1015

TESTS ON COMPOSITE PILE CAPPING BEAMS

MAQSOOD AHMED RAJA

Research Student
Department of Civil Engineering
The City Univer51ty
Northampton Square - London EClV OHB

PHILIP R. S. SPEARE
Lecturer
Department of Civil En~ineering
The City Universlty
Northampton Square - London ECl V OHB

ABSTRACT
Seven full scale composite beams were tested to destruction to study the effects of uniformly
distributed top load on their bending, shear and deflection characteristics. The beams were basically of
similar shape with different geometric properties. Experimental results are compared with analysis
based on the British and United States' Codes. Flexural and shear design recommendations are
compared and conclusions are drawn as to their applicability. The effects of varying important
parameters like span and shear reinforcement are studied. Other parameters such as tension
reinforcement, relative concrete and brick areas were also varied together to study their combined
effect. The degree to which each of the parameters influences strength is discussed and suggestions
are made for modifications in the design practices for the beams.

NOTATION
As .... ...... ....... .. ...... ..... .. .. .. ............ ...... area of tension steel
Av,Asv .............. ..... ....... ...... ..... ... ....... area of shear reinforcement
b ... .. ........................ ................. ....... .. overall width of the beam
bc .. ... ... .. ........ .. .... ..... .. .................. .... .width of concrete portion in the web of the beam
 1016

bv .............................................. ........width of the section in shear

d ........... .. .. .............. .. ... .. ........ .......... .depth of the beam
db .... .. ............................................... depth of brickwork portion of the beam
de ...................................... ................ depth of concrete base
f'e ................................ ..... .. ......... ....... characteristic strength of concrete
fy ...................... .. .. ............................. yield strength of steel
fyv .. ............................................... characteristic shear strength of shear reinforcement
h ................ .. .............. .. .......... .. ... overall height of the beam
L ................. .. ..................... ... ... ... span
Mu ........ .. .... .. ...... .. ........ .. .............. ultimate moment capacity of the section
sv .. ... .. ............. .......................... .. .spacing of shear reinforcement
Ve ....... .. ........................................ concrete shear stress
Vs ............ .... .. ................... ............ shear stress in shear reinforcement
Ve .. .. .... .. ....... .... .. .... .... ........ .......... shear capacity of concrete
Vs ..................... ............ .............. .. shear capacity of shear reinforcement
Vu .... .. .... .. ........ .. ........ .. .. .. .. .......... ultimate shear capacity of the section
W .......................................... .. .... Totalload on span L
Zt ......... .... ........ .... .. .... .. ................ section modulus for tensile flexural stress
pw ...... .. .... .. .................. ...... .......... percentage of tensile steel (As/bd)

INTRODUCTION
Composite pile capping beams have been used for low rise buildings over soils of low bearing capacity
in the recent past [1] . Tests were conducted at The City University to ascertain their load bearing
characteristics.The beams consisted of a concrete base with its central portion projecting vertically
upwards in the form of an inverted T-beam. The projection was sandwiched between two walls each
being one brick thick. The tensile reinforcement was placed in the lower portion of the concrete base.
The shear reinforcement consisted of a standard 8503 wire fabric placed in the concrete infill and
spanned the entire length of the beam. Figure 1 shows a typical composite beam.

TEST PROGRAM
Seven specimens were tested to destruction. Six specimens were simply supported. Specimen 7 was
continuous over an intermediate support at midspan. A number of equally spaced 30 ton jacks were
used to load the beams. The jacks rested on short lengths of I-beams which were placed in a channel
section, of low bending stiffness, covering the entire length of the beam. The jacks reacted against an
I-beam wh ich was held down with the help of cross members and high yield steel bars reacting against
the strong floor. Table 1, based on the notation of Figure 1, shows the cross-sectional dimensions and
other properties of the specimens. The value of the section modulus in tension, Zt, has been worked
out for the areas transformed to those of brickwork. In each case, the ratio of elastic moduli of the

•
 1017

constituent materiais was calculated using the 8ritish codes [6,7) and ali the areas were then
transformed to equivalent brickwork areas.

\t-- b-*
b
H

. · · 1J.5f
1--_ _ _ _- ' mm

Figure 1. Cross-Section of a Typical Composite Pile Capping Beam.

TABLEl
Geometric and other properties of specimens

S.No Span b be db de h Shear Tensile ZI

mm mm mm mm mm mm Mesh Steel mm 3

7
1. 5000 280 75 510 250 760 8503 3Y16 3.27x10
7
2. 2300 300 95 450 300 750 8503 2Y16+ Y8 3.24x10
7
3. 2300 300 95 450 300 750 2Y16+Y8 3.21X10
7
4. 2500 280 75 510 250 760 8503 3Y16 3.27x10
7
5. 2500 280 75 510 250 760 3Y16 3.25x10
7
6. 3750 280 75 540 250 790 8503 3Y16 3.41X10
7
7. 2x2500 280 75 540 250 790 8503 3Y16 3.67x10

2Y16Top
 1018

The Electrical strain gauges were connected to shear and tension reinforcement at suitable
locations. Deflection gauges were placed at midspan and quarter spans. Demec gauges were fitted on
the brickwork across the whole length of the beam. They spaned the vertical mortar joints between
bricks and were useful in giving an early warning of any cracks that were not yet visible. Figure 2 shows
the general arrangement of the specimen, the loading rig and the instrumentation.

The load was increased in gradual steps from zero to that causing failure. At each stage, the
strains were recorded with the help of a microcomputer. Deflections were noted from the dial gauges.
Similarly, Demec gauge readings were taken. The cracks were plotted on the wall at each stage. Their
trajectories were also noted and this information fed into a main frame computer. A plot could thus be
obtained showing progressive cracking at each stage of the loading. The program also had the facility
of recording the strains at each stage and printing them at the locations of relevant strain gauges.

Figure 2. Generalloading and instrumentation arrangement.

EFFECTS OF PARAMETRIC VARIATIONS

Some specimens were constructed for the sole purpose of studying the effects of variation of only
important parameters like shear fabric and span to depth ratio. Others were designed to evaluate the
combined effect of variation of a number of less important parameters. A detailed discussion of the
effect of ali these factors on different aspects of structural action follows.

WEB STEEL FABRIC

Specimens 2 and 3 were similar except for the absence of shear mesh in the concrete infill of specimen
3. Another pair of specimens, namely 4 and 5, had the same geometric dimensions. Shear fabric was
omitted from the web of specimen 5. Load, cracking and deflection characteristics of the two sets were
compared to judge the effect of infill mesh on these aspects.

load Capacity
It is significant to note the inability of the infill mesh to improve the load carrying capacity of the
composite beam. The ultimate load carried by specimen 2 was 1450kN while that taken by specimen 3

•
 1019

was 1900kN. For specimen 2, the load was taken olt at an early stage to prevent distress to the loading
rig. Signs of failure were, however, begining to appear at this stage. It could, at best, have taken a load
equal to specimen 3 but not more. Similarly, for both specimens 4 and 5, the ultimate failure load was
1900kN. The results were thus quite similar to the first set of specimens and It was concluded that shear
mesh in the web did not enhance the strength in the range of geometry covered by these tests.

Deflection
There was a significant reduction in the denection of the beam when web reinforcement was added.
Figures 3 and 4 show a comparison of deflections of the two sets of specimens.

The effect of shear mesh is clearly visible. The degree to which the presence of mesh affected
deflection is quite different in the two cases. In the first case, the ratio of deflection at the same total
uniformly distributed load within the elastic range with and without shear mesh Is 1: 1.5 while in the
second case it has risen to 1:5. There was no apparent reason for this dlscrepancy.

1I is obvious lhat lhe steel fabric in lhe web of the beam has a significant contribution in restricling
the deflection of lhe beam. This reduction is caused by an even distribution of stresses over the whole
area of the beam.

X 100
20
S 2 20

---s;;
16 16
z:: SpeciIren 3 z:
-""
~ 12 ~12
u -o Specimen 5
<ti <ti
o o
-' -'
8
8

4 4

,
OO 2 4 6 8 10 12 OO '4 8 12 1'6 20
Deflection (m) Def1ection (nul)

Fig. 3 Midspan Deflection Specimcns 2 and 3 Fig.4 Midspan Deflection Specimens 4 and 5.

Crack Pattern
The onset of cracking for both the specimens without shear mesh was similar to those with il. These
originated as vertical flexural cracks in midspan regions. For the specimens wilh relnforcement in the
infill, lhe cracks were smaller and spread evenly on lhe face of the beam. The specimens wilh plain
concrete in lhe infill had concentration of cracks mostly in the midspan region of the beam. The mesh
clearly performed an important role in the internai distribution of stress. Thus the cracks were evident
outwards and over the supports for the bearns with steel fabric in the web. In the case of the beams
wilhout lhis mesh, the cracks were concentrated in the central regions. The crack patterns at failure for
ali the beams tested are shown in Figure 5.
 1020

b-hr4ff+~fI~Ij'l'-\
1
DCêlm 1 (mcsh) - 760kN
P
I

J~ b'-U~~
K lt i\ L

g-,tr'/d
13C,l :11 2 (m::sh) -190 0kN Ilcélm 3(no mesh)-1 900kN

~ J/ibl&"," ~
'\\~/l
,/.. \'
li I: K\
\~
"r
P-.'éun li (Il ~ s h ) -1 900kN Ilcam 5(no mesh)-1900kN

I;nh",~ (S'·' '11

II II IJ =::: ~
'~\~
Doam G(mes h) - 800kN

~[z1\~, eIS' :;~)ú :; 1("1\ \ J?b d

Ilcam 7(mcs h) - 2400kN

Figure 5. Crack patterns at failure.

EFFECT OF SPAN
Specimens 1 and 4 were of the same cross-sectional dimensions. Speclmen 1 was 4850mm between
centres of supports while the fourth specimen had a span of ?350mm. A comparison of both these
specimens was made to study the effect of variation in span on strength as well as deflectlon and crack
pattern.

Flexural Strength
Flexural cracks were initiated in the longer span at a total load of 296kN and in the shorter span at
400kN while the totalloads at elastic limit were 700kN and 1900kN respectively. From sim pie bending
theory, the shorter span would requlre a load of 592kN for a stress equivalent to that produced by
296kN in the longer one. Hence, in comparison with the longer span, the cracklng commences In the
short span at a lower load than would be expected (400kN compared with 611 kN), suggestlng that
relatively higher stresses develop In the shorter span at an equivalent load. As deeper beams deflect,
the load is transferred directly to the support by what is commonly known as 'composite archlng
action'. This is a comblned structural action consistlng of bending and arching. The upper part acts as
an 'arch' in compression transferring the load directly to the support regions while the lawer part of the
beam is in flexure as well as in simple tension slnce it acts as a tie between the twa ends of the arch so
formed. The camposite structural action set In at an earty stage in shorter spans. It Increased the
tensile stresses in the concrete base which resulted in the formatian af cracks at relatively lower load .

•
 1021
•
Shear Strength
Shear cracks were witnessed only in specimen 4. A total load of 1900kN was taken by this specimen.
No shear cracks were noticed in specimen 1. It withstood a maximum totalload of 888kN. AI this load,
some brickwork-concrete separation occurred at the horizontal interface. Some cracks were also
noticed next to one of the supports. These were due to a combination of shear and direct compressive
stresses.

For longe r spans, usually, shear is not criticaI. With shorter spans, the load is transferred directly
over the supports resulting in an increase in compressive stresses. A direct comparison of shear
stresses could not be made because the longer specimen failed earlier in f1exure. It was, however,
evident that, lor smaller spans, there is a greater concentration of stresses not only over the support
regions but also in the 'crown' of the arch in the midspan region. Cracks were witnessed at both these
locations.

Deflection
The span had a very significant effect on the deflection. For the same uniformly distributed load
intensity, deflection is proportional to L4 within the elastic range. The ratio of length was 2:1 so the ratio
4
01 deflections based on elastic calculations would be 2 = 16:1 . At the same load intensity, the actual
deflections recorded for the shorter span were about 1/25th those of the longer one. For shorter spans,
lhe load is translerred directly to the supports resulting in lower bending moments and consequently
lower qeflections. Figure 6 shows the load-deflection curves for speclmens 1 and 4. At the same load
inlensity, the totalload for specimen 1 was double that for specimen 4.

X 100kN
20 'J

16 fspecirren 4

12

4
Specirren 1
o'i'-~~~~-..,.~-...-~~ DeElection (rrrn)
~ 10 15 20

Figure 6. Load-deflection curves for specimens 1 and 4

Crack pattern
The cracks in the case of the longer specimen were spread evenly over the span. The main difference
in the crack pattern was the greater extent to which the cracking penetrated upwards in case of
specimen 4. There was also a greater compressive stress over the supports which resulted in tensile
cracking over the supports at higher loads.
 1022

COMPOSITE 'ARCHING' ACTION

Some authors have reported [2, 3, 4] that 'arching' action Is present in beams of depth to span ratio of
around 0.6. The beams tested had a depth to span ratio much less than this value but arching action
was witnessed when they beams were loaded. From the pattern of cracks, the compression strut could
be easily identified in ali cases, but it was more clearly vlsible at higher loads. The angle of inclination of
struts formed as a result of this 'arching' action and their distances from the edge of the beam were
noted for beam. Table 2 gives the distances of the compression struts from the beam edges and their
angles of inclination from the horizontal.

TABLE2
Location and incJination of compressive strut

Specimen 2 3 4 5 6 7

Angle(degrees) 45 54.5 55 45 35 45 35
Distance 1.4d .82d .8d .5d .4d d .7d

Note: Distance from pile is given as a ratio of depth d

Purely diagonal tension cracks would be inclined at an angle of nearly 45°. These cracks were
formed as a result of the combined effect of diagonal tension and direct compression over the supports.

MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS
The tension steel in specimen 2 was 2/3 that of specimen 4. It did not effect the strength but the
additional reinforcement seems to have restricted the deffections. For specimens 3 and 5, different
percentages of tension steel made little difference to their deffection.

There was a slight difference in the relative brickwork and concrete areas but this did not have a
profound effect on the performance of different specimens. Even when there was a significant
difference in concrete and mortar strengths, there was no overall variation in strength, deflection ar
cracking characteristics.

In some specimens, the load was removed and reapplied to see the effect of repeated loading.
At low loads, the performance of beams did not vary with repeated loading but once the loading was
near the elastic limit, then each subsequent cycle of loading praduced greater distress to the beam.

COMPARISON OF VALUES OF SHEAR STRENGTHS - US ANO UK COOES

Concrete and Brickwork
Both the codes [5, 7] evaluate the shear strength provided by brickwork (or concrete) and shear
reinforcement separately. The American Cade [7] suggests the following expression for calculating the
value of characteristic shear strength of concrete.

Vc = 1.9y1f'c + 2500~uWVud (1)

•
 1023

Vud/Mu depends on the geometric properties of the beams and not on the extent of loading
because the load W cancels out as is evident from the expressions for Vu and Mu. This is logical since
the value of shear strength of a beam should not change with a change in loading. The expressions for
Vu and Mu are:

Vu = [0.5 - (150+d)/L]W

where the diameter of the supporting pile is 150 mm and

Mu = [O.5(d + 75) - (d + 150)2/(2L)]W

The same will be the case in any other type of loading. As an alternative to equation (1), the
code suggests that the value of Vc may be approximated as 2y' f'c. The maximum value in both cases
is restricted to 3.5 y' f'c. The values of f'c has to be taken in psi units in ali these cases.

The value suggested by the British code (CP11 O) is 0.35 N/mm 2. Consider a very low value of
concrete characteristic stress of 30 N/mm 2 (4350 psi). For this type of concrete, the US Code would
suggest a value of 2 y'4350 = 120 psi or 0.8 N/mm2 and a maximum value of 3.5y' 4350 = 230.8 psi or
1.59 N/mm2 . Thus there is a considerable difference in the characteristic shear stress values suggested
by the two codes. There is some sense in relating the shear stress to the characteristic compressive
stress since, in shear, it is the diagonal tension or compression which causes failure. The revised British
Code BS 8110 (table 3.9) does take into consideration the positive effect of tension steel and the
decrease in beam depth but the effect of concrete strength is not taken into account. The range of
values for design concrete shear stress is from 0.34 N/mm2 to 1.22 N/mm2 . These values still seem
conservative and are much less than the design concrete shear stresses suggested by the American
Code.

Shear Steel
Similar expressions are used by both the codes to evaluate the contribution of web reinforcement
towards shear. The British Codes i.e. CP110 and BS 8110, both give the same expression, namely:

Asv = bvsv(v-vc)/(0.87fyv) (2)

In this expression, (v-vc) is the stress in the shear steel, vs. Thus, rearranging the expression in
terms ofvs,

vs = Q.87AsyflllL.
bvsv

where fyv is not to be taken greater than 0.87fy. Then in terms of totalload and steel yield stress,
the expression for shear strength of steel becomes;

Vs = O.75Asvfy'bvd
bvsv

or

Vs = Q.7SAsyfy d (3)
sv

The equivalent expression suggested by the American Code is;

Vs=~ (4)
Sv

Thus a factor of safety of 0.75 for the steel shear stress exists in the British Code whereas there
is no factor of safety in the American Code. The values of the shear strengths calculated using both
 1024

codes were compared with maxlmum load taken by the specimens prior to any slgns of shear cracking
and the results are glven In table 3. In calculating the shear strength using the Amerlcan Code, f'c was
taken as 21 N/mm 2 which was the characteristic strength of brickwork, the weakest of ali the elements.

TABLE3
Comparison of Shear strengths (kN)

Specimen 2 3 4 5 6
US Code 353 367 279 353 264 367
UK Code 136 139 73 136 69 141
Experimental 316 394 699 403 403 292

Note: The experimental values are the rnaximum loads taken by the specimen in shear and not the
failure loads.

COMPARISON OF FLEXURAL STRESSES - US ANO UK COOES

Figure 7 shows the equivalent stress blocks and strain dlagrams used for design in the American and
British codes. The value of f3 in Figure 7 is 0.85 for characteristic concrete stress of upto 4000 psi and
dereases by 0.05 for each additional 1000 psi subject to a minimum of 0.65.

Ecu=0.003 0.8Sfe Ecu=0.003S 0.67feu

I
I
I
Tnse

I
I
, I
I
I
lZ
,,
x

1
I:
, I

Asfy L-.Asfy
Strain Stress Strain Stress
(a) US Code (b) UI< Code

Figure 7: Dcsign strain diagrams and equivalent stress blocks - US and UK codcs .

•
 . 1025

The US Code has an equivalent stress block of greater area as well as greater lever arm for
concretes of low compressive strength. Thus, for this type of concrete, the American Code suggests
higher flexural strengths than the British Code. As the strength of concrete increases, the depth of the
stress block reduces and thus for high strength concretes, the area of equivalent stress block for US
Code is smaller than that suggested by the British Code. However, there is also an increase in lever
arm z and the net effect is that at higher concrete strengths, both the codes give similar values. The
values of flexural strength calculated using both the codes are compared with each other and with the
experimental results in table 4.

TABLE4
Comparison of bending strengths (kN)

Specimen 2 3 4 5 6
UKCode 301 503 503 623 623 423
US Code 305 515 515 630 630 429
Experimental 570 767 1630 1843 1700 570

It is evident that the bending strengths calculated on the basis of elastic theory are significantly
lower than the experimental results. The ratio of calculated to experimental values is 1:3 for shorter
specimens (2, 3, 4 and 5) and 1:2 and 1:1.5 for (Ionger) specimens 1 and 6 respectively. Composite
structural action enhances the flexural load bearing characteristics. This improvement in performance
is more evident in shorter beams, where 'arching' occurs more readily than in longer ones where, its
effect is slight.

CONTINUOll5 BEAM5
Specimen 7 was tested as a continuous beam of two equal spans of 2500 mm span each. The
cross-section was similar to the other beams except that two 16 mm diameter high yield steel bars were
placed in the top portion of the beam over the central support to cater for negative bending momento

The crack pattem for this beam is included in Figure 5. The load bearing characteristics of the
beam were greatly improved as a result of the continuity of spans. The most severe cracking was
witnessed over the central support. The deflection was much lower than the simply supported spans
confirming the usual advantages of structural continuity.

CONCLU510N5
The tests proved that the structural performance of beams can be greatly improved by proper
combination of brickwork and reinforced concrete. From a study of the experimental results, the
following conclusions were drawn;

1. The mesh in the concrete infill does not add significantly to the strength of the beam. In the tests
performed, both the flexural and shear characteristics of beams were unaffected by the addition of
shear fabric in the infill.

2. The shear mesh helps to reduce cracking and deflections by an even distribution of stresses. The
deflections in case of beams with shear mesh were reduced by a factor of 1.5 to 5 when compared to
similar specimens without mesh.
 1026

3. Composite 'arching' action is present in beams of depth to span ratio much lower than 0.6 although
it was more evident in shorter beams than in longer ones. The composite action creates tensile
stresses in the base of the beam, which acts as a tie. The distribution of stresses direct to the supports
also results in high compressive stresses in these areas which can cause crushing and splitting of
brickwork. Tensile stresses were also witnessed in the top central regions ('crown') of shorter beams.

4. A new approach is needed to cater for composite structural action as also the composite interaction
of different materiais.

5. Continuous beams are structurally advantageous to simply supported ones. The criticai stresses in
this case were noticed over the central support.

REFERENCES
1. ABRAHMIAN, S. (1986) Reinforced pile capping beams. MSc project report, Department of Civil
Engineering, The City University, London 1986.

2. DAVIES, S. R. and HENDRY, A. W.(1986) Reinforced masonry beams. PROCEEDINGS OF THE

BRITISH MASONRY SOCIETY: NO 1 NOV. 1986. pp 73-76.

3. SMITH, B. S. KHAN, M. A. H. and WICKENS, H. G. (1978) Tests on wall-beam structures.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH CERAMIC SOCIETY NO 27. December 1978. Load bearing
brickwork (6) . pp 289-304.

4. WOOD, R. H. and SIMMS, L. G. (1969) A tentative design method for the composite action of heavily
loaded brick panel walls supported on reinforced concrete beams. BUILDING RESEARCH
STATION,1969. CURRENT PAPER 26/69.

5. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. American Concrete Institute. Committee
318-83. 1983.

6. Code of Practice for the Structural use of Concrete CP110 Part 1. Design, materiais and
workmanship. British Standards Institution. 1972.

7. Structural use of Concrete. Code of Practice for design and construction. British Standards
Institution. BS 8110 Part 1. 1985.