You are on page 1of 6

Construction and Building Materials 14 2000.

73 78

Behaviour of precast reinforced concrete pile caps


Toong Khuan Chana,U , Chee Keong Pohb
a

School of Ci il and Structural Engineering, Nanyang Technological Uni ersity, Nanyang A enue, Singapore 639798, Singapore b Land Transport Authority, Singapore, Singapore Received 5 July 1999; received in revised form 1 November 1999; accepted 6 January 2000

Abstract The objective of this investigation is to study the behaviour of precast reinforced concrete pile caps and the ultimate load-carrying capacity. Three pile cap units were cast and tested to failure. One unit was a control pile cap cast in situ and the other two were precast reinforced units with in situ concrete inll. The experimental results showed that the precast pile cap behaved in a similar manner as compared with the conventional cast in situ pile cap. Furthermore, all the three units failed at loads exceeding the failure loads predicted using conventional design methods and exhibited predicted failure modes. In addition, there was a substantial increase in productivity as the precast pile caps could be constructed quickly and thus reducing the risk of exposing the excavated pit to rain and possible failure of the unsupported sides. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Precast; Pile caps; Ultimate load

1. Introduction The current trend of increasing efciency and productivity in the management of construction activities has placed considerable emphasis on the use of precast members where off-site manufacture, under controlled conditions, and uncoupled from site processes and delays, can provide a constant supply of precast elements. The use of precast elements is more crucial at locations where heavy rains can cause serious delays due to a difcult working environment. This is particularly evident for foundation works in soft or slimy soils where heavy rainfall can cause the sides of the excavation to fail and thus requires further time and effort to rectify the excavation. The construction of conventional cast in situ pile caps see Fig. 1. requires an excavation for the pile cap,

Corresponding author. Tel.: q65-790-5283; fax: q65-791-0676. E-mail address: ctkchan@ntu.edu.sg T.K. Chan.

base preparation with a layer of lean concrete, construction of forms, installation of a steel reinforcement cage and placing of fresh concrete. This sequence of work may easily take up to 2 days for a small pile cap of 1 2 m width. The steel cage may be pre-constructed and lifted into the pit to speed up this process. This current practice is vulnerable to heavy rains especially when the surrounding soil is weak. Flooding followed by failure of the sides of the pit is not uncommon. An innovative system of precast pile caps is proposed where no extensive ground preparation or external forms are required. The steel cage can be constructed separately and cast with a thin layer of concrete on the sides to form a precast reinforced concrete shell as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3. This shell serves as a permanent form for the pile cap and rests directly on the cut-off piles. The precast shell is then inlled with in situ concrete to complete the construction of the pile cap. A lean concrete layer, which is normally required to provide a rm base, may not be necessary with this system.

0950-0618r00r$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 0 6 1 8 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 6 - 4

74

T.K. Chan, C.K. Poh r Construction and Building Materials 14 (2000) 73 78

The bottom steel bars provide all necessary anchorage between the precast shell and the cast in situ concrete. Two approaches are available for the analysis of pile caps: i. the beam method; and ii. the strut-and-tie analogy method. The British design code for the structural use of concrete w1,2x allows both the beam approach and the strut-and-tie method to be used for the design of pile caps. When the pile cap is designed by beam theory, it is assumed to act as a beam spanning between the piles and is designed for usual conditions of bending and shear. The bending moment is taken as the sum of the moments acting from the centre of the pile to the column face. Consequently, the reinforcement in the pile cap for bending is placed uniformly across the full width of the cap. The pile cap can also be idealised as a strut-and-tie model w3 6x, with compression struts transferring load from the column to the top of the piles, and tension ties equilibrating the outward components of the compression thrusts. The tension ties have constant forces in them and must be anchored for the full horizontal tie force outside the intersection of the pile and the compression strut. No curtailment of reinforcement within the cap is allowed and full anchorage must be provided beyond the piles. The reinforcement bars are

Fig. 1. Unit A: conventional cast in situ pile cap.

The objectives of this project are to compare the ultimate load-carrying capacity of precast reinforced concrete pile caps with conventional cast in situ pile caps and to study the behaviour of these precast units. No previous experimental work on precast pile caps was reported in the literature.

2. Design concept

The concept of this precast pile cap is to cast a thin concrete shell together with the steel reinforcement cage to provide a permanent form to hold the fresh concrete. The sides of the steel cage are cast with a thin layer of concrete of approximately 70 mm to provide an outer cover of at least 50 mm to the steel bars. Inner cover to the steel is not required, as the in situ concrete will protect the bars. The bottom of the steel cage is left open to enable it to rest on the top of the piles, leaving a small clearance between the precast shell and the ground. After proper alignment of the precast element and the addition of the column starter bars, the pile cap can be inlled with fresh concrete.

Fig. 2. Unit B: precast reinforced concrete shell with cast in situ concrete inll.

T.K. Chan, C.K. Poh r Construction and Building Materials 14 (2000) 73 78 Table 1 Results of material tests Material Concrete Type Pile cap A, cast in situ Pile cap B, precast shell Pile cap B, cast in situ inll Pile cap C, precast shell Pile cap C, cast in situ inll 10-mm-diameter deformed bars Strength MPa. 39.7 33.4 38.3 35.8 36.4 480.7

75

Steel

Fig. 3. Unit C: precast reinforced concrete shell with cast in situ concrete inll.

placed in concentrated bands in the direction of the tie forces to resist the tensile forces. The precast pile cap conforms to the assumptions of both these methods of analysis as the embedding of the steel bars into the precast shell provides the necessary anchorage. The concrete in the compression zones is conned by links, which are provided in the precast shell. The interface between the shell and the in situ concrete is subjected to only compressive forces and needs no further ties.

The details of the specimens are shown in Figs. 1 3. The precast shells were left to cure for at least 28 days before the in situ concrete inll. Three 100-mm cubes were cast for each batch of concrete made and were tested on the same day as the load test on the pile cap units. Each of the test results tabulated in Table 1 is the average of three cube specimens. Tensile tests on the reinforcing bars were also carried out to determine the yield strength. A total of 20 electrical-resistance strain gauges TML FLA-5-11. were installed at various locations on selected reinforcing bars in the three units as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Displacement transducers were used to monitor deections at various positions on the units during the test. A 2000-kN testing frame was used to apply compressive load onto the units. A load cell was placed on top of a 20-mm steel plate, which was used to transfer the load onto the column stump. The four concrete pile supports were supported on 12-mm-thick steel plates, which in turn were supported on rocker bearing supports as shown in Fig. 4. The load was increased at intervals of 20 kN until failure. Care was taken to check the unit for visible cracks. The vertical displacements and strain gauge readings were automatically recorded during the tests using a computerised data acquisition system.

3. Methods Three pile cap units for a four-pile group were fabricated. The rst unit is a conventional cast in situ pile cap of 1000 = 1000 = 400 mm designed in accordance with BS8110 and to fail in exure. Four 150-mm concrete cubes were utilised to represent the piles. The second unit was of similar dimensions and steel reinforcements, but precast with a shell thickness of 70 mm. The third unit of 1000 = 1000 = 300 mm was precast and was constructed with a larger amount of reinforcement to investigate failure in shear. These units will be labelled as A, B and C, respectively.

Fig. 4. Test load arrangement.

76

T.K. Chan, C.K. Poh r Construction and Building Materials 14 (2000) 73 78

Table 2 Crack width observations at rst crack Unit Load kN. 840 900 450 Disp. mm. 1.87 1.92 1.72 Crack width mm. North 0.16 0.30 0.20 West 0.20 0.24 0.14 South 0.12 0.18 0.12 East 0.24 0.26 0.08

A B C

4. Results The observed load-deection relationships at the pile cap centre, for the three units, are shown in Fig. 5. The observed crack widths and ultimate loads of the three pile cap units are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Pile cap A was predicted to fail at a total load of 890 kN by the design equations of BS8110, with exure being critical. However, the unit failed at 38% higher load of 1230 kN. The load-deection curve was linear up to a point of more than 800 kN, where a denite softening occurred. This point coincided with the appearance of the rst crack in the unit. The load continued to increase at a lower rate up to a maximum of 1230 kN where the unit continued to deect with no further increase in load. The load carrying capacity began to reduce noticeably after a deection of more than 6 mm. The strains in the reinforcing bars exhibited a sudden increase after the appearance of the rst cracks. The strains continued to increase as the load was increased and were all beyond the yield stress at the maximum load.

Pile cap B, which has similar reinforcing steel ratio and layout, has the same predicted failure load. The ultimate load was also very similar at 1250 kN; an increase of 41% over the BS8110 predictions. The load-displacement behaviour was very similar to specimen A with the rst crack at a load of 900 kN and a 0.05-mm difference in maximum centre displacement at ultimate load compared with pile cap A. There was a similar increase in the strains in the reinforcing bars after the appearance of the rst cracks. At the maximum load, the strains in the reinforcing bars have exceeded yield stress. Pile cap C, which was designed with a shallower depth and larger amount of steel reinforcement failed at a maximum load of 870 kN. The failure load was 7% higher than the prediction of BS8110. There was a signicant drop in the stiffness of the pile cap after the rst crack at 450 kN. When the load reached a maximum of 870 kN, a shear failure occurred with a punching cone extending from the outside faces of the column to the inside edges of the piles. The strains in the reinforcing bars exhibited a sudden increase after the appearance of the rst cracks at 450 kN. At the maxiTable 3 Comparison of experimental and predicted failure loads Unit Failure load kN. 1230 1250 870 BS8110 predicted loads Flexure kN. 890 890 904 Shear kN. 1240 1240 811 Load ratio Exp.rPred. 1.38 1.41 1.07

A B C

Fig. 5. Load-displacement behaviour of the pile cap units.

T.K. Chan, C.K. Poh r Construction and Building Materials 14 (2000) 73 78

77

mum load, all the measured strains in the reinforcing bars were observed to have exceeded the yield stress indicating that the pile cap was also close to its exural capacity.

5. Crack behaviour The pile caps typically had very few cracks prior to failure. Units A and B failed in exure with exural cracks extending diagonally between the piles. Failure of unit C was with a square crack pattern within the four piles indicative of punching shear failure. Fig. 6 shows the deformation pattern at the soft of the pile caps at failure and Fig. 7 shows the crack patterns at the sides of the pile caps. The exural cracks originated from the centre of the soft of pile cap A, extending diagonally towards the piles and propagating outwards. Cracks were rst observed on the vertical faces of the unit when the loading was approximately 840 kN. At this loading, the largest crack width measured was 0.24 mm. Many new cracks developed on the four vertical faces of the unit just before the failure load was reached. Cracks rst appeared on the vertical faces of unit B at approximately 900 kN and the largest recorded crack width measured 0.30 mm. As in pile cap A, the cracks originated from the bottom centre of the unit. Similarly, the exural cracks extended diagonally towards the piles and failure was characterised by the rapid development of many new cracks on the vertical faces. The crack patterns for both units A and B were similar. Cracks were rst observed on the vertical faces of unit C at a load of 450 kN with the largest crack width being 0.20 mm. In contrast to pile caps A and B, there were cracks at the bottom of pile cap C that ran

Fig. 6. Crack patterns at the soft of the pile cap units.

parallel to the sides of the unit, indicating a drop of the concrete mass due to the punching shear failure. Thus, a punching cone had extended from the loaded area to the inside of the piles.

6. Discussion The comparison of crack widths indicates that the precast unit B has slightly larger crack widths compared to the conventional cast in situ unit A. However,

Fig. 7. Crack patterns at the sides of the pile cap units.

78

T.K. Chan, C.K. Poh r Construction and Building Materials 14 (2000) 73 78

the rst crack occurred at a marginally higher load in the precast unit. The loads at which these cracks occurred in units A and B were higher than the estimated working loads that the pile caps were designed for. It is evident from the crack widths, loads at which these cracks occurred and the crack patterns that the precast pile cap exhibits similar behaviour as a conventional cast in situ pile cap. The rst crack unit C occurred at approximately the designed working load of the pile cap. The failure loads of the precast pile cap can be predicted using conventional design equations as reported in these tests. The results suggest that the precast shell does not reduce the load-carrying capacity or cause a weak joint in the function of the pile cap. The interface between the in situ concrete and the precast shell is not subjected to large stresses based on the beam approach as the moment of resistance is assumed to fall off according to the bending moment diagram and therefore only nominal steel is required beyond the pile. According to the strut-and-tie model w4 6x, the ow of forces is within the concrete unit and the concrete in the shell does not contribute to the areas which comprise the compression struts. The nodal zones of high compressive stresses are entirely within the in situ concrete, which is effectively conned by the precast shell. Extending the steel bars into the precast segment provides full anchorage of the tension tie. The interface is therefore under compressive conning stresses and not expected to fail. The durability of these precast units should not differ signicantly from conventional pile caps as the interface is not under tensile stresses. Pile cap B cracked at a slightly higher load compared to the conventionally cast pile cap A, conrming that the precast shell did not induce cracking at a lower load or at the interface. There were no cracks at the soft of pile caps B and C until the loads exceeded 0.7 and 0.5 of the ultimate load, respectively. It should be further noted that more durable concrete could be provided for the precast shell to provide additional resistance to chemical attack although it has been reported that small cracks of less than 0.5 mm very rarely pose any particular corrosion risk, whatever the nature of the environment w7,8x. No shrinkage cracks were observed at the bottom face of the precast units as the pile caps were provided with a reinforcement ratio of 0.0016. This was more than the recommended reinforcement ratio of 0.0013 to be provided in two orthogonal directions on the top and bottom faces of pile caps w9x. However, a faint shrinkage crack was observed at the

top surface between the precast shell and the concrete inll as no top steel was provided for these units. The provision of minimum steel at the top face would eliminate the shrinkage cracks.

7. Summary and conclusions A comparison of the observed failure loads of the two precast test units with predictions from the British code indicates that the failure load of precast pile caps was approximately 40% and 7% higher when the units failed in exure and shear, respectively. The behaviour of the precast unit is similar to the corresponding cast in situ unit with only a slight increase in crack widths. It is therefore expected that current design equations for conventional cast in situ construction can be used to predict the failure loads of the pre cast units although the predictions may be conservative in certain cases. These ndings lead to the conclusion that the precast pile cap is a feasible method of construction. In addition, there was a substantial increase in productivity as the precast shells could be placed over the cut piles, aligned, levelled and inlled with concrete in a short time. The risk of exposing the excavated pit to rain and possible failure of the unsupported sides was also reduced. References
w1x British Standards Institution. BS 8110 Part 1: 1985 structural use of concrete. British Standards Institution, 1985. w2x Taylor HPJ, Clarke JL. Some detailing problems in concrete frame structures. Struct Eng 1976;541.:19 32. w3x Canadian Standards Association. CAN3-A23.3-M94 Design of concrete structures for buildings. Canadian Standards Association, 1994 w4x Adebar P, Kuchma D, Collins MP. Strut-and-tie models for the design of pile caps: an experimental study. ACI Struct J 1990;871.:81 92. w5x Adebar P, Zhou LZ. Design of deep pile caps by strut-and-tie models. ACI Struct J 1996;934.:437 448. w6x Siao WB. Strut-and-tie model for shear behaviour in deep beams and pile caps failing in diagonal splitting. ACI Struct J 1993;904.:356 363. w7x Rowe RE, Sommerville G, Beeby AW et al. Handbook to British Standard BS8110, 1985: structural use of concrete. Palladian Publications Ltd, 1987. w8x Beeby AW. Cracking and corrosion. Concrete in the oceans report No. 1 CIRIArUEG. London: Cement and Concrete Association, Department of Energy, 1978. w9x The Institution of Structural Engineers, The Institution of Civil Engineers. Manual for the design of reinforced concrete building structures. London, UK: The Institution of Structural Engineers, October 1985.

You might also like