Salah E.

El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Strut-and-Tie Model for Strength Assessment of

Pile Caps
Mohamed E. El-Zoughiby1, Salah E. El-Metwally2, Mohamed I. Metwally3
1
Associate Prof of Structural Engineering, 2Prof. of Structural Engineering, 3Teaching Assistant,
Structural Engineering Department, Mansoura University, El-Mansoura, Egypt.

ABSTRACT:
As a result of its geometry, a pile cap is considered as a complete disturbed
region. For such a region the Strut-and-Tie model, STM, is the appropriate tool to
obtain a clear understanding and hence offers the possibility of performing a reliable
design. Pile caps are distinguished with the presence of significant volumes of
concrete that are subjected to low normal stresses and significant shear stresses, called
"inactive concrete". Therefore, using the same nominal compressive strength of
concrete as those commonly used for 2-D structures may be too conservative for the
well confined concrete in pile caps in case of assessing the strength via the STM.
In this paper, the method of strut-and-tie model has been applied to selected
pile caps that tested experimentally. The spatial nature of pile caps has been reflected
in the strength of struts and nodes of STMs. The obtained results demonstrate the
reliability of the strut-and-tie model method in obtaining a lower bound estimate of the
collapse load of pile caps.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete; Pile Caps; Strut-and-Tie model; Inactive concrete;
Confinement; Failure.

1. Introduction
In the design of reinforced concrete structures, a distinction can be made between B-
regions (standing for Bernoulli’s regions) and D-regions (standing for discontinuity-
regions) (Schlaich et al., 1987 [8]). In B-regions, the linear strain distribution of
flexure theory applies and thus sectional analysis is appropriate to design such regions.
On other hand, since sectional design is based on the beam theory, it is not appropriate
for application to D-regions.
A pile caps is an example of D-regions but with distinguishing feature related
to the spatial nature of such structural element, where the compressive stress fields are
significantly more confined than concrete inside 2-D structures; e.g., beams, walls, and
slabs. Therefore, it may not be adequate to employ 2-D models in the design of pile
caps which are subjected to loads that result in 3-D stress fields when employing the
method of STM. Schlaich et al., 1987 [8] stated that “If the state of stress is not
predominantly plane, as for example in the case with punching or concentrated loads,
three-dimensional strut-and-tie models should be used.”
In this paper, the method of strut-and-tie model is applied to selected pile caps
that had been experimentally tested by Adebar et al., 1990. The obtained results are
compared with the experimental data in order to verify the reliability of the STM
procedure.

C33
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

2. Case Study
2.1. General Description
In order to illustrate how to model and analyze reinforced concrete pile caps using the
strut-and-tie model method in predicting the strength of pile caps, pile caps B and C
tested by Adebar, Kuchma, and Collins, 1990 [3] are utilized. The details of the two
test specimens are shown in Fig. 1 and the reinforcement details are given in Table 1.
The two pile caps had an overall thickness, h=600 mm, square column of size 300mm
and circular piles of diameter 200mm with 100 mm embedded into the underside of
the pile cap.

Fig. 1 Geometry and details of reinforcement of the two test specimens [3].

Table 1 Summary of reinforcement

Tension tie mark, Reinforcement Area of Depth to Bar spacing,
Fig. 1 steel steel, mm2 centroid, mm mm
TB1 12-No. 10 1200 390 70
TB2 22-No. 10 2200 400 45
TC2 11-No. 10 1100 390 45
TC3 21-No. 10 2100 400 45
where No. 10 is a 11.3 mm diameter bar with a cross-sectional area of 100 mm2.

2.2.Experimental Test Results

Pile cap B
The majority of the load was initially carried to the two piles closest to the column.
After the tension tie in the short direction yielded, the load distribution among the piles
began to change. The specimens failed before significant redistribution occurred and
the tension reinforcement in the long direction did not yield [3].

Pile cap C
As in pile cap B, the vast majority of the load was resisted by the two piles closest to
the column, while the four outer piles resisted very small load. The pile cap failed by
shear and only the tension reinforcement between the center two piles reached yield
[3].

The two-pile caps mode of failure, cracking and failure loads are given in Table 2.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Table 2 Summary of the two pile caps test results

Experimental Results
Pile cap No. of
specimen piles MPa First Cracking Ultimate Load
Failure mode
Load (kN) (kN)
B 4 24.8 1679 2189 flexural
C 6 27.1 1780 2892 flexural

3. Strength of STM's Components in 2-D Structural Elements

Strut-and-tie models shall consist of major compression struts and tension ties
connected at nodes to form an idealized truss. In the ACI Building Code-318-14 [4],
the minimum angle between a strut and a tie joining at a node is set to 25° in order to
avoid strain compatibility problems. An illustration of the different components using
a deep beam example is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Typical direct strut and tie model for a deep beam.

3.1.Struts
According to the ACI-318-14 [4], the nominal compressive strength of a strut without
longitudinal reinforcement shall be taken the smaller value of:

at the two ends of the strut, where is the cross-sectional area at one end of the
strut, and is the smaller of:
 The effective compressive strength of the concrete in the strut.
 The effective compressive strength of the concrete in the nodal zone.
where the effective compressive strength of the concrete in a strut shall be taken as

where is the effectiveness factor for concrete struts, takes into account the stress
conditions, strut geometry and the angle of cracking surrounding the strut. Table 3
shows the value of in this investigation.
The design of struts shall be based on

where is the largest factored force acting in a strut and is the strength reduction
factor which is 0.75 for ties, struts, and nodes.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Table 3 ACI 318M-14 Code values of coefficient for struts.

Strut condition
A strut with constant cross-section along its length. 1.0
For struts located such that the width of the midsection of the strut is larger than
the width at the nodes (bottle-shaped struts):
a) With reinforcement normal to strut center-line to resist the transversal
0.75
tensile force.
0.60λ
b) Without reinforcement normal to the center-line of the strut.
For struts in tension members, or the tension flanges of members. 0.40
For all other cases. 0.60λ
where λ is a modification factor to account for the use of lightweight concrete. λ =
0.85 for sand-lightweight concrete and 0.75 for all-lightweight concrete and λ = 1.0 for
normal weight concrete.
3.2.Ties
The tie cross-section is constant along its length and is obtained from the tie force and
the yield stress of the steel. This represents one or several layers of steel in the same
direction designed with

where is the cross sectional area of steel, is the yield stress of steel and the
nominal strength of a tie shall be taken as

Width of Tension Ties

The effective tie width assumed in design, , can vary between the following limits,
depending on the distribution of the tie reinforcement:
 In case of using one row of bars without sufficient development length beyond
the nodal zone (Fig. 3a):

 In case of using one row of bars and providing sufficient development length
beyond the nodal zone for a distance not less than , where is the concrete
cover (Fig. 3b):

where is the bar diameter.

 In case of using more than one row of bars and providing sufficient
development length beyond the nodal zone for a distance not less than ,
where is the concrete cover (Fig. 3c):
( )
where is number of bars and the clear distance between bars.
In the three cases in Fig. 3 the development length according to the Egyptian
code [5] and ACI code [4] is equal to and , respectively.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

(a) 𝑤𝑡 (b) 𝑤𝑡 𝑐 (c) 𝑤𝑡 𝑛 𝑐 (𝑛 )𝑠

Fig. 3 The width of the tie used to determine the dimensions of the node.

The upper limit is established as the width corresponding to the width in a hydrostatic
nodal zone, calculated as

where is the applicable effective compressive strength of a nodal zone and is

computed from [4,5] as,

The stands for a cylinder concrete compressive strength and for

a cube concrete compressive strength, is the effectiveness factor of the nodal zone,
and is the breadth of the beam. The width of a tie is to be determined to satisfy the
compressive stresses at the nodes.

3.3.Nodes and Nodal Zones

Nodes represent the connections between struts and ties or the positions where the
stresses are redirected within a strut-and-tie model. Two kinds of nodes can be
distinguished in a strut-and-tie model; “singular” (or “concentrated”) nodes and
“smeared” (or “continuous”) nodes. The strength of smeared nodes need not be
checked. The concentrated nodes are divided into four major node types, CCC-, CCT-
, CTT- and TTT- nodes illustrated in Fig. 4, where C stands for compression and T
stands for tension. The volume of concrete around a node “In which forces acting in
different directions, meet and balance” (Schäfer, 1999 [7]) is assumed to transfer
strut-and-tie forces through the node is called "Nodal Zone".

Fig. 4 Different types of nodes.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

The compressive strength of concrete of the nodal zone depends on many

factors including the tensile straining from intersecting ties, confinement provided by
compressive reactions and confinement provided by transverse reinforcement.
The nominal compressive strength of a nodal zone, , shall be taken as;

where is the effective compressive strength of the concrete in the nodal zone and
is the smaller of:
The area of the face of the nodal zone on which acts, taken perpendicular
to the line of action of the strut force .
The area of a section through the nodal zone, taken perpendicular to the line
of action of the resultant force on the section.
the effective compressive strength of the concrete in a nodal zone can be obtained
from:
or
where is the effectiveness factor of a nodal zone and it is assumed as given in
Table 4 according to the ACI 318-14 code[4].

Table 4 ACI 318-14 Code values of coefficient for nodes.

Nodal zone
Compression-Compression-Compression, C-C-C 1.00
Compression-Compression-Tension, C-C-T 0.80
Two ties or more; C-T-T or T-T-T 0.60
The βn values reflect the increasing degree of disruption of the nodal zone due to the
incompatibility of tensile strains in the ties and compressive strains in the struts.

For 2-D STMs, values for effective compressive strength of struts and nodal
zones are specified in codes and guidelines. However, for 3-D STMs, no proven
guidelines are yet available.
4. Strut-and-Tie Model Applied to Pile Caps
4.1.Nodes under Triaxial State of Compressive Stress
One of the parameters controlling the design of pile caps, using strut-and-tie model, is
the strength of nodal zones at the positions of columns. These nodal zones are
subjected to a complex three-dimensional state of stress and using a method based on
2-D analogy appears to be inadequate in this case.
The strength of concrete under a triaxial state of compressive stresses is
; where is the concrete cylinder strength, is the maximum stress and
is the lateral confining pressure (or the other two perpendicular stresses) (Park and
Paulay, 1975 [6]). If is assumed any value as small as (i.e., ), the
corresponding value of , with the size effect .

Several standards give recommendations for the triaxial compressive strength.

In the ACI 318-14[4], the design bearing strength of concrete, shall not exceed
( ), except when the supporting surface area, is wider on all sides than the
loaded area, , then the following value is recommended:

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

√ , where √
In order to confirm with the ACI requirements, the maximum strength with a
node under a triaxial state of stress can be limited to . This condition will require
lateral confining pressure .

4.2.Three-Dimensional Struts
The main difference between struts in 2-D STM and in 3-D STM is that the latter may
be surrounded by large volume of plain concrete far from stressed regions, called
"inactive concrete". As a characteristic geometry of pile caps, very significant volumes
of concrete that are subjected to low stresses are called "inactive concrete". These
volumes are that far from any strut or tie, and confinement by these inactive concrete
is a feature of significant importance, Fig. 5. Confinement by inactive concrete
reduces greatly the tendency of compressive struts to develop transverse tensile
stresses within the strut, hence increasing the compressive capacity of these struts.

Fig. 5 Inactive concrete in pile cap.

Adebar and Zhou, [1,2] proposed that when designing deep member
(disturbed regions) without sufficient reinforcement to insure redistribution after
cracking, the maximum bearing stress should be limited to
( ) (1)

(√( ⁄ ) ) (2)

(( ⁄ ) ) (3)

where the ratio ⁄ which represents the aspect ratio (height/width) of the
compression strut, should not be taken less than 1.0 (i.e., ⁄ ). The parameter
accounts for the amount of confinement, while the parameter accounts for the
geometry of the compression stress field. The limits on and limits the bearing
stress to a maximum value of in order to correlate with the ACI limit.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

If the concrete compressive strength is significantly greater than 34.5 MPa, the
strength limit in Eq. (1) may become unsafe. In that case a more appropriate limit for
the bearing stress is given by
√ ( ), where is in MPa. (4)

5. Analysis of the Case Study Pile Caps via the STM

5.1.Pile Cap B
Strut-and-Tie modeling
In order to predict the failure load of pile caps, Fig. 6 illustrates a simple three-
dimensional strut-and-tie model of pile cap B. The concentrated column load is
transmitted directly to the four supports (piles) by four inclined compression struts
while, the horizontal tension ties (longitudinal reinforcement) are required to prevent
the piles from being spread apart. Nodes represent the connections between struts and
ties. The analysis will be performed in both the short and long directions as follows.

Fig. 6 Proposed 3D-STM of pile cap B.

Analysis in short direction, Sec. 1-1

The internal lever arm, hs1:

As shown in Fig. 7, the term u1 (height of lower node ) can be computed from
( )
where is the number of steel layers, is the longitudinal steel diameter, is the
clear concrete cover, and is the clear distance between bars or,
( )
( )

The width of the horizontal strut, can be computed from;

where is the strength of the upper nodal zone C-C-C node and is the
equivalent width of the upper node ( ), then

C33
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Fig. 7 STM of pile cap B in the short direction.

thus, ( )
( )

Angle of inclined strut,

, from pile cap geometry.

Widths of struts
The upper width of strut, , and the lower width can be calculated as
shown in Fig. 8 based on the dimension of column and piles as follows;

a) Upper Node b) Lower Node

Fig. 8 Nodes of pile cap B in the short direction.

 The width of strut at the upper node, , Fig. 8a;

 For the lower node, the width of the strut , , Fig. 8b;

C33
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

STM forces:

Checking stress limits;

Struts:

Horizontal strut,
The width of strut was determined based on its designed strength; hence, there
is no need to carry out any further checks for this strut.

Diagonal strut,
The width of the diagonal strut changes linearly between the upper and lower
nodes; (uniformly tapered). The effective compressive strength of this strut differs
at its two ends, due either to different nodal zone strengths at the two ends (Upper
Node and Lower Node), or to different bearing areas.
The compressive strength of concrete in this strut is significantly enhanced with
confinement. Therefore, the maximum bearing stress should be limited to;
( )

The parameter accounts for the amount of confinement (Fig. 9),

(√( ⁄ ) )

a) Column nodal zone b) Pile nodal zone

Fig. 9 Amount of confinement for pile cap B.

 At the column nodal zone (Upper Node);

√( ⁄ ) √ , this gives ( ) , take
 At the pile nodal zone (Lower Node);
√( ⁄ ) √ , this gives ( )

C33
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

The parameter accounts for the geometry of the compression stress field,
[( ⁄ ) ] ,
where ( ⁄ ) reflects the geometry of the compression strut. (i.e., is assumed to be
the strut length and is assumed to be the strut width at the upper and lower nodes).
√ √

 At the column nodal zone (Upper Node);

( ⁄ ) this gives [( ) ] take

 At the pile nodal zone (Lower Node);

( ⁄ ) thus [( ) ]

Thus, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Upper Node should be limited to
( )
While, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Lower Node should be limited
to
( )
For the design strength of strut , take the average strength at the upper and lower
nodes;
( )
The strength of strut at the upper node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.32 ) and the node strength (1.8 ). Hence, the smallest value of
(1.32 ) is governing the strut strength at the Upper Node.

Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the equivalent

upper node width ( );
[ ]

While the lower node is (C-C-T) Node, 8. The limiting compressive strength,

The strength of strut at the lower node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.32 ) and the node strength (0.67 ). Hence, the smallest value of
(0.67 ) is governing the strut strength at the Lower Node.

Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the pile diameter,

( ) for lower node;
[ ]

Take the smallest value

C33
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Nodes:
The critical node is the Lower Node,

As a result of confinement, the strength of the Lower Node is governed by the

maximum bearing stress of strut at the Lower Node ( )
with for (C-C-T) Node.

( ) or
( ) or

Table 5 summarizes the calculations for the critical struts and nodes in the short
direction.

Table 5 Summary of critical struts and node calculations of short direction of

pile cap B
Actual Bearing Available Max.
Model
Member force, C/T strength bearing capacity, Okay
Label
kN MPa area, mm2 kN
574.8 C 1.80x24.8 57.3x225 575.5 yes
Struts 1.32 x24.8 111.8x225 No,
827.5 C 820.4
0.67 x24.8 296.7x200 99%
Lower 593.4 C 0.83x0.80 200x200 658.7 yes
node, CCT 574.8 T x24.8 220x200 724.6 yes
From the results in the table, the size of the upper nodal zone should be reduced to
99%. Finally, the value of is

Analysis in long direction, Sec. 2-2

As performed for sec. 1-1
The internal lever arm, hs2:
As shown in Fig. 10, the term u2 (height of lower node )
( )

Fig. 10 STM of pile cap B in the long direction.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

( )

Angle of inclined strut,

, from pile cap geometry.

Widths of struts
 The width of the strut at the upper node, , Fig. 11a;

 For the lower node, the width of the strut , , Fig. 11b;

a) Upper Node b) Lower Node

Fig. 11 Nodes of pile cap B in the long direction.

2-D STM forces:

Checking stress limits;

As performed for sec. 1-1
Struts:

Horizontal strut,
The width of strut was determined based on its designed strength; hence, there
is no need to carry out any further checks for this strut.

Diagonal strut,
As explained before in Fig. 9, for Upper Node and for Lower
Node.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

The parameter accounts for the geometry of the compression stress field,
[( ⁄ ) ] ,
where ( ⁄ ) indicates to the geometry of the compression strut. (i.e., is assumed to
be the strut length and is assumed to be the strut width at the upper and lower
nodes).
√ √

 At the column nodal zone (Upper Node);

( ⁄ ) this gives [( ) ] take
 At the pile nodal zone (Lower Node);
( ⁄ ) thus [( ) ]
Thus, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Upper Node should be limited to
( )

While, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Lower Node should be limited
to
( )
For the design strength of strut , take the average strength at the upper and lower
nodes;
( )
The strength of strut at the upper node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.5 ) and the node strength (1.8 ). Hence, the smallest value of (1.5 )
is governing the strut strength at the Upper Node.
Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the equivalent
upper node width ( );
[ ]

While the lower node is (C-C-T) Node, 8. The limiting compressive strength,

The strength of strut at the lower node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.5 ) and the node strength (0.96 ). Hence, the smallest value of
(0.96 ) is governing the strut strength at the Lower Node.
Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the pile diameter,
( ) for lower node;
[ ]

Take the smallest value

Nodes:
The critical node is the Lower Node,

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

( ) or
( ) or

Table 6 summarizes the calculations for the critical struts and nodes in the long
direction.

Table 6 Summary of critical struts and node calculations of long direction of

pile cap B
Actual Bearing Available Max.
Model Oka
Member force, C/T strength bearing capacity,
Label y
kN MPa area, mm2 kN
1053.8 C 1.80x24.8 105.0x225 1054.6 yes
Struts 1.50x24.8 139.1x225 No,
1183.8 C 1160.4
0.96x24.8 269.2x200 98%
538.5 C 200x200 944.4 yes
Lower 1.19x0.80
No,
node, CCT 1053.8 T x24.8 200x200 944.4
90%
From the results in the table, the size of the upper nodal zone should be reduced to
90%. This finally leads to a value of equal to

Finally, the capacity of pile cap B

( ) ( )
⁄

5.2. Pile Cap C

Strut-and-Tie modeling
Fig. 12 illustrates a simple three-dimensional strut-and-tie model. The concentrated
column load is transmitted directly to the six supports (piles) by six inclined
compression struts while, the horizontal tension ties are required to prevent the piles
from being spread apart.

Fig. 12 Proposed 3D-STM of pile cap C.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

The analysis will be performed in both the short direction and diagonal strut,
direction as follows. Fig. 13 illustrates the proposal of STM in top view.

Fig. 13 STM of pile cap C in top view.

Analysis in short direction, Sec. 1-1

The internal lever arm, hs1:
As shown in Fig. 14, the term u1 (height of lower node ) can be computed from
( )
where is the number of steel layers, is the longitudinal steel diameter, is the
clear concrete cover, and is the clear distance between bars or,
( )
( )

Fig. 14 STM of pile cap C in the short direction.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

The width of the horizontal strut, can be computed from;

where is the strength of the upper nodal zone C-C-C node and is assumed to
be the equivalent width of the upper node ( ), then

thus, ( )
( )
Angle of inclined strut,
, from pile cap geometry
Widths of struts
The upper width of strut, , and the lower width can be calculated as
shown in Fig. 15 based on the dimension of column and piles as follows;
 The width of the strut at the upper node, , Fig. 15a;

 For the lower node, the width of the strut , , Fig. 15b;

a) Upper Node b) Lower Node

Fig. 15 Nodes of pile cap C in the short direction.
STM forces:

Checking stress limits;

Struts:

Horizontal strut,
The width of strut was determined based on its designed strength; hence, there
is no need to carry out any further checks for this strut.

C32
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Diagonal strut,
The parameter accounts for the amount of confinement (Fig. 16),
(√( ⁄ ) ) .

a) Column nodal zone b) Pile nodal zone

Fig. 16 Amount of confinement for pile cap C.
The parameter ;
 At the column nodal zone
√( ⁄ ) √ , this gives

 At the pile nodal zone

√( ⁄ ) √ , this gives

While the parameter accounts for the geometry of the compression stress field,
[( ⁄ ) ] ,
where ( ⁄ ) reflects the geometry of the compression strut. (i.e., is assumed to be
the strut length and is assumed to be the strut width at the upper and lower nodes).

√ √
 At the column nodal zone (Upper Node);
( ⁄ ) this gives [( ) ] take
 At the pile nodal zone (Lower Node);
( ⁄ ) thus [( ) ]
Thus, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Upper Node should be limited to
( )
While, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Lower Node should be limited
to
( )

C23
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

For the design strength of strut , take the average strength at the upper and lower
nodes;
( )
The strength of strut at the upper node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.35 ) and the node strength (1.8 ). Hence, the smallest value of
(1.35 ) is governing the strut strength at the Upper Node.
Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the equivalent
upper node width ( );
[ ]

While the lower node is (C-C-T) Node, 8. The limiting compressive strength,

The strength of strut at the lower node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.35 ) and the node strength (0.71 ). Hence, the smallest value of
(0.71 ) is governing the strut strength at the Lower Node.
Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the pile diameter,
( ) for lower node;
[ ]
Take the smallest value

Nodes:
The critical node is the Lower Node,
As a result of confinement, the strength of the Lower Node is governed by the
maximum bearing stress of strut at the Lower Node ( )
with for (C-C-T) Node.

( ) or
( ) or
Table 7 summarizes the calculations for the critical struts and nodes in the short
direction.
Table 7 Summary of critical struts and node calculations of short direction of
pile cap C
Actual Bearing Available Max.
Model
Member force, C/T strength bearing capacity, Okay
Label
kN MPa area, mm2 kN
574.8 C 1.80x24.8 57.3x225 575.5 yes
Struts 1.32 x24.8 111.8x225
830.5 C 920.3 yes
0.71 x24.8 296.7x200
Lower 597.5 C 0.89x0.80 200x200 722.0 yes
node, CCT 574.8 T x27.1 220x200 849.2 yes
Hence, in this direction

C23
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Analysis in long direction, Sec. 2-2

As performed for sec. 1-1
The internal lever arm, hs2:
As shown in Fig. 17, the term u2 (height of lower node )
( )

Fig. 17 STM of pile cap C in the long direction.

From the STM top view of pile cap C, Fig. 13,

Also, and is assumed to be the equivalent width of the upper node (

), then

( )

Angle of inclined strut,

√
, from pile cap geometry.

Widths of struts
The upper width of strut, , and the lower width can be calculated as
shown in Fig. 18 based on the dimension of column and piles as follows;

 The width of the strut at the upper node, , Fig. 18a;

 For the lower node, the width of the strut , , Fig. 18b;

C23
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

a) Upper Node b) Lower Node

Fig. 18 Nodes of pile cap C in the long direction.

2-D STM forces:

Checking stress limits;

As performed for sec. 1-1
Struts:

Horizontal strut,
The width of strut was determined based on its designed strength; hence, there
is no need to carry out any further checks for this strut.

Diagonal strut,
As explained before in Fig. 12, for Upper Node and for Lower
Node.

While the parameter accounts for the geometry of the compression stress field,
[( ⁄ ) ] ,
where ( ⁄ ) reflects the geometry of the compression strut. (i.e., is assumed to be
the strut length and is assumed to be the strut width at the upper and lower nodes).

√[√ ] √
 At the column nodal zone (Upper Node);
( ⁄ ) this gives [( ) ] take
 At the pile nodal zone (Lower Node);
( ⁄ ) thus [( ) ] 1
Thus, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Upper Node should be limited to
( )

C23
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

While, the maximum bearing stress of strut at the Lower Node should be limited
to;
( )
For the design strength of strut , take the average strength at the upper and lower
nodes;
( )
The strength of strut at the upper node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.75 ) and the node strength (1.8 ). Hence, the smallest value of
(1.75 ) is governing the strut strength at the Upper Node.
Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the equivalent
upper node width ( );
[ ]

While the lower node is (C-T-T) Node, 6. The limiting compressive strength,

The strength of strut at the lower node is controlled by the smaller of the strut
strength (1.75 ) and the node strength (1.02 ). Hence, the smallest value of
(1.02 ) is governing the strut strength at the Lower Node.
Upon substituting in where is assumed to be the pile diameter,
( ) for lower node;
[ ]
Take the smallest value

Nodes:
The critical node is the Lower Node,

( ) or
( ) or
Table 8 summarizes the calculations for the critical struts and nodes in the long
direction.

Table 8 Summary of critical struts and node calculations of long direction of

pile cap C
Actual Bearing Available Max.
Model
Member force, C/T strength bearing capacity, Okay
Label
kN MPa area, mm2 kN
1135.4 C 1.80 x27.1 206x113 1135.5 yes
Struts 1.75 x27.1 227x113
1196.5 C 1216.5 yes
1.02 x27.1 253x200
Lower 377 C 1.7x0.60 200x200 1105.7 yes
node, CTT 1006 T x27.1 200x200 1105.7 yes
where

C22
 Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46

Hence, in this direction

Finally, the capacity of pile cap C

5.3.Comparison between Experimental Data and STM Predictions

Finally, in order to examine the results from STM above, Table 9 summarizes the
comparison between the predicted capacities of each pile cap from STM analysis and
test results. From the table, it is obvious that the STM predictions represent good lower
bound estimates.

Table 9 The STM results compared with test results.

Exp. Data STM Data
Pile cap
, kN Failure Mode , kN Failure Mode
B 2189 flexural 2146 flexural 0.98
C 2892 flexural 2703 flexural 0.93

6. CONCLUSIONS
In summary, this paper demonstrates the application of the strut-and-tie model method
to pile caps. From the obtained results, the following can be concluded:
 The proposed Strut-and-Tie approach is a powerful tool to predict the ultimate
strength, mode of failure and behavior of reinforced concrete pile caps and
gives a good lower bound estimate of pile cap capacity.

 The strength of nodes and struts in pile caps should be derived with
consideration to the spatial nature of the structural system in order to derive
good estimate of pile cap capacity.

REFERENCES
1 Adebar, P., and Zhou, Z., 1996, “Design of Deep Pile Caps By Strut-and-Tie
Models,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 4, July-August 1996, pp.1-12.

2 Adebar, P., and Zhou, Z., 1993, “Bearing Strength of Compressive Struts
Confined by Plain Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90, No. 5, September-
October 1993, pp. 534-541.

3 Adebar, P., Kuchma, D., and Collins M. P., 1990, “Strut-and-Tie Models for the
Design of Pile Caps: An Experimental Study,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No.
1, January-February 1990, pp. 81-92.

C22
 ‫‪Salah E. El-Metwally/ et al/ Engineering Research Journal 150 (June, 2016) C23 –C46‬‬

‫‪4 American Concrete Institute, ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for‬‬
‫‪Structural Concrete, ACI 318-14, ACI Committee 318, 519 pp., Detroit, USA,‬‬
‫‪2014.‬‬

‫‪5 Egyptian Code for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structure, ECP‬‬
‫‪203-2006, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, National‬‬
‫‪Housing and Building Research Center, Cairo,2006‬‬

‫& ‪6 Park, R. and Paulay, T., 1975, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley‬‬
‫‪Sons, New York.‬‬

‫‪7 Schäfer, K.,1999, “Nodes,” Section 4.4.4 in Structural Concrete,Vol.2, fédération‬‬

‫‪internationale du béton (fib), Bulletin 2, Lausanne, Suisse, pp. 257-275.‬‬

‫‪8 Schlaich, J., Schäfer, K., and Jennewein, M., 1987, Toward a Consistent Design‬‬
‫‪of Structural Concrete. Journal of Prestressed Concrete Institute, V. 32, No. 3, May‬‬
‫‪1987, 74-150.‬‬

‫ملخص البحث‬

‫تعتثش هامات الخوازيق هٌطقَ ماهلح اإلضطشاب‪ ،‬تسثة شنلِا الغيش هٌتظن ّازتْائِا علي موياخ مثيشج هي‬
‫زدن الخشساًح تِا راخ إخِاداخ عوْديح هٌخفضح تاإلضافح إلي إخِاداخ قص عاليح ًسثيا‪ ،‬هوا يدعل سلْمِا‬
‫غيش هفِْم للوصون‪ّ .‬تالتالي تن استخذام طشيقح تصوين "أنمورج الضاغظ والشذاد" ليتوني الوصون هي فِن‬
‫سلْك ُزٍ العناصر ثالثية األبعاد ّميفيح تصويوِا تاسْب ّاضر ّشفاف‪ّ .‬لزلل يختلف التصوين تِزٍ الطشيقح‬
‫للعٌاصش ثٌائيح األتعاد (الكمرات) عي العٌاصش ثالثيح األتعاد (هامات الخوازيق) تسثة ّخْد ُزٍ اإلحاطة‪.‬‬

‫في هزا البحث‪ ،‬تن اقتشاذ أًوْرج الضاغظ ّالشذاد ثالثى األبعاد لعذد إثٌيي هي ُاهاخ خْاصيق ‪ -‬هختثشٍ‬
‫هعوليا‪ّ -‬تعذ رلل تن هقاسًح ُزٍ الٌتائح تالٌتائح الوعوليح زيث أظِشخ الٌتائح أى‪ ،‬أنمورج الضاغظ والشذاد ثالثي‬
‫األبعاد أفضل هي غيشٍ (ثنائي األبعاد) ّخصْصا عٌذ تصوين هٌاطق ماهلح اإلضطشاب هثل هامات الخوازيق‪.‬‬

‫‪C22‬‬