Pile Cap Design Using Strut-and-Tie Modelling

1 2
William Buswell and Vinh Dao
1
Graduate Structural Engineer, Arup
2
Lecturer, School of Civil Engineer, The University of Queensland

Abstract: Pile caps are an important structural component which connect superstructure with
substructure and exhibit non-flexural behaviour. As a result, strut-and-tie modelling (STM) has been
increasingly accepted as the preferred design option. In this paper, existing STM techniques for pile
caps are first reviewed. It is shown that current STM fails to accurately predict pile cap response
under the combined actions of column axial force, shear force and bending moment. It is also shown
that the strut efficiency factor in AS3600-2009 may not accurately describe the compressive stress
field behaviour within pile caps. The paper then presents a new concept using effective concrete
stress blocks and concentrated reinforcement forces to describe pile cap response. The proposed
concept is subsequently used to modify a set of existing pile cap design equations, in which column
and pile bearing stresses are used as indicators for pile cap capacity. New coefficients are developed
which enable these bearing stresses to be predicted when column moment and shear is present.
Testing against existing pile cap data provides encouraging results, however further verification is still
required.

Keywords: Pile cap, strut-and-tie modelling, bursting, moment, bearing stress.

1 Introduction

Pile caps interface superstructure with substructure and exhibit non-flexural behaviour when loaded.
STM is generally considered the most appropriate technique for their design (1). This lower bound
plasticity method is a simplified application of stress field theory. The designer is required to
approximate internal stress fields with an idealised truss, which is constructed from uniaxial concrete
struts and reinforcement ties, and concrete nodal zones.

The capacity of ideal, uniaxial concrete struts must be moderated for the effects of bursting forces.
Bursting forces develop as compressive stress fields expand along their length into surrounding
concrete. These tensile forces act across a strut, and can cause shear failure, or bursting at a load
which is below the axial capacity (1).

This study examines pile caps which are loaded through columns only.

2 Review of Literature

Pile cap design using STM can be extremely design intensive and prone to variability. It is thus highly
desirable to develop methods that simplify the design process. One such method is to provide a set of
equations which remove the need for the designer to develop their own three dimensional STM (1 - 8).

The common approach is to use conventional strut-and-tie theory to develop a simple set of equations
which calculate strut and nodal zone capacities. The limitation to this approach is that these equations
are only genuinely applicable to the cases for which they were derived (1). While these equations
have been developed using STM theory, removing the need for the designer to create their own STM
means that it is very difficult to manipulate the models to suit different problems. By simplifying the
theory and trying to reduce variation between pile cap designs, the scope of application of the
equations has been limited

Pile cap design equations have been developed for simple or ideal cases only, and begin to
progressively break down when the:
 Column is not square,
  Piles are not circular,
 Pile cap is not square,
 STM does not form a square-based pyramid,
 Column is not concentrically positioned on the pile cap (1).

Models also either ignore loads other than uniform column compression, or represent them
inaccurately (1). While not present in every design, column moments and shear can be transferred
into a pile cap and must be considered (5).

2.1 Gaps in STM for Pile Cap Analysis and Design

Published literature generally represents column moment as a statically equivalent point load applied
at an eccentricity to the column centreline (1), as illustrated in Figure 1.

e
M

N N

≡ such that

C.L. C.L.

Figure 1. Replacing Moment with a Statically Equivalent Eccentric Point Load

Problems with the approach include:

1. Tensile stresses which may develop in the column reinforcement are ignored.
2. If any column reinforcement is strained in tension, the compressive force in the column
compressive zone is greater than the net column compression.
3. Nodal zone geometry beneath the column is unclear.
4. A statically equivalent eccentric load cannot be achieved for all combined actions that a
column can support. This is due to the boundary condition which restricts available eccentricity
to half of the column depth. Combined actions which cannot be represented are shaded on
the column interaction diagram in Figure 2. Figure 2 was produced for the column section
described in Appendix A.
5. The net compressive load is applied in the incorrect location.
Figure 2. Typical Column Interaction Diagram

Certain publications recognize that a more complex model is required if the effects of column moment
are to be understood. Shirato et al. (5) propose a model which allows tension in the column to be
considered. Concentrated compressive and tensile forces are applied in opposing column faces, and
a centreline STM is developed to provide a load path to the piles. This concept is extended by
Chantelot & Mathern (4), who propose that the concentrated forces in the column be replaced with the
corresponding linear stress distribution. Regions of the column which are in compression and tension
can now be identified, giving a better indication to the three-dimensional STM geometry.

Each of these concepts presents improved descriptions of the load transfer between a column under
moment, and a pile cap. They however fail to describe these load paths in a way which clearly defines
the geometry of a nodal zone, which is loaded through a uniform block of compressive stress from the
column. The geometry of this nodal zone is fundamental as it is used to define the entire STM.

The reviewed publications did not investigate pile cap reaction to lateral load.

2.2 Critique of AS3600 STM Content for Pile Cap Design

AS3600 recognises that pile caps are non-flexural elements, and directs the designer to use STM. It
also defines the STM methodology which shall be used. This methodology features a strut efficiency
factor, which moderates strut capacity to account for bursting, as well as minimum criteria for bursting
reinforcement (9). Each of these may be considered inappropriate when applying STM to pile cap
design.

Observations from the failure of 135 planar, non-flexural elements were used to empirically calibrate
the AS3600 strut-efficiency factor (10). Unlike planar elements such as deep beams and corbels, pile
caps feature large dimensions in each direction. This creates uncertainty as to whether compressive
stress fields will behave similarly in each type of structure. For example, unlike planar elements, pile
cap geometry provides large volumes of lowly stressed, unreinforced concrete to surround and confine
any transverse strain in a strut (4). This surrounding concrete also allows the compressive stress fields
to diverge in all radial directions, which also limits the maximum transverse strain in any one direction
(1).

Each observation suggests that the AS3600 strut efficiency factor may actually under-estimate pile
cap strut capacity. However, the difference in strut behaviour between pile caps and planar elements
warrants further investigation to confirm the relevance of the strut efficiency factor for pile caps.

Clause 7.2.4 in AS3600 stipulates that bursting reinforcement must be detailed within a strut if the
bursting force exceeds half of the strut capacity (9). As it is impractical to detail bursting reinforcement
within pile caps, the acceptable capacity of a strut is halved. This will deliver excessive and inefficient
pile cap design. Further consideration should be given to the relevance of this clause, in its current
form, to pile caps.
3 Addressing Gaps in the Current Theory

The gaps identified in section 2 may be addressed by re-examining plasticity and stress field theories.
These theories instruct the designer to follow the flow of stress through a structure. As load is
transferred from superstructure to substructure via the pile cap, understanding the stress state at the
base of the column, during loading conditions which relate to the current gaps, will allow a total STM
approach to be developed.

AS3600 assumes that linear strain and stress distributions are present through a column cross-section
at ultimate capacity. Equivalent compressive stress blocks are then used to approximate the stress
profile with a uniform block of compressive stress in the concrete, and concentrated compressive and
tensile forces in any reinforcement (9).

Linear strain and stress distributions can only be assumed in flexural regions. A non-flexural or
disturbed region develops at the geometric discontinuity between column and pile cap, and
propagates 1 – 1.5 times the section depth into the column (11). AS3600 permits the designer to
ignore this non-flexural behaviour, and produce the entire column design using equivalent stress
blocks. Equivalent stress blocks can therefore also be used to estimate the stress profile at the base
of the column.

Figure 3 illustrates these simplified stress profile at the base of a typical column section under different
loading conditions (1). The nodal zones and concentrated tensile forces which develop within the pile
cap are also shown.

Figure 3. Column Stress Profiles

Figure 3 demonstrates that an increase in both column load and moment will cause larger stresses to
develop within a pile cap. Moment increases stress by altering STM geometry. This is evident in
Figure 3, which shows that the size of the nodal zone beneath the column reduces as moment
increases. Load increases stress by channelling additional force through the existing STM. Column
shear can therefore be assumed to not affect STM geometry. Existing STM elements must instead
become more greatly stressed to equilibrate the new load.

Figure 4 illustrates two typical centreline STMs which may be used to model pile cap responses for
different magnitudes of column moment (1; 5).
Figure 4. Typical STM Geometries for Pile Caps under Column Moment

4 Modifications to the Adebar & Zhou (2) Equations

More complex STMs are required to apply the concepts developed in section 0 to model pile cap
response to column moment and shear. This study therefore selected one of the simplified design
approaches referred to in section 2, and developed the components necessary to expand the original
scope in response to section 0. The equations developed by Adebar & Zhou (2) were selected.

4.1 Original Equations

Adebar & Zhou (2) based their pile cap design equations on the Schlaich, Schἂfer et al. (11) concept
that, assuming adequate reinforcement has been detailed, the stress state within an entire disturbed
region can be considered safe if the maximum bearing stress acting on that region is below a known
value. Adebar & Zhou (3) found that the safe column or pile bearing stress is influenced by the
confinement of the strut by surrounding concrete, and the strut aspect ratio. Experimental
observations verified that these equations provide an accurate but conservative capacity prediction
when applied within their original scope (2).

√ (1)

(√ ) (2)

( ) (3)

(4)
( )

(5)

Permissible column and pile bearing pressures are limited by equation (1). Equations (2) and (3)
measure the contributions of confinement and the strut aspect ratio. These strut aspect ratios are
approximated using equations (4) and (5).

AS3600 defines the ratio A2/A1 in clause 12.6. The definitions for each term have been extracted and
discussed below.
A1: “ earing area” (9). For pile caps, this is equal to the area of the compressive region
beneath a column or above a pile.
A2: T e “large t area o t e u orting ur a e t at i geometri ally imilar to an
concentric with A1” (9).
4.2 Suggested Modifications

These suggested modifications to the original Adebar & Zhou (2) equations were developed using the
concepts from section 0. They aim to provide a simple pass or fail check for a pile cap under any
loading condition.

4.2.1 Bearing Pressure fb

Section 0 explained that the entire column cross-section will not be in compression if moment is
present. Column bearing pressure must therefore be calculated using the area of the
equivalent stress block. Figure 5 illustrates generic column bearing areas for different moments.
Column bearing stress is calculated using equation (6).

Figure 5. Generic Column Bearing Areas

m (6)
m

Figure 6 maps the change in bearing pressures along the section capacity line for the typical
section described in Appendix A. The column is loaded under uniaxial moment. This
demonstrates that for uniaxial moment, the greatest bearing pressure occurs during uniform
compression (1).

1.0

0.8
fb.u/fb.uo

0.6 Ultimate
Capacity
0.4
Reduced
0.2 Capacity

0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Mu/Muo

Figure 6. Relationship between Bearing Stress and Moment for a Typical Column Section under
Uniaxial Bending

4.2.2 Reduced Capacity due to Column Shear

Section 0 demonstrated that column shear does not affect STM geometry. The factor shown in
equation (7) can therefore be applied to adjust the column bearing stress due to vertical load
only, to account for any additional lateral load. This factor is the ratio between strut
 compression due to vertical load and shear, and to the compression generated by vertical load
only (1).

(7)

4.2.3 Bearing Pressure Ratio A2/A1

Section 4.2.1 explained that when a column moment is present, the dimensions of the bearing
area term A1 become the dimensions of the equivalent stress blocks. Figure 7. Typical A1 and
A2 ExamplesFigure 7 illustrates how A2 will vary for typical A1 examples.

Figure 7. Typical A1 and A2 Examples

4.2.4 Aspect Ratio

Equivalent stress block dimension should replace the column dimension when estimating the
strut aspect ratio. This is shown in equations (8) and (9). As the original equations were
developed for square columns, it is conservative to take the largest stress block dimension
when calculating the aspect ratio (1). Further investigation may be able to justify using a less
conservative value such as the theoretical thickness.

m (8)
( )

(9)
m

4.2.5 Assumptions

Both column moment and shear alter the stress state within a pile cap. These modified
equations were developed under the assumption that any changes do not affect the relationship
between the safe bearing pressure and safe internal stress distribution, as well as the
approximate relationship to the strut aspect ratio.

4.3 Testing against Existing Experimental Results

These modified pile cap design equations were tested against two, separate four-pile cap specimens,
which were loaded with a column moment and shear until failure (5). Material properties, column
capacities and the column stress profiles were calculated using AS3600. A reinforcement rate of 1.65%
was assumed in each face of the column, as the actual value was not reported.

The modified equations correctly predicted that each pile cap had failed at the reported loading.
Governing bearing stresses were however calculated as being 225% and 237% of the predicted safe
bearing pressure. These predictions are significantly overconservative and suggest that the current
modified equations do not yet accurately describe the pile cap behaviours.

Photos showing crack patterns at failure indicate that the pile caps had achieved an internal stress
distribution similar to the second STM shown in Figure 4 (5). These patterns highlighted that pile cap
failure was initiated by bursting in a particular strut. A revised estimate of the aspect ratio was
performed for this strut, and was inserted into the modified equations. This improved the critical
bearing stress predictions to 158% and 165% of the safe bearing pressure.

This improvement in accuracy suggests that the assumptions stated in section 4.2.5 may be incorrect.
Further analytical or computational investigation is required to fully understand the effects that column
moment and shear have on the safe column and pile bearing stress. These modified equations may
then be refined in response to any findings.

A comprehensive table of results is included in Appendix B.

5 Conclusion

Gaps in current STM applications for pile cap design have developed from attempts to simplify the
STM process. These simplifications have taken from the designer the ability to create their own STM
to suit expected loading conditions. As a result, the pile cap response to more complex column loads,
such as moment and shear cannot be predicted. This paper re-examined plasticity and stress field
theories to understand how pile caps behave under all loading conditions, prior to attempting to
simplify the approach for future use. This permitted a simple pass or fail approach, which uses an
accepted method of approximating the column stress profile, to check pile cap capacity under all
loading conditions.

Sufficient data is not currently available to verify the accuracy of the modified pile cap design
equations that are presented in this paper. Further analytical or computational investigation is first
required to fully understand the effects that a column moment has on the safe column and pile bearing
stresses. The modified equations developed in this paper may then be refined to reflect any findings.
While it is not suggested that these equations should remove the need for the designer to use STM,
they do have the potential to provide a relatively simple pass or fail check for pile cap capacity.

Pile cap geometry influences compressive stress field capacity in a way which may not be accurately
predicted by AS3600. While it is expected that the current standard may actually be more
conservative when applied to pile caps, further investigation is recommended.

6 References

1. Buswell, W , “Pile a De ign U ing trut-and-Tie Mo elling”, Undergraduate Thesis, The

University of Queensland, 2012, Brisbane.
2. Adebar, P. & Zhou, Z , “De ign o Dee Pile a y trut-and-Tie Mo el ”, ACI Structural
Journal, 93(4), 1996, pp 1-12.
3. Adebar, P. & Zhou, Z , “Bearing trengt o om re i e trut on ine y Plain on rete”,
ACI Structural Journal, 90(5), 1993, pp 534-541.
4. Chantelot, G. & Mathern, A., “ trut-and-Tie Mo elling o ein or e on rete Pile a ”,
Ma ter’ t e i , almers University of Technology, 2010, Gὃteborg.
5. Shirato, M, ukui, J et al , “Ultimate ear trengt o Pile a ,” Technical Memorandum of
Public Works Research Institute, 39(20), 2003, pp 355-368.
 6. Souza, RA., et al., "Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Four-Pile Caps Supporting Columns
Subjected to Generic Loading", Computers and Concrete, 4(5), 2007, pp 142-150.
7. Souza, RA., et al., "Adaptable Strut-and-Tie Model for Design and Verification of Four-Pile
Caps", ACI Structural Journal, 106(2), 2009, pp 142-150.
8. Park, JW., et al., "Strength Predictions of Pile Caps by Strut-and-Tie Model Approach",
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 35(1), 2008, pp 1399-1413.
9. tan ar u tralia, “ on rete tru ture ( - 9)”, tan ar u tralia, 9, Sydney.
10. Foster, SJ. & Malik, AR , “E aluation o E i ien y a tor Mo el u e in trut-and-Tie
Mo eling o Non lexural Mem er ”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(5), 2002, pp 569-
577.
11. Schlaich, J., Schἂfer, K et al , “Towar a on i tent De ign o tru tural on rete”, PCI
Journal, 31(3), 1987, pp 75-149.

7 Nomenclature

Ac,m bearing area of a column under moment

A1 column bearing area, equal to Ac,m
A2 the largest area of the supporting surface which is geometrically similar to and concentric
with A1 (9)
bs strut width
c dimension of a square column
Cc column compressive force in concrete
Cs column compressive force in reinforcement
d column section effective depth
dp circular pile diameter
D column section geometric depth
fb bearing stress
fb.u bearing stress in a column at ultimate capacity
fb.uo bearing stress in a column section under uniform compression
fb,m bearing stress in a column under moment
f’c concrete compressive strength
Fh component of strut compression from horizontal column force
Fv component of strut compression from vertical column force
hs height of strut
ku a neutral axial parameter in a column at ultimate capacity
Mu ultimate moment capacity of a column
Muo moment capacity of a column section under pure bending
M* design bending moment
Rh ratio measuring the compression in a strut due to both horizontal and vertical load, to the
compression generated by vertical load only
T column tension force in reinforcement
V* design shear force
confinement coefficient, presented by Adebar & Zhou (2)
2 coefficient for calculating stress in an equivalent stress block
aspect ratio coefficient, presented by Adebar & Zhou (2)
Φ capacity reduction factor
γ coefficient for calculating the depth of an equivalent stress block

Appendix A

The column interaction diagram shown in Figure 2, and bearing stress relationship in Figure 6, were
constructed using the typical column section described in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Typical column section

Appendix B

Table 1 refers to the checks performed in section 4.3.

Table 1. Results from Review of Existing Pile Cap Test Data

Pile Cap C-1 Pile Cap C-2

V* (kN) 681 575
M* (kNm) 1362 1150
Assumed column
1.65% each face
reinforcement
f'c (MPa) 26.2 29.4
ΦMu (kNm) 1389 1391
Column Pile Column Pile
2
A1 (mm ) 45978 31416 43761 31416
2
A2 (mm ) 413804 196349 393850 196349
0.667 0.5 0.667 0.5
hs/bs 1.8 2.25 1.8 2.25
0.267 0.419 0.267 0.417
Safe bearing
21.2 23.4 22.1 24.4
pressure (MPa)
Rh 1 1
Fb (MPa) 50.2 18.4 52.8 13.1
Capacity 237% 225%
Revised hs/bs
3.16 - 3.16 -
estimate
Revised capacity 165% 158%