Obtaining

ductile
performance
from precast,
prestressed
concrete
piles
Andrew Budek
and Gianmario Benzoni
In general, concrete piles are intended to behave as elastic
structural elements when subjected to seismic loading. Exceptions include single-pile columns, which are typically
designed to support the development of a subgrade plastic
hinge under seismic loading.1 Elastic behavior is preferred
because of the difficulty of repairing foundations and the
possibility of reinforcing steel being exposed to corrosive
materials due to the extensive cracking and spalling that is
a consequence of plastic hinging.

Editors quick points

n A parametric study of the inelastic seismic response of precast,
prestressed concrete piles was conducted to determine
whether piles with only light transverse reinforcement could act
as ductile structural elements.
n A nonlinear, inelastic finite-element program written specifically
for this project was used to validate results for both laboratory
and in-place testing.
n The addition of mild-steel longitudinal reinforcement did not
enhance ductility of the piles, though it did increase flexural
strength.

64

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

Prestressed concrete piles were first used as foundation elements in the early 1950s. They offer a number
of advantages to the designer and contractor. Inherently
resistant to tensile stresses, prestressed concrete piles can
be economically fabricated off-site, safely transported,
and easily handled during the pile-driving process. Their
ability to resist tensile stress without cracking is advantageous because inadvertent tensile stresses applied during
construction or service will be less likely to lead to cracking of the concrete, thus reducing the risk of corrosion of
the piles steel reinforcement.
Piles carry both axial load and lateral force. Axial load is
resisted by a combination of end bearing and skin friction (the dominant load-resisting mechanism depends on
the soil characteristics). Lateral forces (for instance, those
imposed by seismic excitation of the superstructure) are
resisted by a combination of shear and bending resistance.
Ideally, a foundation would be designed to remain elastic
under seismic load (as repair of damage to piles after an
earthquake is, at best, difficult), yet this is not normally
practical for pile-column designs, and hinging of piles in a

Axial load
45

Height above fixity/pile diameter

40

Lateral force

35
30
25

Ground level

Moment pattern
at maximum inelastic
capacity

Plastic
hinge
location
B

20
15
10
5

Yield
moment

0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

-500

Yield
moment
-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kNm

Figure 1. This drawing shows the pile moment pattern resulting from axial and lateral loads. Note: 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

pile-cap configuration may be difficult to avoid. Thus, the

inelastic behavior of prestressed concrete piles warrants
study. Under lateral loads imposed by an earthquake, an
individual pile (with a fixed head condition) may develop a
moment pattern of the shape in Fig. 1.
Inadequate detailing of early prestressed concrete piles
may have caused inadequate performance in several earthquakes, such as the 1964 Alaska2 and 1972 Miyagi-KenOki3 events. The relation of a piles detailing deficiency
to its poor performance has been identified by several
researchers.46
Unfortunately, the response to inadequate performance has
been either a complete ban on precast, prestressed concrete
piles in seismic applications or the specification of extremely conservative amounts of transverse reinforcement,
which make precast, prestressed concrete piles uncompetitive in the marketplace.
Piles in seismic regions are governed by the provisions of
the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-05)7 chapter 21. The minimum
transverse reinforcement ratio s in section 21.4.4 was
modified by Priestly et al.8 as Eq. (1).

4 Ah
f'
1.25Paxial
= 0.12 c 0.5 +
+ 0.13
d' s
f yt
f'A
c

0.01 (1)

where
Ah = area of the spiral steel
d'

= core diameter

= spiral pitch

f c' = concrete compressive strength

fyt

= yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

Paxial = axial load

Ag = gross cross-sectional area

= ratio of area of distributed longitudinal reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to that
reinforcement

However, it is not less than the minimum specified in ACI

318 section 10.9.3, given by Eq. (2).

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

65

10

11

Head displacement, in.

170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

40
35

K = 53,400 kN/m3

30

Lateral force, kip

Lateral force, kN

K = 40,840 kN/m3

Prediction
Test 1 envelope
Predicted spalling

25
20
15
10
5

50

100

150

200

250

Head displacement, mm

Figure 2. This graph compares the results of the finite-element-model prediction with the in-place pile test. Note: The pile had a 400 mm (16 in.) diameter with 50mm
(2in.) of cover, transverse reinforcement ratio = 0.006, longitudinal reinforcement ratio = 0.021, and axial load ratio = 0.1fc' Ag. Ag = gross cross-sectional area; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus. 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

= 0.45

Ag
Ah

fc'
f yt

(2)

where
Ah = cross-sectional area of a structural member measured
out to out of transverse reinforcement
In the case of a typical 610-mm-diameter (24 in.) pile,
using twenty-four 13 mm (1/2 in.) special tendons and a
76-mm-thick (3 in.) cover, Eq. (1) would be superseded by
Eq. (2), giving a required transverse reinforcement ratio of
3.5%.
This amount of spiral steel reinforcement would lead to
congested construction; the spiral pitch in the plastic hinge
regions using D9.5 (0.348 in. [8.8 mm]) wire would be
18mm (0.71 in.) (as opposed to 63.5 mm [25 in.] in Fig.
2). This is not acceptable, as ACI 318 specifies Eq. (3).

4db s 6db

where
db = main bar diameter
66

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

(3)

Here, db is the tendon diameter of 13.2 mm (1/2 in.). Use

of D19 (0.49 in. [12 mm]) wire would give an acceptable pitch of 71 mm (2.8 in.), but forming the spiral to the
required 229 mm (9.0 in.) radius would be difficult, slow,
and costly.
If the spacing requirements were relaxed to allow the
use of a lighter-diameter wire at a smaller pitch, another
problem would be created. The use of a small aggregate
size would be mandated by the need to get a good aggregate connection between the core and the cover. Failure to
provide a solid interface could result in spalled cover at the
pile head during driving.
It would, therefore, be advantageous to show that levels of
displacement ductility adequate for competent foundation
performance can be achieved using levels of transverse
reinforcement commensurate with ACI 318 section 21.4.4,
without the restriction that the minimums of section 10.9.3
be met.
The research presented in this paper gives the results of
a parametric study using a pile modeled with transverse
reinforcement slightly less than that required by ACI 318
section 21.4.4. The parameters that varied are axial load,
lateral soil stiffness, and the type of pile-cap connection.

Analytical modeling
The analytical models of the soil-pile system used in this
study were based on the nonlinear, inelastic finite-element
modeling of a Winkler beam (a beam on a flexible foundation). The pile was represented using beam elements and
the soil using lateral springs acting at the nodes (Fig. 3).
Finite-element analysis (FEA) for inelastic soil-pile interaction has been verified through field studies.9 FEA was
chosen due to its flexibility in representing both pile and
soil properties.
Budek et al. used nonlinear, inelastic constitutive models
for both the pile and soil and described them in detail.1
Briefly, the change in flexural stiffness of the pile as
inelastic action took place was extracted from the momentcurvature data as the slope of the moment-curvature curve.
Lateral load was applied in a series of steps. The elements
flexural stiffnesses were modified as necessary after each
load step, according to the elements respective average
moment. Pile yield was defined by tendon stress reaching
85% of its ultimate value.
A bilinear soil model was used in which the lateral stiffness of the soil (that is, individual spring stiffness) was reduced to one-fourth of its original value when the displacement at a node associated with a given spring exceeded
25.4 mm (1 in.).
Soil stiffness as expressed by the subgrade reaction modulus K ranged from 3200 kN/m3 to 48,000 kN/m3
(20 kip/ft3 to 300 kip/ft3). The nondimensional system stiffness KD6/D*EIeff is used to describe the properties of the
soil-pile system. It includes cracked-section flexural stiffness EIeff of the pile shaft, and normalizes the pile diameter
D against a reference pile diameter D* of 1.83 m (6.0 ft).
Budek et al. describes its derivation.10
The FEA program used was written specifically for this
research program and was validated through comparison
with laboratory testing1012 and against results from in-place
testing.9,13
The laboratory testing program consisted of a series of 16
tests,10 which included a number of precast, prestressed
concrete pile shafts of a size and configuration similar to
those examined in this study. The purpose of the investigation was to characterize the effect of external confinement
(as may be provided by competent soil) on the flexural
ductility available in the pile shaft at the subgrade hinge
(Fig. 1). The finite-element model in this study successfully predicted pile-shaft response under the imposed loading.
The analytical model was further validated by comparison
with a series of four in-place tests of free-head reinforced
concrete pile-columns performed by Chai and Hutchin-

Kn
Node n-1

K n-1

Node n-2

K n-2

Node n-3

K n-3

Node 5

K5

Node 4

K4

Node 3

K3

Node 2
Node 1

K2

Figure 3. The prestressed pile analytical model is shown with indicated forces.
The notch in the cap of the prestressed model is for illustrative purposes, to allow
the top spring to be shown. Note: K1 = subgrade reaction modulus associated with
node 1; K2 = subgrade reaction modulus associated with node 2; K3 = subgrade
reaction modulus associated with node 3; K4 = subgrade reaction modulus associated with node 4; K5 = subgrade reaction modulus associated with node 5; Kn
= subgrade reaction modulus associated with node n; Kn-1 = subgrade reaction
modulus associated with node n 1.

son.13 In these tests, 0.406-m-diameter (1.33 ft) piles were

embedded in soil placed under controlled conditions into a
purpose-built soil box and tested under combined axial and
lateral load. Figure 2 shows the force-displacement envelope and predicted response from the first of these tests.
The general trends of the test resultssuch as elastic stiffness, beginning of the softening branch, and incipient failureare reproduced by the prediction. Some discrepancies
may be attributed to conservative modeling assumptions.
First, the initial stiffness of the test pile was higher than
that predicted. This comes from the action of the smallstrain modulus of elasticity of the soil, which is estimated
at four times the large-strain value.14 This factor-of-four
difference is quite close to that shown in Fig. 2. Second,
the model underpredicted the maximum lateral force by
about 12%. This can be directly attributed to the use of the
28-day concrete strength to generate the prediction, rather
than day-of-test strength. This was the prediction placed
on the plotter at the test site.
Use of the nondimensional system stiffness term KD6/
D*EIeff was also validated through comparison with this
in-place testing program. One observation from previous
analytical work was that the center of the plastic hinge

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

67

Depth of plastic hinge/pile diameter

3.00

2.50

Model prediction

2.00

1.50

In-place pile tests

H = 2D

1.00

H = 6D

0.50
0.00

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Equivalent system stiffness

Figure 4. This graph compares the predicted and observed plastic-hinge depths from in-place pile tests. Note: D = pile diameter; H = depth of plastic hinge.

in the pile shaft (that is, the subgrade hinge) would move
toward the surface as plasticity progressed from the original location of the point of maximum subgrade moment.
Its terminal location when the ultimate inelastic capacity
of a free-head pile is known (in which the subgrade hinge
controls response) can therefore be predicted. It is consistently at a depth of 70% of the point of maximum subgrade
elastic moment, a value that is insensitive to either soil
stiffness or above-grade height of the pile head. The actual
depth is, of course, a function of both of these variables.
Figure 4 shows curves predicting subgrade hinge depths
for the above-grade heights tested in the relevant range of
nondimensional system stiffness for the four tests conducted by Chai and Hutchinson. The depths of the centers
of the plastic hinges, determined by digging down to the

24 with 13.2-mm-diameter tendons

1860 MPa ultimate
1302 MPa yield
W11 A82 D9.5, 565 MPa nominal
Prestressed at 1060 MPa
at 63.5 mm pitch
76.2 mm
f 'c = 41.3 MPa

0.61 m

Figure 5. This drawing illustrates the prestressed concrete pile section.

Note: fc' = concrete compressive strength; D9.5 = 8.8 mm. 1 mm = 0.394 in.; 1 m
= 3.28 ft; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
68

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

center of the plastic region after testing, fall almost directly

on the curves.
In this study, the structure was modeled as a 0.61-mdiameter (2 ft) continuous pile. Depth to the pile base was
set at 24.4 m (80 ft), which is equal to 40D and exceeds
the depth corresponding to long-pile response. The pile
head was assumed to connect to a cap at ground level.
Axial load varied from zero to 0.4 f c' Ag to represent forces
from global overturning moments transferred from the
superstructure.
The pile section used in the analysis was a typical 0.61-mdiameter (2 ft) round pile as used in California. Figure
2 shows the details. A transverse reinforcement ratio of
1% was chosen for this study, slightly less than the 1.2%
that would result from the use of Eq. (1). Nominal effective section prestress after losses was 9.3 MPa (1.35 ksi).
Figure 5 shows the section geometry.
Three different types of pilepile cap connections were
considered: pile head embedded in cap, tendons embedded in cap, and tendons stressed through cap. Each was
examined with and without the presence of mild-steel
longitudinal bars providing dowel reinforcement through
the pile-cap connection and down through the area of the
subgrade plastic hinge (Fig. 4). The piles flexural responses were analyzed using the Mander15 model for confined
concrete modified for prestressed sections. Modifications
allowed for appropriate positioning of tendons with the

correct level of prestressing force applied through the section analysis, which produced the moment-curvature data
used as input for the FEA.
Previous experimental work6,1620 has shown that similar
pile-cap connections can support ductile response up to a
displacement ductility level of six.
Modeling of the different connections was addressed
through variation of either section prestress or axial load
in calculating moment-curvature data. For the pile head
embedded in the cap, full prestress was assumed at the
bottom of the cap (that is, full transfer was assumed at the
interface) (Fig. 6). To model embedment of the tendons,
effective prestress was assumed to go from zero at the top
of the pile to its full value at the end of the transfer length
of 115db.21,22 This part of the pile was, therefore, modeled
in 10 sections, adding 10% of the effective prestress each
time. Therefore, the input data for this case consisted of 11
sets of moment-curvature data (output from the Mander
model analysis) applied to the relevant section of the pile.

was handled similarly. Active prestress went from zero

to its full value over the transfer length, and the effect of
stressing the tendons was modeled by applying an extra
increment of axial load to each section (in addition to the
design load), such that the combination of this additional
axial and prestress load would remain constant (that is,
40% of prestress at 40% of db was supplemented by an
axial load equivalent to 60% of the prestressing force).
Strain penetration of the longitudinal reinforcement into
the cap is an important part of modeling. In the response of
actual structures it permits a larger rotation at the pile-cap
connection. It was modeled in this study by decreasing the
stiffness of the piles top element as yielding of the tensile
reinforcement occurred.
For plastic hinges forming against supporting members,
such as footings or cap beams, theoretical and experimental studies have led to the development of Eq. (4) for
plastic hinge length lp.8

The practice of stressing the tendons through the pile cap

Pile head embedded in cap

lp = 0.08L + 0.022fydbl

(4)

Tendons embedded in cap

0% prestress
115db

100% prestress

Full
prestress

Pile head embedded in cap

Tendons embedded in cap

Tendons stressed through cap

0% prestress

100% axial prestress force

115db
100% prestress

0% axial prestress force

Tendons stressed through cap

Figure 6. Three prestressed concrete pilepile cap connections were considered in this study and are shown without reinforcing steel dowels. Note: The nominal embedment length of a pile head embedded in cap is two pile diameters. db = main bar diameter.
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

69

1.0
Elastic contraflexure

Plastic hinge length/pile diameter

0.9

Inelastic contraflexure

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

Pile head embedded in cap
Tendons embedded in cap
Tendons stressed through cap
Pile head (with dowels) embedded in cap
Tendons and dowels embedded in cap
Tendons stressed through, dowels embedded

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

10

Nondimensional system stiffness KD /D*EIeff 10

6

11

12

Figure 7. This graph compares Eq. (1) results with nominal design values for a prestressed pile with head embedded in cap with no nonprestressed, longitudinal reinforcement. Note: Ag = gross section area; D = pile diameter; D* = reference pile diameter; EIeff = cracked-section bending stiffness of the pile; fc' = concrete compressive
strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load.

45

K = 32,000 kN/m3

Ground level

Height above fixity/pile diameter

40
35
30

Paxial = 0

25
20

K = 32,000 kN/m3

15
10
5
0

yield
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kN-m

Figure 8. This graph plots the moment versus height for a pile head embedded in cap with no reinforcing dowels. Note: fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade
reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load. 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
70

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

45

K = 32,000 kN/m3

Ground level

Height above fixity/pile diameter

40
35
30

Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

25
20

K = 32,000 kN/m3

15
10
5

yield

0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kN-m

Figure 9. This graph plots the moment versus height for a pile head embedded in cap with no reinforcing dowels. Note: Ag = gross section area; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load. 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

where
L = distance from the critical section to the point of contraflexure (point A in Fig. 1)
fy = yield strength
dbl = longitudinal bar diameter
The first term in Eq. (4) represents the spread of plasticity
resulting from variation in curvature with distance from the
critical section and assumes a linear variation in moment
with distance. The second term represents the increase in
effective plastic hinge length associated with strain penetration into the supporting member.
Figure 7 shows that Eq. (4) overestimates the plastic hinge
length for the hinge occurring at the pilepile cap connection. Using typical values from an elastic analysis for depth
to point of contraflexure at yield for a pile with the pile head
embedded into the cap (both with and without reinforcing
dowels), the plastic hinge length is substantially greater than
that resulting from the present inelastic analysis.
Used in this context, Eq. (4) demonstrates one of the
inaccuracies associated with elastic analyses of piles:
when yielding is reached in the piles critical section, the
structure softens and a lesser depth of soil needs to be mobilized, thus moving the point of contraflexure toward the
surface. If an appropriate correction is made, Eq. (4) gives
a reasonable prediction of lp.

The second term in Eq. (4), representing strain penetration,

is straightforward in cases in which dowels are present
because the dowels yielding is concurrent with the yield
point of the structure. Where prestressing tendons alone
form the longitudinal steel, however, interpretation of
strain penetration is complicated by the fact that tendons
in general require a development length about twice that of
deformed, nonprestressed reinforcing steel. Also, ultimate
tensile strains in prestressing steel are about half those of
ordinary reinforcing steel, and even this is compromised
by proximity to anchorages, with their attendant stress risers. Thus, the strain penetration length should be considerably longer in the case of prestressing steel. Accordingly,
in this study the strain penetration length for prestressing
tendons was assumed to be roughly equivalent to that
resulting from the use of ordinary reinforcing bar of twice
the diameter of the prestressing steel used, in this case
455MPa (Grade 60) 29M (no. 9) deformed bar.

Results
Flexural response
and moment patterns
The response of piles to lateral loading is best introduced
through examination of moment patterns. In the case of
a fixed-head pile, the maximum moment, which controls
overall response, is generated at the pile-cap connection,
and a secondary moment maximum forms below grade.
Modeling inelastic pile response resulted in the formation
of a plastic hinge at the pile-cap connection, after which

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

71

45

Height above fixity/pile diameter

40

K = 32,000 kN/m3

Ground level

35
30
25

Paxial = 0.4f 'c Ag

K = 32,000 kN/m3

20
15
10
5

yield

0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kN-m

Figure 10. This graph plots the moment versus height for a pile head embedded in cap with no reinforcing dowels. Note: Ag = gross section area; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load. 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

the moment was redistributed into the shaft. This resulted

in the formation of a secondary hinge in the shaft. Figures
8 through 10 demonstrate this, and the effect of varying
soil stiffness and axial load on pile response is represented
for the case of the pile head embedded into the cap.

Analyses of other end conditions and considering the

presence of dowels show similar trends. Ultimate moment
versus height for three levels of axial load Paxial (0,
0.2 f c' Ag, and 0.4 f c' Ag) and the yield moment for the pile
shafts is represented. Increasing soil stiffness increased the

45
Ground level

Height above fixity/pile diameter

40
35
30
25
20
15

Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

K = 25,600 kN/m3

Plastic analysis
Elastic analysis
(design strength)
Yield

10
5
0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kN-m

Figure 11. This graph plots the moment versus height in comparing plastic and elastic analyses for a pile head embedded in cap with reinforcing dowels. Note: The plastic
analysis implies the development of a subgrade hinge. Ag = gross section area; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load.
1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
72

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

45
Ground level

Height above fixity/pile diameter

40
35
30

Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

K = 25,600 kN/m3

25
20

Plastic analysis
Elastic analysis
(design strength)

15
10
5

0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kN-m

Figure 12. This graph plots the shear versus height in comparison of elastic and inelastic analyses for pile head embedded in cap with reinforcing dowels. Note: Ag = gross
section area; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load. 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

10

Subgrade hinge depth/pile diameter

9
8
7
6
5
4

Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

Pile head embedded in cap

Prestressing tendons embedded in cap
Tendons stressed through cap

2
1
0

10

11

12

Nondimensional system stiffness KD 6/D*EIeff 103

Figure 13. This graph shows the depth of maximum subgrade moment of the three pilepile cap connections tested with no dowel reinforcement. Note: Ag = gross section area; D = pile diameter; D* = reference pile diameter; EIeff = cracked-section bending stiffness of the pile; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction
modulus; Paxial = axial load.
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

73

Figures 13 and 14 show the depth of the point of maximum subgrade moment for piles without and with longitudinal mild-steel reinforcement, respectively. This is an important parameter, as it shows the length of pile for which
detailing for inelastic flexural action should be provided in
the form of increased levels of transverse reinforcement.

maximum magnitude of the subgrade moment. Stiffening

soil reduced the shear span between the two moment maximums, which required greater mobilization of the pileshaft flexural capacity at the subgrade moment maximum.
Also, lower axial load with a commensurate reduction of
section flexural strength placed more demand on the pile
shaft to assist in resisting the applied moment.

Depth of the maximum subgrade moment or hinge, if one

forms, is strongly affected by system stiffness but weakly by
structural details such as the presence of mild-steel reinforcement or the specific type of pile-cap connection evaluated.
The maximum depth seemed to approach a limiting value as
system stiffness (functionally, in the case of the piles examined in this study, soil stiffness) increased. The overall range
was from 9 diameters (for soft soils) to 4 diameters. The analysis was not extended for softer soils on the assumption that
pole behavior (that is, rotation of the pile as a whole) would
begin to take place as stiffness was dropped to low levels.

The effect of moment redistribution can only be assessed

through an inelastic analysis. Figures 11 and 12 show an
important aspect of this. Figure 11 compares an inelastic
analysis and an elastic analysis of the system with the
maximum flexural strength. The ultimate moments at the
pile head are similar, but the shaft maximum predicted
by elastic analysis was much lower. The consequence of
this is seen in Fig. 12, which shows the difference in shear
predictions from inelastic and elastic analyses.
The redistribution of moment down the pile shaft after formation of the hinge at the pile-cap connection created much
higher levels of shear (approaching twice as much, in the
worst cases) in the pile shaft, which was missed by a purely
elastic analysis. The increase in shear was also caused by
the point of maximum moment in the shaft moving upward,
toward ground level, as the subgrade hinge formed. This
effect reduced the shear span and has been previously observed in both analytical10 and experimental13 studies.

Comparison of pile-cap connections

Figure 15 compares ultimate moment patterns for the
three pilepile cap configurations examined in which
reinforcing dowels were not included: pile head embedded
in cap, prestressing tendons embedded in cap, and tendons stressed through cap. Figure 16 examines the effect
of the presence of longitudinal mild-steel reinforcement

10

Subgrade hinge depth/pile diameter

9
8
7
6
5
Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

Pile head embedded in cap

Dowels and tendons embedded in cap
Tendons stressed through cap

3
2
1
0

10

Nondimensional system stiffness KD /D*EIeff 10

6

11

12

Figure 14. This graph shows the depth of maximum subgrade moment of the three pilepile cap connections tested with dowel reinforcement. Note: Ag = gross section
area; D = pile diameter; D* = reference pile diameter; EIeff = cracked-section bending stiffness of the pile; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction
modulus; Paxial = axial load.
74

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

45

K = 48,000 kN/m3
40

Height above fixity/pile diameter

35
30
25
20

K = 32,000 kN/m3

15
Pile head embedded in cap
Tendons embedded in cap
Tendons stressed through cap

10

Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

5
0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kN-m
Figure 15. This graph compares ultimate inelastic moment patterns for different pilepile cap connections with no reinforcing dowels. Note: Ag = gross section area; fc' =
concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load. 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.

45

K = 48,000 kN/m3
40

Height above fixity/pile diameter

35
30
25
20

K = 32,000 kN/m3

15
Pile head embedded in cap
Tendons & dowels embedded
Tendons stressed through cap
dowels embedded

10
5
0
-1500 -1250 -1000 -750

Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag

-500

-250

250

500

750

1000 1250 1500

Moment, kN-m

Figure 16. This graph compares ultimate inelastic moment patterns for different pilepile cap connections with reinforcing dowels. Note: Ag = gross section area; fc' =
concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load. 1 m = 3.28 ft; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.
PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

75

Displacement ductility capacity

2
Pile head embedded in cap
Tendons embedded in cap
Tendons stressed through cap
Paxial = 0
Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag
Paxial = 0.4f 'c Ag

0
0

10

11

12

Nondimensional system stiffness KD6/D*EIeff 103

Figure 17. This graph shows the displacement ductility capacity versus the nondimensional system stiffness for different pilepile cap connections with no reinforcing
dowels. Note: 3200 kN/m3 < K < 48,000 kN/m3 (20 kip/ft3 < K < 300 kip/ft3). Ag = gross section area; D = pile diameter; D* = reference pile diameter; EIeff = crackedsection bending stiffness of the pile; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K = subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load.

Displacement ductility capacity

2
Pile head (with dowels) embedded in cap
Tendons and dowels embedded in cap
Tendons stressed through cap, dowels embedded
Paxial = 0
Paxial = 0.2f 'c Ag
Paxial = 0.4f 'c Ag

10

Nondimensional system stiffness KD /D*EIeff 10

6

11

12

Figure 18. This graph shows the displacement ductility capacity versus the nondimensional system stiffness for different pilepile cap connections with reinforcing dowels.
Note: Ag = gross section area; D = pile diameter; D* = reference pile diameter; EIeff = cracked-section bending stiffness of the pile; fc' = concrete compressive strength; K =
subgrade reaction modulus; Paxial = axial load.
76

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

on moment patterns for these configurations. Curves are

shown for both soft and stiff soil at a moderate axial load.
The greatest demand on the pile shaft was from embedding
the tendons into the pile cap (Fig. 15) due to the reduced
flexural strength of the embedded tendon condition. In
this case, prestress was assumed to be developed over the
transfer length of 115db, beginning at the bottom of the cap
and extending upward into the cap. The effective prestress
force at the connection is, therefore, zero, which gives a
lower strength and flexural stiffness over the plastic hinge
length of 0.5D at the pile-cap connection, requiring greater
mobilization of the pile shaft. The transfer length was
about 2.2 pile diameters, so the active prestress over the
hinge length of 0.5D did not exceed 30% of total prestress.
The presence of reinforcing dowels in the three categories
of pilepile cap connection reduced the differences between
subgrade moment maxima (Fig. 16). In both cases, the differences between subgrade moment maximums among the
different end conditions were larger for softer soils.
System ductilities
Figures 17 and 18 show displacement ductility as a function of nondimensional system stiffness, axial load, and
pile-cap connection type. Figure 17 shows displacement
ductility capacity for piles without longitudinal mild-steel
reinforcement, and Fig. 18 shows displacement ductility
capacity for piles with mild-steel reinforcement. According to these two figures, displacement ductility capacity is
relatively insensitive to the parameters studied. The plots
lie on a fairly narrow range.
The most prominent general trends were an increase in
ductility capacity with both axial load and soil stiffness
(expressed here as nondimensional system stiffness). Inclusion of mild-steel reinforcement had a significant effect.
Comparing Fig. 17 and 18 shows that such reinforcement
both increased ductility at the lower end of its range and
decreased it at the top end of the range.
In both cases, embedding the pile head into the cap gave
the largest displacement ductility capacity. For piles without mild-steel reinforcement, the maximum range of ductility for this case was from 2.5 to 4. With reinforcement, the
range was about 2.7 to 3.4.
Embedding the tendons (and dowels, where present) gave
the next-highest ductility, followed by the rarely used practice of stressing the tendons through the footing.

Conclusion
The results from this research program allow the formulation of several conclusions.

Prestressed concrete piles can be considered to be ductile

structural elements. This has been shown experimentally
through previous research and has been verified through
the analytical work described in this study. With appropriate detailing, prestressed concrete piles may be used as
energy-dissipating elements in structures in which ductile
behavior may be demanded. Detailing that would allow
sufficient ductility capacity can be specified in both reinforcement specification (through relevant design codes)
and location (through knowledge of the location of the
point of maximum subgrade moment).
The ductility capacity of prestressed concrete piles is
limited by the performance of the soil-pile system. Consideration of ductile response of individual parts (pile-cap
connection or pile shaft) may be misleading. Ductility is
affected by both the connection type chosen and axial load.
The connection type is intrinsic to the structure of which
the piles form a part, but axial load may be subject to
variation in a given pile.
Equation (4) is inappropriate for plastic hinges forming in
pile shafts because of the following:

Inelastic curvature can be expected to spread both

above and below the critical section.

The slope of the moment profile at the section of

maximum moment is zero, invalidating the assumption of a linear decrease in moment with distance from
the critical section.

There should be no strain-penetration effect. This is

because there should be no significant slip of tension
reinforcement past the critical section (which results
in the strain-penetration effect for a fixed-base plastic
hinge) due to the approximate symmetry of the moment profile about the critical section.

Analytical modeling, validated by in-place testing, has

shown that the plastic hinge forming in a pile shaft will
be located at a depth 70% of that predicted by an elastic
analysis to maximum pile capacity. Results of previous
experimental work have shown that a precast, prestressed
concrete pile-shaft plastic hinge can give displacement
ductility in excess of six for a pile of the configuration and
reinforcement levels examined in this study.
The transverse reinforcement requirements given by ACI
318 section 21.4.1 applied to piles of the configuration
examined in this study will allow the piles to perform as
structural elements of limited ductility. It is therefore recommended that transverse reinforcement that would support formation of a plastic hinge in the pile shaft (ideally
equal to that provided at the pile-cap connection) should

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

77

be provided to a depth of at least one pile diameter below

the calculated point of maximum subgrade moment taken
from an elastic analysis.

References
1. Budek, A. M., M. J. N. Priestley, and G. Benzoni.
2000. Inelastic Seismic Response of Bridge DrilledShaft RC Pile/Columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 126, No. 4 (April): pp. 510517.
2. Kachedoorian, R. 1968. Effects of March 27, 1964
Earthquake on the Alaska Highway System. U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
professional paper 545-C, Washington, DC.
3. Kishida, H., T. Hanazato, and S. Nakai. 1980. Damage of Reinforced Precast Piles during the MiyagiKen-Oki Earthquake of June 12, 1972. In Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Istanbul, Turkey.
4. Falconer, T. J., and R. Park. 1982. Ductility of
Prestressed Concrete Piles under Seismic Loading.
Research report no. 82-6, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
5. Sheppard, D. A. 1983. Seismic Design of Prestressed
Concrete Piling. PCI Journal, V. 28, No. 2 (April
May): pp. 2049.
6. Banerjee, S., J. F. Stanton, and N. M. Hawkins. 1987.
Seismic Performance of Precast Concrete Bridge
Piles. Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 113, No.
2 (February): pp. 381396.
7. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318.
2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R05). Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
8. Priestley, M. J. N., F. Seible, and G. Calvi. 1996.
Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. New York,
NY: John Wiley and Sons.
9. Priestley, M. J. N. 1974. Mangere Bridge Foundation
Cylinder Load Tests. Ministry of Works and Development Central Laboratories report no. 488. Wellington,
New Zealand: Ministry of Works and Development.
10. Budek, A. M., G. Benzoni, and M. J. N. Priestley.
1997. Experimental Investigation of Ductility of InGround Hinges in Solid and Hollow Prestressed Piles.
Report no. SSRP 97/17. Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California at San Diego,
La Jolla, CA.

78

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

11. Budek, A. M., M. J. N. Priestley, and G. Benzoni.

2004. The Effect of External Confinement on
Flexural Hinging in Drilled Pile Shafts. Earthquake
Spectra, V. 20, No. 1 (February): pp. 120.
12. Budek, A. M., and M. J. N. Priestley. 2005. Experimental Analysis of Flexural Hinging in Hollow
Marine Prestressed Pile Shafts. Coastal Engineering
Journal, V. 47, No. 1 (March): pp. 120.
13. Chai, Y. H., and T. C. Hutchinson. 2002. Flexural
Strength and Ductility of Extended Pile-Shafts
Experimental Study. Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 128, No. 3 (March): pp. 595602.
14. Bowles, J. 1995. Foundation Analysis and Design.
5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
15. Mander, J. B., M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988.
Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 114, No.
6 (June): pp. 18271849.
16. Ikeda, S., T. Tsubaki, and T. Yamaguchi. 1982. Ductility Improvement of Prestressed Concrete Piles. In
Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 4,
p. 538. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Concrete Institute.
17. Falconer, T. J., and R. Park. 1982. Ductility of
Prestressed Concrete Piles under Seismic Loading.
Research report no. 82-6. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
18. Muguruma, H., F. Watanabe, and M. Nishiyama.
1987. Improving the Flexural Ductility of Pretensioned High Strength Spun Concrete Piles by Lateral
Confining of Concrete. In Proceedings of the Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. 1, pp.
385396. Wairakei, New Zealand.
19. Pam, H. J., R. Park, and M. J. N. Priestley. 1988.
Seismic Performance of Precast Concrete Piles and
Pile-Cap Connections. Research report 88-3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand.
20. Silva, P., F. Seible, and M. J. N. Priestley. 1997. Seismic Response of Standard Caltrans Pile-to-Pile Cap
Connections under Simulated Seismic Load. Report
no. SSRP-97/05, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla,
CA.
21. Zia, P., and T. Mostafa. 1977. Development Length
of Prestressing Strands. PCI Journal, V. 22, No. 5
(SeptemberOctober): pp. 5465.

22. Ghosh, S. K., and M. Fintel. 1986. Development

Length of Prestressing Strands, Including Debonded
Strands and Allowable Concrete Stresses in Pretensioned Members. PCI Journal, V. 31, No. 5 (SeptemberOctober): pp. 3857.

Notation
Ah

= cross-sectional area of a structural member measured out to out of transverse reinforcement

Ag

= gross cross-sectional area

Ah

= area of the spiral steel

d'

= core diameter

db

= main bar diameter

dbl = longitudinal bar diameter

D

= pile diameter

D* = reference pile diameter

EIeff = cracked-section bending stiffness of the pile
f c' = concrete compressive strength

fy

= yield strength

fyt

= yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

= depth of plastic hinge

= subgrade reaction modulus, expression of soil

stiffness

l p

= plastic hinge length

= distance from the critical section to the point of

contraflexure

Paxial = axial load

s

= spiral pitch

l = ratio of area of distributed longitudinal reinforcement to gross concrete area perpendicular to that
reinforcement

PCI Journal | S u m m e r 2009

79

About the authors

Andrew Budek, P.E., PhD, is an
assistant professor for the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at New
Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology in Socorro, N.Mex.
Gianmario Benzoni, PhD, is a
research scientist for the Department of Structural Engineering at
the University of California at
San Diego in La Jolla, Calif.

The addition of mild-steel longitudinal reinforcement did not enhance ductility, though it did increase
flexural strength. The optimum pile-cap connection to
maximize ductility is embedment of the pile head into
the cap. Rotation capacity is maximized by embedment of the prestressing tendons and any mild-steel
longitudinal reinforcement present into the pile cap.

Keywords
Ductility, footing, pile, seismic, soil structure, transverse reinforcement.

Synopsis
A parametric study of the inelastic seismic response
of precast, prestressed concrete piles was conducted
to determine whether piles with only light transverse
reinforcement could act as ductile structural elements.
A nonlinear, inelastic finite-element program written
specifically for this project was used to validate results
for both laboratory and in-place testing. The study
examined single piles using several types of pile-cap
connections, the addition of mild-steel reinforcement,
varying levels of axial load, and a range of soil stiffness.
The piles were modeled with 1% transverse reinforcement, which is less than 1/3 of that required by ACI
318. The results indicated that modest levels of transverse reinforcement will allow for ductile response.
Assuming that the pile-cap connection is detailed to

80

allow and support the formation of a plastic hinge,

with subsequent redistribution of moment down the
shaft to form a secondary subgrade hinge in the pile
shaft, the pile configurations analyzed provided a
minimum displacement ductility of 2.

S um me r 2 0 0 9 | PCI Journal

Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institutes peer-review
process.

Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Emily Lorenz at elorenz@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60606. J