in the direction of the axis 1 and 2 is found and a resultant of these two
forces then makes it possible to determine in which band the maximum compressive force is located.
For the upper part of the deep beam, with a thickness of 1.8 m, it is on the CH-A-6 belt and for the part
with 2.8 m of thickness it is on the CH-A-11. It should be noted that the efforts at the level of the slab
have not been considered, as an optimization of the thickness at this level doesn’t make sense.
68
These bands correspond to the location of the most solicited struts determined with the model 1 of the
chapter 3.3. (see figure 66). These struts are therefore in the extension of the connected zone with the
first column.
Figure 67 Localization of the most solicited strut in the model 1 from chapter 3.3
Table 24 Maximum compressive resultant of the critical bands
T11 T22 .11 .22 F ÕB Õi Õí/"Mé?

Band
[t1/f] [t1/f] [t1f/f] [t1f/f] [f] [t1/f] [t1/f] [t1/f]
CH-A-06 -1456 -4106 236 -6837 1.76 -1590 -8000 8156
CH-A-11 -2089 -20609 -699 -9569 2.73 -2345 -24117 24231
Using the equation 16, with the thickness of the strut b equal 1 meter, the following minimum thicknesses
are obtained:
Table 25 Result of the thickness for the critical band
Band E$%& [f] E)£33"/& [f]
CH-A-06 0.77 0.8
CH-A-11 2.29 2.3
It would be necessary to consider, in addition to this thickness, the available space to implement the
reinforcement which will accommodate the tension. However, for the first iteration, only the calculated
thicknesses are taken into account, namely 0.8 m on the top of the deep beam and 2.3 m on the bottom.
In order to know if this optimization is feasible, a new modeling on the SAP2000 software is carried out.
With the new results, only the critical sections are checked.
69
The efforts are as follows:
Table 26 Effort in the critical section initially (2.8m) and after a thickness optimization (2.3m)
INITIALLY OPTIMIZATION
ULS Effort SLS Effort ULS Effort SLS Effort
Band Nsd, T / Nsd, T / Nsd, T / Nsd, T /
Msd MCar. Msd MCar.
Nsd , C Nsd , C Nsd , C Nsd , C
- kN m kN kN m kN kN m kN kN m kN
-2003 / -1480 / -1814 / -1341 /
CH-A-11 -699 -516 429 318
2089 1543 2347 1734
-5494 / -4059. / -5181 / -3829 /
CH-A-12 523 389 1 756 1 302
2743 2026 3519 2601
-16311 / -12055 / -16789 -12411
CH-A-13 4 816 3 569 5 734 4 249
9822 3981 / 8427 / 6228
4067 / 3004 / 2913 / 2151 /
CV-B-01 -11453 -8485 -8664 -6423
33840 24997 34542 25522
-2712 / -2004 / -2565 / -1896 /
CV-B-02 -4967 -3663 -9028 -6689
11784 8702 10495 7758
-4309 / -3191 / -4322 / -3201 /
CV-B-03 -7117 -5269 -4553 -3372
4100 3026 2966 2249
598 / 443 / 576 / 426 /
CV-A-01 -6042 -4476 -4007 -2968
4106 3033 3325 2456
176 / 127 / 99 / 71 /
CV-A-02 -5451 -4037 -4222 -3127
3288 2429 2300 1698
The order of magnitude remains approximately the same. Although the self-weight has decreased, the
lever arm for the moments has also decreased. Using the same procedure as for the sizing of chapter
5, the verification revealed that the reinforcement initially installed is valid for the horizontal band CH-A-
11 and CH-A-12 with a thinner deep beam. For the CH-A-13 horizontal band, a simple increase in the
spacing of one of the layers is sufficient. On the other hand, for the vertical bands located in the upper
part of the web (0.8m thick), it was necessary to increase the reinforcement with 3 layers of diameter
40, instead of two layers.
It was thus decided that a decrease of the thickness on the top of the deep beam of less than 0.8 m was
not relevant, considering the increase of necessary reinforcement. However, a new iteration for the
bottom of the deep beam has been carried out. As the mobile crane needs at least one meter to land, a
thickness of 1.8m was used.
70
The new iteration provides the following results:
Table 27 Effort in the critical section initially (2.8m) and after a thickness optimization (1.8m)
INITIALLY OPTIMIZATION
ULS Effort SLS Effort ULS Effort SLS Effort
Band Nsd, T / Nsd, T / Nsd, T / Nsd, T /
Msd MCar. Msd MCar.
Nsd , C Nsd , C Nsd , C Nsd , C
- kN m kN kN m kN kN m kN kN m kN
-2003 / -1480 / -14 / -1047 /
CH-A-11 -699 -516 59 44
2089 1543 2165 1599
-5494 / -4059. / -4398 / -3250 /
CH-A-12 523 389 187 139
2743 2026 3245 2399
-16311 / -12055 / -15508 -11463
CH-A-13 4 816 3 569 3876 2873
9822 3981 / 8494 / 6277
4067 / 3004 / 2797 / 2065 /
CV-B-01 -11453 -8485 -6875 -5095
33840 24997 31411 23206
-2712 / -2004 / -2498 / -1846 /
CV-B-02 -4967 -3663 -10868 -8051
11784 8702 10215 7551
-4309 / -3191 / -4017 / -235 /
CV-B-03 -7117 -5269 -4609 -3414
4100 3026 2748 2154
The results found with the decrease of the thickness are lower than the initial one. However, considering
the decrease of the effective depth, the necessary reinforcement is the same as the one obtained with
a thickness of 2.3 m. An exception for the vertical end band CV-B-01 should be noted, where the
compression force generates a need to increase on the outer surface of the reinforcement area: 3 layers
of diameter 25 mm, instead of 3 layers of 20 mm.
It is important to note that an optimization of the deep beam must be followed by a change of the sections
of the columns, especially that of the first one. Indeed, it has a section of 2.5m / 0.6m, which causes an
overshoot over the wall. This study is however not carried out, but just noted.
71
10.2 PRESTRESS
In view of the substantial reinforcement placed in the tension zone on the bottom of the deep beam, the
idea of using prestressing cables is introduced. However, in order to go further in optimization reasoning,
the need for the second column has also been questioned. Thus, the following study concerns a possible
installation of prestressing cable at the bottom of the tie zone, while removing the central column. Again,
the will here is not to create new reinforcement plans, but only to check the sections deemed critical to
ULS and SLS.
In the first place, it is necessary to determine the load that the cables need to accommodate for. By
observing the main forces of the wall provided by the SAP2000 software, the same tension vault is
observable:
Figure 68 Schematization of the main forces
Thus, it is chosen to integrate from the horizontal tensile stresses on the mid-span the resulting tensile
force, which is 40’800 kN.
Cables type Y186057-15,7, with 19 strands (19T155) are chosen, with a set up by pre-tensioning.
Characteristics are as follows:
- Characteristic tensile strength of prestressing steel: >*,, = 1860 1/ffi
- Characteristic 0,1 % proof-stress of prestressing steel: >*3,B,, = 1600 1/ffi
UŒœ,–,—
- Tensile strength of prestressing steel: >*,0 = B,B¿
= 1390 1/ffi
- Initial stresses after installation: P3* = 0,7 ∗ >*,, = 1302 1/ffi
72
Thus, the prestressing area necessary for the recovery of the tensile force is:
1/0 40è 800 t1 (61)
!*,?3? ≥ = = 29è 353ffi
>*0 1390 .2;
With a strands area of 150 mm2, 11 prestressing cable are needed. Regarding their arrangement on the
section of the deep beam of 1.8 m, it is necessary to consider that each cable has an outside diameter
of 116 mm2 and that a minimum spacing of 100 mm between each cable is advised. Thus, it is chosen
to have three layers of 3 cables and one layer of 2 cables, rectilinear just above the passive frame. In
the following picture, the schematization of the disposition of the cable in the anchor zone and in the
mid-span are shown. (plan n°3)
Figure 69 Schematization of the prestressing disposition
The total prestressing force is determined by the following formulation:

23 = #"?í|&0 ∗ #)|çé/ ∗ !"?í|&0 ∗ P3* (62)
With the number of tendons (#"?í|&0 ) equal to 19, the number of cables (#)|çé/ ) equal to 11, the area of
a strand equal to 150 mm2 and the initial stress to 70% of the tensile strength of prestressing steel.
This gives a total force of 40.6 MN, or 3.7 MN per cable. However, it is necessary to consider losses
due to friction and also losses due to time dependent.
73
Losses due to friction
Along the cable, a friction force opposes the movement of the cable towards the movable head during
the tensioning. Thus, the maximum force is at the end opposite to the movable head. This is why the
force applied is not the same as the prestressing force along the cable. The friction force depends on a
coefficient of friction and a deflection force. However, since in our case the cable will be arranged
rectilinearly, only the cohesion and the fact that the sheath has imperfections will be considered. So, the
loss is as follows:
∆2 = −2 ∗ t ∗ ∆c (63)
P*,% (c) = P3* ∗ e ”(,∗â) (64)
With k a parameter depending on the type of sheath used, which is on average for 0.001 m-1 PE sheaths,
x the total length of the cable which is 25.5 m andP3* the initial stress of 1302N/mm2.
Thus, in the end opposite to the head, the stress is 1270 N/mm2. This equates to a loss of 2.4% and an
average stress of 1285 N/mm2, i.e. an average prestressing force of 40.3 MN. Generally, if between 10
and 15% the loss is considered acceptable. It is therefore not necessary to add a movable head at both
ends.
Time dependent losses
The time dependent losses considered are:
- Creep of concrete
To calculate the effect of creep, the average stress in space is used to determine the stress and the
average deformation in the concrete, namely:
2$3C 40.3 .1 (65)
P),$3C = = = 2.51 1/ffi
!) 1,8f ∗ 6,83f + 0,6f ∗ 6,25f
P),$3C 2.51 1/ffi (66)
L),$3C = = è = 0,0738 ff/f
() 34 000 1/ffi
Thus, the deformation due to creep, considering a creep of 2 and the loss of stress can be defined by
the following formulations:
L),)í//* = ∅)í//* ∗ L),$3C = 2 ∗ 0,0738 ff/f = 0,147 ff/f (67)
∆P)í//* = (* ∗ L),)í//* = 195è 000 .2; ∗ 0,147 ff/f = 28.8 1/ffi (68)
74
- Shrinkage of the concrete
Considering a unit deformation due to the shrinkage of 0.4 mm/m, the following stress loss is found:
∆P"£í%&,|z/ = L),")£í%&,|z/ ∗ (* = 0,4 ff/f ∗ 195′000 .2; = 78 1/ffi (69)
- Relaxation of prestressing steel [3.3.2[2]]
The relaxation loss can be obtained from the manufacturer's tests or by the following formulation. Class
2 is considered for our case.
E A,÷¿∗(B”’) (70)
∆Pí/é|â = 0,66 ∗ ¨BAAA ∗ e ‘,B∗’ ∗ ó ò ∗ 10”¿ ∗ P*%
1000
With P*% = 1285 1/ffi, ¨BAAA = 2,5 %, t = 500’000 hours (long term), ◊ = 0,69.
It should be noted that the interaction of the three effects is not considered in this project.
A loss of 50 N/mm2 is found for long-term relaxation. Thus, the total of delayed effects is 157N/mm2,
which is equivalent to a loss of 13.4% compared to the initial stress.
Modeling with prestressing
By considering the prestressing losses, it is possible to define the force equivalent to an infinite time,
which will be introduced into the modeling of the deep beam. This value is:
2ÿ = 1128 1/ffi ∗ 11 å;<_e] ∗ 19 Eeb=êb] ∗ 150 ffi = 35.4 .1 (71)
Horizontal equivalent forces, at each end of the area where the 11 cables are to be arranged, are
modeled in the deep beam without the central column.
A dimensioning of the main reinforcement in the entirety of the deep beam is carried out, according to
the same process as chapter 5. In the following table is expressed the necessary reinforcement in
addition to the prestressing cables, in order to check the resistance of the different bands, as well as
the cracking. The values obtained are provided in the appendix G.
75
Table 28 Vertical and horizontal bars with the optimization
OUTSIDE INSIDE
BARS HORIZONTAL
1 2 ɸ 20 @200 1 2 ɸ 16 @200
2 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 2 ɸ 20 @200
3 2 ɸ 16 @200 3 2 ɸ 16 @200
4 2 ɸ 16 @200 4 2 ɸ 16 @200
5 2 ɸ 16 @200 5 2 ɸ 16 @200
6 2 ɸ 16 @200 6 2 ɸ 16 @200
7 2 ɸ 25 @200 7 2 ɸ 20 @200
8 2 ɸ 20 @200 8 2 ɸ 25 @200
9 2 ɸ 25 @150 9 2 ɸ 40 @200
10 2 ɸ 40 @150 10 2 ɸ 20 @200
11 2 ɸ 20 @200 11 2 ɸ 25 @200
12 2 ɸ 25 @200 12 2 ɸ 32 @200
13 2 ɸ 32 @200 13 2 ɸ 40 @125
14 2 ɸ 40 @200 14 2 ɸ 20 @200
15 2 ɸ 20 @200 15 2 ɸ 25 @200
16 2 ɸ 25 @200 16 2 ɸ 40 @125
17 2 ɸ 40 @200 17 2 ɸ 20 @200
18 2 ɸ 20 @200 18 2 ɸ 25 @200
19 2 ɸ 25 @200 19 2 ɸ 40 @125
20 2 ɸ 40 @200 20 2 ɸ 20 @200
21 2 ɸ 32 @200 21 2 ɸ 25 @200
22 2 ɸ 40 @200 22 2 ɸ 32 @200
BARS VERTICAL
1 2 ɸ 40 @200 1 3 ɸ 40 @200
2 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 3 ɸ 32 @200
3 3 ɸ 40 @200 3 3 ɸ 40 @200
4 2 ɸ 32 @200 4 2 ɸ 40 @200
5 2 ɸ 20 @200 5 2 ɸ 32 @200
6 2 ɸ 25 @200 6 2 ɸ 40 @150
7 2 ɸ 40 @200 7 2 ɸ 40 @200
8 2 ɸ 20 @200 8 2 ɸ 25 @200
9 2 ɸ 40 @200
It is important to note that the tensile effort at mid-span, although reduced, is not taken up as much as
initially desired by the cables. In fact, the prestressing is arranged only on the deep beam and has been
defined to resume only the tensile force of this one. However, it must be considered that the bottom of
the deep beam is connected to the embankment slab, which will also take advantage of the prestressing.
This is due to the fact that the modelling includes that of the slab. In order to avoid the "benefit" of cables,
it is possible to consider a constructive solution: the installation of cables, tensioning and concreting of
the deep beam in a first constructive phase, then in a second phase of the slab. This will therefore limit
the compression force in the slab through the cables.
It is also important to mention that the optimization study and the verification of limit states with the
prestressing cables are focus on the deep beam. Thus, it should be noted that the first column in the
current state, cannot be considered, because its section is no longer suitable for resuming efforts.
Indeed, in the initial model, the link zone between the first column and the deep beam was already a
critical zone. It would therefore require an adjustment of its section, to avoid the bursting of the concrete.
76
10.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE INITIAL STRUCTURE AND THE OPTIMIZED
MODEL
As mentioned in chapter 2.1, the optimization of the thickness doesn’t consider the necessity to have a
certain weight to guarantee the general stability of the structure. However, the comparison between the
two models is done at the financial level and focusing only on the main frame (vertical and horizontal).
In Table 28, the volume of concrete and the quantity of steel is mentioned. In the optimized model, a
reduction of the concrete, as well as a reduction of the horizontal reinforcement is observable. This last
reduction is mainly due to the weaker need of the minimum reinforcement to remain the control of the
cracking and the installation of the prestressing cables.
On the other hand, an increase in the vertical reinforcement is visible. This is due first of all to the
removal of the central column, which causes a recovery of the vertical force greater, to redirect to the
columns at the end. It is also important to note the strong vertical reinforcement arranged near of the
edge at the top of the deep beam; 3 layers of 40 diameter reinforcement on each side. The rate is at the
limit of the maximum area recommended by Eurocode [9.6.2 [2], i.e. 4% of the area of the concrete
section.
It should be noted that in these calculations, the price of the withdrawal of the second column is not
recognized. However, this does not create a big difference. So the final price between the two models
remains in the same price range.
The optimization of the deep beam had the primary objective of reducing the volume of concrete
disposed. However, given the increase in reinforcement weight required in return, especially in the area
of the first column, it is wise to ask, if a change in the final shape or a layout of the first column in a way
to resume better the strut, would not be more appropriate for the structure.
Table 29 Comparison between the initial model and the optimized model
Price Price Price

Initial Optimized Rate [%]
[€/units] initial [€] optimized [€]
Concrete Volume [m3] 776 442 - 43 73 56’648 32’266
Horizontal Weight [kg] 52’640 30’100 - 42.8 0.8 42’112 24’080
Vertical Weight [kg] 67’802 93’158 + 37.4 0.8 54’242 74’547

Prestressing [kg] - 6284 + 100 4 - 25’133
Total Density [kg/m3] 155.2 279 + 88.9 22’130 153’000 156’005
77
Figure 71 Horizontal stresses and normal effort at each mi- Figure 70 Horizontal stress and normal effort at mi-span
span for the initial model for the optimized model without prestressing
Figure 72 Horizontal stress and normal effort at mi-span for

the optimized model with prestressing
In the figures above, it is possible to observe that the final model (figure 72) obtain horizontal stresses
and a tensile force at mid-span
Figurein
73the same stress
Horizontal orderand
of normal
magnitude
effort as the initial
at mi-span for model (figure 71) and that
the optimized
the model with the prestressing doesn’t resumemodel with
all the prestressing
tension of the model without preload (figure 70).
This is due to the modelling of the slab, as mentioned in the previous chapter.
However, for our study, given the amount of prestressing cables disposed and its implementation limit
on the thickness of the deep beam, it was considered that it was not advisable to dispose more. In
addition, the internal forces are considered acceptable in view of the order of magnitude similar to the
initial model.
In future work, it would be advantageous to conduct a study on the section of the first column in a way
to be more adequate. Like mentioned in the previous chapter, the column risk a bursting of the concrete.
Also with the anchor heads and the consequent reinforcement above the column 1, the implementation
is complicated. In addition, the column must take a big strut. So, the section of the column could be
adapted to these requirements, for example, a larger section on the top of the column.
78
11. CONCLUSION
This work studied the behavior of a deep beam with a high thickness, thanks to different methods of
analysis, using the European norms, but also the Swiss norms. The elastic method with known
theoretical values, first of all made it possible to identify the expected efforts and the different modeling
approaches.
Then, the method of the stress fields and the modeling of the efforts in the plane with the method of the
strut and tie, allowed to bring in information concerning the behavior of the internal forces.
The design of the deep beam and the columns, in order to establish a reinforcement plan, made possible
to approach various points essential to the design of all structures. Thus, the resistance to the ultimate
limit state, but also so that the serviceability limit state could be verified.
The desire to optimize the thickness of the deep beam and the number of columns enabled the
possibility to design an alternative model to the initial deep beam. These could be compared in terms of
the amount of concrete and steel laid.
In the continuity of this project, it is possible to note other variants, but which come to consider the
neighboring structures and the general stability of the central. The optimization of the section of the first
column facing the section of the deep beam should also be studied, but considering the architectural
wishes of its disposition. It would also be possible to improve the disposition of prestressing, especially
in the connection zone with the first column. These latest studies require a need for additional plant-
wide information, which is only partially provided as part of this project.
A more in detail study of the establishment and the process of construction of the whole structure could
also have been considered.
79
REFERENCES
[1] Documentation of the central’s operation: Oliveira C., Gama, V., Vaz Rodrigues, R., Santo A. Central
do Reforço de Potência do Escalão de Alqueva. Encontro Nacional de Betão Estrutural 2012;
[2] NP EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for building;
[3] US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design: Stability analysis of concrete structures, EM
1110-2-2100, 1 December 2005;
[4] KOSTIC Neven, « Topologie des champs de contraintes pour le dimensionnement des structures en
béton armé », Thèse n°4414 (2009), EPFL, Lausanne, 11 juin 2009
[5] Prof. Dr. MUTTONI Aurelio et Dr. FERNÁNDEZ RUIZ Miguel, « Champs de contraintes pour le béton
structural », Article tracés n°05, 21 mars 2017 ;
[6] Support documentation for Imesh and IConc software: Assistants personal powerpoints for constraint
field project;
[7] CSI Computers & Structures INC., CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE and
CSiBridge, ISO GEN062708M1 Rev.14 Berkeley, California, USA, July 2015
[8] Grekow, A., Isnard, V., Mrozowicz, Formulario del ingeniero (Formulaire de l’Ingénieur avec exposés
de méthodes pratiques de calcul d’ouvrages de Génie civil), Urmo, S.A. de Ediciones, 1964.
[9] Renaud Favre, Jean-Paul Jaccoud, Olivier Burdet and Hazem Charif, Dimensionnement des
structures en béton, Aptitude au service et éléments de structures, Traité de Génie Civil de l’Ecole
polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Volume 8, Presse polytechniques et universitaires romandes,
1997
[10] Norme suisse SN 505 262, SIA 262 : 2013 construction en béton, Société suisse des ingénieurs et
des architectes, 2013
[11] Prof. Dr Aurelio Muttoni, Dr Miguel Fernández Ruiz, Structures en béton, Ecole Polytechnique
Féférale de Lausanne, Année académique 2014-2015
[12] NP EN 1990: 2002, Eurocodes - Basis of structural design
[13] Anton J. Schleiss et Henri Pougatsch, Les barrages du projet à la mise en service, Traité de Génie
Civil de l’Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Volume 17, Presse polytechniques et universitaires
romandes, 2011
[14] F. Leonhardt, E. Mönnig, Construções de concreto, Princípios básicos sobre a armação de

estruturas de concreto armado, Vol. 3, Editora Interciéncia LTDA, 1978
80
[15] J. Schlaich, K. Schäfer, M. Jennewein, Toward a consistent Design of Strucutural Concrete, Special
Report, PCI Journal, 1987
[16] NP EN 1997-1:2004, Eurocode 7: Geptechnical design – Part 1: General rules;
Picture
[13] Picture of the Alqueva dam, in Alentejo (Portugal), O centro do Sul, Alqueva quase no máximo,
mas não se prevêem descargas, https://ocentrodosul.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/alqueva-quase-no-
maximo-mas-nao-se-preveem-descargas/, Consulted in January 2018;
81
ANNEX
Annex A – Results for the vertical reinforcement for the initial deep beam in the verification of the ULS and SLS
Effort ULS Effort SLS Geométry As1 - Inside As2 - Outside
Band
M sd Nsd M Car. NCar. h d d' b 1st Layer 2nd Layer 3nd Layer 1st Layer 2nd Layer 3nd Layer
- kN m kN kN m kN m m m m f s(m) f s(m) f s(m) f s(m) f s(m) f s(m)
CV-A-01 -6 041.6 598.2 -4 475.5 443.0 1.80 1.720 0.060 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-A-02 -5 450.8 175.8 -4 036.8 127.2 1.80 1.728 0.060 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-A-03 -3 125.3 -39.2 -2 313.6 -31.9 1.80 1.735 0.060 1.00 25 0.200 25 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-A-04 -1 584.5 538.8 -1 172.0 399.0 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-A-05 923.4 -1 175.9 684.5 -872.2 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-A-06 1 052.8 -1 133.0 780.0 -787.9 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-B-01 -11 453.1 4 067.3 -8 485.3 3 004.3 2.80 2.700 0.070 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-B-02 -4 942.2 -2 711.6 -3 663.0 -2 003.8 2.80 2.700 0.070 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-B-03 -7 116.8 -4 308.7 -5 269.1 -3 191.4 2.80 2.712 0.070 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-B-04 -2 319.4 -4 305.3 -1 714.2 -3 188.7 2.80 2.712 0.070 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 25 0.200 25 0.200 25 0.200
CV-B-05 -1 065.3 1 825.0 -787.9 1 342.6 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200
CV-B-06 7 513.1 -4 785.6 5 569.9 -3 544.8 2.80 2.730 0.100 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200
CV-B-07 9 445.9 -4 893.0 7 000.0 -3 624.4 2.80 2.712 0.100 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200
CV-B-08 -2 073.3 -4 617.0 -1 535.8 -3 422.1 2.80 2.712 0.088 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200
CV-B-09 621.4 -4 993.8 462.0 -3 700.1 2.80 2.723 0.088 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200
CV-B-10 11 457.5 -4 997.0 8 490.2 -3 702.0 2.80 2.723 0.100 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 40 0.150 40 0.150 40 0.150
82
Ultimate Limit State Serviceability Limit State
Section Face
r=
Mrd max Mrd min µ Check wk, lim wk Check ss sc wk ss conditione
(Asi /bd)
r
- kNm kNm - % (Mrd / Msd) mm mm (wk, lim /wk ) MPa MPa mm MPa -
CV-A-01 2794.7 -9369.2 -0.100 0.007 YES (-1.551) 0.3 0.18 Yes 207 12.4 No crack -61.9 1
CV-A-05 1319.1 -1319.2 0.015 0.002 YES (-1.429) 0.3 0.31 Yes 268 0.0 - 9.1 2
CV-A-06 1356.0 -1356.1 0.017 0.002 YES (-1.288) 0.3 0.31 Yes 273 1.9 No crack -1.5 2
CV-B-01 10803.2 -25180.1 -0.077 0.007 YES (-2.199) 0.3 0.09 Yes 114 10.2 No crack -55.4 1
CV-B-03 -317.5 -8245.6 -0.048 0.004 YES (-1.159) 0.3 0.27 Yes 296 3.6 No crack -11.4 1
CV-B-04 702.0 -8249.7 -0.016 0.004 YES (-3.557) 0.3 0.30 Yes 185 0.0 0.219 170.9 2
CV-B-06 15396.8 976.3 0.050 0.007 YES (-2.049) 0.3 0.17 Yes 205 2.7 No crack -8.5 2
CV-B-07 15119.5 -7311.4 0.064 0.007 YES (-1.601) 0.3 0.23 Yes 238 4.6 No crack -17.8 2
CV-B-08 7739.6 -7739.7 -0.014 0.004 YES (-3.733) 0.3 0.23 Yes 190 0.0 0.092 93.3 1
CV-B-09 7294.3 -7234.4 0.004 0.004 YES (-11.738) 0.3 0.21 Yes 167 0.0 0.177 139.4 2
CV-B-10 22201.8 -7168.4 0.077 0.009 YES (-1.938) 0.3 0.17 Yes 202 5.6 No crack -25.0 2
83
Annex B – Results for the horizontal reinforcement for the initial deep beam in the verification of the ULS and SLS

Band

CH-A-1 1 751.7 -445.6 1 298.3 -330.0 1.80 1.740 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2
CH-A-2 1 581.8 -105.3 1 172.4 -78.0 1.80 1.740 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2
CH-A-3 1 371.5 59.8 1 016.8 44.2 1.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-A-4 1 115.5 30.5 827.2 22.4 1.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-A-5 786.4 46.9 583.5 34.5 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-A-6 235.6 104.6 175.1 77.2 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-A-7 3 731.4 -295.0 2 765.5 -217.9 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-A-8 1 665.5 223.0 1 236.0 164.8 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-A-9 975.0 315.1 724.4 232.9 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-A-10 181.0 478.8 136.0 353.8 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-A-11 -699.4 -2 003.4 -516.3 -1 480.4 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-A-12 522.6 -5 494.5 388.7 -4 059.6 2.80 2.712 0.088 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-A-13 4 816.2 -12 939.0 3 568.8 -9 562.3 2.80 2.700 0.100 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.2 40 0.15
CH-B-01 1 459.9 1 578.6 1 082.1 1 162.8 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-B-02 1 303.7 1 478.6 966.4 1 089.5 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-B-03 885.3 1 378.5 656.6 1 017.8 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-B-04 609.7 1 148.6 452.5 845.1 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-B-05 297.2 673.0 220.9 491.7 2.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-B-06 754.0 1 373.6 559.4 1 011.6 2.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-B-07 2 432.7 640.0 1 804.4 466.6 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-B-08 2 103.2 -971.5 1 560.4 -718.6 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-B-09 1 666.2 -1 815.5 1 236.8 -1 340.8 2.80 2.730 0.070 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2 20 0.20
CH-B-10 1 188.1 -2 582.3 882.7 -1 906.2 2.80 2.730 0.078 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-B-11 643.1 -3 086.6 479.1 -2 277.6 2.80 2.712 0.078 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-B-12 -24.4 -5 477.3 -15.0 -4 046.2 2.80 2.712 0.088 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-B-13 524.9 -9 184.9 392.5 -6 783.6 2.80 2.700 0.100 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.2 40 0.20
CH-C-01 1 410.7 2 962.9 1 045.5 2 180.2 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-C-02 1 302.9 2 517.0 965.7 1 852.7 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-C-03 1 164.4 2 063.5 863.2 1 519.1 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-C-04 996.3 1 596.7 738.7 1 175.2 2.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-C-05 799.0 1 033.6 592.6 761.9 2.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-C-06 588.7 340.9 436.9 252.3 2.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-C-07 3 023.6 -879.7 2 242.1 -654.3 2.80 2.750 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-C-08 3 023.6 -879.7 2 242.1 -654.3 2.80 2.750 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-C-09 2 787.7 -1 902.2 2 067.5 -1 409.6 2.80 2.748 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-C-10 2 513.0 -2 982.5 1 864.0 -2 205.0 2.80 2.744 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-C-11 1 937.2 -4 233.8 1 437.6 -3 125.2 2.80 2.740 0.072 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-C-12 2 226.1 -3 904.6 1 651.6 -2 884.0 2.80 2.740 0.072 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-C-13 520.7 -2 856.4 389.1 -2 102.0 2.80 2.744 0.060 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2 25 0.20
CH-D-01 1 347.2 4 213.8 998.3 3 104.7 1.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-D-02 1 272.3 3 489.7 942.9 2 571.7 1.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-D-03 1 173.5 2 783.0 869.8 2 051.1 1.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-D-04 1 052.9 2 095.6 780.6 1 544.4 1.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-D-05 924.6 1 421.9 685.4 1 047.6 1.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-D-06 818.1 749.5 606.7 548.0 1.80 1.756 0.050 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-D-07 3 471.2 -401.8 2 573.2 -299.2 2.80 2.754 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-D-08 3 333.0 -1 390.0 2 471.0 -1 029.2 2.80 2.748 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-D-09 3 171.0 -2 369.7 2 351.1 -1 751.4 2.80 2.744 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-D-10 2 966.3 -3 204.0 2 199.7 -2 366.4 2.80 2.744 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-D-11 2 700.9 -4 915.8 2 003.5 -3 634.1 2.80 2.740 0.080 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.2 40 0.20
CH-D-12 2 360.5 -7 479.4 1 751.7 -5 528.5 2.80 2.720 0.080 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.2 40 0.20
CH-D-13 539.8 -10 096.6 402.6 -7 457.1 2.80 2.720 0.100 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.2 40 0.20
CH-E-01 1 291.5 3 189.3 956.6 2 358.4 2.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-E-02 1 238.3 2 495.3 917.3 1 844.8 2.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-E-03 1 171.5 1 978.0 867.9 1 462.1 2.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-E-04 1 097.2 1 582.5 813.0 1 169.7 2.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CH-E-05 1 024.6 1 271.8 759.4 940.2 2.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-E-06 958.5 1 015.1 710.5 750.5 2.80 1.756 0.053 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CH-E-07 3 733.8 1 209.7 2 767.6 894.7 2.80 2.756 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-E-08 3 710.4 387.6 2 750.5 286.7 2.80 2.756 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-E-09 3 798.7 -1 141.1 2 816.0 -845.3 2.80 2.750 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-E-10 4 945.8 -2 830.5 3 664.3 -2 093.6 2.80 2.744 0.080 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2 32 0.20
CH-E-11 6 360.1 -4 913.3 4 711.8 -3 632.7 2.80 2.740 0.100 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.15 40 0.15
CH-E-12 9 207.6 -7 454.6 6 821.3 -5 511.0 2.80 2.720 0.100 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.15 40 0.15
CH-E-13 6 327.8 -9 807.2 4 689.6 -7 248.5 2.80 2.720 0.100 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.15 40 0.15
84
Section r= Face
Mrd max Mrd min µ Check wk, lim wk Check ss sc wk ss
(Asi /bd) conditioner
CH-A-1 5487.2 -1925.0 0.029 0.005 YES (-3.132) 0.3 0.10 YES 118.2 3.90 No crack -17.8 2
CH-A-5 2359.5 -2359.7 0.013 0.002 YES (-3) 0.3 0.11 YES 106.2 2.77 No crack -12.6 2
CH-A-10 6106.8 -6107.1 0.001 0.002 YES (-33.734) 0.3 0 YES No crack 0.22 No crack No crack No crack
CH-A-11 2795.9 -2795.9 -0.005 0.002 YES (-3.998) 0.3 0.29 YES 198.3 0 0.134231 115.9 1
CH-A-12 6574.0 -6574.0 0.004 0.004 YES (-12.58) 0.3 0.21 YES 180.5 0 0.179208 156.0 2
CH-A-13 11598.9 -4487.5 0.033 0.009 YES (-2.408) 0.3 0.24 YES 244.9 0 0.185342 180.8 2
CH-B-01 5666.7 -7537.7 0.024 0.003 YES (-3.882) 0.3 0.00 YES 1.8 1.56 No crack -9.0 2
CH-B-03 5408.0 -7307.1 0.015 0.003 YES (-6.109) 0.3 0 YES No crack 0.84 No crack No crack No crack
CH-B-09 3049.8 -3049.9 0.011 0.002 YES (-1.83) 0.3 0.27 YES 240.9 0 0.037288 43.6 2
CH-B-10 5102.8 -2002.9 0.008 0.003 YES (-4.295) 0.3 0.21 YES 174.3 0 0.163643 132.2 2
CH-B-11 4370.6 -9821.3 0.004 0.003 YES (-6.796) 0.3 0.24 YES 180.0 0 0.066063 79.0 2
CH-B-12 6596.9 -6596.9 0.000 0.004 YES (-270.19) 0.3 0.23 YES 168.2 0 0.232101 167.2 1
CH-B-13 9390.5 -9390.4 0.004 0.007 YES (-17.889) 0.3 0.26 YES 188.0 0 0.230772 171.9 2
CH-C-01 7414.6 -9072.9 0.023 0.003 YES (-5.256) 0.3 0 YES No crack 1.54 No crack No crack No crack
CH-C-06 2776.4 -5403.8 0.010 0.002 YES (-4.716) 0.3 0.07 YES 23.9 1.36 No crack -7.2 2
CH-C-07 7441.3 -4335.0 0.020 0.003 YES (2,461) 0.3 0.13 YES 158.3 3.06 No crack -14.7 2
CH-C-10 4608.3 -1466.1 0.017 0.003 YES (1,834) 0.3 0.25 YES 243.6 0.00 0.087622 87.3 2
CH-C-11 2920.9 -8338.1 0.013 0.003 YES (1,508) 0.3 0.32 YES 284.4 0.00 0.066751 85.5 2
CH-C-12 3361.3 -8780.4 0.015 0.003 YES (1,51) 0.3 0.32 YES 279.0 0.00 0.050212 68.8 2
CH-C-13 4776.3 -10247.7 0.003 0.003 YES (9,173) 0.3 0.18 YES 162.2 0.00 0.060283 75.2 2
CH-D-01 6830.6 -5778.4 0.022 0.003 YES (5,07) 0.3 0.00 YES No crack 3.44 No crack No crack No crack
CH-D-02 6350.7 -5228.1 0.021 0.003 YES (4,992) 0.3 0.00 YES 1.3 3.07 No crack -18.0 2
CH-D-09 10883.9 -2294.1 0.021 0.004 YES (3,432) 0.3 0.12 YES 145.1 0.35 - 1.7 2
CH-D-10 9789.0 -1168.4 0.020 0.004 YES (3,3) 0.3 0.15 YES 165.7 0.00 0.089761 77.9 2
CH-D-11 15349.8 -7376.1 0.018 0.007 YES (5,683) 0.3 0.13 YES 135.6 0.00 0.095938 89.3 2
CH-D-12 11790.8 -11790.9 0.016 0.007 YES (4,995) 0.3 0.21 YES 181.9 0.00 0.116226 111.5 2
CH-D-13 8356.2 -8146.9 0.004 0.007 YES (15,481) 0.3 0.26 YES 204.4 0.00 0.255094 191.2 1
CH-E-01 7738.5 -9295.8 0.021 0.003 YES (5,992) 0.3 0 YES No crack 1.53 No crack No crack No crack
CH-E-06 3700.5 -6221.6 0.016 0.002 YES (3,861) 0.3 0 YES 1.5 1.04 No crack -6.1 2
CH-E-07 15506.3 -7157.9 0.025 0.004 YES (4,153) 0.3 0.04 YES 57.5 3.79 No crack -21.2 2
CH-E-11 15322.1 -7274.6 0.042 0.007 YES (2,409) 0.3 0.16 YES 189.6 0.29 - 5.2 2
CH-E-12 11829.0 -11660.0 0.062 0.007 YES (1,285) 0.3 0.27 YES 283.2 0.20 - 9.2 2
CH-E-13 8735.9 -8531.0 0.043 0.007 YES (1,381) 0.3 0.31 YES 285.8 0.00 0.098272 98.8 2
85
Annex C - Results for the vertical reinforcement for the optimal deep beam with prestressing in the verification of the ULS and SLS

Band
Msd Nsd MCar. NCar. h d d' b 1st Layer 2nd Layer 3nd Layer 1st Layer 2nd Layer 3nd Layer

CV-A-01 -4 698.8 597.7 -3 489.2 439.2 0.80 0.700 0.056 1.00 40 0.125 40 0.125 40 0.125 40 0.20 40 0.2
CV-A-02 -4 201.4 548.9 -3 759.2 405.4 0.80 0.700 0.056 1.00 40 0.125 40 0.125 40 0.125 16 0.20 16 0.2
CV-A-03 -3 715.1 -1 740.8 -2 733.7 -1 206.1 0.80 0.700 0.060 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.2
CV-A-04 -2 747.0 -1 773.5 -2 006.8 -1 244.5 0.80 0.700 0.060 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.2
CV-A-05 -1 951.6 -1 712.4 -1 414.3 -1 220.6 0.80 0.700 0.060 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.2
CV-A-06 -926.3 -849.2 -660.7 -565.6 0.80 0.712 0.056 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.2
CV-B-01 -8 422.4 7 222.0 -7 293.3 4 928.5 1.80 1.700 0.060 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.2 40 0.20
CV-B-02 -11 203.5 -3 114.1 -8 351.6 -2 528.5 1.80 1.700 0.065 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.2
CV-B-03 -5 755.7 -4 126.6 -4 313.6 563.1 1.80 1.700 0.072 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CV-B-04 -3 961.4 -4 429.9 -2 904.9 -3 243.1 1.80 1.700 0.072 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CV-B-05 -2 318.4 -3 995.8 -1 663.2 -2 940.8 1.80 1.700 0.072 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.2
CV-B-06 2 334.7 -4 346.8 1 840.7 -3 224.2 1.80 1.728 0.080 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.2
CV-B-07 4 448.1 -4 068.4 3 475.0 -2 974.8 1.80 1.728 0.180 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.2
CV-B-08 -5 445.4 -4 456.8 -3 985.1 -4 130.0 1.80 1.700 0.072 1.00 40 0.150 40 0.150 20 0.20 20 0.2
CV-B-09 -3 293.8 -3 123.0 -2 355.6 -2 241.3 1.80 1.720 0.065 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.2
CV-B-10 6 795.2 -3 462.5 5 231.4 -2 429.1 1.80 1.735 0.080 1.00 25 0.200 25 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.2

Section r= Face
CV-A-01 3929.5 -7480.3 -0.4244 0.0405 Sim (1.592) 0.3 0.137 YES 176.34 25.33 NO Cracks -109.2 1
CV-B-01 18802.9 -18814.2 -0.1391 0.0108 Sim (2.234) 0.3 0.114 YES 135.67 16.16 NO Cracks -84.5 1
CV-B-02 3424.1 -11637.1 -0.1861 0.0109 Sim (1.039) 0.3 0.305 YES 340.01 16.57 NO Cracks -75.0 1
CV-B-03 -1081.9 -6119.3 -0.0964 0.0073 Sim (1.063) 0.3 0.181 YES 196.74 12.14 NO Cracks -57.9 1
CV-B-04 -19.0 -5869.3 -0.0663 0.0073 Sim (1.482) 0.3 0.263 YES 268.39 2.67 - 0.3 1
CV-B-05 342.9 -6224.6 -0.0388 0.0073 Sim (2.685) 0.3 0.219 YES 196.30 0.00 0.161 96.6 1
CV-B-06 5935.5 -2465.3 0.0391 0.0073 Sim (2.542) 0.3 0.240 YES 216.55 0.00 0.062 62.5 2
CV-B-07 6215.5 -2333.1 0.0745 0.0073 Sim (1.397) 0.3 0.293 YES 285.28 6.00 NO Cracks -2.9 2
CV-B-10 9841.3 -825.4 0.1129 0.0097 Sim (1.448) 0.3 0.231 YES 262.47 10.36 NO Cracks -47.8 2
86
Annex D - Results for the horizontal reinforcement for the optimal deep beam with prestressing in the verification of the ULS and
SLS

Band

CH-A-1 640.5 -463.7 487.9 -343.0 0.80 0.744 0.060 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-A-2 466.8 142.4 360.5 102.3 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-A-3 258.4 95.0 207.0 69.3 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-A-4 8.3 111.8 22.4 75.8 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-A-5 -307.3 128.2 -212.1 88.6 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-A-6 -660.7 241.8 -495.5 158.0 0.80 0.740 0.056 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-A-7 1 980.5 -1 184.1 1 489.4 -804.7 1.80 1.740 0.065 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.20
CH-A-8 232.5 379.0 264.8 240.5 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-A-9 -139.2 468.6 2.8 294.2 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-A-10 -305.5 675.4 -178.9 421.6 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-A-11 29.2 1 154.4 110.9 733.8 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-A-12 285.8 -2 794.7 3 191.9 1 052.2 1.80 1.735 0.065 1.00 25 0.200 25 0.200 25 0.15 25 0.15
CH-A-13 3 630.0 -10 862.4 2 816.9 -3 145.6 1.80 1.720 0.080 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.15
CH-B-01 431.2 3 910.8 331.1 2 672.7 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-B-02 274.0 3 734.8 215.8 2 583.1 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-B-03 -84.6 3 411.6 -48.5 2 410.4 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-B-04 -288.1 3 282.2 -199.5 2 347.6 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-B-05 -517.1 3 179.5 -370.4 2 322.2 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-B-06 -183.9 3 351.4 -122.1 2 382.1 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-B-07 567.0 6 104.6 490.9 4 482.3 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-B-08 366.7 5 753.3 340.2 4 450.4 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-B-09 98.7 3 958.2 159.2 3 540.7 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-B-10 -187.1 1 440.0 -48.9 1 903.5 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-B-11 -350.4 -2 763.9 -164.8 -862.2 1.80 1.735 0.065 1.00 25 0.200 25 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.20
CH-B-12 -108.4 -5 876.1 13.7 -2 959.9 1.80 1.728 0.072 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.20
CH-B-13 288.9 -8 903.8 296.0 -4 993.5 1.80 1.720 0.080 1.00 40 0.125 40 0.125 40 0.20 40 0.20
CH-C-01 456.8 7 972.6 346.3 5 542.4 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-C-02 324.8 6 916.9 250.1 4 846.2 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-C-03 175.2 6 086.4 140.5 4 309.4 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-C-04 10.5 5 420.2 19.4 3 890.2 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-C-05 -166.8 4 869.3 -111.5 3 555.2 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-C-06 -349.0 4 417.6 -247.2 3 290.9 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-C-07 715.5 8 963.0 600.0 6 827.0 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-C-08 715.5 8 963.0 600.0 6 827.0 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-C-09 516.8 6 289.4 453.4 5 111.2 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-C-10 296.5 3 564.3 288.9 3 295.4 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-C-11 -152.6 -3 549.8 -47.2 -1 474.9 1.80 1.735 0.065 1.00 25 0.200 25 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.20
CH-C-12 77.3 803.6 124.4 1 452.9 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-C-13 -106.2 -9 804.4 -38.4 -5 729.6 1.80 1.720 0.080 1.00 40 0.125 40 0.125 40 0.20 40 0.20
CH-D-01 478.0 7 781.2 358.6 5 397.6 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-D-02 370.8 6 677.6 281.1 4 670.3 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-D-03 246.2 5 742.9 190.5 4 061.0 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-D-04 107.2 4 956.4 89.0 3 556.7 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-D-05 -41.6 4 298.1 -20.8 3 145.1 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-D-06 -192.9 3 755.7 -132.0 2 818.7 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-D-07 993.0 7 404.3 805.5 5 707.8 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-D-08 825.2 5 083.9 684.1 4 190.6 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-D-09 671.4 3 173.5 575.1 3 006.0 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-D-10 483.1 761.6 440.1 1 431.0 1.80 1.740 0.060 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 20 0.20 20 0.20
CH-D-11 257.8 -3 544.1 271.3 -1 468.5 1.80 1.735 0.065 1.00 25 0.200 25 0.200 25 0.20 25 0.20
CH-D-12 32.2 -6 658.8 103.3 -3 595.3 1.80 1.720 0.080 1.00 40 0.200 40 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.20
CH-D-13 -212.8 -9 785.5 -71.7 -5 715.3 1.80 1.720 0.080 1.00 40 0.125 40 0.125 40 0.20 40 0.20
CH-E-01 503.8 3 390.1 372.5 2 312.8 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-E-02 436.2 2 898.1 324.5 1 998.2 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-E-03 353.5 2 469.0 265.5 1 722.2 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-E-04 259.0 2 089.4 198.0 1 478.1 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-E-05 155.5 1 753.4 123.9 1 263.9 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-E-06 43.5 1 454.8 42.7 1 077.9 0.80 0.744 0.056 1.00 16 0.200 16 0.200 16 0.20 16 0.20
CH-E-07 2 846.2 2 664.1 2 145.7 2 046.4 1.80 1.740 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.20
CH-E-08 3 103.6 1 881.6 2 329.6 1 616.9 1.80 1.740 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.20
CH-E-09 3 673.7 935.2 2 735.6 1 076.0 1.80 1.740 0.072 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 32 0.20 32 0.20
CH-E-10 4 771.6 343.2 3 521.2 770.5 1.80 1.740 0.080 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.20
CH-E-11 6 991.0 -1 459.4 5 109.7 746.8 1.80 1.740 0.080 1.00 20 0.200 20 0.200 40 0.20 40 0.20
CH-E-12 11 243.6 -3 830.2 7 998.8 -1 294.9 1.80 1.735 0.080 1.00 25 0.200 25 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.15 40 0.15
CH-E-13 8 648.0 -6 184.5 6 534.4 -2 780.3 1.80 1.728 0.080 1.00 32 0.200 32 0.200 40 0.15 40 0.15 40 0.15
87
Section r= Face
CH-A-1 855.0 -490.5 0.06 0.0042 Sim (1.335) 0.30 0.2965703 YES 276.498827 8.32 No Cracks -24.06 2
CH-A-5 703.9 -703.9 -0.03 0.0027 Sim (2.291) 0.30 0.12569659 YES 128.76333 4.68 No Cracks -16.54 1
CH-A-9 2826.8 -2826.9 0.00 0.0018 Sim (20.312) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 0.16 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-A-11 3392.4 -3392.6 0.00 0.0018 Sim (116.087) 0.3 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 0.59 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-B-01 1778.9 -1778.9 0.04 0.0027 Sim (4.126) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 6.15 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-B-03 1674.8 -1674.8 -0.007639 0.0027 Sim (19.803) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 3.35 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-B-05 1622.6 -1622.6 -0.0467133 0.0027 Sim (3.138) 0.30 0.00012933 YES 0.26346041 6.10 No Cracks -34.18 1
CH-B-11 1437.7 -1437.6 -0.01 0.0028 Sim (4.102) 0.3 0.1182 YES 107.926646 0 0.074 67.72 1
CH-B-12 1214.7 -1214.7 0.00 0.0047 Sim (11.206) 0.3 0.2875 YES 185.041711 0 0.284 182.99 2
CH-B-13 2111.1 -7784.2 0.00 0.0073 Sim (7.307) 0.3 0.2839 YES 213.050474 0 0.116 115.2 2
CH-C-01 2116.9 -2116.9 0.041 0.0027 Sim (4.635) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 9.76 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-C-05 1942.8 -1942.8 -0.015 0.0027 Sim (11.647) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 5.29 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-C-06 1870.6 -1870.6 -0.03 0.0027 Sim (5.359) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 6.16 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-C-11 778.3 -778.3 0.00 0.0028 Sim (5.099) 0.30 0.2250 YES 155.982244 0 0.202 144.47 1
CH-C-13 1369.1 -7033.8 0.00 0.0117 Sim (66.231) 0.30 0.3139 YES 226.109225 0 0.154 143.65 2
CH-D-01 2131.3 -2131.3 0.04 0.0027 Sim (4.459) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 9.70 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-D-06 1747.3 -1747.3 -0.02 0.0027 Sim (9.057) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 4.58 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-D-11 783.1 -783.1 0.00 0.0028 Sim (3.038) 0.30 0.2514 YES 182.678262 0 0.130 116.49 2
CH-D-12 3964.2 -3964.1 0.00 0.0073 Sim (123.059) 0.30 0.2115 YES 148.065381 0 0.194 138.04 2
CH-D-13 1384.7 -7049.6 0.00 0.0117 Sim (33.125) 0.30 0.3115 YES 223.925095 0 0.155 144.3 2
CH-E-01 1670.1 -1670.1 0 0.0027 Sim (3.315) 0.30 0.0002 YES 0.48685921 6.11 No Cracks -34.23 2
CH-E-02 1555.9 -1555.9 0 0.0027 Sim (3.567) 0.30 0.0003 YES 0.59189441 5.31 No Cracks -29.72 2
CH-E-03 1447.3 -1447.3 0 0.0027 Sim (4.095) 0.30 0 YES N‹o Fendilha 4.42 No Cracks No Cracks No Cracks
CH-E-07 7977.5 -4637.0 0.05 0.0046 Sim (2.803) 0.30 0.0412 YES 62.8396489 6.96 No Cracks -37.84 2
88
Annex E Reinforcement of the model 1 and 2 with the strut and tie analysis, their position and the support reaction
Strut width [mm]

Reinforcement needed
Strut width [mm]
Strut width [mm]
Model 1
Element Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc Element Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc Element Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc
[quantity of bars, diameter, [quantity of bars, diameter, [quantity of bars, diameter,
spaccing] spaccing] spaccing]
1 -918 Compression 0.55 47 54 -7290 Compression 0.55 237 107 -1978 Compression 0.55 100
2 -446 Compression 0.55 23 55 -16820 Compression 0.55 547 108 3373 Traction - 16 ɸ 22 @200 (1.8m)
3 -732 Compression 0.55 37 56 12911 Traction - 70 ɸ 26 @200 (2.8m) 109 -5049 Compression 0.55 255
5 -732 Compression 0.55 37 58 9810 Traction - 56 ɸ 26 @200 (2.8m) 111 2191 Traction - 14 ɸ 22 @200 (2.8m)
12 157 Traction - 8 ɸ 8 @200 (1.8m) 65 -7489 Compression 0.55 244 118 4481 Traction - 28 ɸ 22 @200 (2.8m)
27 4056 Traction - 28 ɸ 22 @200 (2.8m) 80 -6804 Compression 0.55 221 133 -5203 Compression 0.55 169
38 2105 Traction - 14 ɸ22@200 (2.8m) 91 -446 Compression 0.55 23 144 3610 Traction - 13 ɸ 28 @200 (2.8m)
40 3096 Traction - 14 ɸ 26 @200 (2.8m) 93 351 Traction - 9 ɸ 18 @200 (2.8m) 146 7241 Traction - 42 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m)
41 0 Traction - 0 94 -698 Compression 0.55 36 147 -6369 Compression 0.55 207
42 0 Traction - 0 95 -1325 Compression 0.55 67 148 8910 Traction - 42 ɸ 26 @200 (2.8m)
51 -11438.4 Compression 0.55 372 104 -1056 Compression 0.55 54 157 -7908 Compression 0.55 257
52 -7306 Compression 0.55 238 105 -2523 Compression 0.55 128
53 960 Traction - 13 ɸ 16 @200 (2.8m) 106 -2686 Compression 0.55 136
89
Strut width [mm]
Strut width [mm]
Strut width [mm]
Model 2
Element Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc Element Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc Element Effort [kN] Kind of effort Factor kc
[quantity of bars, diameter, [quantity of bars, diameter, [quantity of bars, diameter,
spaccing] spaccing] spaccing]
22 4905 Traction - 24 ɸ 26 @200 (1.8m) 65 -446 Compression 0.55 23 108 2198 Traction - 13 ɸ @200 (2.8m)
22* -6878 Compression 0.55 348 66 -732 Compression 0.55 37 109 -6375 Compression 0.55 15
33 8100 Traction - 39 ɸ 24 @200 (2.8m) 77 7150 Traction - 32 ɸ 26 @200 (1.8m) 120 -14866 Compression 0.55 35
41 -5788 Compression 0.55 14 85 -8103 Compression 0.55 410
42 1625 Traction - 13 ɸ 20 @200 (2.8m) 86 4905 Traction - 24 ɸ 24 @200 (1.8m)
90
Annex F Normal effort and reinforcement for a SAP200 model under vertical load
Support Reaction
Col. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3 TOTAL
F11 [kN/m’]
F1 [kN] 0 0 0 0
F2 [kN] 0 0 0 0
F3 [kN] 21216 48362 26447 96025
Reinforcement
Thickness deep beam t1 1800 mm Cover 40 mm
Thickness deep beam t2 2800 mm Spacing 200 mm
Width band b 1000 mm Number in one layer H 5 -
Design value of ocncrete compressive strength fcd 20 N/mm2 Density steel 8000 kg/m3
Yield strength of reinforcement fsd 435 N/mm2 Volume concrete 776 m3
Element Nsd,horiz. [kN/m] Aire arm. [cm2/m] Layer φ nec. [mm] φ chosen [mm] Final Length [mm] Volume [mm3]
CH-A-1 442 10.2 1 12 12 1 ɸ 12 @200 5500 3110177
CH-A-2 112 2.6 1 6 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500 1382301
CH-A-3 -56 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500
CH-A-4 -37 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500
CH-A-5 -22 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500
CH-A-6 -41 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500
CH-A-7 229 5.3 1 9 10 1 ɸ 10 @200 5500 2159845
CH-A-8 -103 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500
CH-A-9 -156 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500
CH-A-10 -260 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 5500
CH-A-11 1588 36.5 1 22 25 1 ɸ 25 @200 5500 13499031
CH-A-12 3974 91.4 2 25 25 2 ɸ 25 @200 5500 26998062
CH-A-13 15719 361.4 6 27 32 6 ɸ 32 @200 5500 132700874
CH-B-07 0 0.0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 4500
CH-B-08 698 16.0 1 15 16 1 ɸ 16 @200 4500 4523893
CH-B-09 1112 25.6 1 19 20 1 ɸ 20 @200 4500 7068583
CH-B-10 1459 33.5 1 21 25 1 ɸ 25 @200 4500 11044662
CH-B-11
CH-B-12
1622
3761
37.3
86.5
1
2
22
24
25
25
1 ɸ 25 @200
2 ɸ 25 @200
4500
4500
11044662
22089323 F22 [kN/m’]
CH-B-13 5866 134.9 4 20 20 4 ɸ 20 @200 4500 28274334
CH-C-06 271 6.2 1 9 10 1 ɸ 10 @200 4500 1767146
CH-C-07 789 18.1 1 16 16 1 ɸ 16 @200 4500 4523893
CH-C-08 789 18.1 1 16 16 1 ɸ 16 @200 4500 4523893
CH-C-09 1285 29.5 1 20 20 1 ɸ 20 @200 4500 7068583
CH-C-10 1831 42.1 1 24 25 1 ɸ 25 @200 4500 11044662
CH-C-11 2294 52.7 2 19 20 2 ɸ 20 @200 4500 14137167
CH-C-12 2244 51.6 2 19 20 2 ɸ 20 @200 4500 14137167
CH-C-13 1281 29.4 1 16 16 1 ɸ 16 @200 4500 4523893
CH-D-08 869 20.0 1 16 16 1 ɸ 16 @200 5500 5529203
CH-D-09 1306 30.0 1 20 20 1 ɸ 20 @200 5500 8639380
CH-D-10 1644 37.8 1 22 25 1 ɸ 25 @200 5500 13499031
CH-D-11 2599 59.8 2 20 20 2 ɸ 20 @200 5500 17278760
CH-D-12 4260 97.9 2 25 25 2 ɸ 25 @200 5500 26998062
CH-D-13 5792 133.2 2 27 32 2 ɸ 32 @200 5500 44233625
CH-E-09 257 5.9 1 9 10 1 ɸ 10 @200 5500 2159845
CH-E-10 1240 28.5 1 20 20 1 ɸ 20 @200 5500 8639380
CH-E-11 2566 59.0 2 20 20 2 ɸ 20 @200 5500 17278760
CH-E-12 4248 97.7 2 25 25 2 ɸ 25 @200 5500 26998062
CH-E-13 5987 137.6 2 27 32 2 ɸ 32 @200 5500 44233625
Element Nsd,vertic. [kN/m] Aire arm. [cm2/m] Layer φ nec. [mm] φ chosen [mm] Final Length [mm] Volume [mm3]
CV-B-1 2369.01 54.46 1 12 12 1 ɸ 12 @200 6850 20917352
CV-B-2 2135.21 49.08528736 1 11 12 1 ɸ 12 @200 6850 17043768
CV-B-3 0 0 1 0 8 1 ɸ 8 @200 6850 0
CV-B-4 2002.79 46.04114943 1 11 12 1 ɸ 12 @200 6850 20917352
CV-B-5 2016.3 46.35172414 1 11 12 1 ɸ 12 @200 6850 20917352
Density total 6.4 kg/m3
91
Annex G Stresses, Normal effort and bending moment in the critical zone for the initial and optimized model
First mid span - Initial model Second mid span - Initial model Mid span - Optimized model
Join Number S11 S22 Int. N My Join Number S11 S22 Int. N My Join Number S11 S22 Int. N My
In order kN/m2 kN/m2 kN kNm In order kN/m2 kN/m2 kN kNm In order kN/m2 kN/m2 kN kNm
671 -833 6299 -524,9 -1706 934 -3504 1000 -2207,3 -7174 364 -4271 4887 -2691,0 -8746
659 -658 6552 -591,8 -1672 930 -2907 1207 -2616,4 -7391 352 -3493 5105 -3143,7 -8881
651 -479 6834 -431,2 -1002 922 -2238 1479 -2013,8 -4682 344 -2647 5259 -2382,5 -5539
643 -322 7089 -290,2 -530 914 -1591 1780 -1431,9 -2613 336 -1802 5349 -1621,9 -2960
635 -166 7304 -149,0 -197 906 -950 2101 -854,6 -1132 328 -970 5378 -873,0 -1157
627 11 7461 9,6 8 898 -294 2436 -264,7 -218 320 -145 5345 -130,9 -108
619 232 7539 209,0 68 890 393 2776 353,9 115 312 673 5245 605,7 197
611 527 7506 474,1 -83 862 3830 3978 3447,4 -603 304 1488 5073 1339,5 -234
603 928 7320 835,2 -564 874 1940 3429 1746,1 -1179 296 2303 4823 2072,3 -1399
595 1468 6935 1320,9 -1552 866 2836 3721 2552,2 -2999 288 3118 4491 2806,2 -3297
587 2171 6300 1954,2 -3273 858 3830 3978 3447,4 -5774 280 3936 4072 3542,1 -5933
579 3052 5379 2746,9 -5974 850 4941 4192 4446,9 -9672 272 4764 3566 4287,8 -9326
571 3539 996 3185,0 -8520 842 5439 0 4894,9 -13094 264 5122 78 4609,7 -12331
563 4986 361 4487,2 -14247 834 7011 6 6309,5 -20033 4 6292 29 5662,8 -17979
SUM 15222,2 -39245 SUM 27198,3 -14481 SUM 24926,1 -27246
92
Annex H Drawing plans
All the plans are in format A1.
- Plan P1: Geometric representation

- Plan P2: Reinforcement plan for the initial deep beam and column 1 and 2
- Plan P3: Reinforcement plan for the optimized deep beam
93
ELEVATION VIEW
Sectional view A-A Sectional view B-B Horizontal and vertical band
1:100 1:100 1:200
B A 5,5 m 4,5 m 4,5 m 5,5 m 5,5 m

Cover slab and beams
(0.45 x 1.6 with a span of 20m)
1,25 m
CH-A-01 CH-B-01 CH-C-01 CH-D-01 CH-E-01
1 m1 m1 m1 m1 m
25,5 m 2,8 m
0,4 m
0,4 m
0,25 m 7,1 m 0,25 m CH-A-04 CH-B-04 CH-C-04 CH-D-04 CH-E-04
1,65 m
0,85 m
1,6 m
1,6 m
1 m1 m1 m1 m1 m1 m
0,73 m
0,5 m
0,45 m 2m CH-A-09 CH-B-09 CH-C-09 CH-D-09 CH-E-09
6,25 m
6,25 m
11,1 m
1m 4,5 m 4,5 m 4,5 m 5,5 m 5,5 m
Expansion 1,8 m
joint Support
of the crane
CV-A-01
6,25 m
CV-A-02 CV-A-03 CV-A-04 CV-A-05 CV-A-06
2,8 m
6,85 m
6,85 m
10,1 m
CV-B-08
CV-B-09
CV-B-07
CV-B-10
CV-B-01
CV-B-02
6,85 m
CV-B-03 CV-B-04 CV-B-05 CV-B-06
2m
2m
2,5 m
1 m1 m 3,5 m 4,5 m 4,5 m 5,5 m 2,5 m 1 m1 m1 m
Structure studied in three dimensions

Not to scale
C2 (4.0 x 1.0)
C1 (0.6 x 2.5)
Deep beam
9,01 m
9m
Slab
Cover
Beams
Column
0,6 m 9,4 m 4m 11,5 m 2,8 m

1m 9,65 m 3m
B A
Schematization of the central in the

prolongation of the sectional view B-B
Plan view Loading disposition in the sectional view A-A Loading disposition in the sectional view B-B Not to scale [1]
1:200 1:200 1:200
Expansion A B A
joint Gk,1
0,4 m
25,5 m 2,8 m Gk,1

1,6 m
g'k,1
6,25 m
Cover slab and beams

2m
g'k,1
Q
Q
8,22 m
8m 1m p(z)k TABLE OF MATERIALS

1m
1,2 m
1m
3,3 m
1m
1m
1,2 m
4,85 m
CONCRETE
g''k,1
1,8 m
B Deep beam studied B g''k,1

C30/37, XC1 (PT), Cl 0.40, Dmax 32mm, S6
2m
2m
STEEL
gk,4 gk,4
Reinforcement bars : A 500 NR SD
7,6 m
Embankment
COVERING
Schematization of the central in the Deep beam : 40 mm
9m
prolongation of the sectional view A-A Column : 40 mm

2,5 m
Not to scale [1]

MASTER PROJECT
0,6 m 9,4 m 11,5 m 2,8 m 1m

Analysis and design of a reinforced concrete deep beam with high thickness
A 4m
2,5 m
25,5 m
EPFL - Prof. Dr. Aurélio Muttoni
A
B IST - Prof. Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues
Student- Vera Lúcia Oliveira Machado Nº90845 (NºSciper 208353)
March 2018 Nº of plan : P1 Scale : 1:200 // 1:100
Geometric representation
- Elevation plan, with sectional view A-A and B-B
- Plan view
- Representation of horizontal and vertical bands
- Representation of the loading's position
- Schematization of the central in the prolongation of the A-A and B-B section
ELEVATION VIEW SECTIONAL VIEW 1-1
1 : 100
HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT - OUTSIDE HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT - INSIDE 25.45
1:200 1:200 S02 ɸ16 @400
1.50 4.00 4.50 15.50
A B C A B C 01
2 ɸ 20 @200
03 02 01 05 04 07 06 08 09 10 11 01 02 03 04 05 Outside
0.70 0.50
2 ɸ 32 @200
2.25
DETAIL 4
2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200
6.25
6.25
2.00
2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200

1 1 1 1
1.65
2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200
2.00
2 ɸ 20 @200
2.85
3.85
3 ɸ 20 @200 3 ɸ 20 @200 3 ɸ 20 @200 3 ɸ 20 @200 3 ɸ 20 @200 3 ɸ 20 @200
4.85
4.85
3 ɸ 20 @200
2 ɸ 25 @200
2 ɸ 20 @200
2 ɸ 32 @200
2 ɸ 40 @200
2 12 3 ɸ 25 @200 3 ɸ 32 @200 3 ɸ 32 @200 2 2 06 2
6.85
6.85
17
3 ɸ 25 @200
3 ɸ 32 @200 3 ɸ 32 @200 Inside
2.00 1.00
22
3 ɸ 32 @200 3 ɸ 32 @200 3 ɸ 40 @200 3 ɸ 40 @150 3 ɸ 32 @200 3 ɸ 32 @200
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
3 ɸ 32 @200 18
13 3 ɸ 40 @200 07 3 ɸ 40 @200 3 ɸ 40 @200 3 ɸ 40 @200 3 ɸ 40 @200
3 ɸ 40 @150 23
01 02 03 04
3 314 15 16 17 18
4 4 21 20
3 3 09 10 11
4 4 16 15 14 19
1.50 4.00 4.50 15.50
19 08 12 13
9.00
9.00
SECTIONAL VIEW 2-2
1 : 100
S03 ɸ16 @400
14.64 7.86 2.00 1.00

0.60 9.40 4.00 11.50 2.80 0.60 9.40 4.00 11.50 2.80
02 03 04 05
A B C A B C
3 ɸ 40 @200
3 ɸ 32 @200
3 ɸ 40 @200
3 ɸ 20 @200
Outside
VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT - OUTSIDE VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT - INSIDE 0.70 0.50
1:200 1:200 DETAIL 5
2.67
A B C A B C
25.50 1.50 4.00 4.50 15.50

01 01 02 03 04
3 ɸ 32 @200
3 ɸ 20 @200
3 ɸ 32 @200
3 ɸ 40 @200
6.25
6.25
1 1 1 1
2 ɸ 20 @200
2 ɸ 25 @200
Inside
2 ɸ 32 @200
2 ɸ 20 @200
2 ɸ 40 @200
05 06 07 08
3 ɸ 40 @200
3 ɸ 32 @200
3 ɸ 40 @200
3 ɸ 20 @200
3 ɸ 32 @200
3 ɸ 20 @200
3 ɸ 32 @200
2.50 3.00
3 ɸ 40 @200
14.50 5.50
2 2 2 2 SECTIONAL VIEW 3-3 SECTIONAL VIEW 4-4

6.85
6.85
1 : 50 1 : 50
05
05 0.50
0.50 0.40
Outside Outside
3 3 02 4 4 03 04 3 3 06 4 07 4 08
SC01 ɸ12 @100 SC04 ɸ12 @200
0.30
9.00
9.00
C2 ɸ20 @200
0.90
C1 ɸ32 @125
0.30
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3
0.60 9.40
14.50
4.00
8.00
11.50
2.00 1.00
2.80
0.60 9.40 4.00 11.50 2.80 SC03 ɸ12 @100 SC05 ɸ12 @200 1 : 50 1 : 50 1 : 50
2.50 5.50
A B C A B C Inside Inside
DETAIL 4 DETAIL 5
SECTIONAL VIEW A-A SECTIONAL VIEW B-B SECTIONAL VIEW C-C 1 : 50 1 : 50
1 : 100 1 : 100 1 : 100
Bars of the slab (not define) Bars of the slab (not define)
Bars of the slab (not define)
S01 ɸ16 @200 S01 ɸ16 @200
S01 ɸ16 @200
01 2 ɸ 32 @200
1.77
1.77
2 ɸ 20 @200 04
2.25
2 ɸ 20 @200 04
1.77
2 ɸ 40 @200 01
TABLE OF MATERIALS
4.25
4.25
2 ɸ 20 @200 01 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 01 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 CONCRETE

01 2 ɸ 20 @200 01 06
2 ɸ 25 @200 03 10
2 ɸ 25 @200 05
DETAIL 6 DETAIL 7
6.25
6.25
02 2 ɸ 25 @200 C30/37, XC1 (PT), Cl 0.40, Dmax 32mm, S6
6.25
1 1
2.00
S02 ɸ16 @400

DETAIL 2 S02 ɸ16 @400 S02 ɸ16 @400 1 : 50 1 : 50
STEEL
4.27
4.27
4.27
2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200
03 2 ɸ 20 @200
07 11 Reinforcement bars : A 500 NR SD
2.00
2.00
2.00
OUTSIDE
OUTSIDE
INSIDE
COVERING
INSIDE
OUTSIDE
Deep beam : 40 mm
INSIDE
DETAIL 1 S03 ɸ16 @400 S03 ɸ16 @400
S03 ɸ16 @400
Column : 40 mm
3.85
3.85
3 ɸ 25 @200 3 ɸ 20 @200 3 ɸ 20 @200
3.76
3.76
12 3 ɸ 32 @200 MASTER PROJECT
3.76
3 ɸ 20 @200 19 22 17
4.85
3 ɸ 20 @200
4.85
4.85
12 06
2 3 ɸ 20 @200 3 ɸ 32 @200 2 Analysis and design of a reinforced concrete deep beam with high thickness
3 ɸ 40 @200 04 3 ɸ 32 @200
6.85
3 ɸ 20 @200 07 08
3 ɸ 20 @200 05 02
02
3 ɸ 32 @200 EPFL - Prof. Dr. Aurélio Muttoni
1.00
18
S04 ɸ16 @200 S04 ɸ16 @200 S04 ɸ16 @200 IST - Prof. Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues
Bars of the slab (not define) Bars of the slab (not define)
2.37
2.37
3 ɸ 32 @200 3 ɸ 32 @200
3.00
3 ɸ 32 @200 Student- Vera Lúcia Oliveira Machado

2.37
13
07
Nº90845 (NºSciper 208353)
1.00
1.00
13 23 3 ɸ 40 @200
2.00
2.00
3 ɸ 40 @200 19
3 ɸ 40 @150
March 2018 Nº of plan : P2 Scale : 1:200 // 1:100 // 1:50
3 ɸ 40 @200
1.00
1.00
14 08 DETAIL 3
DETAIL 6 SC01 ɸ12 @100 C2 ɸ20 @200 DETAIL 7 SC04 ɸ12 @200
Reinforcement plan for the initial deep beam and column 1 and 2
3 4 4
3 - Horizontal and vertical bars, outside and inside
C1 ɸ32 @125 - Sectional view A-A, B-B, C-C, 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4
SC05 ɸ12 @200
SC01 ɸ12 @100 - Details 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
SC02 ɸ12 @200
- Reinforcement's list
ELEVATION VIEW SECTIONAL VIEW A-A
1 : 100
HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT - OUTSIDE HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT - INSIDE
1:200 1:200 Bars of the slab (not define)
1.25
2 ɸ 20 @200
01
3 ɸ 40 @200 01
B B 2 ɸ 40 @200
A A 01 2 ɸ 16 @200
5.25
02 01 03 04 05 06 01 03 04 05 06 01
5.00
2 ɸ 16 @200
1.25
2 ɸ 20 @200
02
5.25
2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200
6.25
6.25
2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200
1
5.00
OUTSIDE
1.00
2 ɸ 20 @200
INSIDE
02 02
1.00
2 ɸ 20 @200
0.85
2 ɸ 25 @200
2.85
0.85
2 ɸ 25 @200 07
07
3 ɸ 32 @200
2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200
4.85
4.85
2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200
4.00
4.85
21
2 08 07
6.85
6.85
20 2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200
2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200 08 07
4.00
4.00
2 ɸ 25 @200
2 ɸ 25 @150 2 ɸ 32 @200 2 ɸ 40 @200 3 ɸ 40 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200 2 ɸ 32 @200 2 ɸ 25 @200
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.001.00
2 ɸ 25 @200
3 ɸ 40 @200
09 2 ɸ 40 @200 08 03
2 ɸ 40 @150 2 ɸ 40 @200 22 2 ɸ 40 @200 2 ɸ 40 @125 2 ɸ 40 @125 2 ɸ 32 @200 21 3 ɸ 40 @200
2 ɸ 40 @125 03
DETAIL 1
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 18 17 22
2 ɸ 25 @150 2 ɸ 25 @200
1.00
1.00
09 08
9.00
9.00
2 ɸ 40 @150 2 ɸ 40 @200
1.00
1.00
10 09
A B A B
0.60 24.90 2.80 0.60 24.90 2.80
VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT - OUTSIDE VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT - INSIDE

1:200 1:200
1.50 24.00 SECTIONAL VIEW B-B

20.00 5.50
A B A B 1 : 100
01 02 01 02

6.25
6.25
3 ɸ 40 @200 01
3 ɸ 40 @200
3 ɸ 32 @200
2 ɸ 16 @200
2 ɸ 40 @200
6.25
02 2 ɸ 16 @200 2 ɸ 16 @200
2 ɸ 40 @150
04
3 ɸ 40 @200
2 ɸ 40 @200
2 ɸ 32 @200
2 ɸ 40 @200
2 ɸ 25 @200
2 ɸ 32 @200
2 ɸ 20 @200
2 ɸ 25 @200
2 ɸ 40 @200
2 ɸ 20 @200
2 ɸ 40 @150
6.25
3 ɸ 40 @200
2 ɸ 16 @200
04
6.85
6.85
03 03
OUTSIDE
08
INSIDE
04 05 06 07 08 09 3 3 04 05 06 07
9.00
9.00
3.85
3.85
2 ɸ 20 @200 2 ɸ 20 @200
15 14
A B A B 2 ɸ 40 @200
04
2 ɸ 25 @200
06
2.00 12.50 8.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DETAIL 2

0.60 24.90 2.80
2.00
2.00
0.60 24.90 2.80 Bars of the slab (not define)
1.00 1.00 3.50 9.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 2 ɸ 25 @150 2 ɸ 25 @200
16 15
2 ɸ 40 @200
ELEVATION VIEW OF THE PRESTRESSING 2 ɸ 40 @150
1.00
1.00
17 16
1:100
A B
TABLE OF MATERIALS
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2 CONCRETE
6,25 m
1 : 50 1 : 50 C30/37, XC1 (PT), Cl 0.40, Dmax 32mm, S6
STEEL
0.50 0.40 0.40 0.50
0.50 0.40 0.40 0.50
Reinforcement bars : A 500 NR SD
Prestressing : Y186057-15.7 (19T155)
Diffusion frame : not define
Hopping reinforcement : Diameter 400mm
Anchor plate: 300mm x 250mm COVERING
Head diameter : 185mm Cable diameter outside : 116mm
Deep beam : 40 mm
Column : 40 mm
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
MASTER PROJECT
6,85 m
0.40
0.40
Analysis and design of a reinforced concrete deep beam with high thickness
EPFL - Prof. Dr. Aurélio Muttoni
0.60
0.60
Diffusion frame : not define
Hopping reinforcement : Diameter 400mm
IST - Prof. Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues
Anchor plate: 300mm x 250mm
Head diameter : 185mm Student- Vera Lúcia Oliveira Machado Nº90845 (NºSciper 208353)
March 2018 Nº of plan : P3 Scale :1:200 // 1:100 // 1:50
Reinforcement plan for the optimized deep beam
- Horizontal and vertical bars, outside and inside and prestressing

A B
- Sectional view A-A, B-B
0,6 m
25,5 m 2,8 m - Details 1, 2
- Reinforcement's list

MasterProject IST VeraOliveiraMachado

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MasterProject IST VeraOliveiraMachado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis and design of a reinforced concrete deep beam

with high thickness

Vera Lúcia Oliveira Machado

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Supervisor: Professor Dr. Rui Vaz Rodrigues (IST)

Chairperson: Prof. Dr. José Joaquim Costa Branco de Oliveira Pedro

A análise começou com um estudo preliminar, a fim de determinar as diferentes ações e o

Seguem-se as verificações de segurança e os cálculos de reforço para os estados limite ultimo e de

Procedeu-se de seguida ao desenho das armaduras. Posteriormente, efetuou-se uma análise

1.1 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................. 2

2.1 GEOMETRIC DEFINITION ........................................................................................................ 6

2.2 MATERIALS AND SUSTAINABILITY......................................................................................... 7

2.3 LOAD COMBINATIONS ............................................................................................................ 8

2.3.1 WEIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.3.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE ............................................................................................ 10

2.3.3 SUMMARY OF THE LOAD................................................................................................... 10

2.3.4 LOAD COMBINATION.......................................................................................................... 11

2.4 BEHAVIOR OF THE DEEP BEAM........................................................................................... 12

3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 13

3.1 THEORETICAL VALUES ........................................................................................................ 13

3.1.1 Case 1 .............................................................................................................................. 14

3.1.2 Case 2 .............................................................................................................................. 16

3.2 STRESS FIELD METHOD....................................................................................................... 20

3.2.1 MODELING ELASTIC BEHAVIOR IN IMESH SOFTWARE ............................................... 23

3.3 STRUT AND TIE MODELS...................................................................................................... 25

3.3.1 INDIVIDUAL LOAD ........................................................................................................... 25

3.3.2 ENTIRE LOADS................................................................................................................ 30

3.3.3 ELASTIC-PLASTIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 32

4. NUMERICAL MODELING ............................................................................................................. 33

4.1 MESH ..................................................................................................................................... 33

4.4 STRESS FIELD....................................................................................................................... 34

4.5 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 35

4.6 TORSIONAL MOMENT ........................................................................................................... 38

5. DESIGN OF THE DEEP BEAM..................................................................................................... 39

5.1 BAND ...................................................................................................................................... 39

5.3 STEP OF CALCULATION OF THE REINFORCEMENT .......................................................... 41

5.4 CRACK CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 41

5.5 INPUT PARAMETER .............................................................................................................. 42

5.6 MINIMAL REINFORCEMENT .................................................................................................. 43

5.7 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REINFORCEMENT ....................................................................... 45

6. DESIGN OF THE COLUMNS........................................................................................................ 46

6.1 COLUMN 1 ............................................................................................................................. 46

6.1.1 MINIMAL REINFORCEMENT ........................................................................................... 47

6.1.2 CONFINED CONCRETE................................................................................................... 48

6.1.3 BEHAVIOR OF SLENDER COLUMNS.............................................................................. 49

6.1.4 GEOMETRIC IMPERFECTIONS....................................................................................... 51

6.1.5 ECCENTRICITY DUE TO SECOND ORDER EFFECTS ................................................... 51

6.2 COLUMN 2 ............................................................................................................................. 55

7.1 TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT OF COLUMN 1 ................................................................ 61

7.2 MAXIMUM EFFORT ON SUPPORT ........................................................................................ 62

8.1 CROSS REINFORCEMENT OF THE DEEP BEAM ................................................................. 63

8.1.1 FRAME CORNERS........................................................................................................... 63

8.2 HEATING OF THE CONCRETE DURING THE SETTING ....................................................... 63

8.3 ANCHOR LENGTH ................................................................................................................. 64

9. FAILURE OF THE DEEP BEAM ................................................................................................... 66

10. OPTIMIZATION .......................................................................................................................... 68

10.1 THICKNESS OPTIMIZATION ................................................................................................ 68

10.2 PRESTRESS ........................................................................................................................ 72

11. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 79

Annex H Drawing plans ................................................................................................................. 93

Figure 1 View of the dam nearby [13] .................................................................................................. 4

Latin lower case letters

>)?$ Mean value of axial tensile strength of concrete