KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2019) 23(8):3509-3524 Structural Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2019 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-019-1650-5 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Design-Oriented Testing and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Pile Caps

Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq* and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood**
Received September 1, 2018/Revised April 21, 2019/Accepted April 23, 2019/Published Online June 27, 2019

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

A new perspective in the design of reinforced-concrete pile caps is proposed in this paper, where the conventional approach leading
to a reinforcing mesh is replaced by modelling the cap as a strut-and-tie system, in agreement with the strut-and-tie model, STM
proposed by several design codes, ACI 318 included. Twelve RC pile-cap specimens were designed and manufactured. In the first
group of 4 specimens the caps rest on two piles (Group A, axis-to-axis distance 300 mm), while in the second and third groups the
piles are three and four, respectively (Groups B and C, axis-to-axis distance 400 mm). In each group, the first and third specimens
were designed according to the traditional sectional method (reference specimens, with constant depth and lateral shoulders), while
the design of the second and fourth specimens was based on the strut-and-tie method (no lateral shoulders; no corners opposite to the
piles). Needless to say, the nominal design load was the same within each group. The tests clearly show that cap design based on
strut-and-tie systems brings in a sizable reduction in terms of reinforcement amount and cost, accompanied by a less pronounced but
still sizable extra bearing capacity.
Keywords: reinforced concrete, R/C design, pile caps, reduced-scale specimens, strut-and-tie models
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction members are controlled by splitting failures (Adebar et al.,

Pile caps transfer applied loads from walls and columns to
piles, and are a sort of interface between the superstructure and
the substructure. Pile caps are subjected mostly to concentrated
loads and have sizable dimensions in three directions, with
highly nonlinear strain and stress distributions. Consequently,
such structural members mainly consist of D-regions (disturbed/
diffusive regions) whose design traditionally based on a sectional
approach is highly questionable (Deutsch and Walker, 1963).
Structural designers traditionally use the conventional sectional
method, in which the pile cap is assumed to behave like a beam
connecting two piles, with a sectional depth sufficient to avoid
shear-related failures and a longitudinal reinforcement controlled
by bending, to avoid bending-related failures (Souza et al.,
2009). The beam theory ignores nonlinear strains through the
depth by imposing linear strains and this is a rough approximation.
In slender beams, bending behavior may be separated from
shear; it is impossible in pile caps because a longitudinal
reinforcement increase produces an important punching strength
increase (Suzuki and Otsuki, 2002).
Adebar et al. (1990) made a significant conclusion that (a) ACI
318-83 overrates the effective depth significance and (b) the
deep pile cap strength can be improved by merely increasing the
concentrated load bearing area rather than by depth increasing.
The sectional design method is applicable for shear span-depth
ratios (a/d) more than 1.5, while when a/d is less than 0.5,
1990). Most practice codes recommend designing pile caps
using sectional force methods. This is inappropriate for most
massive pile caps and for which compression struts flow from
the load application point to the piles, that way making a
nonlinear and complex distribution of strain through the pile cap.
The ACI building code 318 (2014) suggests that the usual
procedures for flexural design be applied in designing the
longitudinal reinforcement in a pile cap. Fundamental to these
“beam” procedures is the assumption that plane sections remain
plane. The results of previous research (Abdul-Razzaq, 2013;
Abdul-Razzaq and Jebur, 2017; Abdul-Razzaq et al., 2017; Abdul-
Razzaq et al., 2018; Abdul-Razzaq and Jebur, 2018) show that
traditional provisions of shear can be unconservative when used
for massive RC members; testing RC deep beams designed for
flexural failure led them to fail in shear. The most important
cause for this shear failure can be attributed to the excessive
significance paid to the effective depth when using sectional
design methods (Gautier and Mathern, 2010).
In addition, in areas where there is a change in loading or
cross-section, these typical design techniques often do not yield
accurate results (Adebar et al., 1990). These regions are often
called D-regions or disturbed regions. The conventional methods
to evaluate the internal forces by assuming Bernoulli’s hypothesis is
valid when shear span to depth ratio is greater than 2. In reality,
Bernoulli’s hypothesis is not valid in structures, such as deep
beams, corbels, beam-column junction, etc. because the strain in

*Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Diyala, Baqubah 32001, Iraq (Corresponding Author, E-mail: dr.khattabsaleem@yahoo.com)
**M.Sc. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Diyala, Baqubah 32001, Iraq (E-mail: mustafa_king3250@yahoo.com)

− 3509 −
 Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood
these types of structures is not linear (Merritt and Ricketts,
2001). The STM is an alternative and suitable pile cap design
procedure that is now confirmed by some codes of practice
(Adebar et al., 1990; ACI building code 318, 2014; Abdul-
Razzaq et al., 2016; Murthy, 2007; Siao, 1993). Even if further
shear verifications are not mentioned in codes when adopting the
STM, it is highly recommended for pile cap design. It is
recognized that pile cap shear failure occurs due to longitudinal
splitting in the struts. Strut-and-tie models consider the complete
flow of forces within the structure to be an idealized truss (ACI
building code 318, 2014). Concrete zones in which unidirectional
compressive stresses exist are represented with struts, while the
tensile stresses in the main reinforcement are represented by the
ties. The concrete areas where struts and ties meet are called
nodal zones. Some research reports come to the conclusion that
using strut-and-tie models will result in less main reinforcement
use to support the same loading by about 10% to 20% (Souza et
al., 2009). Nori and Tharval (2007) reached a completely opposite
result. This discrepancy may be attributed to concentrating on two
main parameters: the bending critical section position (sectional
approach) and the nodal zone position beneath the column
(STM). As a result, it is not easy to assert that the strut and tie
approach is more cost-effective than the sectional approach, even
if it can offer a more safe and rational method for pile cap depth
proportioning for shear.
On the other hand, if a pile cap has very flat compression
struts, then the internal force flow will be relatively uniform and
a sectional force approach would be appropriate. Such a sectional
force approach would assume the shear strength of a pile cap is
proportional to the depth of the section. For slender pile caps
supported on numerous piles, the Canadian code allows designers
to use a sectional force procedure similar to the ACI procedure
(Adebar et al., 1990). The ACI 318 does not capture the massive
pile cap behavior, which is actually rather complex. The models
based on strut-and-tie trusses more precisely characterize the
massive pile cap behavior (Deutsch and Walker, 1963). When
using traditional sectional methods that depend on Bernoulli’s
hypothesis in the design of massive pile caps, experimental tests
have showed that pile caps that were supposed to fail by flexure
have failed by shear. In other words, conventional shear approaches
can be - to a certain extent- unconservative when used for pile caps.
Overrating the importance of the effective depth - as in the sectional-
design approach - was the cause of early failures in shear (Souza
et al., 2009; Ahmed et al., 2009).
Some codes of practice, such as the american concrete institute
code (ACI-Code), canadian standards association (CSA), australian
standard (AS) and new zealand standard (NZS) are now supporting
the STM as an appropriate and alternative pile caps design
procedure. Shear verification is highly recommended by many
researchers when designing pile caps although it is not
recommended in these practice codes when designing with
STM. The researchers agree on the shear failures in pile caps
being due to the longitudinal splitting of the struts (Adebar et al.,
1990; Schlaich et al., 1987; Souza et al., 2007). Therefore, a/d
− 3510 −
less than 1.0 and a compressive stress under 1.0fc normally can
result in ductile failures (Adebar et al., 1990). That is why, designers
may believe that the main reinforcing steel bars yields before the
compression struts splitting or crushing (Ahmed et al., 2009).
Abdul-Hameed (2015) tested 2-pile cap specimens to investigate
the effect of transverse horizontal (ρh) and vertical (ρv) shear
reinforcement ratios, compressive strength of concrete ( fc ′ ), shear
span to effective depth ratio (a/d), and the longitudinal flexural
reinforcement ratio (ρ). He concluded that decreasing a/d leads to
an increase in the ultimate shear capacities. Decreasing ρv and
increasing ρh at the same time leads to an increase in the diagonal
cracking shear strength. The ultimate shear strength and the
diagonal cracking shear strength increase with increasing ρ.
Finally, he found that increasing fc ′ increases the ultimate shear
strength.
Abdul-Razzaq and Jebur (2017) suggested alternatives for the
conventional simply supported deep beams by reinforcing the
struts and ties only. The experimental results showed that the
conventionally reinforced reference specimens have a greater
ultimate capacity by about 20% in comparison with the nominal
design loads of STM, ACI 318M-14. In addition, the proposed
specimens in which the reinforcement was limited to the
concrete of the strut-and-tie system showed higher nominal loads
than that calculated by STM of ACI 318M-14 but less than that
of the conventional reference deep beam cases. The proposed
alternatives presented cost saving, reduction in total weight and
provided a front side area of about 4 − 27%, 41 − 51%, and 46 −
56%, respectively, in comparison with the reference conventionaly
reinforced deep beams.
Based on the above, the authors re-applied the idea of reinforcing
the struts and ties, but this time in the reinforced concrete caps.
The steps taken here were as follows:
1. Design of the traditional reference pile caps of every group;
the first and third specimens of each group used the conven-
tional reinforcement of two meshes. The thickness and the
mesh reinforcement were determined using the well-known
traditional sectional method.
2. Application of the same nominal design load of the refer-
ence pile specimens on the STM trusses defined by ACI
318-14 (Appendix A) to get the compressive forces in the
struts and the tensile forces in the ties for the proposed spec-
imens, the second and fourth specimens of each group.
3. Determination of the dimensions of the struts and ties using
the STM of ACI 318-14 for the proposed specimens, the
second and fourth specimens of each group.
4. Introduction of the reinforcement into the struts and ties, as
compressive and tensile members using ACI 318-14 equa-
tions 22.4.2.2 and 22.4.3.1, respectively. The second and
fourth specimens of each group are the proposed specimens.
The shoulders in which the struts do not pass through were
omitted to reduce total weight.
Accordingly, in this work, the experimental results of reinforcing
struts and ties assisted in verifying the stress paths flow in the
pile caps, in addition to presenting a new perspective on RC pile
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering