Original email and response.

[Peter]
[Andy]

From: Peter Jameson

Sent: 15 September 2016 13:16
To: Tony Jones (E)
Subject: Pile Cap Design by Strut-and-Tie Method

Dear Tony,

We have recently been discussing some of the finer points of pile cap design to AS3600-
2009, in particular the requirements for bursting of bottle-shaped struts to C7.2.4. In the
course of a literature review, I came across some helpful documents on the SSN including an
example calculation which I believe you contributed to. I was hoping I could pose a couple of
questions on an issue that we can’t seem to find resolution on that your example addressed.

The first relates to the clause in AS3600-2009 which allows the bursting force in a bottle-
shaped strut to be taken by concrete strength alone. We are currently unresolved on how to
apply the ‘b’ component of this expression to a 3-dimensional pile cap. In 2-dimensional
designs it is quite plainly the width of the cross section and this is what was adopted in the
attached example calculation for a two-pile pile cap.

We’re not exactly sure how to apply this to a 3-dimensional design. The figure below shows
an excerpt from C7.2.4 and a plan and elevation of a four-pile pile cap. I have marked-up
three possible interpretations for ‘b’.
Current thinking on those options are:
a) Could this be too conservative a value give the large amount of concrete surrounding
the bottle?
b) This is the approach adopted previously on some projects in Australia and mentioned
in these SSN threads:
http://forums.intranet.arup.com/?layout=thread&cfapp=26&threadid=54948
http://forums.intranet.arup.com/?layout=thread&cfapp=26&threadid=490
http://wiki.intranet.arup.com/networks/Pile_Caps_by_Strut_and_Tie_to_AS3600_-
_David_Keast
c) Seems very conservative, however this was adopted in an Australian concrete design
text book called Reinforced Concrete Basics by Warner, Foster, and Kilpatrick (2010)

[Andy] Although the code calls Tb,cr the “bursting force”, it’s actually the resistance (Tb* is
the applied force, and 0.5Tb,cr must be greater than Tb* to avoid bursting reinforcement). With
this in mind, the smallest ‘b’ is critical – I think this is what you’re saying.
Going forward from this, I would take ‘b’ as ‘bef’ as defined in the figures below noting that:
- ‘bef’ may vary depending on orientation with one orientation giving the lowest value;
the minimum value should be used.
- (not clear in this figure) I would take bef as twice the distance from the centreline of
the strut to the nearest edge which, for partial discontinuity, might be less than the
total section width.

This is part of a broader conversation about reinforcement for cracking in pile caps especially
those with more than 2 piles. There are many subtle hints in journal papers and on the SSN
about excluding footings from minimum reinforcement requirements. For example, in the
Notes on Structures 2008 NST 08 Struts and ties: anchorage of reinforcement over supports
and strut strength, on the subject of pile caps:
Strength of struts
If specific code clauses do not cover the geometric or loading arrangement of a particular D-
region, the strength of the struts will have to be estimated. Fig 7a shows the parallel-sided
strut from Fig 2. This is a very simplified diagram, for a strut like this could not exist within
the pile cap as there would be strain incompatibility along its boundaries. Fig 7b shows a
more realistic stress field, which curves into the surrounding concrete and in so doing
develops transverse tensile stresses for equilibrium. Although the increased width of the strut
reduces the compressive stress, the transverse tensile stresses, and possible cracks, reduce
the compressive strength.

… All elements, other than footings, should contain an orthogonal grid of reinforcing bars
near each face to control cracking.

Would I be correct in thinking that when omitting crack control reinforcement for pile caps is
discussed, the assumption is that the strut would be designed with the reduction factors in
either ACI318 (A.3.2.2) or EN1992-1-1 (6.5.2 (2)) for struts without reinforcement?
[Andy] Correct, although neither of these is then strictly compliant with AS3600. However,
you can also arrive at an unreinforced strut strength in AS3600, by limiting Tb* < 0.5Tb,cr.
Then from Tb*, you can then determine the max strut force, and therefore the limiting strut
stress.

This detailed discussion is prompted primarily because of the requirements in AS3600 for an
SLS design for the bursting forces and correspondingly limiting reinforcement stress to
250MPa (minor crack control).
[Andy] I know the clause you’re talking about, but don’t exactly see the point you’re making.
Are you just saying you’d need a lot of anti-bursting steel to achieve this limit?
Subsequent discussion thread.

[Peter]
[Andy]
[Peter]
[Andy]
[Peter]
[Peter]
[Andy]

From: Peter Jameson

Sent: 16 September 2016 09:14
To: Andy Gardner
Cc: Tony Jones (E); Ian Feltham; Marinna Keating; Richard Salter
Subject: RE: Pile Cap Design by Strut-and-Tie Method

[Peter] This detailed discussion is prompted primarily because of the requirements in AS3600
for an SLS design for the bursting forces and correspondingly limiting reinforcement stress to
250MPa (minor crack control).
[Andy] I know the clause you’re talking about, but don’t exactly see the point you’re making.
Are you just saying you’d need a lot of anti-bursting steel to achieve this limit?
[Peter] Yes. I think this is more than required by most codes. Say the ratio of loads are
about ULS : 1.3SLS, but the difference in stress allowed is 500MPa (yield) : 250MPa (minor
crack control). So when we can’t satisfy 0.5Tb,cr we’re finding that the reinforcement
requirements are very onerous.
[Andy] I recall this being an issue on various occasions for non-S&T design. Also, while I
absolutely agree that this rule should be applied for the main ties (red in your diagram), I’m
less convinced about whether this needs to be considered for anti-bursting bars. In EN1992,
cl 3.1.9, confinement, it states that: “confinement can be generated by adequately closed
links or cross-ties which can reach the plastic condition due to lateral extension”. I’m not
100% sure, but there is the argument that the anti-bursting reinforcement isn’t there to
control surface cracks and, furthermore, it can only act to provide confinement if any
longitudinal cracks in the struts remain v. small.
If not convinced by the above, you should only take Tb* from the SLS applied load if
considering this SLS stress limit.
[Peter] I think I may have confused things. The combination of reo. stress limit and different
divergence angle makes for a big difference between ULS and SLS.

Take for example a bottle strut where the concrete strength cannot take the bursting:

SLS strut compression = 1000kN

Divergence angle = 1:2
SLS bursting force = 500kN
fsi = 250MPa (Minor crack control)
Asi = 2000mm2
 ULS strut compression = 1300kN
Divergence angle = 1:5
ULS bursting force = 260kN
φfsy = 0.8x500MPa
Asi = 650mm2 (32%)

Even if we took the divergence angle as 1:2 for ULS the reo would only be 1625mm2
(80%).

So, hopefully that’s a bit clearer. We’re pretty keen to justify the concrete strength whenever
we can.
[Andy] I must confess I overlooked (A) above, and am also confused by what it’s asking for.
I don’t know what is meant by Tb,cr*. The ‘*’ denotes a design value, but Tb,cr is a resistance.
Given this, requiring a reinforcement area that is penalised by an increasing Tb,cr seems
counter intuitive...
Without anything similar in other codes that I’m more familiar with, I’m not sure what
further guidance to give on this. I don’t have a copy of the latest commentary. Is there
anything in that? I have a copy of the commentary to AS3600-2004 but this is almost useless
for S&T which changed significantly in the new code.
I’ll more than likely try and read up on this over the next few days as I’m genuinely curious,
but I don’t think I can help much more immediately.

[Andy] As an aside, and being slightly pedantic, the paragraph that sets out when it’s
necessary to consider (A) and (B) only requires transverse reinforcement (for either SLS or
ULS) if the ULS condition (Tb*) exceeds the limit of 0.5Tb,cr. However, although pretty
unambiguous in the way it’s written, I don’t think this is likely the way it was intended to be
interpreted.

[Andy] Tony J rightly reminded me that tensile strength influences minimum reinforcement
for crack control and it is logical that this is the reason for including Tb,cr in (A). This is
confirmed in the commentary (thanks for sending this).
However, with this being the case, then I consider it reasonable that Tb,cr should be evaluated
over dimension (b) from your original sketch (although I would define it as twice the distance
to the nearest edge) as this is the area that will provide tensile confinement. In line with this, a
larger area of concrete gives a bigger Tb,cr which is reasonable, but not immediately helpful
for your SLS design:
Taking this definition for b, at some point it will become silly to provide reinforcement if Tb,cr
is really large (e.g. a very large piled raft). Perhaps this is why the requirement to consider
reinforcement at SLS is only needed if the ULS force Tb* > 0.5Tb,cr (see strikeouts to my
previous comment above; I see the commentary doesn’t really give any clarity on this,
although does say “the latter forces [the cracking forces] are directly linked to the ultimate
bursting forces”).
Imposing a limit on when anti-bursting reinforcement is necessary ties in with the following
figure, taken from a Thomas Telford guide to EN1992, that shows that the local strength of
concrete under a bearing reduces initially as bottling can occur, but then goes up as the
loaded area reduces relative to the surrounding area and self-confinement takes effect (by
virtue of concrete tensile strength.

Summary
No doubt you can tell from my tone here that I’m somewhat uncertain. Where does this leave
me:
- At ULS, I would still take dimension ‘b’ as per my original recommendation (i.e.
in line with bef from EN1992)
This would be conservative for the purpose of ULS design, giving a smaller 0.5Tb,cr,
but I don’t think unreasonably so if accepting that there will be locked in shrinkage
stresses in a pile cap.
 - At SLS, I would consider ‘b’ as if measured to the nearest concrete edge to see if
max(Tb*,Tb,s*) < 0.5Tb,cr
(logic would suggest Tb* > Tb,s*, but I see that Tb,s* needs to be evaluated with a
wider dispersion angle).
o If satisfied, I would assume you don’t need bursting reinforcement for
SLS
o If not satisfied, I think you have to meet the requirement but now with
Tb,cr evaluated with b = bef to EN1992
(I would revert to using the smaller ‘b’ in this instance for the minimum steel
because only the local region in which the stress trajectories are bottling is
acting to split the concrete apart. Areas beyond this are not generating
additional tension)

- For both SLS and ULS, consider bursting in all orthogonal axes.

Am I right in understanding that ACI318 and EN1992-1-1 only require a check for ULS to
1:2 divergence angle and a reinforcement design for yield?
[Andy] That’s correct for EN1992. I’m less familiar with ACI but from a quick review, I also
believe that’s the case.
Final summary of AS3600 approach.

From: Peter Jameson

Sent: 19 September 2016 09:27
To: Andy Gardner
Cc: Tony Jones (E); Ian Feltham; Marinna Keating; Richard Salter
Subject: RE: Pile Cap Design by Strut-and-Tie Method

Have tried to apply your method in the attached example of a 4-pile pile cap. The last page is
probably the only interesting one. Have I followed your logic correctly? Typed out it would
follow this:

1. Check if bursting reinforcement is required in the ULS.

T*b ≥ 0.5Tb.cr
(T*b calculated with 1:2 divergence angle)
(Tb.cr based on b = bef from EN1991-1-1)

2. If bursting reinforcement is required, check SLS case

a) Check concrete strength at SLS case based on full width of concrete

T*bs ≥ 0.5Tb.cr
(calculated with 1:2 divergence angle)
(Tb.cr based on b = 2 x dimension to nearest edge)

b) If this SLS concrete strength check fails the calculate reinforcement from:

fsi = 250MPa
T*bs (calculated with 1:2 divergence angle)
Tb.cr (based on bef from EN1991-1-1)

3. If bursting reinforcement is required, check ULS case

fsy = 500MPa
T*b (calculated with 1:5 divergence angle)