Double Tee Section

Qualitative Assessment of your Floor before you Start

Step 1 - Qualitative Review
• Before you start your detailed
capacity calculations
• Carry out a qualitative review of the
floor and potential damage areas
obtained from your building analysis
• Check the drawings and details for
what information you need to get
from the site investigation
Step 2 - Visit the building
• Review the parameters and details
on site.
• Site measure and audit against
drawings
• Is there some additional invasive
investigation needed
• The better the information the more
accurate the result
Step 3 Detailed Check
• Now start your detailed calculations

This example is for a Hollowcore floor building – but the same principles apply for all precast floors
including Double Tees, Rib and Infill, and Flat Slab assessments.
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Design Drawings and Details
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Double Tee Example – Ductile Frame Example Parameters

• Ductile frame building with 350 deep

10500mm (typ.)
2400 module Double Tee floors U R
500W x 800D
• Beam span = 10,500 mm

le = 3600mm
• Beam depth = 800 mm 350 Double Tee

500W x 800D

500W x 600D
75mm topping
• Column width = 800 mm 665 mesh
75mm seating

• Floor unit seated 285 mm above the D12-300 D12-300

beam centreline 600 lap 600 lap

• D12-300 starter bars

• Elastic drift = 0.6%
• Detailed example calculations provided
in the Appendix

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

 Double Tee Example – Required checks

Scenarios to check:

A. Unit adjacent corner columns

• Check using unrestrained hinge (U)

B. Unit adjacent elongating beam, away

from corners
• Check using restrained hinge (R)

C. Internal units away from elongating

beam
Note: Highlighted Units – the topping delaminates so is a special case A or B to consider

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

 Double Tee Example – Required checks
Checks for each scenario:
1. Loss of support
– Spalling
– Elongation
2. Birds Mouth Failure
– Review connection load transfer
mechanism and probable failure
modes of connection due to drift.
– Strut and Tie check of flexural capacity
and failure modes
– Details on the assessment of the failure
modes of flange hung double tees units
is provided in Hare et al. (2009)

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Loss of Support Example
Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review

• Tee Unit adjacent corner column Elongation +

• Initial seating = 75 mm Rotation

• Construction tolerance = 20 mm Double Tee Unit

• Initial spalling = 10 mm
Drift related spalling
• Bearing (calc = 8mm) = 10 mm (example)

• Therefore remaining seating to Initial spalling

(example)
permit elongation, rotation + further Construction tolerance
(portion of)
spalling:
75 – 20 – 10 – 10 = 35 mm SUPPORT BEAM

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review
Calculation of Elongation
Plastic beam rotation (Lp = 0.5*d/2)

θp = θpcol * L / (L - hcol - Lp)

= (1.39-0.6)*10500/(10500-800-335)
= 0.89%
Beam elongation
del = 2.6 * θp/2 * (d - d’) ≤ 0.036hb (For reversing plastic hinges)

= 2.6*0.0089/2*(800-65)
(U) = 8.5 mm => 9 mm ≥ 0.005hb
(R) = 4.2 mm => 4 mm (Restrained taken as ½ of reversing)

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – 1. Loss of support review
Calculation of Beam Rotation
Similar to the hollowcore design
example the support rotation is the
maximum {S del + dr1 or dr2 + del unit}
qbeam = 1.39%
dr1 = ((hb/2)-hl)*θbeam
= (800/2-(115))*0.0139
= 4.2 mm
dr2 = hlθbeam
=115*0.0139
=1.4 mm

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review
How is the spalling calculated ?
COVER TO FIRST BAR XX mm + 10mm

COVER TO FIRST BAR 25mm + 10mm

• Initial Spalling = 10 mm 27mm

+ Additional spalling at
limiting drift of 1.39%
• Unit (27 -10) = 17 mm
10mm
• Ledge = 5 mm
• Total spalling = 32 mm 5mm

L.O.S = 1.39%
Figure C5E.26 Spalling depths to be considered for Flange hung and web supported double tees

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review
Through iteration 35mm of seating
is exceeded at a total inter-storey Initial seating = 75mm

drift of 1.4% components of loss Construction Tolerance = 20mm

Bearing = 10 mm

• Unit Spalling = 17 mm Initial Spalling = 10 mm

• Ledge Spalling = 5 mm
• Beam elongation = 9 mm
• Beam rotation = 4 mm
35 mm

L.O.S = 1.4%

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review
Through iteration 45mm of seating
is exceeded at a total inter-storey Initial seating = 75mm

drift of 1.7% components of loss Construction Tolerance = 20mm

Bearing = 10 mm

• Unit Spalling = 17 mm Initial Spalling = 10 mm

• Ledge Spalling = 21 mm Extra investigation – tolerance reduced

• Beam elongation = 11 mm
• Beam rotation = 5 mm L.O.S = 1.7%
45 mm

With suitable site investigation 20mm tolerance may be able to be reduced to actual site tolerance
e.g. for the above example with a site measured 10mm variance on seating (75mm +/- 10mm)
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review
Now repeat the L.O.S for rest of the
floor

• The L.O.S support calculation is

easily put into a spreadsheet and
once set up with the project
specific geometry and spalling
parameters can be repeated for
the rest of the floor and levels
relatively quickly

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Floor Example – Loss of Support Review
Results for L.O.S for Building
Summary A*

Results repeated for the other units gives;

Case A Adjacent Unrestrained Hinge
• L.O.S = 1.4% drift
Case B Adjacent Restrained Hinge
• L.O.S = 1.5% drift
Case C Internal Unit
• L.O.S. = 1.7% drift
These are the limiting drifts for the loss of support due to spalling or elongation
Now you need to investigate the Birdsmouth Support detail and possible failures
to see if these are critical for limiting drift
*Note: Highlighted Units – the topping delaminates so is a special case A or B

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Loss of Support NBS Rating
How to use Limiting Drift for Rating of %NBS Total required seating at calculated building drift demand 3.2%

ULS design drifts are factored by 2.0 in the Yellow Book to get drift demand
Summary
[Note: this is different to NZBC = dULS x 1/SP x 1.5] Elongation and Rotation 37.8 mm

Building Drift Demand dULS x 2 = 3.2% Unit Spalling

Ledge Spalling
35.0
29.5
mm
mm
Shrinkage 0.0 mm
Limiting Drift Calculated = 1.4% Construction Tolerance 20.0 mm
Bearing Length 10.0 mm

Correct Rating Method Total 132.3 mm

Limiting Drift / Building Drift Demand TOTAL SEATING REQUIRED 132 mm

1.4 / 3.2 = 44% NBS AS PER C5 GUIDELINES

Incorrect Rating Method Seating Provided 75 mm

Seating Provided / Seating Required

Figure: Total required seating at calculated demand building drift using
75 / 132 = 57% NBS C5E Methodology

The NBS rating is based on a limiting drift to loss of support i.e. the methodology assesses the
amount of drift required before loss of precast support – this is a bi-linear function and gives a
different answer than simply comparing against the total seating that would be required for design.

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Effect of L.O.S Due to Spalling and Elongation
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
No Spalling and After Spalling
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Birdsmouth / Loop Bar Review
Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
350x2400 Double Tee Example
• Span = 10000mm Unit Width = 2400mm
• Topping = 75mm f’c = 20MPa => f’cp = 30 MPa
• Double Tee f’c unit = 45MPa
• “Pigtail” Loop Bar Detail – 3 R12 Bars / fy = 275 MPa => fyp = 324MPa
Loading
Gravity [G unit = 2.5 KPa] + [Topping = 1.8 KPa] + [SDL = 0.5KPa] = 4.8KPa
Live Load = Q= 3.0 KPa , YE = 0.3
Total G + YE Q + Eu = 5.7 KPa
Load per Unit = 5.7*2.4*10 = 136 kN
Load per web / Pigtail = 136/4 = 34 kN

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar

Loop Bar Hanger damage being investigated post Christchurch EQ

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Possible Failure Modes
There are a number of possible
failure modes / crack patterns
that can occur at the birdsmouth
connection.
The failure in fig C5E 29 is a
combination of – a, b, c, d, e & f.
and the designer needs to be
satisfied that they have
investigated all likely modes in
the failure analysis.
Note: For the double tee
supported in the elongation zone
(immediately adjacent column)
topping delamination is likely to
occur and the check is for the
precast portion (t-ttopping) only
C5E 29 Example demonstrated
in fig C5E.29
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar

Tension Shift

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar

Elongation Demand: e’ mm tension shift

Solve for d to find limiting drift

M* = P (d + e + e’) + mPt < MBM.capacity

75mm seating
Friction Static (typical ranges) 15mm gap
10mm min seating
mf= 1.0 - 1.2 concrete to concrete
mf= 0.8 - 1.0 on soft mortar
mf= 0.8 - 1.0 on steel
mf= 0.6 - 1.0 on bearing strip

Note: Be careful some published values of m are lower bound or dependable values i.e. they
have a f.o.s or reduction factor for design built in and may be un-conservative for calculation
of demand.
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
 Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Scenario Review Qualitative Review of Detailing
a) Flexure
a) Yes - check required
b) Topping delamination
a) at loop bar – Yes likely - check
b) In unit – Yes - possible as the R6
spirals are unlikely to be sufficient
c) Shear Failure
a) Yes - check required
d) Diagonal tension failure
a) Yes - check required
e) Bond failure
a) At Leg – <600mm anchorage for
plain R12 bar in tension – to short to
develop
b) At bottom hangar bar – ? may be OK
f) Separation of Flange from Web
a) 4 sets of R6 Stirups at 50mm crs at
end of unit so failure is likely
suppressed but should check C5E 29 Example demonstrated

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar

Qualitative Review of Detailing

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Elongation Demand:
90 65
Solve for d => to find limiting drift
Iteration 1 => try max d = (75/2-10) = 27.5mm 30O
75
Design Actions for Review
P* = 34 kN (G + Qe + E) 50
P*m = 27 kN (assuming m=0.8)
75
M* = P (d + e + e’) + mPt
= 34*[(75/2-10)+(75/2+15)+65]mm + 0.8*34*125mm P
= 8.3kNm (at max d of 27.5mm)
Iteration 2 => try min d = 0mm
M* = 7.4 kNm (at d of 0mm) i.e. At initiation of movement / crack

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
But why can’t I just use simple flexural theory? 65 mm tension shift => e’
Solve for limiting d - take first trial as max = 27mm q =60o

fMn = fAsfy (d-a/2) f = 0.85

= 11.0 kNm
75mm seating
M* = P (d + e + e’) + mPt 15mm gap
= 8.3kNm < 11.0 kNm => OK 10mm min seating
T*N = P / Cos qh
= 34 /Cos 60o
= 68kN < 110 kN => OK qh =60o

This check may be simple but is un-conservative and does not consider the actual failure modes of
the connection. The birds mouth is a disturbed region and you must use an appropriate method i.e.
Strut and Tie to assess the failure modes.
Further details on the assessment of the failure modes is in Hare et al. (2009)
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Review the Flexural Mechanism
Horizontal Reinforcing Tie 90 65
To develop Tjd of 11kNm the tension steel yeilds
C
=> for 3 R12 T* = C C = Asfy = 110 kN 30 O
75 Concrete
Compression Strut Check
Strut / Node Force = 110/Cos30 = 127 kN Tension
Node width = 200mm x 20mm (Pigtail bar width) 50 T = ASfy
Node Capacity
fFn = f*bn*f’c = 0.75*0.80*200*20*30 = 72kN < 127kN
=>Capacity Ratio = 0.56 P
Strut Capacity
fFs = f*bs*f’c = 0.75*1.0*200*20*30 = 90kN => Ratio = 0.70

Therefore node failure and concrete crushing may occur at loop bar node before you can fully
develop tension steel capacity required for flexure theory.

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Note: Caution Needed - Concrete Tension Capacity - NZBC
Unreinforced Tie Check 90 65
Not permitted by B1 / VM1 - NZS3101 Cl 2.3.2.3
C
75 30
O
Concrete
Tension
50 T

P
Equations for Concrete Tension – Use with Caution!
Tension capacity in slab
(NZS3101 5.2.4) gives ft = 0.38 l [f’c]1/2 = f x 2.08 MPa (for 30MPa)
Cold joint interface - for tension across slab/unit interface
(ACI) = 0.25 [f’c]1/2 = f x 1.36 MPa

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

 Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Review the Flexural Mechanism
Review slab in tension Simplified S&T Model
Other failure mode?
Tension tie required = 127*Sin30 = 63.5kN
Assume 50mm at node x 200mm wide
Tie capacity = f * f’t*At = 15.6 kN << 63.5kN Slab Interface

Ratio = 0.25 ……. Tension tie

Iterating gives a max capacity = 22kN / 0.35 Reinforcing for Pigtail

Slab Interface capacity = 10.2 kN << 63.5 kN
Ratio = 0.16…….
Iterating gives a max capacity = 23kN / 0.36

By iteration you can find S&T mechanisms which may give better results than this initial review
example. A key consideration is the capacity of the tie is limited by the geometry of the joint
including the pigtail compression node width + amount of spread of strut of 1:2.5 max.
Further details on the assessment of the double tee failure modes is in Hare et al. (2009)

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Review the results for failure mode a) Flexure for this example

• Flexural Capacity derived by S&T < 40% of that provided by simple Flexure theory fMi= Tjd
=>this is quite sensitive to geometry of loop bar and joint.

• Large increase in design actions due to tension from elongation Pmt => actions almost double
– also quite sensitive to support load and friction coefficient chosen

• Tension Shift – once concrete cracks also accounts for another shift approximately additional
30% - 40% increase

• Offset of support due to elongation has less affect and accounts for about another 10% to 15%
increase in load

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

 Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar

Ideal Flexural Capacity fMi = 11kNm

Crack may form due to

tension Pmt from elongation 8.3 kNm

7.1 kNm
kNm

6.1 kNm

MoR Flange = 5.5kNm

4.9 kNm
S&T Capacity = 4.5 kNm

2.7 kNm
1.8 kNm

27 mm Limit before L.O.S governs

mm
Birdsmouth / Loop Bar – Demand / Capacity Envelope
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Review - Outcome
Strut and Tie Review of Mechanism (a)
• Review of the flexural mechanism with an initial S&T model gives a lower bound limiting drift
sensitive to cracking with d = <5 mm for the birdsmouth after onset of cracking.
• The S&T review indicated however that the unit it may be able to (just) carry gravity loads after
elongation has finished i.e. (Pm loads from elongation no longer action).
• Could investigate geometry further and sliding capacity – important to understand site
constraints and geometry of loop bar and joint
Other Failures – mechanism (b), (c), (d), (e), etc
• Need to now complete the review and check other modes to determine critical mode of failure
has been determined.
The floor %NBS in this example (a) Flexure will be difficult to rate as a result of the birdsmouth /
loop bar connection having insufficient capacity to accept movement that would result in a crack
forming and tension (from elongation) across the birdsmouth connection. A detailed further
investigation of the loop bar details should be undertaken to help determine the actual as built
capacity.

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

 Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Scenario Review Qualitative Review of Detailing
a) Flexure
a) Completed – Probably OK
b) Topping delamination
a) at loop bar – possible - check
b) In unit – possible as the R6 spirals
are unlikely to be sufficient
c) Shear Failure
a) OK
d) Diagonal tension failure
a) Yes – further check required
e) Bond failure
a) At Leg – <600mm anchorage for
plain R12 bar in tension – Ld x 2 =
610mm ~ 570 => OK
b) At bottom hangar bar – Ldh OK
f) Separation of Flange from Web
a) 4 sets of R6 Stirups at 50mm crs
b) Capacity > 34kN => OK
C5E 29 Example demonstrated

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar
Review of Double Tees - Summary
Loss of Support – Elongation
• Likely to govern most situations for most 1980s and early 90s buildings which have typical
seating detailed between 30mm to 50mm.
• Failures observed to date Clarendon / Statistics were loss of support.
Birdsmouth Failure
• Likely to govern all buildings at PHZ where delamination of topping occurs
• Likely to govern newer buildings mid 1990s onwards using the loop bar detail that are provided
with a more generous seating of 75 mm or more.
• Be aware of double tees that have the flange trimmed back locally (more common on steel beam
support) with no distributed flange bearing means redundancy is reduced.
• Be aware of long span double tees – high shear load at the birds mouth is problematic
• It can be difficult to assess the capacity and point of failure of the failure of those modes relying
on concrete in tension. Need to undertake a rational approach and look at likely scenarios.
• Hare et al 2009 covers this topic very well.
• No direct failures– but lots of in service evidence that birdsmouth cracking mechanisms are
occurring even under service loads so may be problematic with the right earthquake conditions.
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS
Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar

Topping Delaminates

tf
Section capacity is
based solely on the
double tee flange depth
tf for these areas

What happens at the Plastic hinge regions and corners ?

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Double Tee Example – Birdsmouth / Loop Bar

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

 Delamination of topping

Can not hang the unit

from the topping
Not permitted by B1 / VM1 - NZS3101 Cl 2.3.2.3
Concrete Tension at Interface
(ACI) = 0.25 [f’c]1/2 = 1.36 MPa
Capacity Assess Birdsmouth and other failure mechanisms and using
10,000 x 2,400 x 1.36 MPa = 32,640 kN concrete tension with caution
Double Tee Weight
10,000 x 2,400 x 2.4 kPa = 60 kN
Re-Cast Project => programmed to look at this loop bar
issue in existing buildings in more detail with detailed FEM
F.O.S = > 500
solid modelling and lab tests
Why did this fail ?

40
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE
40FLOORS
Precast Rib and Infill
Failure of Rib and Timber Infill Floors

• Possible rib entrapment under

positive moments
– Casting of ribs into the beam
– Haunching final vertical form Seating
on mortar
• Weak section forms along rib
• Follow

42
 Assessment of Rib and Timber Infill Floors

• Similar Process to hollowcore

example
• Checking for;
• Spalling and loss of support
due to elongation
• Displacement / drift induced
design actions on the precast
member and floor

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Flat Slab Floors
 Assessment of Flat Slab Floors

• Similar Process to hollowcore

example
• Checking for;
• Spalling and loss of support
due to elongation
• Displacement / drift induced
design actions on the precast
member and floor

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE FLOORS

Questions