根據ACI318-02，短梁是以剪力跨度a及有效深度d之比值作定義，當a/d 2.5則為短梁，反之則為長梁。對於其分析方法，規範是建議以壓拉桿模式來分析短梁，長梁以斷面剪力評估式作分析。本研究主要探討以壓拉桿模式作為分析短梁之適用性，除了應用於矩形梁外，另外也對T形梁作分析，藉以比較T形梁與矩形梁在分析上有何不同之處。
本實驗之試體針對不同之剪力跨深比a/d作設計，矩形梁與T形梁各5根試體，在剪力區內為無箍筋之設計。由實驗得知，無論矩形梁或T形梁，以壓拉桿模式作為短梁之預測剪力分析，其結果還算準確。由結果來看，T形梁在分析上與矩形梁最大不同處，在於T形梁多出了翼版之部分，因此在斷面分析時是考慮翼版寬度，並非梁腹寬度。此外，本實驗所採用的分析模式中，也探討了不同的壓桿軟化模式之影響，由結果得知，以本文所建立之模式做為短梁分析應屬合理。

According to ACI318-02, the behavior of deep beam is defined as the ratio of shear span to effective depth a/d 2.5. Strut-and-tie model analytical method can be adopted to the shear strength evaluation of the deep beams. The main purpose of the research is to see the validity of strut-and-tie model applied to analysis of rectangular and T-sectional beams. The comparison of analytical results between rectangular and T-section beams are discussed.
Experimental works were made on testing five rectangle and five T-sectional RC beams, where no stirrup was used. Specimens were controlled by different shear span ratio, a/d. From the experimental result, the proposed strut-and-tie model for analyzing T-sectional and rectangle beams is fairly accurate. The largest difference in analyzing is that T-sectional beams have offered more discrepancy such as flange parts. However, the proposed model is more rational than previous researchers adopted using different softened strut-concrete behaviors.

1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02 & Commentary ACI 318R-02,(2002).
2. Michael Collins and Denis Mitchell, Prestressed Concrete Structure, Prentice Hall, New Jersey,766pp.(1991)
3. CSA Committee A23.3, “Design of Concrete Structures for Building”, CAN3-A23.3-M84, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Canada, 281 pp(1984).
4. Shyh-Jiann Hwang and Hung-Jen Lee, “Strength Prediction for Discontinuity Regions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, December, pp. 1519-1526(2002).
5. 李宏仁、黃世建「鋼筋混凝土結構不連續區域之剪力強度評估―軟化壓拉桿模型簡算法之實例應用」，結構工程，第十七卷，第四期，第５３～７０頁(2002)。
6. ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on Shear and Torsion, “Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Structural Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, December, pp. 1375-11417(1998).
7. Adbeldjelil Belarbi and Thomas T.C.Hsu, “Constitutive Laws of Softened Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression,” ACI Structural Journal, September-October, pp.562-573.(1995)
8. Gaetano Russo, Ralleale Venir, and Margherita Pauletta, “Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams―Shear Strength Model and Design Formula,” ACI Structural Journal, May-June, pp. 429-437(2005).
9. Adolfo B. Matamoros and Kuok Hong Wong , “Design of Simply
Supported Deep Beams Using Strut-and-Tie Models,” ACI Structural Journal, November-December, pp. 704-712(2003).
10. R. L.Vollum and J. B. Newman, ”Strut and tie models for analysis/design of external beam―column joint,”Magazine of Concrete Research, No.6, pp. 415-425(1999).
11. R K L Su and A M Chandler “Design criteria for unified strut and tie models,” Prog. Struct. Engng Mater, pp.288-298 (2001).
12. Soon-Ho Cho and Yoon-IL Kim, “Effects of Steel Fibers on Short Beams Load in Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, November-December, pp.765-7774(2003).
13. M. Keith Thompson, James o. Jirsa, and John E. and E. Breen, “CCT Nodes Anchored by Headed Bars―Part 2: Capacity of Nodes,” ACI Structural Journal, January-February, pp. 65-73(2006).
14. Hsu, T. T. C., “Toward a Unified Nomentclature for Reinforced-Concrete Theory,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.122, NO. 3, Mar, pp.275-283 (1996).
15. Dale, J.T.,” The shear strength of partially prestressed concrete beams,” Report No. 317, Deport of Eng., Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand,351 pp (1983).
16. 王勇智，｢E世代災害防治及永續發展工程教育－分頁6.工程系統分析及對策｣，教育部計畫，90/09/01-94/08/31。
17. 連建民，跨深比較大時鋼筋混凝土深梁之行為，碩士論文，國
立台灣科技大學營建工程系，台北(2005)。
18. 謝明杰，剪跨與深度比不同時鋼筋混凝土深梁之行為，碩士論
文，國立台灣科技大學營建工程系，台北(2004)。
19. 蔡耀賢，高橋度鋼筋混凝土深梁之剪力強度，碩士論文，國立
台灣科技大學營建工程系，台北(2005)。
20. 廖御仲，應用壓拉桿模式於預力深梁之剪力強度評估，碩士論
文，國立屏東科技大學營建工程系，屏東(2004)。
21. 林振鴻，鋼筋混凝土托架試驗與壓拉桿模式分析之研究，碩士論
文，國立雲林科技大學營建工程系，雲林 (2005)。