ISSN :2319-

5991
Vol
.6,No.4
November2017
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017

ISSN 2319-5991 www.ijerst.com

Vol. 6, No. 4, November 2017
© 2017 IJERST. All Rights Reserved

Review Article
DESIGN AND BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE PILE CAPS: A LITERATURE REVIEW
Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq1* and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood2

*Corresponding Author: Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq  dr.khattabsaleem@yahoo.com

Received on: 10th September, 2017 Accepted on : 15th October, 2017

This paper reviews the results of some previous research studies on reinforced concrete pile
caps. Majority of pile caps support only one column, besides only a few piles support the pile
caps in turn. These are usually deep and short members with span/depth ratios of less than one
and a half. Codes do not offer identical design for these types of pile caps. These pile caps have
usually been designed as beams bridging piles with main longitudinal reinforcement for flexural
capacity depending on the beam theory and a suitable depth for shear capacity. Lately, the Strut
& Tie model (STM) has been used for the pile caps design (D-region or disturbed) in which the
paths of load are proposed to be a 3D truss. The concrete compressive struts between the
piles and column support the compressive forces while reinforcing steel placed between piles
carry the tensile forces. The two models above have not presented uniform safety factors against
failure or being able to expect whether failure will occur by fragile mode (shear) or ductile mode
(flexure). Thus, in this paper, some remarkable experimental works on pile caps are summarized
with conclusions.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete, Pile cap, Literature review, Strut-and-tie model, Design,
Behavior

INTRODUCTION procedure that provides a clear understanding of

Pile caps transfer the load from column(s) to a the behavior and strength of pile caps. Some
piles group. In spite of being a very important and codes and designers (ACI-318 Committee,
common structural element, there is no a American Concrete Institute, 2005; British
generally unified procedure for the pile caps Standards Institution, 1990; British Standards
design. In practice, designers followed numerous Institution, 1997; Canadian Standards Association,
empirical rules. These disparities took place 1994) assume a linear distribution of strain over
because most codes do not present a design the depth of a member. Therefore, a pile cap is
1
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Diyala, Baqubah, Iraq.
2
M.Sc. Student, Civil Engineering Department, University of Diyala, Baqubah, Iraq.

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php

1
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
considered as a beam bridging piles that require
longitudinal reinforcement based on the
engineering beam theory. A selected depth to
provide adequate shear strength is also required.
The traditional design procedures for pile caps of
ACI Building Codes (ACI-318 Committee,
American Concrete Institute, 2005; ACI-318
Committee, American Concrete Institute, 1983;
ACI-318 Committee, American Concrete Institute,
1999; and ACI-318 Committee, American
Concrete Institute, 2002) uses the same sectional
methodology used for two way slabs and for
footings supported on soil. While Strut-and-Tie
model in which an internal load-resisting truss is
being used by other design provisions (ACI-318
Committee, Canadian Standards Association,
1994; Schlaich J, Schafer K and Jennewein M,
1987). STM states that tensile forces are carried
by steel reinforcement ties and compressive
forces are carried by concrete compressive
struts. These struts and ties should transfer the
applied forces from the column to the piles.
Appendix A in [ACI 318-02] introduced a general
design procedure based on strut-and-tie for all
D-regions (discontinuity regions). Nonlinear in
addition to linear analyses demonstrate that pile
caps act as three-dimensional elements. Over
the dimensions of the D-region, there is a
complex strain variation in which compressive
struts form between applied forces of columns
and the supporting piles. That is why, pile caps
design procedures should not be based on a
sectional design method and many tests have
showed the imprecision of this approach. Many
researchers (Adebar P et al., Jan-Feb,1990;
Adebar P and Zhou Z, July-Aug, 1996; Bloodworth
A G et al., Nov. 2003; Cavers W and Fenton G A,
Feb, 2004; Park J et al., 2008) concluded that
pile caps that were designed to fail in the brittle
mode of shear have been reported to fail in flexure.
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
While many researchers (Blévot J L and Frémy
R, 1967; Clarke J L, 1973; Suzuki K and Otsuki
K, 2002; Suzuki K, Otsuki K and Tsubata T, 1999;
Suzuki K et al., 1998; Suzuki K et al., 2000) found
that the strut-and-tie method presents a more
appropriate procedure for dimensions
proportioning and reinforcement selecting for the
pile caps. Previous experimental works for pile
caps and some important conclusions suggested
by various investigators are summarized here.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The present research provides useful guidance
to researchers in order to contribute to the
development of pile caps design recommendations
under various types of loading. The experimental
data collected from the literature are supporting
here the appropriateness of using strut-and-tie
model. As concluded from the literature, the use
of the strut-and-tie model can provide rational
models with safer and more economical
solutions for the pile caps design than the
sectional design method application.
Figure 1: Various Layouts of Main Reinforcing
Bars Used by Blévot and Frémy,1973
EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR
PILE CAPS
There are some degree of limitations in the
experimental test data on the pile caps
performance. Unfortunately, as the patterns of
reinforcement used in the test pile caps are not
compatible with the design procedures, an
important portion of these results are not so helpful
for assessing these code provisions. A brief review
of some notable test results is summarized here.
2
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
Blévot and Frémy (1967) carried out a
comprehensive series of tests. Researchers
tested half-scale 51 four-pile caps and eight full-
scale four-pile caps. The main aims of these tests
were to compare the pile caps performance when
containing different longitudinal reinforcement
patterns as shown in Figure 1 in addition to check
the efficiency of different strut-and-tie models.
The tests results illustrated that the use of
bunched square layouts (Figure (1-a)) led to a
(20%) higher capacity than in specimens with the
same reinforcement quantity distributed in a grid
pattern (Figure (1-e )). It was concluded in these
tests that using only a bunched square layout of
reinforcement led to poor control of crack, and
therefore, the researchers recommended using
complementary grid reinforcement. According to the
authors, punching shear can take place at the failure,
so results interpretation concerning pile caps is
complex. The authors reached the conclusion that
it is not possible in pile caps to separate shear and
bending behavior such as in beams, because
increasing the longitudinal reinforcement leads to
an important increase in punching strength. This
conclusion is also supported by other researchers
such as (Blévot J L and Frémy R, 1967; Clarke J L,
1973; Suzuki K and Otsuki K, 2002; Suzuki K, Otsuki
K and Tsubata T, 1999; Suzuki K et al., 1998; Suzuki
K et al., 2000) .
Clarke (1973) tested half-scale 15 four-pile
caps. Figure 2 shows different longitudinal
Figure 2: Various Layouts of Main Reinforcing
Bars Used Clarke (1973)
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
3
reinforcement patterns. The test specimens were
designed to fail in flexure. The researcher
concluded the unsafety of the sectional approach
for shear capacity calculating. Flexural failure took
place only in four caps, whereas shear failure took
place in the remainder caps after longitudinal
reinforcement yielding. The main conclusion of
Clarke was that Comité Euro-International Du
Béton (1970) and the British Standards Institution
(1972) overstate the effective depth importance
in shear strength calculating.
From his four-pile cap tests, the truss analogy
was an adequate method of analyzing a four–
pile caps in order to ascertain its flexural capacity
and to calculate the required amount of tensile
reinforcement. The experiments also showed that
using a bunched square reinforcement pattern
led to 25% higher failure loads than the failure
loads determined when the same reinforcement
amount was used in a grid pattern, which
approved the Blévot and Frémy (1967)
conclusions.
Sabnis and Gogate (1984) tested nine 1/5-
scale four-pile caps. The grid reinforcement ratio
was varying from 0.21% to 1.33%. The aim of
these experiments was to find if the longitudinal
reinforcement amount had an effect on shear
strength. The researchers concluded that the
reinforcement amount over 0.2% had no influence
or little on capacity. A wide range of experiments
(Blévot J L and Frémy R, 1967; Clarke J L, 1973;
Suzuki K and Otsuki K, 2002; Suzuki K, Otsuki K
and Tsubata T, 1999; Suzuki K et al., 1998; Suzuki
K et al., 2000) did not support this conclusion.
Adebar et al. (1990) tested five four-pile caps with
different geometries and reached the conclusions
that the STM can well estimate the complex 3D
element overall behavior as shown in Figure 3.
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
Figure 3: Pile Cap Type, Adebar et al., 1990
Failures generally took place after the
longitudinal reinforcement yielding and with the
diagonal compressive struts splitting that
propagated from the column to the piles. This
splitting also occurs in deep beams shear failures
(Abdul-Razzaq et al., xxxx). These researchers
recommended to limit the top of a pile cap
maximum bearing stress to 1.0f’c in order to
prevent compressive strut splitting failures. This
recommendation was found to be not applicable
for all member ranges despite its simplicity. This
attributed to the fact that the mechanical
reinforcement ratio and the shear span-depth ratio
affects the maximum normal stress at failure
acting on the tested caps columns (Blévot J L and
Frémy R, 1967; Clarke J L, 1973; Suzuki K and
Otsuki K, 2002; Suzuki K, Otsuki K and Tsubata T,
1999; Suzuki K et al., 1998; Suzuki K et al., 2000) .
The authors concluded that ACI 318-83 does not
well identify the experimental test results trend. The
authors suggested that the ACI 318-83
overestimates the effect of the effective depth and
that the deep pile cap strength is better improved
by increasing the concentrated loads bearing area
than by increasing the pile cap depth.
According to an experimental and analytical
study of compression struts under concrete
confinement, Adebar and Zhou (1993) suggested
a direct approach for shear strength verifying. In
this proposed approach, the maximum bearing
stress has a more important effect on any
prescribed critical section than shear stress. The
authors found that when compression struts are
confined by plain concrete, the maximum bearing
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
4
stress to cause transverse splitting depends on
the aspect ratio (height/width) in addition to the
amount of confinement of the compression strut.
A simple example of two piles-cap was studied
to illustrate their suggestions of stress limits for
the design of the cap using strut-and-tie model.
After that, Adebar and Zhou (1996) compared their
previously suggested model with testing 48 pile
caps. They concluded that the ACI 318-83
provisions for one-way shear design are
extremely conservative and that the conventional
procedures of flexure design for two-way slabs
and beams are unconservative for pile caps. To
solve these issues, the authors proposed that the
design of pile caps when using STM should also
through using an indirect and additional shear
verification. This suggestion is according to the
evidence presented by Schlaich et al.,(1987)[25]
in which the design of an entire D-region when
using STM can be valid if the maximum bearing
stress is kept lower a certain limit.
Suzuki et al. (1998) tested 28 four-pile caps in
which the layouts of the longitudinal bars and
edge distances were varied (the edge distance
is the shortest distance from the pile center to
the footing slab peripheral). The majority of pile
caps f ailed by shear after longitudinal
reinforcement yielding and only four specimens
failed by shear without longitudinal reinforcement
yielding. It was found that bunched square layouts
(shown in Figure 4) resulted in higher strengths
Figure 4: Bunched Square Layouts
Used Suzuki et al.
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017 Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
and that the distance of the edge affected the load
of failure. To increase deformation and strength
capacity even after yielding of reinforcement, the
edge distance was suggested to be about 1.5
times the diameter of the pile. After that, Suzuki
et al. (1999) tested 18 four-pile caps tapered
footings (with top inclined slabs) and proved that
cracking load has a tendency to decrease as the
ratio of reinforcement increases. In these
experiments, most specimens failed in shear
after longitudinal reinforcement yielding, and only
two specimens failed by shear before yielding of
reinforcement.
Suzuki et al. (2000) tested thirty four pile caps
that reinforced with a grid layout as shown in
Figure 5. A significant aim of the research was to
evaluate the edge distance effect between the
cap and the piles on behavior and strength. The
results have shown that the load of the 1st crack
and the flexural capacity decreases even if the
slab reinforcement is the same when shortening
the edge distance.
Figure 5: Four-Pile Cap, Suzuki et al.
Suzuki and Otsuki (2002) tested eighteen four-
pile caps with grid reinforcement. The parameters
of test involved type of anchorage and concrete
strength. The edge distance was maintained
equal to the pile diameter and it was easy to prove
that f’c has no effect on ultimate strength and
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
5
failure mode. In the majority of pile caps, the mode
of failure was because of the shear that took place
before yielding of the reinforcement. Whereas all
specimens were expected to fail by flexure, ten
of them did not fail by flexure. The researchers
reached the conclusion that it was because of
the effect of shortened edge distances on the
failure by shear. Even though the researchers did
not make a certain anchorage length conditions
reference, it looks obvious that short edge
distances have a direct effect on the longitudinal
reinforcement development. The same problem
of anchorage looks like to happen in the test data
of Suzuki et al. (2000).
Souza et al. (2007) proposed an adaptable 3D
STM that can be used in the analysis or design of
four-pile caps supporting rectangular columns
that apply compressive forces and biaxial flexure
onto the pile cap top. Most codes did not treat
this very common situation, and that is why,
designers have been applying a simplified strut-
and-tie model or the bending theory (Blévot J L
and Frémy R, 1967) developed for the situation
of subjecting axial load to square columns. The
authors also proved that using the sectional
design approaches can be an invalid approach
for stocky pile caps. In addition to conclusions
that the shear approaches can be unconservative,
pile caps show brittle failures when subjected to
overload. STM better characterizes the forces flow
in pile caps nonetheless enhanced models are
required that can take into considerations the
nonlinear behavior of concrete.
Ahmed et al. (2009) tested six simply
supported pile caps of size 75 cm × 75 cm × 23
cm resting on four piles were designed with STM
for assumed external loads applied to the center
of pile caps. Two mix designs of concrete were
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
used with three samples from each mix, These
experimental loads were compared with the
theoretical shear capacity of the pile caps
designed by STM, Plate (1).
Plate 1: Four-Pile Cap Load Position and
Shear Failure, Ahmed et al., 2009
They observed that strut-and-tie model
provides a reliable solution for predicting the shear
strength of pile caps and the experimental results
fell very close to the theoretical values based on
strut-and-tie model.
CONCLUDED REMARKS
Many engineers use approximate empirical
procedures to design the reinforced concrete pile
caps because worldwide practice codes do not
state unified guidance to design the reinforced
concrete pile caps. That is why, the majority of
practice codes of induce using sectional method
to design the reinforced concrete pile caps. This
is inadequate f or most pile caps that
compression struts flow directly from the loading
point application to the pile (very stocky).
Therefore, the Strut and Tie model could be used
instead of sectional force methods. From other
side, Strut and Tie method was found
conservative in predicting shear strength, hence
it is a desirable method for design of stocky pile
cap.
From the previous brief review of some
experimental studies concerning RC pile cap, the
followed summary can be drawn:
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
1-The conventional methods evaluate the
internal forces by assuming Bernoulli’s hypothesis
is valid (shear span to depth ratio is greater than
2). In reality Bernoulli’s hypothesis is not valid in
structures like deep beams, corbels, beam-
column junction, etc. the strain in these type of
structures are not linear. Strut-and-Tie method
(STM) is popular among research communities
and engineers for the analysis and design of
disturbed regions of structures (shear span to
depth ration is less than 2). This method produces
much accurate results when compared to the
conventional empirical methods. The
conventional methods evaluate the internal forces
by assuming Bernoulli’s hypothesis is valid (beam
theory assumption that plane sections remain
plane). The inelastic regions where Bernoulli’s
hypothesis is not valid are known as Disturbed
or D-region and the regions which obey Bernoulli’s
hypothesis is known as Bernoulli’s or B-region.
The Strut and Tie Model method was developed
in order to account for such nonlinearities and to
overcome this over reinforced problem. In the case
of structures which are subjected to very intense
loading, the behavior of the whole structure will
be inelastic. In such case, even the B-regions
get converted to D-regions. These types of
structures can also be analyzed and designed
using STM with better accuracy when compared
to other conventionally used methods. Not like
conventional design approaches, STM do not
separate shear and flexural design; though, it may
be said that the “design for shear” using STM for
deep members includes limiting the stresses of
concrete to insure that the reinforcement of the
tensile tie yields prior to the shear failure of
concrete.
2-Experimental tests on pile caps that designed
to fail by flexure led to fail by shear. The
6
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
conventional shear approaches can be -to a
certain extent- unconservative when used for pile
caps. The exaggeration in the importance of the
effective depth in case of using the sectional
design methods caused this early failure in shear.
3-Some codes of practice such as American
Concrete Institute (ACI) code, Canadian
Standards Association (CSA), Australian
Standard, New Zealand Standard are now
supporting the strut-and-tie method as an
appropriate and alternative design procedure for
pile caps. Shear verification is highly
recommended by many researchers when
designing pile caps although it is not
recommended in these practice codes when
designing by the strut-and-tie method. The
researchers gathered that shear failure in pile
caps is attributed to the longitudinal splitting of
the compression struts. Therefore, a relation
shear span/depth ratio under 1.0 and a
compressive stress under 1.0f’c normally can
result in ductile failures. Based on this, designers
may believe that the longitudinal reinforcement
yielding prior to the splitting or crushing of
compression struts.
Some researchers illustrate that less 10 to
20% of longitudinal reinforcement amount to carry
the same loading will be used in case of designing
by a strut-and-tie method although the opposite
situation was concluded by other researchers.
Therefore, although strut-and-tie method can
offer a more safe and rational method for
proportioning the pile caps depth for shear, it is
economical than the sectional approach or not.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The completing of this present work was in the
Department of Civil Engineering, College of
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
Engineering, University of Diyala. Therefore, the
moral support that was provided is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Abdul-Razzaq Khattab Saleem, Abed, Alaa
Hussein and Ali, Haidar Ihsan (2016),
‘‘Parameters Affecting Load Capacity of
Reinforced Self-Compacted Concrete
Deep Beams”, International Journal of Eng.
Research and Technology (IJERT), ISSN:
2278_0181, Vol. 5, No. 05, pp. 225-233.
2. ACI-318 Committee, American Concrete
Institute (1983), “Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
(ACI 318-83)”, American Concrete Institute,
Michigan.
3. ACI-318 Committee, American Concrete
Institute (1999), “Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-99) and Commentary (318R-99)”
American Concrete Institute, Michigan, p.
391.
4. ACI-318 Committee, American Concrete
Institute (2002), “Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-02) and Commentary (318R-02)”,
American Concrete Institute, Michigan, p.
443.
5. ACI-318 Committee, American Concrete
Institute (2005), “Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-05) and Commentary (318R-05)”,
Michigan, p. 430.
6. Adebar P and Zhou Z (July-Aug, 1996),
“Design of Deep Pile Caps by Strut-and-
Tie Models”, ACI-Structural Journal, Vol. 93,
No. 4, pp. 1-12.
7
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
7. Adebar P and Zhou Z (Sept-Oct, 1993),
“Bearing Strength of Compressive Struts
Confined by Plain Concrete”, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 534-541.
8. Adebar P, Kuchma D and Collins M P (Jan-
Feb,1990), “Strut-and-Tie Models for the
Design of Pile Caps: An Experimental
Study”, ACI- Structural Journal, Vol. 87, No.
1, pp. 81-92.
9. Ahmed S, Shah A and Zaman S (2009),
“Evaluation of the Shear Strength of Four
Pile Cap Using Strut and Tie Model (STM),”
Chinese Journal Institute of Eng., Vol. 32,
No. 2, pp. 243-249.
10. Blévot J L and Frémy R (1967), “Semelles
sur Pieux”, Institute Tech. du Bâtiment et
des Travaux Publics, Vol. 20, No. 230, pp.
223-295.
11. Bloodworth A G, Jackson P A and Lee M M
K (Nov. 2003), “Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Pile Caps”, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Eng., Structures and
Buildings, Vol. 156, No. SB 4, pp. 347-358.
12. British Standards Institution (1972), “Code
of Practice for the Structural Use of
Concrete—CP 110”, London, United
Kingdom.
13. British Standards Institution (1990), “Code
of Practice for the Design of Concrete
Bridges—BS 5400”, Milton Keynes, UK.
14. British Standards Institution (1997)
“Structural Use of Concrete: BS 8110”,
United Kingdom.
15. Canadian Portland Cement Association
(1995), Concrete Design Handbook,
Canada.
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
16. Canadian Standards Association (1994),
“CSA Standard-A23.3-94—Design of
Concrete Structures”, Canada.
17. Cavers W and Fenton G A (Feb, 2004) “An
Evaluation of Pile Cap Design Methods in
Accordance with the Canadian Design
Standard,” Canadian Journal of Civil
Eng.,Vol.31 ,No.1,pp. 109_119.
18. Cervenka V, Jendele L and Cervenka J
(2005), “ATENA Program Documentation—
Part 1: Theory”, Praha, Czech Rep.
19. Clarke J L (1973), “Behavior and Design of
Pile Caps with Four Piles (Sp. 1973)”, Tech.
Report No. 42_489, Cement and Concrete
Association, Wexham.
20. Comité Euro_International Du Béton (1993),
“CEB-FIP Model Code 1990”, Thomas
Telford Services Ltd., London, United
Kingdom.
21. Comité Euro-International Du Béton (1970),
“CEB-FIP International Recommendations
for the Design and Construction of Concrete
Structures”, London, United Kingdom.
22. Nori V V and Tharval M S (2007), “Design
of Pile Caps—Strut and Tie Method”, Indian
Concrete Journal, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 13-19.
23. Park,J., Kuchma,D.A., and Souza,R.A.,
(2008) “Strength Predictions of Pile Caps
by a Strut-and-Tie Model Approach”,
Canadian Journal of Civil Eng., Vol. 35, No.
12, pp. 1399-1413.
24. Rafael Souza, Daniel Kuchma, JungWoong
Park and Túlio Bittencourt (March_April.,
2009), “Adaptable Strut-and-Tie Model for
Design and Verification of Four-Pile Caps”,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 106, No. 2, pp.
142-150.
8
Int. J. Engg. Res. & Sci. & Tech. 2017
25. Reineck K H, Kuchma D A, Kim K S and
Marx S (Mar-Apr, 2003), “Shear Database
for Reinforced Concrete Members Without
Shear Reinforcement”, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 100, No. 2, July_Aug, pp. 240-
249.
26. Sabnis G M and Gogate A B (Jan-Feb,1984),
“Investigation of Thick Slabs (Pile Caps)”,
ACI Structural Journal, Proceedings, Vol.
81, No. 1, pp. 35-39.
27. Schlaich J, Schafer K and Jennewein M
(1987), “Toward a Consistent Design of
Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Journal
of Prestressed Concrete Structures, Vol.
32, No. 3, pp. 74-150.
28. Siao W B (xxxx), “Strut-and-Tie Model for
Shear Behavior in Deep Beams and Pile
Caps Failing in Diagonal Splitting”, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 356-
363.
29. Souza R A, Kuchma D A, Park J and
Bittencourt T N (2007), “NonLinear Finite
Element Analysis of Four-Pile Caps
Supporting Columns Subjected to Generic
Loading”, Computers and Concrete, Vol. 4,
No. 5, pp. 363-376.
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijerst.com/currentissue.php
Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq and Mustafa Ahmed Farhood, 2017
30. Suzuki K and Otsuki K (2002),
“Experimental Study on Corner Shear
Failure of Pile Caps”, Japan’s Transactions
Concrete Institute, Vol. 23.
31. Suzuki K, Otsuki K and Tsubata T (1998),
“Influence of Bar Arrangement on Ultimate
Strength of Four-Pile Caps (1998), “Japan’s
Transactions Concrete Institute, Vol. 20, pp.
195-202.
32. Suzuki K, Otsuki K and Tsubata T (1999),
“Experimental Study on Four-Pile Caps with
Taper”, Japan’s Transactions Concrete
Institute, Vol. 21, pp. 327-334.
33. Suzuki K, Otsuki K and Tsuhiya T (2000),
“Influence of Edge Distance on Failure
Mechanism of Pile Caps”, Japan’s
Transactions Concrete Institute, Vol. 22, pp.
361-367.
34. Tanijaya J and Hardjito D (2010), “The
Influence of Opening on the Responses of
Hybrid Reinforced Concrete T-beams
Under Cyclic Loading”, in Proceeding of the
5th Civil Engineering Conference in the Asian
Region and Australasian, Structural
Engineering Conference.
9