SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations

Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

ASCE 7-05 2006 IBC (2007 CBC) Other standard

reference section(s) reference section(s) reference section(s)
12.13, 14.2.3, 14.3.2 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1908.1.10 ACI 318-05, 21.10

Design Overview

An overview of the design of piles, pile caps, and grade beams under ASCE 7-05 and the 2006 IBC (2007 CBC) is
provided in Article 7.01.001, Foundation Design Overview. That article explains that the 2006 IBC is based upon
provisions initiated by the 2000 NEHRP/2000 IBC provisions. ASCE 7-05 also incorporates substantial changes
from Chapter 7 of the 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures. The 1999 Blue Book provisions (SEAOC 1999) do not cover detailing provisions in as much depth as
ASCE 7-05 does. However, the 1999 Blue Book provisions are still relevant to the design of piles, pile caps, and
grade beams, particularly where a capacity design approach is taken.

A performance-based design approach for pile foundations has not yet been addressed by any of the above codes,
standards, or guidelines. However, researchers at the University of California, San Diego did propose performance-
based design criteria for specific pile types (Silva, Seible, Priestley, 1997). This work can be used as a basis for the
performance-based design of other piles and for pile connections where progressive cyclic testing has been done to
establish various damage levels versus deformation.

The design force level for the vertical system that resists lateral forces and for the foundation (except the
superstructure-to-footing connection) are the same. This has been and still is a recognized area requiring research
and code changes (Harden, Hutchinson, and Moore 2006), and it is therefore uncertain as to where the majority of
the inelastic deformation occurs. To address this uncertainty and to prevent excessive concentration of inelastic
deformation in the foundation system, a BSSC Issue Study (BSSC 2007) has recommended that the foundation
design force be higher than the code level design force where there is a high system ductility (high R value). This
does not preclude nonlinear behavior in the foundation system, it simply endeavors to limit the ductility demand
level imposed on the foundation system. This article recommends, in addition to the philosophical approach of
limiting the ductility demand on the foundation system, that a capacity design approach be applied to preclude the
formation of any non-ductile mechanisms. The following outlines an approach for the design of the pile cap and
reinforced concrete piles. The approach can be extended to other forms of deep foundations and to shallow
foundations.

Pile Cap Design

The above references have a limited number of seismic design and detailing provisions for pile caps. If the pile cap
should yield or fail in shear before developing the strength of the piles, then the displacement capacity of a yielding
foundation system may be compromised. Such a pile cap mechanism can occur due to joint shear stresses from
column or wall pier bending moments or from under-reinforcement for bending moments necessary to transfer the
overturning forces to the piles. Joint shear failure in footings has occurred prematurely under large-scale testing of
column to footing connections (Xiao, Priestley, and Seible, 1996). This type of mechanism lacks the ductility
capacity to achieve the performance intended by the code. The exception to this is where flexural yielding of a
grade beam or pile cap occurs first. The component in this scenario should be treated as a flexural element and either
meet the detailing requirements of ACI 318-05 Section 21.3 or be demonstrated to afford sufficient ductility.

Below are suggested strength and ductile detailing provisions for the pile cap as a flexural member and an
evaluation approach to prevent pile cap joint shear failure before flexural yielding of the pile cap.

Article 7.02.020 Page 1 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

Pile Cap Seismic Design Provisions

Unless explicitly detailed for ductility, the pile cap should be sized and reinforced to develop the capacity of either
the vertically oriented system that resists lateral forces or the pile capacities. This is applicable to both overturning
and lateral forces. The pile cap should be designed to transfer the forces of the vertical lateral force-resisting system
to the piles, in particular the joint formed between structural components. The joint(s) should be reinforced and
detailed to resist the diagonal tension stress induced by the pile, column, or structural wall using the following
provisions.

1. The pile caps shall have continuous top and bottom longitudinal reinforcing using a steel ratio not less than
0.0020 for each layer and terminated with seismic hooks in accordance with ACI 318 Section 21.1 at the
edges. For pile caps not containing shear reinforcement, the top and bottom reinforcing layers of the pile
cap shall be connected by not less than the equivalent of #5 vertical bars at 24 inches on-center each way
with 90 degree hooks on one end and seismic hooks on the other end alternated.
2. For piles located at pile cap edges, the distance of pile centerline away from the cap or grade beam edges
shall be the greater of the diameter or least dimension of the pile, but not less than 20 inches unless
transverse reinforcing consisting of spirals, with a volumetric steel ratio of not less than 0.010, confines the
pile or pile longitudinal reinforcing throughout its development length into the pile cap.
3. The diagonal tension stress, ft, within the pile cap induced by the plastic moment demand from the column,
structural wall or pile shall not exceed 3.5 ϕ¥f’c, where ϕ = 1.0. The axial compression force in the
column, structural wall or pile may be used to reduce the diagonal tension stress using the relationship

2
fa § fa ·
ft = − ¨ ¸ + vjv 2
2 © 2¹

where vjv is the average shear stress on the joint area, fa the average effective axial compressive stress at the
mid-depth of the pile cap and ft is negative for tension.

P
fa =
Aeff

where the effective Aeff, over which the total axial load P at the column, wall or pile is distributed, is found
from a 45 degree spread of the zone of influence for a rectangular section

Aeff = (Bc + df)(Dc + df)

and for a circular section

Aeff = ʌ (Dc + df)2/4

where Dc is the overall section depth of the rectangular section or the diameter of the circular section and Bc
is the width of the rectangular section and df is the effective depth of the footing. The effective joint width
and depth shall not exceed the pile cap dimensions.

The vertical joint shear Vjv may be taken as the plastic moment of the column, wall, or pile divided by its
effective moment arm force couple. Where a pile and column align, the joint shear shall be based on the
summation of the internal actions of each component. The effective joint shear stress is taken as

Article 7.02.020 Page 2 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

Vjv
vjv =
bjeffdf

where the effective joint width, bjeff is taken for rectangular sections as

bjeff = Bc + Dc

and for circular sections as

bjeff = ¥2 Dc

Exception: Where grade beams, separate from the pile cap, are designed to develop the moment
strength of the column or wall above, the pile cap need not be designed and detailed to resist the
plastic moment capacity of the column or wall.

Limit State analysis of Concrete Piles for Lateral Seismic Forces

A simplified limit state analysis of fixed-head concrete piles for seismic lateral loading has been developed by Song,
Chai, and Hale (2005), which can be used for a capacity design approach. This analysis has been rearranged and a
condensed version reproduced in this article. The method is based on characterizing the response of the pile for a
selected number of limit states and applies to a fixed-head pile subject to lateral inertial loading at the pile head. The
model assumes sequential yielding of the pile under progressive lateral deformation until a plastic mechanism is
fully developed. Idealized ultimate soil pressure distributions are assumed in the ultimate state. It is assumed in the
methodology that the pile shear capacity is sufficient to develop the plastic moment capacity of the section. Similar
procedures can be used to develop a simplified limit state analysis for pinned-head piles (Chai 2002) and steel piles.
Figure 1 shows the progressive limit states of the pile, where uniform flexural strength is assumed along the length
of the pile. The first-yield limit state occurs when the flexural strength of the pile equals the moment demand

Figure 1. Limit states of Fixed-head Concrete Piles under Lateral Seismic Loads
(from Song, Chai, and Hale, 2004)

Article 7.02.020 Page 3 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

occurring at the pile head. Further displacement beyond the first-yield limit state results in the formation of the first
plastic hinge at the pile cap. Upon even further displacement, the bending moment redistributes to a lower level in
the pile forming a second plastic hinge at the depth Lm. Inelastic rotation in both hinges occurs upon further
displacement until the pile reaches its ultimate limit state. The ultimate limit state is taken to occur when the pile
section curvature capacity is exhausted in the first plastic hinge of the pile, or where the pile section curvature
capacity is something less than that of the second plastic hinge where it may control the ultimate limit state. In other
words, the second plastic hinge curvature capacity may become exhausted before that of the first plastic hinge if
lesser confinement of concrete is provided.

In this method, the lateral soil-pile stiffness is based on the elastic response of the soil-pile system. For a cohesive
soil, the soil reaction is proportional to the lateral deflection of the pile, or kh y, where kh is the constant for
horizontal subgrade reaction and y is the lateral deflection. The initial lateral stiffness can be derived from the
applicable differential equation (Poulos and Davis 1980) to produce

V EI e
K1 ≡ = 2 3
Δ Rc

where R c ≡ 4 EI e / k h is the characteristic length of the pile in cohesive soil and EIe the effective flexural rigidity of
the pile. The force-deformation curve for the pile-soil system, assumed to be tri-linear in characterization, is shown
in Figure 2. The reduced lateral stiffness beyond the first yield limit state is derived as

V − Vy EI e
K2 ≡ = 3
Δ − Δ y1 2 Rc

and the rotation of the first plastic hinge θ = (Δ − Δ y1 ) 2 Rc . The pile-head displacement and lateral force at the
first-yield limit state is taken as Δ y1 = M u Rc2 EI e and V y = K 1 Δ y1 = 2 M u Rc . The term Mu is the expected
ultimate moment capacity of the section.

For lateral strength estimation, the ultimate soil pressure distribution recommended by Reese and Van Impe (2001)
is assumed. Using the assumed ultimate soil pressure for cohesive soils, the normalized depth of the second plastic
hinge may be determined by solving the equation for L*m and for the actual depth Lm = L*m D .

3
2 1.5L*m
0.5L*m + = M u* for L*m ≤ Ψr
Ψr
2 2
2.75L*m − 0.75ψ r = M u* for L*m > Ψr

where M u* ≡ M u / ( s u D 3 ) , Ψr is the critical depth coefficient which is equal to 9 su / (γ ' D + 2 2 s u ) , D is the

diameter of the pile, su is the undrained shear strength of the soil and γ’ the effective unit weight of the soil.
The normalized lateral strength at which the second plastic hinge is formed can be found using the equations

Article 7.02.020 Page 4 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

2
2 4.5L*m
Vu* = 2 L*m + for L*m ≤ Ψr
Ψr
2
Vu* = 11L*m − 4.5ψ r for L*m > Ψr

where the actual lateral strength of the soil-pile system is Vu ≡ Vu* s u D 2 .

For a cohesionless soil, the soil reaction can be assumed to be proportional to a modulus of horizontal subgrade
reaction which increases with depth, i.e. nh x y, where nh is the constant rate of increase in the modulus of horizontal
subgrade reaction and is defined as kh/x. The initial lateral stiffness can be derived from the applicable differential
equation (Matlock and Reese 1960) to produce

V EI
K1 ≡ = 1.08 3e
Δ Rn
where Rn ≡ 5 EI e / n h is the characteristic length of the pile in cohesionless soil and EIe the effective flexural
rigidity of the pile. The force-deformation curve for the pile-soil system, assumed to be tri-linear in
characterization, is shown in Figure 2. The reduced lateral stiffness beyond the first yield limit state is derived as

V − Vy EI e
K2 ≡ = 0.41
Δ − Δ y1 Rn 3

and the rotation of the first plastic hinge is θ = (Δ − Δ y1 ) 1.5 Rn . The pile-head displacement and the
corresponding lateral force at the first-yield limit state are taken as Δ y1 = M u Rn2 EI e and
V y = K 1 Δ y1 = 1.08 M u Rn respectively. The term
Limit State of Actual Mu is the expected ultimate moment capacity of the
Elasto-Plastic
2nd Hinge Response section, same as before.
Response
Lateral Force V

Vu Ultimate

Tri-Linear P Using the assumed ultimate soil pressure pattern for

V
Response cohesionless soils, the normalized depth of the
K2 1st Hinge
Vy second plastic hinge may be determined using the
Lm
Limit State of
equation L*m = 3 2 M u* and the actual depth
2nd Hinge
1st Hinge Lm = L*m D , where M u* ≡ M u / ( K p γ ′ D 4 ) , Kp is
Δu
Δ*p Δ**
μΔ= the coefficient of passive soil pressure, which
K1 p Δy depends on the friction angle of the soil, γ’ the
Δy1 Δy Δy2 Δu effective unit weight of the soil and D is the
diameter of the pile. The normalized lateral strength
Lateral Displacement Δ associated with the second plastic hinge may then be
2
taken as Vu* = 1.5 L*m or the actual strength of
Figure 2. Idealized Force-Displacement Curve for
Fixed Head Piles Vu ≡ Vu* K p γ ' D 3 .

(from Song, Chai, and Hale, 2004) The first-yield limit state occurs at a displacement of

Article 7.02.020 Page 5 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

Δy1 (as given above) and the second yield limit state at Δy2. A lateral displacement beyond Δy2 is characterized by a
perfectly plastic force-deformation curve. An equivalent idealized elasto-plastic yield deformation is considered to
be related to Vu at a yield displacement of

Vu
Δy =
K1

The lateral displacement at the second yield limit state is taken as

Vy Vu − V y
Δ y2 = +
K1 K2
where all terms are defined as above.

The lateral displacement of the pile head from the first plastic hinge formation to the second plastic hinge formation
corresponds to Δp* and associated plastic rotation θp* as

Vu − V y
Δ*p = Δ y 2 − Δ y1 =
K2
*
Δ p
θ*p =
η Lm

where η = 2 Rc / Lm for cohesive soils and η ≡ 1.5 Rn / Lm for cohesionless soils, and the other terms are as
defined above.

The lateral displacement of the pile head from Δy2 to Δu (the ultimate displacement based on the ductility of the
hinges) corresponds to Δp** and a plastic rotation of θp** for both hinges as shown in Figure 1. Based on the first
plastic hinge capacity, Δp** and θp** can be found by

Δ*p* = (φ u1 − φ i ) L p1 Lm .

θ*p* = (φ u1 − φ i ) L p1 for φu1 ≥ φi ≥ φ y

where Lp1 is the equivalent plastic hinge length for the first hinge, φ u1 is the ultimate curvature of the first plastic
hinge which may be obtained from a moment-curvature analysis of the section, and φ i is the curvature in the first
plastic hinge at the lateral displacement of Δy2. The term φ i may be found from

ª K β Lm º
φi = φ y «1 + 1 (1 − α )»
¬« K 2 η L p1 ¼»

Article 7.02.020 Page 6 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

where α = V y / Vu = Δ y1 Δ y , β = Δ y / φ y Lm( 2
) and η = 2 Rc / Lm cohesive soils and η ≡ 1.5 Rn / Lm for
cohesionless soils. φ y is the idealized yield curvature taken from a moment-curvature section analysis. Δp** and
θp** are related by θ *p* = Δ*p* Lm .

Based on the second plastic hinge capacity, Δp** and θp** can be found by

( )
Δ*p* = φu 2 − φ y L p 2 Lm

θ *p* = (φ u 2 − φ y ) L p 2 for φ u 2 ≥ φ y

where Lp2 is the equivalent plastic hinge length for the second hinge. Based on prior research, Lp2 may be taken as
equal to D. The term φ u 2 is the ultimate curvature of the second plastic hinge, and φ y is the idealized yield
curvature, both of which may be determined from a moment-curvature section analysis. The plastic displacement
and plastic rotation, Δp** and θp**, are related by θ *p* = Δ*p* Lm .

Song, Chai and Hale (2004) have also developed equations to determine the curvature ductility demand under a
certain design displacement ductility, which are not included here but may be useful to the reader.

References

Broms, B. B. (1964). “Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 90(SM3), 123-156.

BSSC (2007). “Appropriate seismic load combinations for base plates, anchorage and foundations,” Issue Team #3
Draft White Paper, July 2007.

Chai, Y. H. (2002). “Flexural strength and ductility of extended pile-shafts. I: Analytical model.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(5) 586-594.

Harden, C.W., Hutchinson, T.C., and Moore, M. (2006). “Investigation into the effects of foundation uplift on
simplified design procedures,” Earthquake Spectra, 22(3), 663-692.

Matlock, H. and Reese, L. C. (1960) “Generalized solutions for laterally loaded piles,” Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 86(SM5), 63-91.

Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and design, Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.

Reese, L. C. and Van Impe, W. F. (2001). Single piles and pile groups under lateral loading, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands.

SEAOC (1999). Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary, Chapter 3, Structural Engineers
Association of California, Seismology Committee, Sacramento, CA.

Silva, P., Seible, F. and Priestley, M.J.N, (1997). Response of standard Caltrans pile-to-pile cap connections under
simulated seismic loads, Report no. SSRP – 97/09, November 1997, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla,
CA.

Article 7.02.020 Page 7 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook
 SEAOC Blue Book – Seismic Design Recommendations
Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams

Song, S. T., Chai, Y. H., and Hale, T. H. (2004). “Limit state analysis of fixed-head concrete piles under lateral
loads.” Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.

Song, S. T., Chai, Y. H., and Hale, T. H. (2005). “Analytical model for ductility assessment of fixed-head concrete
piles.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 131 (7), July 2005, p. 1051.

Xiao, Y., Priestley, M.J.N. and Seible, F. (1996). “Seismic assessment and retrofit of bridge column footings,” ACI
Structural Journal, January-February 1996.

Keywords
piles, pile caps, grade beams, limit state design

How to Cite This Publication

In the writer’s text, the article should be cited as:

(SEAOC Seismology Committee 2008)

In the writer’s list of cited references, the reference should be listed as:

SEAOC Seismology Committee (2008). “Limit State Design of Piles, Pile Caps, and Grade Beams,”
March, 2008, The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic design recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of
California, Sacramento, CA; accessible via the world wide web at: http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html.

Article 7.02.020 Page 8 of 8 March 2008

www.seaoc.org/bluebook