See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339229843

Comparison of Moments for Pile-Cap Design

Article  in  Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering · February 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s11204-020-09624-9

CITATIONS READS
3 5,434

2 authors:

Sushilkumar Magade Ramakant Ingle

MIT Academy of Engineering Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
13 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Finite Element Analysis of Skew Box Underpass Bridge View project

Analysis of Pile foundation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sushilkumar Magade on 13 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 56, No. 6, January, 2020 (Russian Original No. 6, November-December, 2019)

DESIGN

COMPARISON OF MOMENTS
FOR PILE-CAP DESIGN

UDC 624.131.522.4/624.156
S. B. Magade1* and R. K. Ingle2
1
MIT academy of engineering, Alandi, Pune, India;
2
Dept. of Applied Mechanics, VNIT Nagpur, Nagpur, India,
*Corresponding author Email: sushil.magade284@gmail.com.

This paper discusses the comparative study of design moments for pile cap with conven-
tional methods and finite element analysis. If a detailed finite element analysis is adopt-
ed, flexibility of the pile cap is considered. When a pile cap is designed by truss analo-
gy, 80% of the tension reinforcement is concentrated in the region where the cap is sup-
ported on piles and at the column, which depends on design moments. It is observed that
the difference in the design moments was considerable and should be taken into account
for calculation and placing of reinforcement.

Introduction
A pile cap is a thick concrete slab supporting loads from pier or column with upward reactions
from piles. It usually contains only flexural reinforcement with no shear reinforcement [1]. Depending
upon the soil strata, bridge substructures and high-rise buildings are mostly founded on pile foundations
subjected to a combination of vertical and lateral forces. Pile foundation can provide a reasonable mea-
sure of stiffness and strength for a building. Therefore, it can be an effective form of foundation system
for tall buildings [2]. The design objective of pile cap is that it should be capable of safely carrying the
induced bending moment and shear force and it should be deep enough to provide adequate bond length
for the pile reinforcements and the pier or column starter bars. A pile cap must be reinforced for both
positive and negative bending moments [3]. Pile cap is designed for the column loads plus the self-
weight of the pile cap and the soil above the cap. Sometimes, due to its unique geometry, the difficul-
ty may arise in the design of a pile cap, and it should be designed for moment and shear as deep beams,
if applicable [4].
The two common methods of pile cap design are beam theory and a truss analogy approach. In
the former case, the pile cap is designed for the usual conditions of bending and shear as an inverted
beam. Beam theory is most widely used, because it is suitable for any type of loading and any shape of
pile cap. Bending action is more predominant than truss action, when span to depth ratio is more than 2
[5]. The area of the pile cap is divided into rectangular beam. The width of beam is considered equal to
width of pile. The idealized beam may be simply supported or continuous. The reinforcement calculat-
ed is uniformly distributed throughout length or width of pile cap. Figure 1 shows critical section for
calculation of bending moment and shear force. The ACI Building Code (ACI 318) [6] uses a sectional
approach for the design of pile cap, irrespective of depth, which involves shear and flexural design. The
critical section for shear was assumed to be located at 20% of the pile diameter (referenced from the
near face of the pile). The design shear force acting on this section is taken as the whole of the reac-

Translated from Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 6, p. 18, November-December, 2019.
©
0038-0741/20/5606-0414 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
414
 a b truss node

inclined
strut
horizontal
strut
tension tie truss node

critical section applied load

for share check Y ' Y critical section for
c
flexural check struts

X' X'
X X ties
c

pile reactions
a
Y' Y b
Fig. 1. Typical model for beam theory and strut and tie model: a) calculation of bending
moments and shear forces on pile cap [8]; b) 2D strut and tie model for pile cap [14];
c) forces in idealized truss system (3D) [15].

tion from the piles whose centers lying outside the section [7]. For moment and shear calculations, the
pile force is considered concentrated at the center of pile [8]. The critical moment is equal to pile reac-
tion times distance from pile center to face of column (Clause 15.4.2). For example, the moment at sec-
tion Y−Y in Fig. 1 is equal to the product of reaction from the four left sides piles and the correspond-
ing distances form the face of the column.
The truss analogy method is adopted, where the span-to-depth ratio is less than 2 and beam the-
ory is not appropriate to determine the reinforcement requirements. It is usually assumed that arch
action contribution to the overall shear force transfer becomes low for span to depth ratio less than 2.5
[9]. In the truss analogy, the forces are transmitted through triangular truss action with concrete as the
compressive members of the truss from the supported column and steel reinforcement providing the ten-
sile tie force, as shown in Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c. The upper node of the truss is located at the center of
the loaded area and the lower nodes are at the intersection of the tensile reinforcement with the center-
lines of the piles. Reinforcement within 1.5 times the pile diameter from the center of the pile was con-
sidered the effective zone for providing the tensile resistance within the truss when pile spacing is
greater than three times the pile diameter [10]. The truss analogy (strut-and-tie) method is also suggest-
ed in BS8110 and BS5400. BS 8110 suggested that the design concrete shear stress may be multiplied
by 2d/av, where av is the distance from the column face to the critical section, for strips of width up to
three times the pile diameter, cantered on each pile [11]. BS5400 stated that the enhancement may be
applied to strips of width equal to one pile diameter, centered on each pile. When a pile cap is designed
by truss analogy, 80% of the tension reinforcement should be concentrated in these strips [12, 13].
Design bending moment for truss analogy is calculated as tension in tie multiplied by effective depth of
pile cap.
Extensive research has been carried out for strut and tie model (STM) of a pile cap [7, 14-26].
The STM was developed by Nori for a pile cap with three, four, and five piles [18]. It was observed that
the STM method for pile cap would result in more flexural reinforcement than beam theory [18]. STM,
developed by de Araujo [19], was an iterative model used to determine the lever arm and the strut incli-
nation. When experimental studies were conducted on STM, it was observed that 3D finite element anal-
ysis should be used, because the 2D plate-bending model was not accurate enough [15, 22]. The STM

415
 a b c

d e f

Fig. 2. Different pile cap with number of piles: a) two; b) three;

c) four; d) five; e) six; f) seven.

model, with a combination of direct arch action and truss action, was safe instead of considering both
actions separately [23].
Overall, the STM design philosophy is appropriate for the design of pile caps [24]. On the other
hand, it is also seen that strut-and-tie models represent the flow of forces in a pile cap, but improved
models are needed, which can account for compatibility and the nonlinear behavior and tensile contri-
butions of concrete materials [21]. The selection of an appropriate STM is critical to the theoretical
results of STM, and any change in the truss geometry would change the forces and results. Hence, more
experimental research and empirical evidence is required to generalize the STM for design [25]. In addi-
tion, the same STM cannot be used for all loading cases involving bending moments [18].
As a matter of fact, the reinforcement calculation is dependent on design moment. Therefore, the
calculations of correct design moments are essential. The design by beam theory may require less or
more steel than that of truss theory depending on the design moment. Thus, an attempt was made to cal-
culate the design moments of a pile cap with FEA using a simple mathematical model and then com-
paring the results.

Concept of Modelling
A mathematical model was prepared where the pile cap was considered a thick plate or shell
element and the pile was considered a beam element. Loads from the column or pier were considered
uniformly distributed on the pile cap over an area of the column or pier. Piles were assumed to be end
bearing, and hence, fixed at the end. Center-to center spacing of piles is considered by considering
three aspects namely, method of installation, diameter of pile, and nature of load transfer to soil. As
load-carrying capacity was derived mainly from friction between soil and pile, piles were spaced suffi-
ciently apart to ensure the soil zones did not overlap, which would have reduced bearing values. In
such cases, spacing was not less than three times the diameter of the shaft [10]. In the present study,
center-to-center distances of pile 3D (where D is pile diameter) and 150 mm clear edge distance
between pile end and pile cap is considered. In the present study, pile caps with pile diameters of 600,
800, 1000, and 1200 mm were considered. A variation of load was considered with the load carrying
capacity of columns as 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, and 10000 kN, along with column sizes of 500 500,
700700, 800800, 10001000, and 12001200 mm. Figure 2 shows different shapes of the pile caps
considered in the study. The thickness of the pile cap h was calculated with the equation given in [7];
i.e., for D < 550 mm, h = (2D + 100) and for D > 550mm, h = 8(D − 100)/3.
The pile cap is assumed to be not in contact with ground, and piles are assumed to be fully sur-
rounded by very soft ground soil with end embedded in hard strata. The effect of soil resistance on pile

416
 a b

Fig. 3. Typical distribution of moments along length or width of pile cap:

a) by FEM; b) by conventional method.

a 3000 b
Max. moments, kN/m

Max. moments, kN/m

2500 1 2500 4
2000 2000 1
1500 4 1500
1000 1000
3 500
3
500
0
0 400 600 800 1000 1200
400 600 800 1000 1200
Pile diameter, mm Pile diameter, mm
c d
Max. moments, kN/m

Max. moments, kN/m

2600 4 2600 4
1
2200 1 2200
1800 3 1800 3
1400 2 1400 2
1000 1000
5.13.9 5.15.1 5.15.7 5.16.3 5.16.9 5.17.5 5.13.9 5.15.1 5.15.7 5.16.3 5.16.9 5.17.5
Size of pile cap, mmmm Size of pile cap, mmmm
Fig. 4. Comparison of maximum moments: a) pile cap with two piles;
b) pile cap with four piles; c) for 3 m depth of pile cap; d) for 1.8 m
depth of pile cap; 1) conventional method; 2) truss when
diagonal; 3) deep beam theory; 4) FEM.

was ignored, which could be the case for very soft soil with undrained shear strength of 25 kPa. The α
method is used to calculate ultimate load carrying capacity of pile [26].

Results and Discussion

In all the methods, i.e., conventional method, truss analogy, deep beam theory, and FEM
approach, moments are evaluated to be maximum at the face of column. It is observed that the differ-
ence in the moments was quite substantial, and this must be considered in the design of a pile cap. The
typical moment distribution along the length or width of a pile cap with four piles of 1000 mm diame-
ter is shown in Fig. 3. The moment was a maximum at the column face and decreased towards the edge
of pile cap when analyzed with FEA.
Moment at the face of column is considered as design moment. In the conventional method, truss
analogy, and deep beam theory, this moment is considered as uniform throughout the length or width of
pile cap, but in actual practice, this moment is varying along length or width.
The finite element analysis was carried out with variation of loads and column sizes for differ-
ent diameters of pile to determine the design moments of pile cap and compared with the conventional,
deep beam theory, and truss analogy method. Similar patterns of moments were observed for various
pile diameter and column size. Hence, a comparison of moments for pile cap with two piles (Fig. 2a)
and four piles (Fig. 2c) is shown in Fig. 4. It is found that the variation in maximum moment is con-
siderable when conventional method, truss analogy, and deep beam theory are compared with the FEA,
and it should be considered in the design of pile cap. The maximum moments calculated with the con-
ventional method and truss analogy (when straight and diagonal) are more or less equal, and it is found
to be less than that calculated with deep beam theory. For pile cap with two piles the maximum
moments calculated with FEA are found to be less than conventional method and truss analogy while
these moments are greater than deep beam theory. Maximum moments for pile cap with four piles are
considerably large when compared with other methods.

417
 Figure 4 (a and b) shows comparison of maximum moments for 8000 kN load and four piles
with 1200 mm diameter. In this condition, it is seen that maximum moments obtained with FEA were
greater when compared with other methods as shown in Fig. 4c. In addition, the moments were less than
those found using deep beam theory.
Rigidity of pile cap is one of the important parameter that should be accounted for in the design
of pile cap. The thickness of pile cap may be taken as 1.5 times diameter of pile used. Hence, maximum
moments are calculated for pile cap thickness suggested by the equation given in Reynold's handbook
and 1.5 times diameter of pile. It is observed that maximum moments with FEA vary when thickness of
the pile cap is changed (Fig. 4c and 4d). However, these moments were found to be unchanged for any
thickness of pile cap when calculated with other methods. This means that the conventional method,
truss analogy, and deep beam theory do not account for the rigidity of pile cap.
Overall, increasing loads leads to increase in the design moments, but at the same time when the
pile diameter changes from lower to higher, the design moments also show an increasing trend with all
available methods. The conventional method and truss analogy overestimate maximum moments for pile
cap with two, five, and seven piles and underestimates them for pile cap with three, four, and six piles
when compared with FEA. So, it is recommended to use FEA for calculation of design moments over
conventional, truss analogy, and deep beam theory approach.

Conclusions
The design moments in pile cap were estimated by the conventional method, truss analogy, and
deep beam theory approach and compared with FEA. In the conventional method, truss analogy, and
deep beam theory, these moments were assumed to be uniform over the length or width of pile cap.
However, in actual practice this moment is varying along length or width of cap, which can be seen
when pile cap is analyzed using FEA. The distribution of reinforcement in pile cap depends on design
moments. Hence, it is essential to obtain correct design moments. It is observed that the difference in
maximum moment is considerable when results of the conventional method, truss analogy, and deep
beam theory are compared with the FEA, and it should be reflected in the design of pile cap. Also, the
conventional method, truss analogy, and deep beam theory do not account for the rigidity of pile cap,
which is taken care of in FEA more appropriately. Hence, it is suggested to use FEA for calculation of
design moments over the conventional method, truss analogy, and deep beam theory approach.

REFERENCES

1. W. Cavers and G. A. Fenton "An evaluation of pile cap design methods in accordance with the Canadian
design standard," Can. J. Civil Eng., 31(1), 109-119 (2004).
2. H. G. Poulos, J. C. Small, and H. Chow, "Piled raft foundations for tall buildings," Geotech. Eng. J.
of the SEAGS and AGSSEA, 42(2), 78-84 (2011).
3. L. E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed, McGraw-hill, Singapore (1996).
4. R. Butterfield and P. K. Banerjee, "The problem of pile group-pile cap interaction," Geotechnique,
21(2), 135-142 (1971).
5. IS 456, Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice, Indian Standard, New Delhi (2000).
6. ACI 318-08, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee, Commentary on building code requirements
for reinforced concrete (2008).
7. C. E. Reynolds, J. C. Steedman, and A. J. Threlfall, Reinforced Concrete Designer's Handbook, (11th
edition) CRC Press, London, U.K. (2007).
8. M. Tomlinson and J. Woodward, Pile Design and Construction Practice, CRC Press (2014).
9. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, Brussels,
Belgium, (2004).
10. IS 2911 (Part 1/Sec 2) - Code of practice for design and construction of pile foundations, Bureau of
Indian standards (1979).
11. BS8110, Code of practice for design and construction Part 1, British Standards Institution, London,
U.K. (1997).
12. BSI 5400, Steel, concrete and composite bridges, Part 10, Code of practice for fatigue, British Standards
Institution (1980).

418
 13. J. Cao and A. G. Bloodworth, "Shear capacity of reinforced concrete pile caps," International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 61-68 (2007).
14. A. K. El-Sayed, "Strut and tie modeling for RC short beams with corroded stirrups," Lat. Am. J.
Solids and Struct., 11(12), 2255-2270 (2014).
15. Y. M. Cheng and C. W. Law, "Strut-and-tie actions in pile cap analysis-elastic analysis," HKIE trans.,
12(4), 9-18 (2005).
16. A. G. Bloodworth, J. Cao, and M. Xu, "Numerical modeling of shear behavior of reinforced concrete
pile caps," J. Struct. Eng., 138(6), 708-717 (2011).
17. G. M.Sabnis and A. B. Gogate, "Investigation of thick slab (pile cap) behavior," ACI J., 81(1), 35-39
(1984).
18. V. V. Nori and M. S. Tharval, "Design of pile caps-Strut and tie model method," Indian Concrete J.,
81(4), 13 (2007).
19. J. M. de Araujo, "Design of rigid pile caps through an iterative strut-and-tie model," J. Adv. Concrete
Tech., 14(8), 397-407 (2016).
20. P. Adebar, D. Kuchma, and M. P. Collins, "Strut-and-tie models for the design of pile caps: An
experimental study," ACI Struct. J., 87(1), 81-92 (1990).
21. R. Souza, D. Kuchma, J. Park, and T. Bittencourt, "Adaptable strut-and-tie model for design and
verification of four-pile caps," ACI Struct. J., 106(2) (2009).
22. L. J. Leu, C. W. Huang, C. S. Chen, and Y. P. Liao, "Strut-and-tie design methodology for three-
dimensional reinforced concrete structures," J. Struct. Eng., 132(6), 929-938 (2006).
23. G. Chantelot and A. Mathern, "Strut-and-tie modelling of reinforced concrete pile caps," Master of
Science Thesis in the Master's Programme Structural Engineering and Building Performance Design,
Chalmers University of Technology, Geteborg, Sweden (2010).
24. J. Park, D. Kuchma, and R. Souza, "Strength predictions of pile caps by a strut-and-tie model
approach," Can. J. Civil Eng., 35(12), 1399-1413 (2008).
25. S. Ahmad, A. Shah, and S. Zaman, "Evaluation of the shear strength of four pile cap using strut and
tie model (STM)," J. Chin. Inst. Eng., 32(2), 243-249 (2009).
26. M. Budhu, Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 3rd edition, John Wiley, USA (2008).

419

View publication stats