Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98
DOI 10.1617/s11527-007-9221-5
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Structural behaviour of three-pile caps subjected to axial
compressive loading
Miriam Gonçalves Miguel Æ Toshiaki Takeya Æ
José Samuel Giongo
Received: 18 April 2006 / Accepted: 15 January 2007 / Published online: 22 February 2007
Ó RILEM 2007
Abstract This work presents a comparative
analysis about the behaviour of pile caps sup-
ported by 3 piles subjected to axial loading. Piles
with 20 cm and 30 cm diameters were analysed.
The main reinforcement was maintained in all the
specimens, however, the arrangement of the
secondary reinforcement varied. The main rein-
forcement consisted of steel bars connecting the
piles. The secondary reinforcement was made up
of: (a) bars going through the piles and through
the projection of the column, (b) bars forming a
network, and (c) vertical and horizontal stirrups.
The main objective was the observation of the
pile cap behaviour regarding the cracks and the
modes of rupture. The real scale specimens were
subjected to experimental tests until failure by
rupture. Instruments were placed with the aim to
M. G. Miguel (&)
Department of Geotechnics and Transport, Faculty
of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urbanism,
State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
e-mail: mgmiguel@fec.unicamp.br
T. Takeya
J. S. Giongo
Department of Structural Engineering, School
of Engineering of São Carlos, State University of São
Paulo, Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil
T. Takeya
e-mail: totakeya@sc.usp.br
J. S. Giongo
e-mail: jsgiongo@sc.usp.br
obtain the displacement of the bases, the strains
in the main and secondary reinforcement bars, in
the compression struts, in the lower and upper
nodal zones and in the sides of the caps. None of
the caps reached failure by rupture with a load
less than 1.12 times the theoretical load. The
specimens ruptured due to the cracking of
the compression strut and/or the yielding of the
reinforcement bars in one direction.
Keywords Rigid Pile Caps
Reinforced
Concrete
Experimental Runs
Strut-and Tie
Model
Structural Design
1 Introduction
Pile caps are important structural elements. Their
function is to transfer basically the stresses of the
columns to a group of piles. Despite being funda-
mental for the safety of the superstructure, these
structural elements generally do not allow the
visual inspection when subjected to a service load,
thereby it’s important to know their real behaviour.
Recent studies, referring to pile caps, have
been concentrated on linear and non-linear elas-
tic analysis using the Finite Element Method,
although those based on experimental analyses
still hold, both analyses contribute in a significant
way to the knowledge enhancement of the
behaviour of these structural elements.
86
The Strut-and Tie Model has also been used
for the design of rigid pile caps subjected to axial
loads applied by the column, involving the limits
for stress in concrete as to guarantee that the
tension ties yield before the rupture of the
concrete.
Various researchers define the Strut-and-Tie
Model as the model that considers the complete
flow of stresses within the structural elements and
not only a particular section. Stress flow in
reinforced concrete structural elements, consid-
ering cracked concrete, is seen as an idealized bar.
Thus, concrete zones subjected to compression
loads are modelled by compression struts (square
stirrups), while the tension zones defined by the
main reinforcement bars are modelled by tension
ties (Fig. 1). The areas where the compression
struts and the tension ties meet are called nodal
zones. The lower nodal zones (LNZs) are located
in the centre of the piles at the longitudinal
reinforcement level, while the upper nodal zone
(UNZ) is at the top of the surface of the pile cap,
at a quarter from the centre of the column.
The reinforcement bars, defined by the tension
ties, have to be conveniently anchored in the
nodal zones to guarantee their function. The
additional reinforcement distributed at the base is
adopted to guarantee that the structure has
sufficient ductility to adjust to the system of
internal stresses.
Adebar et al. [1] carried out tests on six
concrete pile caps. These caps were in real scale,
Fig. 1 Strut-and-Tie model. (Adebar et al. [1])
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98
instrumented, projected with different reinforce-
ment arrangements and designed according to the
Strut-and-Tie Model and the ACI 318 [2]. The
results of these experimental studies demonstrate
that the Strut-and-Tie Model is the most appro-
priate analytical tool for the design of rigid pile
caps in comparison to the ACI 318 [2] method,
because it represents the experimentally observed
behaviour better.
The results show that the compression struts do
not rupture due to the crushing of the concrete.
The rupture of the pile caps occurred after a
compression strut suffered longitudinal shearing
due to the transversal stresses caused by the
increase of the compression stresses. The lack
of reinforcement to control diagonal cracking
allowed this cracking to occur.
In usual pile cap projects, reinforcement is
distributed in the regions that suffer tensile stress
to control the crack width at the base; however,
the diagonal compression struts that transfer the
stresses within the cap to the piles are not
transversally reinforced. Thus, it is necessary to
verify the tensile stresses in these regions to avoid
transversal cracking. The stresses in the struts
should be limited by the concrete compression
strength fcm.
Adebar et al. [1] suggest the limit of 1.0fcm, for
the concrete compression stress so that no rupture
occurs due to the strut cracking. Schlaich et al. [9]
suggest that the maximum stress in the entire
nodal zone be limited to 0.6fcm.
The ACI 318 [2] allows greater compression
stresses such as 1.7fcm, if the area under stress is
confined by the concrete or by the reinforcement.
However, this limit is used to prevent the crushing
of the concrete in the nodal zones and not to stop
rupture by shearing due to transversal cracking of
the compressed strut.
Based on the experimental results obtained in
three-pile caps, Blévot and Frémy [3] suggested a
limit of 1.06 fck, for the stresses in the lower and
UNZs, where fck is the characteristic compression
strength of concrete.
Considering this technical context, the authors
tried to contribute to the better understanding of
the structural behaviour of these elements, by
means of experimental tests of the three-pile caps
in real scale. Measurements were taken for the
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98
displacement analyses of the cap bases, the strains
in the bars of the main and secondary reinforce-
ment, in the compression struts, in the lower and
UNZs and on the sides of the caps, due to the
applied load by the column and the reactions of
the piles. The main objective of this work was to
observe the development of cracks and the mode
of rupture, considering caps with the same main
reinforcement, however with different secondary
reinforcement arrangements, but normally used
in the detailing of pile caps.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Specimen design
Three-pile caps placed in an equilateral triangle
were designed according to the [3] strut method
considering them as the rigid structural elements.
Rigid pile caps present a distance, between the
sides of the column and of the cap, 1.5–2 times
smaller or equal to the height of the cap. The
design was carried out for caps with 30 cm and
20 cm diameter piles. The safety factors, in other
words, the coefficient for increasing the stress and
reducing the material strength, were not used.
These pile caps were designed considering piles
of the Strauss type with a 32 cm nominal diameter
and a 320 kN nominal load capacity. The column
had a square cross section with a side length of
35 cm. The caps presented an effective height (d)
of 50 cm, 70 cm pile length and 10 cm insertion
(d0), distance of 96 cm between pile axes (e) and
52° strut inclination in relation to the horizontal
surface.
The specimens were designed considering the
reference load (Fref) to be three times the
nominal load capacity of the piles, in other words,
960 kN. The characteristic concrete compression
strength (fck) was considered 20 MPa (C20). The
piles and the columns were built in high-strength
concrete with average compression strength (fcm)
of 70 MP. The reinforcement of the columns
consisted of longitudinal bars (8 /12.5 mm), with
folded stirrups at the top and square stirrups
(/6.3 mm). The piles were reinforced with longi-
tudinal bars (6 /12.5 mm) tied with hexagonal
stirrups (/6.3 mm). The bars were made of
87
CA-50 steel with characteristic yield strength of
500 MPa.
In the experimental stage, tests were carried
out on nine three-pile caps, distributed in four
series: in each series at least two caps with the
same design and reinforcement distribution but
different pile diameter were tested. The first
series of tests was defined as series A1 with three
caps. The main reinforcement consisted of bars
(3 /12.5 mm) and positioned on the piles.
In the other series, the caps had the same main
reinforcement, however, their secondary rein-
forcement varied. In the A2 series, the secondary
reinforcement consisted of bars (2 /12.5 mm)
which went through the centre of the piles and
through the projection of the column, at a
coverage distance from the side of the cap. In
the A3 series, the secondary reinforcement con-
sisted of bars (/6.3 mm) distributed at the base
forming a network. The secondary reinforcement
of the A4 series consisted of bars (/6.3 mm) in
vertical and horizontal stirrup format. Table 1
presents the terminology adopted of the nine
specimens tested, as well as their groups and
series. Figure 2 presents the used main and
secondary reinforcement distribution schemes.
2.2 Instrumentation of the specimen
The caps were instrumented to obtain the applied
loads in the column, the reaction in the piles,
the strain of the reinforcement bars and in the
concrete and the vertical displacements of the
base. The readings of the loads in the column and
the reactions of the piles were carried out by
means of load cells connected to a data acquisi-
tion system with 40 channels, as used in the other
reading equipment. The displacements in the base
were obtained by means of seven 50 mm mechan-
ical deflectometers with a conveniently distrib-
uted course.
The reinforcements were instrumented with
strain gages so as to obtain strains relative to the
centre of the bars, to the LNZs, to the regions
between piles and to the centre of gravity (CGS)
at the base of the cap. The compression strut
regions were instrumented with strain gages glued
to 6.3 mm steel bars, placed with the same
inclination as the struts, so as to obtain compres-
88 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98

Table 1 Specimen series was carried out by tests of the slump test type,
Serie Quantity Group 1 B30 Group 2 B20
also carried out at the concreting of each speci-
D = 30 cm D = 20 cm men. These tests followed the recommendations
of the NBR 5738:1994 [6], NBR 5739:1994 [7] and
Serie A1 3 pile caps B30A1/1 B20A1/1 B20A1/2 NBR 7222:1994 [5] methods and their results are
Serie A2 2 pile caps B30A2 B20A2
Serie A3 2 pile caps B30A3 B20A3 presented in Table 2.
Serie A4 2 pile caps B30A4 B20A4 For the axial compression strength tests 9
(nine) test units were tested, three units after
seven days, another three after 15 days and the
sion and tensile strains in this region, besides the last three after 28 days. Of the last three units,
compression strains in the lower and UNZs. two were instrumented with two KFG10 strain
Figure 3 illustrates some measured points of the gages or with two mechanical extensometers to
specimens. determine the concrete stress–strain diagram and
the elasticity modules to compression stress (Ec)
2.3 Concrete strength and tensile stress (Et). For the diametral com-
pression strength tests 3 (three) test units were
Compression and tensile strength control of the tested after 28 days. The results of these tests for
manufactured concrete used in the construction manufactured concrete, in terms of average
of pile caps was carried out through axial and concrete strength after 28 days to compression
diametral compression tests respectively, cylin- (fc28) and tensile stress (ft28), are found in
drical test samples of 15 cm diameter and 30 cm Table 2.
high, moulded at the concreting of each specimen. In the same way, the control of the average
The control of the concrete plasticity and work- compression strengths of high-strength concrete
ability was carried out by tests of the slump test used in the moulding of piles and columns was
type also at the concreting of each specimen. The also carried out through axial compression tests in
control of the concrete plasticity and workability cylindrical test samples of 10 cm diameter and

Fig. 2 Scheme of the

distribution of the main
and secondary
reinforcement. (a) Main
reinforcement, (b) main
and secondary
reinforcement consisted
of bars going through the
piles and through the
projection of the column,
(c) main and secondary
reinforcement with bars
distributed in a network
shape (d) main and
secondary reinforcement
consisted of vertical and
horizontal stirrups
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98 89

rupture were estimated with the aim of more

accurately determining the yield stress (fy).
Table 3 presents the average results of the tests
in these samples in terms of nominal (/nom) and
effective (/efe) diameter of the bars, the effec-
tive areas of the steel bars, the modulus of
elasticity (Es), the yield strength (fy) and the
ultimate strength (fu).

2.5 Test method

The reaction structure for the application of loads

Fig. 3 Specimen instrumentation scheme: (1) strain gage
to measure the tensile strains in the compression strut (2)
strain gage to measure the compression strains in the
compression strut (3) strain gage to measure the strains in
the lower nodal zone and (4) strain gage to measure the
strains in the upper nodal zone
20 cm high. The average strength to compression
after 15 days was equal to 78 MPa for the piles
and 71 MPa for the columns.
2.4 Strength of the steel bar
The tests to determine yield strength and
consequently the bar stress–strain diagram, were
carried out as recommended by NBR 7480:1996
[8]. Two /6.3 and 40 cm long bar samples and
two /12.5 and 40 cm long samples for tensile
testing.
The first two test samples were instrumented
with a strain gage on each one, and the last two
with two strain gages connected in series. For
the 12.5 mm diameter bars the strains at the
on the cap specimens was made up of a metal
frame conveniently anchored, by means of ten-
sion ties, on the reaction slab of the Structure
Laboratory, Department of Structural Engineer-
ing, School of Engineering of São Carlos,
University of São Paulo, Brazil. This frame is
made up of four columns and a horizontal grid
fixed by screws with a nominal capacity of
5,000 kN.
The application of the loads on the specimens
was carried out in stages and increased until the
rupture was reached. The loads were generated
by means of a hydraulic jack with 5,000 kN
capacity driven by an electric hydraulic pump.
The readings of the loads propagated to the
piles were carried out by means of three load
cells, one with a 1,200 kN capacity and the other
two with 1,000 kN, also connected to the data
acquisition system. The phases of load applica-
tion were approximately 8% of the predicted
ultimate load, in other words, 150 kN, with a
priming of the pump carried out in the first
phase of the load.

Table 2 Concrete compression and tensile strength

Specimens Compression Tension Slump
h (cm)
f c28 (MPa) Ec (MPa) f t28 (MPa) Et (MPa)

B20A1/1 27.4 40,084 2.4 40,084 9

B20A1/2 33.0 38,897 2.9 38,897 9
B30A1 31.0 34,921 2.7 34,921 8
B20A2 35.5 35,863 3.1 35,863 8
B30A2 40.3 38,661 3.4 38,661 7
B20A3 37.9 29,356 3.5 29,356 9
B30A3 24.5 25,011 2.2 25,011 16
B20A4 35.6 33,942 3.3 33,942 8
B30A4 24.6 32,377 2.6 32,377 12
90 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98

Table 3 Tensile strength of the steel bars

/nominal (mm) /effetive (mm) As,ef (cm2) Es (GPa) fy (MPa) ey (&) fu (MPa)

6.3 6.28 0.3097 202 595 4.77 843

12.5 12.67 1.2608 186 591 3.18 720

3 The result presentation Fteo;unz

Table 4 presents the values of the reference loads
(Fref) used in the designing of the specimens, the
loads (Fc) when the first cracks were observed and
the ultimate loads (Fu) measured in the tests, as
well as the relations between these loads. In order
to make a comparative analyses, the denominated
project loads (Fpro), determined by the product of
the reference loads (Fref) and the adopted stress
augmentation coefficient (cf) equal to 1.4, based
on NBR 6118:2003 [4], were considered.
Table 5 presents the values of the theoretical
loads (Fteo) calculated by the strut method [3],
considering the average concrete strength and the
average yield strength of the reinforcement bars
and the relations between the experimental ulti-
mate loads (Fu) and the theoretical loads (Fteo).
The value of the theoretical load (Fteo) was
defined as the smallest value between the theo-
retical load (Fteo,As), determined by expressions 1
(the A1, A3 and A4 series specimens) and 2 (the
A2 series specimens), and the theoretical load
(Fteo, unz) determined by expression 3.
pffiffi pffiffi
Fteo;As
ð2e 3  ‘ 2Þ
Rst ¼
18
d
pffiffi
Rst 3
R0st ¼ ð2Þ
3 age displacement at the base of the caps.
runz ¼ ð3Þ
Ap
sen2 h
where Rs is the resulting load in the bars of the
main reinforcement; R¢st the resulting load in the
bars of the secondary reinforcement; e the distance
between the centres of the piles; ‘ the width of the
columns; d the effective height; Ap the transversal
section area of the column; h the inclination of the
strut in relation to the horizontal axis.
The theoretical load (Fteo, As) was defined
considering the yield strength of the steel bars (fy)
equal to 591 MPa, as shown in Table 3. The
theoretical load (Fteo, unz) was defined considering
the stress values in the UNZs. These stress values
were determined based on the strain values in the
nodal zones and multiplying by 0.9 the values of
the tangent elasticity modulus of the concrete
(Eci), experimentally determined in tests samples
for each specimen of the caps and presented in
Table 2. The value 0.85 considers the value of the
secant elasticity module (Ecs).
During the tests, the crack widths (w) were
determined on the sides of all the caps, except for
the specimens B20A1/1 and B20A1/2, in relation
to the load at the onset of the cracking (Fcl), to
ð1Þ
the project load (Fpro) and to the load referring to
the measurement reading of the cracks (Fc2) in
the failure mode and the respective crack width,
presented in Table 6. Table 7 presents the aver-

Table 4 Cracking (Fc) and ultimate (Fu) loads of the specimens

Series Specimens Fref (kN) Fc (kN) Fc =Fpro Fpro (kN) Fu (kN) Fu =Fpro Fu =Fc

A1 B20A1/1 960 1,050 1.09 1,344 1,512 1.58 1.44

B20A1/2 960 900 0.94 1,344 1,648 1.72 1.83
B30A1 960 900 0.94 1,344 1,909 1.99 2.12
A2 B20A2 960 1,050 1.09 1,344 2,083 2.17 1.98
B30A2 960 1,050 1.09 1,344 2,674 2.78 2.55
A3 B20A3 960 1,050 1.09 1,344 1,945 2.03 1.85
B30A3 960 750 0.78 1,344 1,938 2.02 2.58
A4 B20A4 960 1,200 1.25 1,344 2,375 2.47 1.98
B30A4 960 900 0.94 1,344 2,283 2.38 2.54
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98 91

Table 5 Relations between the ultimate loads (Fu) and be 1,225 cm2. These stresses were related with
theoretical loads (Fteo) each specimen’s average compression strength
Specimens fcm fy Fteo Fu F u/ (fcm) and then presented in Table 9.
(MPa) (MPa) (kN) (kN) Fteo The strains in the concrete, in the main and
secondary reinforcement bars and in the stirrups,
B20A1/1 27.4 591 1,021 1,512 1.48
B20A1/2 33.0 591 1,474 1,648 1.12 related to the project load (Fpro) and to the
B30A1 31.0 591 915 1,909 2.09 experimental ultimate loads (Fu) for caps from
B20A2 35.5 591 1,224 2,083 1.70 series A1, A2, A3 and A4, can be found in Tables 10
B30A2 40.3 591 2,041 2,674 1.31 to 13, respectively. The abbreviations used for the
B20A3 37.9 591 736 1,945 2.64
B30A3 24.5 591 1,474 1,938 1.31 regions were as follow: compression stress on the
B20A4 35.6 591 1,003 2,375 2.37 strut (CSS), UNZ, LNZ, tension in the strut (TTS),
B30A4 24.6 591 1,474 2,283 1.55 centre of the reinforcement bars (CBR), centre of
the stirrups bars (CBS), cap’s CGC and the region
Based on the reaction values of the piles, between the piles (RBP).
referring to the loads previously defined, stres-
ses in the LNZs were obtained (rlnz) consider-
ing the respective transversal areas of 4 Analyses of the results
314.16 cm2 for the 20 cm diameter piles and
706.86 cm2 for the 30 cm diameter piles. These 4.1 General behaviour of the specimens
stresses were related to the average compression
strength (fcm) of each specimen and presented The 30 cm diameter-pile cap with the main
in Table 8. reinforcement made up of bars connecting the
In the same way, the stress of the UNZs were piles and secondary reinforcement, represented
obtained (runz), based on the load in the column, by bars passing through the centres of the piles
considering the transversal area of the column to and the projection of the column (series A2),

Table 6 Crack width intervals on the sides

Crack width intervals on the cap sides (mm)
Series Specimens Sides 1st Reading Fpro (kN) Failure Reading
w (mm) Fc1 (kN) w (mm) w (mm) Fc2 (kN)

A1 B30A1 A 0.15 1,050 0.15–0.50 0.05–2.00 1,800

B 0.15 0.15–0.50 0.10–2.00
C 0.15 0.15–0.50 0.20–1.20
A2 B20A2 A 0.15 1,200 0.075–0.20 0.30–1.20 1,800
B 0.15 0.075–0.25 0.30–2.00
C 0.10 0.075–0.20 0.30–2.00
B30A2 A 0.05–0.15 1,200 0.10–0.35 1.80–3.50 2,650
B 0.05–0.15 0.10–0.35 1.10–2.30
C 0.05–0.15 0.10–0.40 1.60–3.30
A3 B20A3 A 0.15 1,200 0.20–0.45 0.20–1.80 1,800
B – – 0.15 0.05–0.90
C – – 0.15 0.15–1.60
B30A3 A 0.10 900 0.05–0.65 0.10–1.60 1,800
B 0.05 0.15–0.50 0.30–0.80
C 0.10 0.05–0.70 0.15–1.00
A4 B20A4 A 0.05 1,350 – 0.15–2.80 2,250
B 0.05 – 0.35–2.80
C 0.05 – 0.10–2.50
B30A4 A 0.10 900 0.15–0.45 0.40–1.20 2,250
B 0.10 0.05–0.50 0.075–1.40
C 0.05 0.075–0.45 0.35–1.05
92 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98

Table 7 Average displacement at the base of the caps

Average displacement at the base (mm)
Series Specimens Fref Fc Fpro Failure reading
Displacement Fu

A1 B20A1/1 1.74 1.96 2.11 2.39 1,512

B20A1/2 1.68 1.63 – – –
B30A1 1.41 1.21 1.58 1.72 1,648
A2 B20A2 1.44 1.48 1.68 2.28 1,800
B30A2 1.76 1.83 2.20 2.50 1,800
A3 B20A3 1.43 1.49 1.86 2.56 1,945
B30A3 2.32 2.03 2.65 3.50 1,938
A4 B20A4 1.48 1.50 1.90 2.86 2,100
B30A4 1.65 1.39 2.04 3.27 2,283

Table 8 Average relation between rlnz/fcm 4.2 Influence of the diameter reduction
rlnz/fcm
The A1, A2, and A4 series specimens presented a
Series Specimens Fref Fc Fpro Fu
17%, 22% and 4% reduction respectively in the
A1 B20A1/1 0.41 0.43 0.54 0.62 ultimate loads, due to the reduction of the pile
B20A1/2 0.34 0.32 0.45 0.53 diameter. The specimens of the A3 series pre-
B30A1 0.15 0.14 0.21 0.30 sented very similar ultimate loads even with the
A2 B20A2 0.32 0.35 0.45 0.69
B30A2 0.11 0.12 0.16 0.31
reduction of the pile diameter and the specimens.
A3 B20A3 0.30 0.32 0.41 0.60
B30A3 0.20 0.15 0.27 0.40 4.3 Influence of the secondary reinforcement
A4 B20A4 0.32 0.40 0.45 0.76
B30A4 0.19 0.18 0.27 0.46
Among the specimens with 20 cm pile diameter,
those from the A4 series presented a greater
Table 9 Relation between runz/fcm ultimate load Fu = 2,375 kN, followed by the A2
series with 2,083 kN. The specimen of the A3
runz/fcm
series presented ultimate load Fu = 1,945 kN and
Series Specimens Fref Fc Fpro Fu finally the A1 series presented ultimate loads of
A1 B20A1/1 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.45
1,512 and 1,648 kN. The reduction in the ulti-
B20A1/2 0.24 0.22 0.33 0.41 mate loads, compared with the ultimate load of
B30A1 0.25 0.24 0.35 0.50 the first specimen, was 12%, 18% and 34%,
A2 B20A2 0.22 0.24 0.31 0.48 respectively.
B30A2 0.19 0.21 0.27 0.54
A3 B20A3 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.42
Among the specimens with 30 cm diameter
B30A3 0.32 0.25 0.45 0.64 piles, the A2 series presented a greater ultimate
A4 B20A4 0.22 0.28 0.31 0.54 load Fu = 2,674 kN, followed by the A4 series
B30A4 0.32 0.30 0.45 0.76 with 2,283 kN, the A3 series with 1,938 kN and
finally the A1 series with 1,909 kN. The reduction
in the ultimate loads, compared with the ultimate
resisted the experimental load of 2,674 kN load of the first specimen, was 15%, 28% and
(Tables 12, 13). 29%, respectively.
The strut method [3] showed to be conserva-
tive, as the values of the ultimate loads (Fu), for 4.4 Crack width on the sides
all the specimens, were greater than the theoret-
ical loads (Fteo), indicating a minimum safety The NBR 6118:2003 [4] recommends that the
margin of 12%. crack widths for structural elements, when the
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98 93

Table 10 Strains in the concrete and in the reinforcement of the A1 series specimens
Strains (mm/m)
Analysed regions B20A1/1 B20A1/2 B30A1
Fpro Fu Fpro Fu Fpro Fu
1,344 (kN) 1,512 (kN) 1,344 (kN) 1,648 (kN) 1,344 (kN) 1,909 (kN)

Concrete CSS –0.138 –0.223 –0.102 –0.381 –0.124 –0.374

UNZ –0.209 –0.231 –0.252 –0.350 –0.167 –0.239
LNZ –0.036 –0.074 –0.065 –0.205 –0.022 –0.082
TTS +0.103 +1.933 +0.092 +1.895 +0.074 +1.423
Main CBR +1.211 +2.480 +2.380 +2.667 +1.830 +8.137
reinforcement
LNZ +0.093 +0.883 +0.066 +1.382 +0.022 +0.507

Table 11 Strains in the concrete and in the reinforcement for the A2 series specimens
Strains (mm/m)
Analysed Regions B20A2 B30A2
Fpro 1,344 (kN) Fu 2,083 (kN) Fpro 1,344 (kN) Fu 2,674 (kN)

Concrete CSS –0.143 –0.543 –0.106 –0.693

UNZ –0.162 –0.309 –0.293 –0.580
LNZ –0.035 –0.114 –0.014 –0.007
TTS +0.072 +1.368 +0.076 +0.749
Main reinforcement CBR +0.835 +2.920 +3.730 +4.140
LNZ +0.047 +0.618 +0.040 +0.355
Secondary reinforcement CGC +0.470 +2.231 +0.765 +2.473
RBP +0.030 +0.880 +0.250 +1.525
LNZ +0.071 +5.970 +0.069 +0.655

Table 12 Strains in the concrete and in the reinforcement for the A3 series specimens
Strains (mm/m)
Analysed regions B20A3 B30A3
Fpro 1,344 (kN) Fu 1,945 (kN) Fpro 1,344 (kN) Fu 1,938 (kN)

Concrete CSS –0.144 –0.381 –0.141 –0.857

UNZ –0.126 –0.227 –0.510 –0.780
LNZ –0.051 –0.092 –0.025 –0.044
TTS +0.062 +2.367 +0.072 +1.071
Main reinforcement CBR +1.212 +3.087 +1.846 +2.868
LNZ +0.036 +0.591 +0.050 +0.584
Secondary reinforcement in the X direction LNZ +0.043 +0.141 +0.044 +0.237
REE +0.570 +2.463 +1.014 +1.963
Secondary reinforcement in the Y direction ZNI +0.039 +0.170 +0.033 +0.220
RBP +1.089 +2.224 +0.872 +1.922
CGC +0.654 +1.860 +1.079 +2.006

environmental aggressivity class is very strong
(class IV), should not exceed 0.2 mm. The
values of crack width exceeded this limit in
the phase after the load relative to the first
reading of cracks in all the specimens.
Considering the project load (Fpro), the
30 cm diameter pile caps presented greater
crack width than the smaller diameter pile
caps. Specimens from the A1 and A2 series
presented greater crack width due to the load
94 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98

Table 13 Strains in the concrete and in the reinforcement for the A4 series specimens
Strains (mm/m)
Analysed regions B20A4 B30A4
Fpro 1,344 (kN) Fu 2,375 (kN) Fpro 1,344 (kN) Fu 2,283 (kN)

Concrete CSS –0.103 –0.676 –0.128 –0.933

UNZ –0.120 –0.268 –0.229 –0.438
LNZ –0.040 –0.100 –0.033 –0.036
TTS +0.050 +1.630 +0.061 +1.267
Main reinforcement CBR +1.063 +7.623 +1.623 +4.594
LNZ +0.028 +0.958 +0.030 +1.016
Secondary reinforcement in the X direction RBP +0.023 +1.470 +0.799 +2.448
LNZ +0.032 +1.357 +0.038 +0.240
Secondary reinforcement in the Y direction RBP +0.075 +5.700 +1.681 +4.260
LNZ +0.048 +0.667 +0.055 +0.070
CGC +1.875 +11.706 +1.897 +7.020
Horizontal stirrups CBS +0.890 +4.330 +0.500 +2.096

(F2) relative to the measurement reading in the
failure mode.
4.5 Base displacements
The average displacement at the base (Table 7)
was greater for the specimens with 30 cm diam-
eter piles, except for the specimens without
secondary reinforcement (A1 series). Considering
the project load (Fpro), regarding the influence of
the secondary reinforcement, the A3 and A4
series specimens presented greater average dis-
placement, followed by the A2 and A1 series
specimens.
4.6 Stress in the LNZs
Table 8 shows that the relations between stresses
in the LNZs and the average compression
strength (rlnz/fcm) were greater in the 20 cm
diameter pile specimens and in the A1 series.
The specimens with 20 cm diameter piles of the
A1 and A2 series presented 2.5 times greater
relations than the specimens from the corre-
sponding series with the 30 cm diameter piles.
These relations for the specimens with 20 cm
diameter piles from the A3 and A4 series were
approximately 59% greater than the specimens
with 30 cm diameter piles. It was observed that
there was an improvement of these relations
when A3 and A4 type secondary reinforcements
were used.
Under the effect of the ultimate load (Fu), the
values of these average relations (rlnz/fcm) for the
specimens were below the recommended values
so that there would be no crushing of the concrete
in the LNZ. This fact showed that the specimens
did not rupture due to the compression stress in
this region.
4.7 Stresses in the UNZs
The relations between the compression stresses
in the UNZ and the average compression
strength (runz/fcm) were greater for the 30 cm
diameter pile caps, as shown in Table 9.
Regarding the distribution of the secondary
reinforcement, the A4 and A3 series specimens
with 30 cm diameter piles presented greater
relations; however, in the specimens with 20 cm
diameter piles the different distributions of the
secondary reinforcement did not significantly
influence the values of these relations. Under
the effect of the ultimate load the average
relation values runz/fcm for all the specimens
were also far below the recommended values so
that there would be no crushing of the concrete
in the UNZ, leading to believe that the spec-
imens did not rupture due to the compression
stress in this region.
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98
4.8 Strains in the concrete
4.8.1 Strains in the compression strut
In general, the average compression strains in the
struts were greater for the 30 cm diameter pile
caps, except for the caps without secondary
reinforcement, which presented an average strain
close to the strain of the 20 cm diameter pile caps.
This fact led to believe that as the specimens
with 30 cm diameter piles presented greater
compression strain in the struts, their width were
probably smaller than the width of the struts in
the specimens with 20 cm diameter piles, espe-
cially those specimens that had both the main and
the secondary reinforcement.
The A4 and A3 series specimens presented
greater average compression strains in the struts
than in the A2 and A1 series regardless of the
diameter; in other words, the reinforcement
distributed at the base limited the expansion of
the strut.
4.8.2 Strains in the transversal tension of the strut
Until the project load value (Fpro) the average
tensile strains in the struts were very close for
both caps or a little higher for the 30 cm diameter
pile cap. However, in relation to the ultimate
load, these strains were greater in the specimens
with 20 cm diameter piles regardless of the
secondary reinforcement.
It was noticed that the specimens with 20 cm
diameter piles, under the ultimate load, demon-
strated greater transversal tensile strains of the
strut. This can indicate that the struts expanded
more expressively than in the 30 cm diameter pile
specimens. Therefore the reduction in the pile
diameter intensified the stress flow in the struts,
causing greater transversal tensile strains in them.
The A2 series specimens, under the ultimate
load (Fu) presented lower average tensile strains
in the struts, in other words, these specimens
allowed less stress flow expansion in the struts.
4.8.3 Strains in the LNZ
The 20 cm diameter pile specimens presented
greater average compression strains in the LNZs
95
due to the diameter reduction of the piles. As for
the influence of the secondary reinforcement on
the compression strains in these regions, the A1
series specimens presented greater strains.
4.8.4 Strains in the UNZ
For all the load intensities, the average strains in
the UNZs were greater for the 30 cm diameter
pile caps, except for the A1 series caps.
It is believed that in the 20 cm diameters pile
specimens, the compression strains are inclined to
concentrate more in the LNZs due to the reduc-
tion in the diameter, causing greater strains in this
region and smaller strains in the UNZs. The
stresses induced in the UNZs are quickly trans-
mitted to the LNZs, expanding the struts and
causing an increase in its width.
As for the influence of the secondary rein-
forcement, the 30 cm diameter blocks of the A3
series presented greater average strains, followed
by the A2, A4 and A1 series caps, under all levels
of load. The 20 cm diameter pile caps of the A2
and A1 series presented greater average strains
than the caps of the A4 and A3 series.
For all the cap specimens, the average com-
pression strains in the UNZs, under the ultimate
load, were lower than the strains found in the
compression struts of all the tested specimens.
4.9 Strains in the reinforcement
The most stressed regions in the reinforcement
were: the centre of the bars between the piles.
The yielding of the bars took place in this region
in practically all the specimens, although the
B20A2 and B20A4 specimens presented large
strains in the secondary reinforcement bars
located in the LNZ region.
Considering the cap project load (Fpro), the A1
and A2 series specimens presented greater aver-
age strains in the main reinforcement bars.
4.10 Failure modes
The tested specimens reached the failure mode
due to the cracking of the compressed struts at
the same time that main and/or secondary rein-
forcement bars yielded in the direction where the
96 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98

pile that was ruptured was located. In the B20A1/

1 and B30A3 specimens, there was no register
of yielding of any of the reinforcement bars.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the cracks of the
B20A3 and B30A4 specimens as examples of the
failure mode. The load-strut tensile strain dia-
gram (Fig. 7) presented three distinct branches
due to the loss of strut tensile strength. The limit
of the first branch defines the Limit State of
Cracking, from which the crack load (Fc) was
determined. The limit of the second branch was
defined as the Limit State of Crack Formation,
Fig. 6 Cracks on side A of specimen B30A4. Side A
from which the load (Fw) was determined. The
third branch refers to Ultimate Limit State
defined by the ultimate load (Fu).
When the limit state of cracking is reached, the
words, when reaching this intensity, the cap loses
main and/or secondary reinforcement bars are
load capacity and reaches rupture in few stages.
more intensely stressed (Fig. 8). The Limit State
The importance of limiting the load applied to the
of Crack Formation represents the rupture by
cap to guarantee safety can be observed. There-
cracking of the compressed struts and by possible
fore the values of these limits for each specimen
yielding of the reinforcement bars. In other
and the stress limits in the upper and LNZs are
presented in Table 14, as well as the relations of
these stresses based on the average compression
strength of the tested concrete caps to obtain a
calculus limit value.
It was observed that the greater relations
between the stresses in the LNZs and the average
compression strength, for the limit state of crack
formation, were found for the 20 cm diameter
pile caps of the A1 and A3 series, followed by the
same diameter caps of the A2 and A4 series.
The relations between the stresses in the lower
and UNZs, and the average compression strength,
Fig. 4 Cracks in specimen B20A3. Side A in reference to the Limit State of Crack Forma-
tion, led to the following average limits for the
stresses in the nodal zone so that the cap does not
reach the Ultimate Limit State, due to rupture of
the strut through cracking:

runz  0:32
fcm (Upper nodal zone) ð4Þ

rlnz  0:42
fcm (Lower nodal zone

ð5Þ
for caps with D = 20 cm)

rlnz  0:22
fcm (Lower nodal zone

ð6Þ
Fig. 5 Cracks in specimen B20A3. Side B for caps with D = 30 cm)
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98 97

Table 14 Cracking loads (Fc) and ultimate loads (Fu)

Specimens Fc (kN) Limit state of crack formation Fu
Fw (kN) rlnz (MPa) rlnz/f(cm) runz (MPa) runz/fcm

B20A1/1 1,050 1,450 15.4 0.56 11.8 0.43 1,512

B20A1/2 900 1,300 13.8 0.42 10.6 0.32 1,648
B30A1 900 1,650 7.8 0.25 13.5 0.44 1,909
B20A2 1,050 1,850 19.6 0.55 15.1 0.43 2,083
B30A2 1,050 1,850 8.7 0.22 15.1 0.38 2,674
B20A3 1,050 1,750 18.6 0.49 14.3 0.38 1,945
B30A3 750 1,550 7.3 0.30 12.7 0.52 1,938
B20A4 1,200 1,950 20.7 0.58 15.9 0.45 2,375
B30A4 900 1,650 07.8 0.32 13.5 0.55 2,283

The following limit values are suggested for this

situation:

runz  0:40
fcm (Upper nodal zone) ð7Þ

rlnz  0:50
fcm (Lower nodal zone

ð8Þ
for caps with D = 20 cm)

rlnz  0:30
fcm (Lower nodal zone

ð9Þ
for caps with D = 30 cm)

Fig. 7 Load–tensile strain diagram in the struts (B30A2)
Fig. 8 Load–tensile strain diagram in the bars of the main
reinforcement (B30A2)
These limits are lower than indicated by Adebar
et al. [1] for four-pile caps (runz  1:0
fcm ),
because three-pile caps have lower load capacity.
The limits presented by Blévot and Frémy
[3] for the three-pile caps ( rl;unz  1:06
fck )
were greater than those suggested in this
work, because the recommendation of these
authors was to prevent the caps from ruptur-
ing due to compression in the struts and the
cracking of the same. However, the direction
of the cracks in the experimental specimens
and their failure mode are similar to those
found in the experimental specimens of these
authors, particularly the specimens from the
A1 and A2 series.
5 Conclusion

The rigid pile caps tested in this work, ruptured

These stress limits in the nodal zones can vary due to cracking of the compressed concrete struts
if analysed with the ultimate load, or better, so followed by yielding of the reinforcement bars in
that the rupture of the specimens does not occur. one direction. The A2 and A4 series specimens
98
present greater ultimate load, followed by the A3
and A1 series specimens.
The strut method [3] showed to be conserva-
tive, as the values of the ultimate loads (Fu), for
all the specimens, were greater than the theoret-
ical loads (Fteo) indicating a minimum safety
margin of 12%.
The following stress limit values are suggested
in the nodal zones so that there is no rupture due
to cracking of the compressed struts:
runz  0:40
fcm (Upper nodal zone)
rInz  0:50
fcm (Lower nodal zone
for caps with D = 20 cm)
rlnz  0:30
fcm (Lower nodal zone
for caps with D = 30 cm)
where fcm is the average concrete compression
strength; rlnz the compression stresses in the
LNZ; runz the compression stresses in the UNZ.
References
1. Adebar P, Kuchma D, Collins MP (1990) Strut-and-Tie
models for design of pile caps: an experimental study.
ACI Struct J (American Concrete Institute) 87:81–92
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:85–98
2. American Concrete Institute (1989) ACI 318-89 –
Building code requirements for reinforced concrete
and commentary (ACI 318 R-89). Detroit, USA
3. Blévot J, Frémy R (1967) Semelles sur pieux. Annales,
Institut Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics
(Paris) 20(230):223–295
4. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (2004)
NBR 6118:2003 Project and executing of reinforced
concrete construction. Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. (In
Portuguese)
5. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (1994)
NBR 7222:1994 – Mortar and concrete – determining
the tensile strength through diametral compression test
of cylindrical samples. Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. (In
Portuguese)
6. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (1994)
NBR 5738:1994 – Moulding and cure of cylindrical or
prismatic concrete samples. Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil.
(In Portuguese)
7. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (1994)
NBR 5739:1994 – Concrete – Compression tests of
cylindrical samples. Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. (In
Portuguese)
8. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (1996)
NBR 7480:1996 – Steel bars and cables destined for
reinforcement in reinforced concrete. Rio de Janeiro
City, Brazil. (In Portuguese)
9. Schlaich J, Schafer K, Jennewein M (1987) Toward a
consistent design of reinforced structural concrete.
J Prestressed Concrete Inst 32(3):74–150