A series of nonlinear finite element (FE) analyses was performed to evaluate the different design approaches available in the literature for design of reinforced concrete deep beam with large opening. Three finite element models were developed and analyzed using the computer software ATENA. The three FE models of the deep beams were made for details based on three different design approaches: (Kong, F.K. and Sharp, G.R., Magazine of Concrete Res_30:89-95, 1978), (Mansur, M. A., Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings, 2006), and Strut and Tie method (STM) as per ACI 318-14 (ACI318 Committee, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI318-14), 2014). Results from the FE analyses were compared with the three approaches to evaluate the effect of different reinforcement details on the structural behavior of transfer deep beam with large opening. The service load deflection is the same for the three models. The stiffnesses of the designs of (Mansur, M. A., Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings, 2006) and STM reduce at a load higher than the ultimate design load while the (Kong, F.K. and Sharp, G.R., Magazine of Concrete Res_30:89-95, 1978) reduces stiffness at a load close to the ultimate design load. The deep beam designed according to (Mansur, M. A., Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings, 2006) model starts cracking at load higher than the beam designed according to (Kong, F.K. and Sharp, G.R., Magazine of Concrete Res_30:89-95, 1978) method. The deep beam detailed according to (Kong, F.K. and Sharp, G.R., Magazine of Concrete Res_30:89-95, 1978) and (Mansur, M. A., Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings, 2006) failed due to extensive shear cracks. The specimen detailed according to STM restores its capacity after initial failure. The three models satisfy the deflection limit. It is found that the three design approaches give sufficient ultimate load capacity. The amount of reinforcement given by both (Mansur, M. A., Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings, 2006) and (Kong, F.K. and Sharp, G.R., Magazine of Concrete Res_30:89-95, 1978) is the same. The reinforcement used by the STM method is higher than the other two methods. Additional reinforcement is needed to limit the crack widths. (Mansur, M. A., Design of reinforced concrete beams with web openings, (2006)) method gives lesser steel reinforcement requirement and higher failure load compared to the other two methods.

中文翻译：

---

大开口钢筋混凝土深梁的有限元分析

进行了一系列非线性有限元（FE）分析，以评估文献中可用于大开口钢筋混凝土深梁设计的不同设计方法。使用计算机软件ATENA开发并分析了三个有限元模型。深梁的三种有限元模型是基于三种不同的设计方法制作的：Kong，FK和Sharp，GR，《混凝土研究杂志》 30：89-95，1978年；（Mansur，MA，钢筋混凝土梁的设计）带有网孔，2006年），以及根据ACI 318-14（ACI318委员会，《结构混凝土的建筑规范要求》（ACI318-14），2014年）采用Strut and Tie方法（STM）。将有限元分析的结果与三种方法进行比较，以评估不同的加固细节对大开口传递深梁的结构行为的影响。三种型号的服务负荷挠度相同。（Mansur，MA，带有腹板开口的钢筋混凝土梁设计，2006）和STM的设计刚度在高于最终设计载荷的载荷下减小，而（Kong，FK和Sharp，GR，《混凝土杂志》杂志30： 1978年第89-95页）在接近最终设计载荷的载荷下降低了刚度。根据（Mansur，MA，带有腹板开口的钢筋混凝土梁的设计，2006）模型设计的深梁在高于（Kong，FK和Sharp，GR，Magazine of Concrete Res_30：89- 95，1978）方法。根据（Kong，FK和Sharp，GR，《混凝土研究杂志》：30-89-95，1978年）和（（Mansur，MA，带腹板开口的钢筋混凝土梁的设计，2006年））详述的深梁由于大范围的剪切裂缝而失效。根据STM详细描述的试样在初始破坏后会恢复其能力。这三个模型满足挠度极限。发现这三种设计方法具有足够的极限载荷能力。两者（Mansur，MA，带有腹板开口的钢筋混凝土梁的设计，2006）和（Kong，FK和Sharp，GR，Journal of Concrete Res_30：89-95，1978）给出的加固量是相同的。STM方法使用的增强强度高于其他两种方法。需要额外的加固以限制裂纹宽度。（马萨诸塞州曼苏尔，带有腹板开口的钢筋混凝土梁的设计，