Design of Bridge Foundations - Pile Cap Design

The Nigerian Institution of Structural Engineers
(A Division of the Nigerian Society of Engineers)
3-Day Workshop on Planning, Design and Cost Estimating of

Culverts & Bridges
Design of Bridge Foundations – Pile Cap Design

Deltec Engineering Limited Document Verification
Page 1 of 1
Job title Job number
Document title
Document ref
Revision Date
00 29/04/09
Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name
Signature
Filename
Description

Name
Signature
Filename
Description

Name
Signature
Filename
Description
Engr. Samson Ivovi, B.Eng, MSc (Bridges), FNIStruct.E, MNSE

Name
CEO
SignatureDeltec Engineering Limited
Plot 576, 14th Street, DDPA Estate, Ugborikoko - Effurun
Issue Document Verification with Document 
Tel +234 8037262708, 8056149071
Email: delteceng@yahoo.com
3-Day Workshop on Planning, Design and Cost estimating of Culverts & Bridges Samson Ivovi, B.Eng, MSc, FNIStructE,, MNSE
6-8 October, 2009 Rock View Hotel, Abuja
1 7 October, 2009
PILE CAP DESIGN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
We have decided to highlight this aspect of foundations because of the importance of foundations to the stability
and long-term durability of structures and the apparent confusion in applying the appropriate method for their
design – beam theory or truss analogy. At present, most designers mix the two methods, which should not be.
This paper shows the difference between the two approaches and points the way forward.
Pile caps are thick concrete pads, which are used to connect a group of piles to enable them behave as a unit.
The pile cap is the medium through which the load from the superstructure is transferred to and distributed
between the individual piles that make up the group. For this purpose, the pile cap should be rigid and have
sufficient thickness for the anchorage of the pier or column dowels and the pile reinforcement.
There are generally three practical alternatives to the construction of pile caps: (1) Cast-in-place (CIP), (2)
precast concrete or (3) precast / cast-in-place combination consisting of U-shaped precast shell which is filled
with CIP concrete. One of the advantages of the precast / cast-in-place combination is the elimination of costly
over-water formwork. Also, the concrete closest to the water, in this case the precast section, is denser and of
higher strength and the precasting provides for better quality control in the curing process and the placement of
the reinforcement, ensuring consistent concrete cover. This provides a considerably more durable structure with
reduced maintenance requirements. Further, casting in place of the interior of the cap reduces the lifting weight
and permits simple connection between the pile and the cap
Pile caps are designed using beam theory or truss analogy approach. In the former case the pile cap is idealized
as an inverted beam and designed for the usual conditions of bending and shear. In the latter case, the pile cap is
modeled as a space truss consisting of compression (strut) and tension (tie) fields. The tensile forces are resisted
by the reinforcement, while the strength of the struts is assessed by limiting the bearing stresses to within
allowable limits. Before we go into the details of the two design methods, let us consider the preliminary design
principles.
1.1 Design Principles
The design of pile caps should be carried out in accordance with the following general principles:
(a) The spacing of piles should generally be two and half times the bigger dimension of the pile section in
plan. In particular, the spacing of friction piles should not be less than the perimeter of the pile while
for end bearing piles the spacing should be a minimum of twice the smaller plan dimension of the pile.
(b) The size of concrete piles should not be less than 750mm diameter or equivalent section area for bridge
foundations in major rivers, and not less than 400mm diameter or equivalent section area for other
2 7 October, 2009
locations such as wing walls, foundations for flyovers and the like. Piles of 300mm diameter may also
be considered for buildings.
(c) The piles should be grouped symmetrically under the loads.
(d) The load carried by each pile is equal to N/ (no. of piles). When a moment is transmitted to the pile cap,
the loads on the piles should be calculated to satisfy equilibrium.
(e) Pile caps should extend at least 150mm beyond the theoretical circumference of the pile. This is to
accommodate possible misalignment in the horizontal and / or vertical position of the pile. (Up to
75mm horizontal and 1 in 75 vertical deviation).
(f) The minimum number of small diameter piles permitted in an isolated pile cap is three. Caps for single
piles should be interconnected by ground beams in two directions, and for twin piles by ground beams
in a line transverse to the common axis of the pair.
(g) For pile caps supported on one or two piles only, a moment arising from a column eccentricity of
75mm should be resisted either by ground beams or by the piles.
1.2 General Design Procedure
(a) Using the service loads and moments, calculate the number of piles required under each column.
(b) Proportion the pile caps on plan in accordance with the above general principles. Typical pile cap
arrangements are shown in Fig.1, where k is the spacing factor.
The following table may be used as guide in determining a suitable depth of pile cap when there are up to six
piles in a group.
Table 1. Depth of pile cap

Pile size, Φ (mm) 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 750
Cap depth, h (mm) 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1400 1800
In general, if Φ≤550mm, h=2Φ + 100 (1a)

Φ>550mm, h=1/3(8Φ–600) (1b)
(c) The initial depth of the pile cap may also be determined as equal to the horizontal distance from the
centerline of the column to centerline of the pile furthest away.
3 7 October, 2009
1.3 Reinforcement in Pile Caps
All pile caps should generally be reinforced in two orthogonal directions on the top and bottom faces with not
less than 0.0013bh for Grade 500 or 0.0025bh for Grade 250 in each direction. Grade 250 reinforcing bars have
virtually disappeared from the Nigerian market and have also become obsolete in Europe.
The reinforcement should be calculated on critical sections at the column faces or pile head, assuming that the
pile loads are concentrated at the pile centres. This reinforcement should be continued past the piles and bent up
vertically to provide full anchorage past the centerline of each pile.
In addition, fully lapped, circumferential horizontal reinforcement consisting of bars not less than size 12 at a
vertical spacing not more than 250mm, should be provided as shown in Fig. 2
2.0 ANALYSIS OF PILE CAPS

Two methods of analysis are often used for pile cap design, namely beam theory and truss analogy.
2.1 Beam Theory

Bending theory is better suited for the analysis of pile caps where the span-depth ratio is more than 2. In this
approach, the pile cap is analyzed as inverted wide beam in each direction and designed for the usual conditions
of bending and shear. The total amount of reinforcement calculated at a section is distributed uniformly across
the section. The shear strength of pile caps is governed by the more severe of the following two conditions.
2.1.1 Flexural shear along any vertical section extending across the full width of the cap. In sections where
the flexural reinforcement is fully anchored by passing across the head of a pile, the applied ultimate shear force
may be reduced to (av/2d) of the applied shear.
where, av is the shear span;
d is the effective depth to tension reinforcement of the section.
BS 5400 states that where av is taken to be the distance between the face of the column or wall and the nearer
end of the piles, it should be increased by 20% of the pile diameter. The increase is to allow for driving
tolerances. The critical sections for shear assessment in a pile cap are illustrated in Fig. 3
2.1.2 Punching shear

Punching of the column through the cap need only be considered if the pile spacing exceeds four times the pile
diameter, which is unlikely; thus BS 5400 only requires punching of a pile through the cap to be considered.
2.2 The Strut &Tie Model (STM) Method

The strut and tie model method treats the pile cap as a space truss in which the concrete provides the diagonal
compression members while the reinforcement acts as the tension members. The intersection between the
tension and compression stress field is called a node. The upper node of the truss is located at the centre of the
4 7 October, 2009
column, if the column width is ignored, otherwise two nodes are created at quarter widths of the column or
loaded area and the lower nodes are located at the intersection of the tension reinforcement with the centerlines
of the piles. The nodes are classified by the type of forces that meet at the node.
 CCC Three struts meet at the node

 CCT Two struts and one tie meet at the node
 CTT One strut and two ties meet at the node
Fig. 4 shows a typical ST model for a four pile cap carrying a column. Table 2 gives the formulae for
determining the tensile force to be used for reinforcement design.
The STM method can also incorporate the effect of externally applied moment, provided the resulting
eccentricity falls within the pile cap.
If the piles are spaced at more than three pile diameters apart, only the reinforcement within a distance of 1.5
pile diameters from the centre of the pile should be considered as effective in providing the tensile resistance.
In addition, 80% of the tension member reinforcement shall be concentrated in strips linking the pile heads and
the rest uniformly distributed throughout the cap.
Pile caps designed using the STM approach should have a thickness not less than 0.5 times the pile spacing.
2.2.1 Shear Design

The ‘shear design, of a deep pile cap involves limiting the concrete stresses in the compression struts and nodal
zones to insure that the tension tie (longitudinal reinforcement) yields prior to any significant diagonal cracking
in the plain compression struts. Based on an analytical and experimental study of compression strut confined by
plain concrete [Adebar, et al], it has been proposed that the maximum bearing stresses in nodal zones of deep
pile caps be limited to
fb≤ 0.6fc’ + 6αβ√fc’ (2a)
α=1/3{√ (A2/A1) -1} ≤1.0 (2b)
β=1/3(hs/bs -1) ≤1.0 (2c)
where, fc’ is the characteristic cylinder crushing strength in MPa,

A2 is the bearing area (k+1)2Φ2 and
A1 is the loaded area (cross sectional area of the column).
The parameter β accounts for the geometry of the compression strut, where h s/bs is the aspect ratio (height-to-
width) of the compression strut.
5 7 October, 2009
Table 2: Pile cap configuration and Tensile force for reinforcement design by STM method
2.2.1.1 CCC Node under Column

To calculate the maximum bearing stress below a column where two or more compression struts meet, the
aspect ratio of the compression strut can be approximated as
hs/bs≈ 2d/c (3)
where, d is the effective depth of the pile cap and

c is the dimension of a square column.
For a round column, the diameter may be used in place of c.
6 7 October, 2009
2.2.1.2 CTT Node above Pile
To calculate the maximum bearing stress for a nodal zone above a pile, where only one compression strut is
anchored, the aspect ratio of the compression strut can be approximated as:
hs/bs≈d/dp (4)
where, dp is the diameter of a round pile. Note that hs/bs≥1
2.2.1.3 Strength of concrete Compression fields
The stress assumed in the compression field has been elaborated in FIB Bulletin 3, which incidentally is also
adopted by ACI318:2005. This is given by the following equation:
fcd’eff = v (1-fck.cyl/250)f1cd (5)
where, fck.cyl is the characteristic cylinder strength

f1cd is the design strength = 0.85 fck.cyl/1.5
In terms of cube strengths, the above relationship may be expressed as:
fcd’eff = v(1-fck,cube/300) 0.45fck,cube (6)

where,
v= 1 for uncracked sections
= 0.8 for struts with cracks parallel to strut and bonded transverse reinforcement
= 0.6 for struts transferring compression across cracks with normal crack widths
=0.45 for struts transferring compression across large cracks (members with
axial tension, or flanges in tension).
For biaxial compression, the permissible stress can be increased by a factor of 1.2. For CCT or CTT nodes
compression check is often not critical for pile caps but if a check is required a reduction factor of 0.8 should be
applied considering cracking due to tension induced by anchorage of bars.
Summarizing the design steps for Pile cap design by STM method
1. Determine pile cap thickness as previously stated
2. Check the nodal zone bearing stresses, using equation 2
3. If necessary increase the pile cap depth (β increased) or the pile cap dimensions to increase the
confinement of the nodal zones (α increased) or else the bearing stresses should be reduced by
increasing the column or pile dimensions.
We shall now consider an example to illustrate the two approaches to pile cap design.
7 7 October, 2009
3.0 WORKED EXAMPLE
The cross section of the central pier of a bridge is a square of side 500mm and carries an service load of 3250kN
(ultimate load =5200kN). The report of subsoil investigation carried out at the project site recommends 500mm
diameter piles, each having a safe working load of 850kN. Determine a suitable pile arrangement and design the
pile cap. (Material strengths: concrete grade fck.cube = 30, reinforcement, fyk = 500N/mm2).
Solution
.3.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Calculate Number of Piles

Use the service loads to determine the number of piles
No. of piles = Service load / safe load = 3250/850 = 3.8, Use 4 piles.
Pile Spacing
Assume friction piles and use a spacing factor of 3
Therefore, pile spacing = 3xPile diameter = 3x500 = 1500mm
Edge Clearance
Minimum projection of cap beyond pile face = 150mm
Therefore edge clearance = 0.5Pile diameters + 150
= 0.5x500 + 150 = 400mm.
Plan Size of Pile Cap, L = 1500+2x400 = 2300mm
Pile cap thickness

As pile diameter, Φ < 550mm, h=2Φ+100 = 2x500 + 100 = 1100mm
The general arrangement of the pile cap is shown in Fig 5
8 7 October, 2009
3.2 DETAIL DESIGN
3.2.1 Bending Theory

3.2.1.1 Bending Moment and reinforcement
Ultimate load per pile, N = 5200/4 = 1300kN.
Total bending moment at column centre line, M = 2x1300x0.75=1950kNm
Assume the piles will be cut-off 100mm into the cap and 20mm bars will be used in each direction.
Therefore, mean effective depth, d = 1100-100-20=1980mm
M/bd2fck.cube = 1950x106 / 2300x9802x30=0.029=K

Lever arm factor, la = 0.5 + (0.25-K/0.9)1/2 = 0.966 ≤ 0.95
Therefore la = 0.95
Ast = 1950x106/(0.95x980 x 0.87x500) = 4815mm2 Provide 16H20 (5024 mm2)

The steel should be distributed uniformly across the section, in each direction.
As/bd = 2.2x10-3
Minimum steel, Asmin/bd = 0.26x2.6/500 =1.352x10-3 (0.26fctm/fyk)
or = 1.3x10-3
3.2.1.2 Flexural Shear

Shear force along critical section =5200/2 = 2600kN
Shear span, av =200 + 0.2x500=300mm
As av is within 2d form column face, allow for shear enhancement by reducing the applied shear force
to
VEd = 2600x av/2d = 2600x300/(2x980) = 397.96kN
vRd,c =0.12k(100ρfck)1/3 (≥ 0.035k1.5fck0.5)
where, k = 1+ (200/d)1/2 = 1 +(200/980)1/2 = 1.45 (<2) and ρ= 0.0022
Therefore, vRd,c=0.12k(100ρfck)1/3= 0.12x1.45x(100x0.0022x30)1/3= 0.326N/mm2

vRd,c(min)=0.035k1.5fck0.5 =0.035x1.451.5x300.5 =0.335 N/mm2
And the shear resistance of the concrete is given by
VRd,c = vRd,c bd = 0.326x2300x980x10-3=734.8kN (>VEd =397.96kN). OK
3.2.1.3 Punching Shear

As the pile spacing is at three diameters, no punching shear check is necessary. The shear at the column
face should be checked.
Maximum shear resistance, VRd,max
= 0.5ud[0.6(1-fck/250)]fck/1.5
= 0.5(4x500)x980[0.6(1-30/250)]30/1.5
= 10348kN (> NEd=5200kN) OK
9 7 October, 2009
3.2.2 STRUT AND TIE MODEL (STM) METHOD
3.2.2.1 Design Tensile Force
For equilibrium, the force in each of the reinforcement ties in Table 2 is
Nl/8d = (5200x1500)/(8x980) =995kN

Ast required = 995/(0.87x0.5) =2287mm2
Since there are two ties in each direction, the total reinforcement area in each direction is
2x 2287=4574mm2
It can be seen that the truss theory requires less reinforcement than the bending theory, and this is
generally the case.
80% of the tie reinforcement should be provided over the piles, i.e. 0.8x2287 =1829.6
Provide 6No.20mm bars (1884mm2) over the piles.
The remaining 20% (457mm2) should be placed between the cap center line and the piles, i.e. 2x 457
=914.8mm2 should be placed between the piles.
Provide 3No. 20mm bars (942mm2) between the piles.
3.2.2.2 Strength Check at top Node (CCC Node)

Loaded area, A1 = 0.6x0.6 = 0.36m2
Available bearing area, A2 = (3+1)2x0.52 =4.0m2
A2/A1= (4.0/0.36)0.5=3.33
Hence, α=1/3 (3.33-1) = 0.778
hs/bs =2d/c =2x980/600 =3.27
Hence, β=1/3(3.27-1) = 0.755
Therefore, fb≤ 0.6fc’ + 6αβ√fc’

= 0.6x30+6x0.778x0.755√30
=21.22N/mm2
Safe load, N = 600x600x21.22x10-3=7638kN. OK
3.2.2.3 Strength Check on Node at pile head (CTT Node)
fcd = 5200/(4x0.785x0.52)=6.6247 N/mm2

Loaded area, A1 = 0.785x0.52 = 0.19625m2
Bearing area, A2= (0.4+0.75)2 =1.3225 m2
A2/A1= (1.3225/0.19625)0.5=2.596
Hence, α =1/3 (2.596-1) = 0.532
10 7 October, 2009
hs/bs = d/dp=980/500 =1.96
Hence, β =1/3(1.96-1) = 0.32
Therefore, fb≤ 0.8(0.6fc’ + 6αβ√fc’)

= 0.8(0.6x30+6x0.532x0.32√30)
=18.875N/mm2 >6.6247 N/mm2 OK
3.2.2.4 Strength Check on Concrete Compression Fields

Depth of truss, d = 980mm
Length of diagonal compression field, lc =(2x7502+9802)0.5 =1444mm
Inclination of strut to the horizontal, θ = Sin-1(980/1444) = 42.7 deg.
With 500mm piles, area of compression strut, Astrut= 0.785x0.52sin θ = 0.133m2
Compressive force, NEd=995x1444/750 =1915.7kN
Compressive stress, fcd = NEd/ Astrut = 1915.7/0.133=14.40N/mm2
fcd’eff = v(1-fck,cube/300) 0.45fck,cube

= 1(1-30/300) 0.45x30=12.15N/mm2 < fcd NG. (Consider the size of the column)
Actual column size =600x600 (in mm)

Assumed effective column size =300x300 (in mm)
Length of diagonal compression field, lc =(2x6002+9802)0.5 =1296mm
Inclination of strut to the horizontal, θ = Sin-1(980/1296) = 49.13deg.
With 500mm piles, area of compression strut, Astrut= 0.785x0.52sin θ = 0.148m2
Compressive force, NEd=5200x1296/(4x980) =1719kN
Compressive stress, fcd = NEd/ Astrut = 1719/0.148=11.62N/mm2 < fcd’eff OK
Also force in tension fields, T = 1719x600/1296=795kN <995kN (savings in reinforcement).
4.0 DISCUSSION
The example above highlights the major differences between the beam theory and the truss analogy approaches
to the design of pile caps. Unlike normal beams for which the beam theory is appropriate, pile caps are
essentially deep beams, which are brittle and do not have the ductility to redistribute moments. Therefore failure
is often not by flexure but by shear which is triggered off by diagonal splitting of the concrete in the
compression fields.
It is in a bid to contain the compression fields from buckling outwards (bursting) that containment reinforcement
is required at the sides of the pile caps. This could be likened to the bursting reinforcement provided in the form
of closed links around post-tensioned anchorages in prestressed concrete beams. The beam theory is incapable
of predicting this mode of failure, hence in the example given above the pile cap passed at first attempt with the
beam theory, but failed due to excessive compression as revealed by the STM method.
11 7 October, 2009
It therefore follows that the minimum reinforcement requirements for ordinary beams will not be appropriate for
piles caps and revision of the relevant clauses in the major international codes should be undertaken.
Reinforcement required for shrinkage and temperature should possibly be regarded as minimum requirement.
Some authors combine both methods in their design by determining the reinforcement based STM method and
carry out the shear analysis and design based on beam theory. This is not right. Every approach should be
pursued to its logical conclusion so as to be able to predict pile cap capacity accurately.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The foregoing analysis and discussion, it is clear that pile caps that would guarantee long-term, maintenance-
free service life must be proportioned to the reinforcement for the piers / columns as well as that of the piles in
the group and possible vertical and horizontal misalignment of the piles within limit.
Pile caps for application over contaminate soil or over water should preferably be fully or partially precast to
ensure adequate cover to reinforcement and good quality concrete that is impermeable to water and dissolved
salts.
Pile caps are deep beams, which do not have the ductility to redistribute applied bending moments to ensure
yielding of the tension reinforcement before failure occurs. Therefore, the beam theory is not appropriate for
pile cap design. On the other hand, the Strut and Tie Model (STM) method accurately predicts the failure load of
a pile cap and explains the necessity for containment reinforcement (side bars) in pile cap design.
In addition, the STM method also enables the engineer to have a feel of the flow or distribution of stresses in the
pile cap and therefore represents a more practical way of providing required reinforcement.
Finally, the minimum reinforcement requirement for pile caps should be reviewed to reflect current thinking as
the normal beam rules are inappropriate. Minimum reinforcement based on the requirements of shrinkage and
temperature should be considered.
12 7 October, 2009
FIGURES
Fig. 1: Standard Pile Caps (after Whittle and Beattie)
13 7 October, 2009
Fig. 2:Pile Cap Reinforcement Detailing Requirements
14 7 October, 2009
Fig.3. Section at critical plane for wide beam shear check
15 7 October, 2009
Fig. 4- Simple three-dimensional truss model for a 4-pile cap
16 7 October, 2009
Fig.5. Pile Cap
REFERENCES
17 7 October, 2009
1. V.V Nori, M.S Tharval
Design of Pile caps- Strut and Tie Model Method
The Indian Concrete Journal, April 2007
2. Perry Adebar, Luke (Zongyu) Zhou

Design of Deep Pile Caps by Strut-and-Tie Models
ACI Structural Journal, July-August 1996
3. L.C Reese, W.F. Van Impe

Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading
A.A Balkema Publishers, 2007
4. Bill Mosley, John Bungey, Ray Hulse

Reinforced Concrete Design
Book Power 6/e- 2007
5. Charles E. Reynolds, James C. Steedman

Examples of Design of Reinforced Concrete Building to BS 8110
E & FN SPON, 4/e 1992
6. L.A Clark
Concrete Bridge Design to BS 5400
Construction Press London & New York, 1983
7. INSTRUCTE, ICE Joint Publication

Manual for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
Institution of Structural Engineers, London 1985
8. Charles .E Reynolds, James Steedman

Reinforced Concrete Designers Handbook
Viewpoint Publication, 9/e 1981
9. M.J Tomlinson
Pile Design and Construction Practice
A Viewpoint Publication - 1981
10. Gregory P. Tsinker

Port Engineering: Planning, Construction, Maintenance, and Security
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. – 2004
18 7 October, 2009

Design of Bridge Foundations - Pile Cap Design

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Design of Bridge Foundations - Pile Cap Design

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Nigerian Institution of Structural Engineers

(A Division of the Nigerian Society of Engineers)

3-Day Workshop on Planning, Design and Cost Estimating of

Design of Bridge Foundations – Pile Cap Design

Job title Job number

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Engr. Samson Ivovi, B.Eng, MSc (Bridges), FNIStruct.E, MNSE

1.1 Design Principles

(c) The piles should be grouped symmetrically under the loads.

1.2 General Design Procedure

Table 1. Depth of pile cap

In general, if Φ≤550mm, h=2Φ + 100 (1a)

2.0 ANALYSIS OF PILE CAPS

2.1 Beam Theory

2.1.2 Punching shear

2.2 The Strut &Tie Model (STM) Method

 CCC Three struts meet at the node

2.2.1 Shear Design

fb≤ 0.6fc’ + 6αβ√fc’ (2a)

α=1/3{√ (A2/A1) -1} ≤1.0 (2b)

β=1/3(hs/bs -1) ≤1.0 (2c)

where, fc’ is the characteristic cylinder crushing strength in MPa,

2.2.1.1 CCC Node under Column

hs/bs≈ 2d/c (3)

where, d is the effective depth of the pile cap and

For a round column, the diameter may be used in place of c.

where, dp is the diameter of a round pile. Note that hs/bs≥1

2.2.1.3 Strength of concrete Compression fields

fcd’eff = v (1-fck.cyl/250)f1cd (5)

where, fck.cyl is the characteristic cylinder strength

In terms of cube strengths, the above relationship may be expressed as:

fcd’eff = v(1-fck,cube/300) 0.45fck,cube (6)

.3.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Calculate Number of Piles

Plan Size of Pile Cap, L = 1500+2x400 = 2300mm

Pile cap thickness

3.2.1 Bending Theory

M/bd2fck.cube = 1950x106 / 2300x9802x30=0.029=K

Ast = 1950x106/(0.95x980 x 0.87x500) = 4815mm2 Provide 16H20 (5024 mm2)

3.2.1.2 Flexural Shear

Therefore, vRd,c=0.12k(100ρfck)1/3= 0.12x1.45x(100x0.0022x30)1/3= 0.326N/mm2

3.2.1.3 Punching Shear

Nl/8d = (5200x1500)/(8x980) =995kN

Provide 6No.20mm bars (1884mm2) over the piles.

Provide 3No. 20mm bars (942mm2) between the piles.

3.2.2.2 Strength Check at top Node (CCC Node)

Therefore, fb≤ 0.6fc’ + 6αβ√fc’

3.2.2.3 Strength Check on Node at pile head (CTT Node)

fcd = 5200/(4x0.785x0.52)=6.6247 N/mm2

Therefore, fb≤ 0.8(0.6fc’ + 6αβ√fc’)

3.2.2.4 Strength Check on Concrete Compression Fields

Compressive stress, fcd = NEd/ Astrut = 1915.7/0.133=14.40N/mm2

fcd’eff = v(1-fck,cube/300) 0.45fck,cube

Actual column size =600x600 (in mm)

Also force in tension fields, T = 1719x600/1296=795kN <995kN (savings in reinforcement).

Fig. 1: Standard Pile Caps (after Whittle and Beattie)

2. Perry Adebar, Luke (Zongyu) Zhou

3. L.C Reese, W.F. Van Impe

4. Bill Mosley, John Bungey, Ray Hulse

5. Charles E. Reynolds, James C. Steedman

7. INSTRUCTE, ICE Joint Publication