Appendix A - Double Tee Flange Hung Pigtail Support:

A 1. Methods of design and analysis of structural actions

A 1.1 General
This section of the report is based on a preliminary investigation of the type that is carried out prior to
initiating a research project. Without this type of initial study it is likely that critical issues will be
overlooked. It should be noted that no research project has been initiated by the writers and hence any
deductions that are made are provisional and ideally they should be confirmed by detailed experimental and
analytical work.

The prediction of safe ultimate strengths for the flange hung support detail for double tees with pigtail
reinforcement (as currently detailed, 2008) cannot be made by using the standard conventional theory, as
practiced by most designers. To obtain design strengths, (equivalent to strength reduction factor, 0.75,
times nominal strength, which is based on lower characteristic strengths) for a detail such as this requires
either:
1. A special study in which the safe strength is determined from tests. If this course is followed tests
must cover all critical loading conditions, the range of member sizes and the number of tests and
test results must satisfy the requirement of NZS 3101:20061. This Standard requires sufficient
tests to be made to allow the variation in strength to be assessed so that the lower characteristic
strength can be calculated. To meet this requirement NZS 3101 requires the conditions set out in
Appendices A and B in AS/NZS 1170.02 to be satisfied.
2. A number of tests to be carried out covering the range of critical loading conditions that may be
encountered to validate an analytical model based on accepted structural mechanics principles.
3. Strength predicted from calculations using the Structural Concrete Standard, NZS 3101:2006.
While the flange hung pigtail detail appears to have performed satisfactorily in practice over the last 3
decades it has not been tested in major earthquakes and its design strength has not been substantiated by
tests or analytical calculations meeting any one of the requirements listed above. The requirements of the
three method outlined above are described in greater detail in the following sub-sections.

A 1.2 Design strength from special study

The design strength is equal to the product of strength reduction factor (0.75) times the nominal strength,
which is based on lower characteristic material strengths. To establish this, where the strength cannot be

2.000
Ratio Experimental / predicted

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Effective depth (mm)

Figure 1: Predicted strength divided by theoretical strength from NZS 3101:2006

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 1 12 Jan 2009

directly related to a single material property, it is necessary to establish the variability in the strength of the
detail through tests. The Structural Design Actions Standard2, AS/NZS 1170.0 in Appendices A and B, set
out the number of tests required for a given standard deviation in strengths. As an example the results of
tests on 63 beams without shear reinforcement, which failed in diagonal tension, commonly referred to as a
shear failure, have been compared with the strength predicted by the equations in the Structural Concrete
Standard, NZS 3101: 2006, see Figure 1. The ratio of predicted strength divided by measured ultimate
strength for all the tests gave an average value of 1.1 and a standard deviation of 0.19. (If the beams had
satisfied the nominal requirements for shear reinforcement the average strength would have been
considerably higher.) In these tests the highest and lowest ratios of measured strength to predicted strength
were 1.70 and 0.74 respectively. Similar or greater variation could be expected in strength of flange hung
support details as failure may occur in a number of different modes and there is a range of critical loading
conditions. Consequently, tests need to be repeated to establish the variation in strength as detailed in
AS/NZS 1170.02 and this cannot be achieved by carrying out 2 or 3 tests. In addition it is essential that all
potentially critical loading conditions are considered.

A 1.3 Strength determined from analytical model validated by tests

Where tests are carried out to validate an analytical model the following points need to be satisfied;
• The material properties, concrete strengths and yield strengths and stress strain relationships of
reinforcement, need to be measured;
• The forces which are applied in the tests need to be clearly identified. In particular the forces and
reactions sustained at reaction points need to be fully defined. While equilibrium allows the
vertical component of reaction forces to be determined the same is not true of lateral forces
associated with friction at the supports, which may be significant unless the member is supported
on at least one roller support. The friction force at a reaction can have a very significant influence
on behaviour where the member is bearing against steel, mortar or concrete. The vertical reaction
causes the flange support to sustain bending moments, which induce tensile stresses in the
horizontal leg of the pigtail reinforcement. The strain associated with these tensile stresses
requires the concrete at the reaction point to move out from the member. This movement will to
be partially restrained by friction, which reduces the flexural tension force, the crack widths and
bond stresses, and consequently this restraint increases flexural and shear strengths and reduces
critical bond stresses in the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars. While such friction restraint will
occur in practice in many practical loading conditions it will not occur in all situations. For
example the direction of friction may be reversed by elongation of beams due to lateral forces, by
shrinkage of the precast floor and insitu concrete topping, by shortening of the floor due to creep
associated with prestress and shortening of the floor due to temperature change. In such cases the
direction of friction may be expected to reverse so that it increases the strains in the reinforcement
and consequently it decreases the flexural and shear strengths and increases the likelihood of a
bond failure.
• Load positions in the tests need to be selected so that an artificial strength enhancement, which is
not present in actual practical situation, does not occur in tests. The situation is illustrated in
Figure 2 with diagrams of strut and tie forces associated with loads applied remote from the
reaction and those where the part of the load is applied close to the reaction. In the latter case the
shear force, or part of the shear force associated with the load applied close to the support, can be
resisted by a strut between the load point and the reaction. This component of shear reduces the
diagonal tension force carried by diagonal reinforcement and concrete, which is marked as Td in
the figure. In addition a load located close to the reaction applies compression to the anchorage
zone of the horizontal leg of the pigtail bar and this improves the bond strength and anchorage
conditions of the bar, which may increase strength. To ensure that the strength is not artificially
increased by the actions described above, no concentrated load should be applied within a distance
of 3 times the thickness of the flange (composite) from the reaction point or be located above the
horizontal legs of the pigtail bars.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 2 12 Jan 2009

 3t or less Part of load close
Compression strut Tension tie to reaction, R

t
C C
Td V Td
R R V
P P

(a) Strut and tie forces when loads are (b) Strut and tie forces when a load
remote from reaction point is close to the reaction

Figure 2: Influence of location of load on strength of support detail

A 1.4 Design strength calculated from Structural Concrete Standard

Where the strength of a disturbed zone, that is where Bernoulli’s hypothesis of plain sections remaining
plain does not apply, is determined by following design criteria in the Structural Concrete Standard1, NZS
3101:2006, generally two options are available. Either specified criteria detailed in the standard may be
followed or a strut and tie analysis may be made. Where specified criteria for a particular form of disturbed
zone are not given a strut and tie analysis must be made. Typical disturbed zones include beam column
joint zones, corbels, intersection of beam and girder and anchorage zones of post tension cables. The rules
in the standard have been developed from numerous tests. Where no specific criteria are given, as is the
case for the support zone of a flange hung Double Tee, the only analytical option is to determine a safe load
capacity from a strut and tie analysis. In such cases the forces and reactions are balanced by compression
forces (struts) carried by concrete, ties forces carried by reinforcement together with criteria which ensure
that the tie and strut forces are effectively anchored together, see Appendix A in NZS 3101:20061. It
should be noted that in such cases the method assumes that no shear is resisted by concrete. A strut and tie
analysis gives a lower bound solution to the problem and hence while it can be relied upon to give a safe
design strength, it cannot be used to predict the likely strength found from tests.

A 2. Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete beams

A 2.1 General
To provide background to an assessment of the shear strength of the flange hung detail, the way in which
reinforced concrete beams resist or fail in shear, or more correctly diagonal tension, is briefly outlined.
Many of these aspects are also important in understanding the factors influencing the shear strength of the
flange hung detail.

Figure 3 (a) shows part of a reinforced concrete beam subjected to moment and shear. The typical crack
pattern sustained just prior to diagonal tension failure is shown in part (a) of the figure. Flexural cracks
extend to close to the neutral axis level, which is typically a distance of close to 2/3 of the effective depth
from the flexural tension reinforcement. With reference to Figure 3 (a) the internal level-arm, l a , is
essentially constant in the zone above the flexural cracks and it is approximately equal to 7/8 times the
effective depth, d. Neglecting dead load, the bending moments vary essentially linearly between the
support and the point load in the span, see part (b) of the figure, and consequently as the moment at a
sections equal to the tension force, T, times the internal level-arm, l a , the tension force varies linearly in
this region of the beam. This force is resisted by concrete and reinforcement, but at the cracks the tension
force is carried by reinforcement alone. In the un-cracked region near a simple support the concrete resists
the majority of the tension force, see Figure 3 (c).

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 3 12 Jan 2009

Figure 3 (d) shows the actions on a portion of the beam lying between two flexural tension cracks subjected
to a shear force, V. The portion below the neutral axis is referred to as a concrete cantilever, which spans
between the compression zone and the flexural tension reinforcement. The change in bending moment
over the distance, Δx, between the two cracks bounding the concrete cantilever, cracks 1 and 2 on the
figure, induces a bond force of ΔT on the concrete cantilever. The value of this force is given by:

ΔT = ( M 2 − M 1 ) / l a = V Δx / l a .
However, as ΔT is equal to the shear stress times the product of web width, bw, and the length Δx, it follows
that the average shear stress in the tension zone is given by:
V
v= Eq. 1
bw l a
The change in flexural tension force is balance by a corresponding change in the flexural compression
forces. As this location in the beam is well away from the position of maximum moment the compression
stresses in the concrete are in the elastic range. Assuming the internal lever arm as 7/8d and the neutral
axis depth as 3/8d, the average shear force resisted by the compression zone is equal to ¼ V.

The bending moment the force ΔT induces in a concrete cantilever is far in excess of the moment capacity
of the springing of the cantilever. Consequently the majority of this moment has to be resisted by shear
transmitted across the cracks by aggregate interlock action and dowel action of the reinforcement. As the
shear force increases the shear transmitted across the crack increases until the stresses induced in the
concrete reach the stage where the crack develops just above the reinforcement, see Figure 3 (e) where the
crack is labelled as a – a. The opening of this crack separates the tension and compression zones so that
horizontal shear cannot be transmitted between the two regions. A consequence of this is that the tension
force has to be constant over this distance and to balance the changing moment the compression force
becomes inclined ( l a varies). The vertical component of this inclined compression force resists the total
shear force. Where the inclined compression force meets the horizontal flexural compression force a
vertical tension force, Tv, is induced in the concrete to maintain equilibrium. In the absence of a local
concentrated load point on the span, which can suppress the tensile stresses in the concrete, the crack
extends until it separates the beam into two, resulting in collapse.

Several points should be noted;

1. Diagonal failure can be very sudden and brittle in nature;
2. The increase in tension force in the reinforcement below the diagonal crack, a – a, causes the
width of the crack (crack 1 in Figure 3) to increase very substantially. To enable this crack to
open the centroid of the flexural compression force must be located close to the upper surface of
the beam to enable the required curvature at the head of the crack to be sustained, see Figure 3 (f).
3. The failure is triggered by the development of a diagonal tension crack, such as shown as a – a in
Figure 3 (d, e & f), which is located well away from the location of maximum bending moment.
Consequently failure occurs in a region of the beam where the reinforcement and concrete are
stressed in their elastic ranges. In particular the reinforcement does not reach its yield stress.

In a beam where the effective depth is greater than 500mm, the crack which triggers a diagonal tension
failure develops in the web, as illustrated in Figure 3 (a). For smaller beams the critical crack forms at or
just above the level of the flexural tension reinforcement. In this location dowel action of the
reinforcement together with shear transfer by aggregate interlock action induce tensile stresses in the
concrete, which result in the formation of the near horizontal crack (crack a-a in Figure 3) that leads to
diagonal tensile failure.

A 2.2 Dowel and aggregate interlock actions

A limited range of dowel tests on concrete blocks representing the actions that occur in a rectangular beam
have indicated that cracking of the concrete along reinforcement acting as a dowel occurs at relatively
small shear displacements across a crack. The average shear displacement across a crack, which caused
SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 4 12 Jan 2009
dowel cracks to form, was found to be 0.064mm in 63 tests3. The standard deviation was 0.016mm, which
gave a lower characteristic displacement of 0.037mm. In these tests the bar diameter was 22mm. These
values can only be taken as a guide when applied to arrangements where the bar diameter is 12 or 16mm
and these bars are not embedded in a rectangular beam.

(a) Crack pattern

(b) Bending Moment

(c) Flexural tension force

Figure 3: Diagonal tension failure of beam (parts (a) to (c))

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 5 12 Jan 2009

 (d) Actions on concrete cantilever

(e) Actions on concrete cantilever

Figure 3: Diagonal tension failure of beam (parts (d) to (f))

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 6 12 Jan 2009

 (f) Opening of diagonal tension crack

Figure 3: Diagonal tension failure of beam (concluded))

The dowel tests referred to above indicated that the length of concrete that can resist tension due to dowel
action, l d , in Figure 4, is of the order of 3.5 db √N where db is the diameter of the bar and N is the number
of bars. Assuming a triangular distribution of tensile stress and an effective width of concrete resisting this
stress of bf with a peak tensile stress equal to modulus of rupture, fr, equal to 0.6 f c′ , the predicted
average strength, Dd, is given by;

Dd = 1.05 b f d b f c′ N Eq. 2

It should be noted that this equation only indicates the likely order of strength as it is based on a limited
number of tests in which the bar size was not varied. Tests have indicated that a dowel shear of close to Db
can be sustained for displacements appreciably greater than that initiating the dowel crack when this crack
forms from the flexural crack closest to the support point3.

Vd

ld

Figure 4: Dowel action

The shear friction concept in the Structural Concrete Standard, NZS 3101; 2006 cannot be used for
assessing diagonal tension strength of a beam or other structural member. The shear friction equations
predict the magnitude of shear force that can be transmitted across a crack. It tells the designer nothing
about the stresses that can be sustained by the concrete adjacent to the crack, hence it does not indicate
when this concrete will fail due to the formation of a crack such as a – a in Figure 3, which leads to
diagonal tension failure.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 7 12 Jan 2009

Aggregate interlock action provides a key role in determining the shear strength of structural members.
Tests3 on shear transfer by this action have indicated that the level of stress sustained at a given shear
displacement across a crack decreases with an increase in crack width. For example for a concrete strength
f c′ of 28MPa with river rounded aggregate at a shear displacement of 0.08mm, the shear stress sustained
was 1.52MPa for a crack width of 0.125mm, but this reduces to 0.34MPa for a crack width of 0.38mm.

With a narrow crack, shear transfer by aggregate interlock action can occur over the whole length of the
crack. However, as the crack width increases the proportion of shear force resisted by aggregate interlock
action decreases and a relatively greater proportion is sustained by dowel action of the reinforcement.

With deformed bars the high bond strength results in relatively narrow cracks at relatively close centres.
With plain round bars both the crack spacing and crack widths increase. Consequently with the plain round
bars aggregate interlock action may be expected to make a smaller contribution to shear transfer across
cracks and this may be expected to result in the member having a lower diagonal tension strength.

A 2.3 Conclusions from diagonal tension strength in beams

The following conclusions relevant to the flange hung double tee support detail may be drawn from a study
of shear strength of reinforced concrete beams.
1. If a member fails in diagonal tension it cannot be assumed that longitudinal reinforcement in the
member sustains its yield stress.
2. The shear friction concept cannot be used to predict the diagonal tensile strength of a beam.
3. The width of a flexural crack and the variation of the crack width over its height can have a major
influence on diagonal tension strength.
4. Dowel action of reinforcement can sustain some shear transfer across a crack until a dowel crack
forms. Tests have indicated that the relative displacement across a crack which leads to dowel
cracking is of the order of 0.06mm. Where the dowel action is at the last crack close to a reaction
point tests have shown that a dowel force close to the level sustained when the dowel crack formed
can be maintained for appreciable displacement in excess of the displacement sustained at
cracking before the load drops significantly3.

A 3. Flange hung support of double tee units using pigtail reinforcement detail
A 3.1 General
The transfer of a reaction on a flange hung support detail involves a three dimensional flow of forces.
Some of the reaction will be resisted by direct shear and flexure into the web while a portion of the reaction
will be supported by an indirect path with shear spreading into the flange and back into the web some
distance from the end of the web, see Figure 5. The indirect load path through the flange involves shear,
flexure and torsional moments in the flange. A practical difficulty arises in that the relative stiffness and
strength of the indirect load path depends on cracking or damage sustained by the flange. The thin top
flange, typically 50 to 60mm thick, which has a clear span of close to one metre between webs, can be
easily damaged in transit or during installation. Furthermore when it is put on the supports if the
supporting ledge is uneven concentrated reaction forces can act on the flange some distance from the web.
Where this occurs diagonal cracking may be expected to extend through the flange to the web to enable the
shear to be transmitted to the web. In the process this part of the flange may be damaged and its strength
reduced. Consequently in design the only safe assumption is to ignore any strength derived from the
indirect path through the flanges on each side of the web. In tests the way to achieve this is to cut out the
flanges on each side of the web in the vicinity of the reaction point.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 8 12 Jan 2009

 Indirect load path

Direct
load path

Plan on flange support of a web

Figure 5: Load paths for flange hung support

A 3.2 Actions prior to cracking in flange hung supports of double tees

Figure 6 (a) shows the principle lines of compression and tension, in the form of a strut and tie diagram,
associated with a vertical reaction on a flange hung support. While the diagram shows the principle forces
involved it should be noted that the actual distribution of stresses is much more complicated that indicated
in the sketch.

The reaction on the cantilever portion of the flange hung support, which in subsequent sections is referred
to as a flange cantilever, induces flexure and shear. The flexural tension force, Tf, is resisted by concrete
prior to the formation of flexural cracks. The shear is resisted by a combination of diagonal compression
and a diagonal tension force, Tdc. which is also carried principally by concrete prior to cracking, see Figure
6 (a). The concrete close to the re-entrant corner is subjected to vertical and horizontal stresses associated
with the forces Tdc and Tf.

Beyond the transfer length of the of the pretension strands the prestress force is essentially constant. To
balance the changing bending moment along this region the distance between the pretension force in the
strands and the centroid of the compression force must change. That is the centroid of the compression
force in the concrete becomes inclined, with the vertical component of this force equalling the shear force,
V. As illustrated Figure 6 (a) the vertical component of the diagonal tension force, Tdc, must exceed the
shear force, V, by a margin to enable it to balance the shear force and the diagonal compression force, Cd,
associated with balancing the horizontal flexural tension force, Tf.

The stresses and strains associated with the reaction on the flange cantilever are imposed on existing tensile
and compressive stresses caused by the development of pretension strands and differential shrinkage of the
insitu concrete relative to the precast concrete. The actions are illustrated in Figure 6 (b), where it can be
seen that a bursting tension force, Bf, is induced near the level of the pretension strands some distance from
the end of the unit and a spalling tension force, Sf, develops near the back face of the web. The magnitude
of these stresses will generally be relatively small. However, their magnitude may increase and become
significant where a high level of prestress is used and the eccentricity of the pretension strands is high.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 9 12 Jan 2009

 (a) Simplified Strut & Tie Forces prior to cracking of the concrete

(b) Simplified force paths due to prestress and differential shrinkage

(c) Likely crack locations

Figure 6: Simplified actions prior to cracking and location of critical cracks

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 10 12 Jan 2009
A 3.3 Development of cracks
At the re-entrant corner, Point X in Figure 6 (c), if there is no lateral friction force acting at the reaction, the
concrete is subjected to biaxial tension due to the tension forces Tf and Tdc. Consequently it is likely that a
crack initiated in this location will extend in a diagonal direction until it is in the vicinity of the horizontal
legs of the pigtail bars. For the diagonal reinforcement and stirrups to act in tension, a crack, shown as
crack B in Figure 6 (c), must cross the reinforcement to enable the reinforcement to sustain the strain
associated with the induced level of stress. Bond resistance of plain bars away from bends is relatively
poor. Consequently if the diagonal bars are subjected to the same stress level the width of the type B crack
increases with the depth of the member. The weakest section for resisting the tensile stresses due to the
diagonal tension force, Tdc, is likely to be in the plane which contains the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars.
Hence there is a high probability that the type B crack will form at the level of this reinforcement.
However, it should be noted that as the tensile strength of concrete varies from one section to another and
crack locations cannot be accurately predicted.

To enable the flexural tension force to be resisted by the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars a crack, which is
shown as crack A in Figure 6 (c), must form. Where the resultant shear stress in the flange cantilever is
high, a diagonal crack may develop, shown as crack C in Figure 6 (c),

The likely crack locations described in the previous two paragraphs were based on the assumption that the
reaction was vertical, that is there was no friction force associated with the reaction. However, this will
generally not be the case. When the reaction is applied the bending moments in the flange cantilever
induce tensile stresses in the concrete and the associated tensile strains result in the concrete immediately
above the reaction point to moving outwards from the body of the double tee. Even though this movement
is small it will be partially restrained by friction. The magnitude of the friction force that may arise in
practical situations is unknown. With mortar, the coefficient of friction is likely to be in excess of 3. With
bearing on concrete it is probably in the range of 1 to 2 and bearing on steel it is probably in the range of
0.5 to 1.0. Such friction forces can be expected to have a very significant influence on the structural
performance of the detail. Figure 7 shows the line of action of the vertical reaction and friction force, when
it acts a precast double tee unit with 50mm thick flange and 75mm of insitu concrete topping. The reaction
is assumed to act mid way between the free edge of the flange and the face of the web. With a coefficient
of friction of 0.5 the line of action passes 27.5 mm above the mid depth of the flange. This is just over
6.5mm outside the middle third. With a coefficient of friction of 1.0 the line of action is 17.5mm below the
mid-depth. In both cases the friction force clearly restrains the flexural tension force (Tf) and suppresses
the tensile stresses associated with this force. This not only suppresses the formation of crack A, see Figure
6, but it can potentially have a major influence on the location of crack B. With reduced horizontal tensile
stresses at the re-entrant corner, the critical location of crack B can move down the web. It may move to
just below fillets on the web, as shown in Figure 6 (c), or alternatively, possibly below this level. As the
tensile strength of concrete varies appreciably from one section to another crack locations cannot be closely
or reliably predicted. As described in the next sub-section, the location of crack B can potentially have a
major influence of the strength of the support detail.
90
27.5 for µ = 0.5

125

17.5
for µ = 1.0
μR
R
45

Figure 7: Influence of friction on line of action of reaction

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 11 12 Jan 2009

A 3.4 Failure modes
The different ways in which at flange hung support detail may fail include:
(a) Flexural failure of the composite insitu concrete and precast concrete in the springing to the flange
cantilever;
(b) Flexural failure in the springing of the flange cantilever but with separation of the precast and
insitu concretes;
(c) Shear failure in flange cantilever;
(d) Diagonal tension failure of flange above web;
(e) Bond failure of horizontal legs of pigtail bars;
(f) Separation of flange from web;
(g) Spalling of concrete behind the pigtail bars.

The failure modes (a) to (f) are illustrated in Figure 8 and described in greater detail in the following
paragraphs.

(a) and (b) Flexural failure of cantilever flange

The flexural strength of the springing of the flange cantilever can be determined by standard flexural theory
by taking moments about the intersection point of the diagonal and horizontal legs of the pigtail bars, see
Figure 8 (a). In an analysis, allowance must be included for the horizontal component of tension carried by
the diagonal bars.

Tests on hollow-core units with composite insitu concrete has shown that appreciable separation occurs
between the insitu and precast concretes when longitudinal bars, which tie the topping concrete into the
supporting structure, are highly stressed 4, 5, 6 & 7. The reinforcement tying the insitu concrete to the support
can be stressed to high levels by creep, shrinkage and thermal shortening of the floor or by elongation of
beams spanning parallel to the precast floor units. This elongation may arise due to flexural cracking of
beams due to wind or seismic actions. With the formation of plastic hinges, elongation greatly increases. It
is likely that the separation of precast and insitu concretes arises due to the high bond stresses sustained by
the reinforcement where it anchors in the topping concrete. Goto8 showed that bond resistance of deformed
bars was due to radial compression stresses bearing against the deformations on the bars. He found that
micro-cracks developed in the concrete from the tips of the deformations, as illustrated in Figure 9.
Looking at a section containing a bar subjected to high bond stresses it can be seen that radial cracks
develop round the bar, which cause the concrete to expand, generating compression between the insitu and
precast concretes in the immediate vicinity of the bar and tension a small distance away from the bar. In
addition the transfer of bond force generates appreciable shear stresses between the precast and insitu
concretes close to the bar. It is the combination of these actions which is the likely cause of the separation
of precast and insitu concretes observed in tests. The stage at which is separation occurs depends on the
position of the bars in the insitu concrete, the stress in the bars where they enter the concrete topping and
the tensile strength of the interface between precast and insitu concretes. Forrest9 has shown that the
strength of this interface depends on the extent of carbonisation of the surface of the precast concrete. This
carbonation is increased by damp curing or exposure to water and increased age of concrete when the insitu
topping is added.

Separation of the precast and insitu concretes reduces the effective depth of the section remaining to resist
the bending moment and this greatly reduces the flexural strength, see Figure 8 (b).

(c) Shear failure in cantilever flange

Diagonal cracking may be expected in the flange cantilever where shear stresses are high, see Figure 8 (c).
However, it is unlikely that a shear failure will develop due to the low moment to shear ratio in the flange
cantilever.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 12 12 Jan 2009

 (a) Flexural failure (b) Separation of flanges from web and of insitu
and precast concretes

(c) Shear failure in flange cantilever (d) Diagonal tension failure

(e) Bond failure (f) Separation of flange and web

Figure 8: Potential failure modes of the flange hung detail

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 13 12 Jan 2009

(d) Diagonal tension failure of concrete above the web
The forces acting on the flange cantilever are shown in Figure 10 for the case where friction forces at the
support are zero. The forces acting on the free body of the flange cantilever can be combined to be give
three resultants, which must meet at a point to satisfy equilibrium, see Figure 10. The forces in the

Figure 9 Separation of insitu and precast concretes due to micro-cracks associated with bond forces in
deformed bars

diagonal and horizontal legs of the pigtail bars, Td and Th respectively, are combined to give resultant R2 ,
while the flexural compression force C is combined with the shear force resisted by the compression zone,
Vcomp, and the shear force transmitted across the crack by interface shear, that is by aggregate interlock
action and dowel action of the reinforcement, Vinterface, to give resultant R1. The final force is the vertical
reaction, R. The positions of the resultant forces acting on the free body are located as follows. The
position of the reaction, R, in practice may be anywhere on the lower surface of the flange cantilever, but in
Figure 10 it is assumed to be at the mid span position of the bottom surface. The resultant R2 passes
through the intersection point of the pigtail bars. The flexural compression force must act in the upper
regions of the flange cantilever to enable the crack to open up to stress the horizontal leg of the pigtail bars
so they can sustain the tension force Th. Standard flexural theory for elastic sections indicates that the
height of the compression force varies with the amount of reinforcement. However, a common assumption
based on elastic theory is to take the internal lever arm as 7/8 of the effective depth. Hence the position of
the compression force C can be assumed to act close to 1/8 of the effective depth below the upper surface.
The intersection point defines the relative magnitudes of the resultants. However, this point can only be
defined if the relative magnitudes of Th and Td are known. These values depend on the relative stiffness of
the horizontal and diagonal legs of the diagonal bars. At this stage the relative stiffness of these bars is
unknown as it depends on bond conditions and length of bars. In particular it should be noted that any
friction force acting with the reaction R and any change in position of the reaction force can have a major
influence on the relative magnitudes of the shear forces resisted by interface shear (aggregate interlock
action and dowel action) and the vertical component of the diagonal reinforcement.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 14 12 Jan 2009

From Figure 10 it should be noted that any shear resisted by the inclination of the compression force above
the flexural crack results in a tension force being induced in the concrete just below the compression zone.
Diagonal tension failure occurs when the interface shear (aggregate interlock action plus dowel action)
breaks down or decreases due to the formation of a crack above the horizontal leg of the pigtail bars. Once
this occurs the interface shear force is reduced and the vertical tension force at the head of the crack
increases. This increase may lead to a diagonal tension failure in much the same way as it occurs in a
reinforced concrete beams. The shear force that can be resisted by aggregate interlock action depends on
the crack width, as indicated in section A 2.2, while the limit on shear resisted by dowel action depends on
shear displacement across the crack, the number of bars and tensile strength of concrete and cover to bars.
With increasing crack width, due to high tension forces in the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars or to poor
bond conditions, the interface shear strength and hence the diagonal tensile strength may be expected to
decrease.

Figure 10 Shear failure of flange cantilever

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 15 12 Jan 2009

 (e) Bond failure of horizontal legs of pigtail bars
The bond strength of plain round bars depends on their surface condition. The optimum condition is when
they are lightly rusted. However, in the flange hung detail a critical situation is when a longitudinal crack,
such as crack B in Figure 6 (c), forms along this reinforcement. In this situation bond will be largely
destroyed and bond failure can be expected to occur. As noted in section A 3.3 the location of the crack
“B” is likely to depend on the direction of any friction force acting when the crack is first initiated. The
magnitude of tension force in the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars is very sensitive to the direction of any
friction force associated with the reaction. For example assuming:

• The vertical component of the diagonal bars is equal to 2/3 of the vertical component of reaction;
• The reaction acts at a distance of 55mm from the intersection point of the pigtail bars.

With no friction at the reaction, the tension force in the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars, Th, is 27% of the
reaction, R, while with a friction force of 0.5 times the vertical component of the reaction acting to induce
tension the force Th increases to approximately 90 percent of R, giving an increase approximately equal to a
factor of 3. In simple tests where friction could develop at the reaction bond failure would cause the flange
cantilever to move out and this would be resisted by friction acting inwards to the member. This friction
could initially prevent failure provided the resultant crack width at the springing of the flange cantilever
was sufficiently small to maintain the interface shear force. If the crack in time opened up due to thermal,
creep and shrinkage movements, or the supports moved due to elongation of the supporting structure, the
interface shear force may be reduced triggering a combined bond shear failure.

(f) Separation of flange from web

Figure 11 illustrates the actions involved in tying the flange to the web. In this figure it is assumed that
reinforcement resists the tension forces transmitted across the crack separating the flange and web. Hence
this figure represents the case where cracking has developed. Tension forces which can be carried across a
crack by the action of cement crystals spanning the crack are small and they have been ignored10.

The tension force that can be resisted by the stirrups depends on where they are anchored in relation to the
crack, B, which separates the flange from the web. If this crack develops in the web away for the pigtail
bars as shown in position 2 in Figure 11 (e), the stirrups can make a contribution to resisting the vertical
tension force necessary for equilibrium. However, if the crack develops in position 1, as shown in Figure
11 (e), with the crack (B) in the plane of the pigtail reinforcement, the stirrups will pullout of the flange. In
this case they are ineffective in contributing to the vertical tension force required for equilibrium. It should
be noted that different arrangements of stirrups have been used in different units, see Figure 12. The
different arrangements may make a small difference to their effectiveness.

The ultimate strength associated with separation of flange from web is dependent on the location of the
crack. This crack must form to enable the diagonal pigtail bars to resist tension. However, as previously
noted the location of this critical crack may be influenced by the friction force that acts with the reaction.
In addition there is a random effect due to the variability of the tensile strength of concrete from one section
to another.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 16 12 Jan 2009

 (a) Elevation

(b) Deflected shape

(c) Flange bending moment diagram

(d) Shear force diagram

Figure 11: Separation of flange from web (parts (a) to (d) )

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 17 12 Jan 2009

 (e) Anchorage of stirrups

Figure 11: Separation of flange from web (concluded)

(f) Spalling of concrete behind pigtail bars

Examination of the bending and shear force diagram in Figure 11 (d) shows that the vertical force required
to stabilise the crack exceeds the magnitude of the reaction, R. It should also be noted that the flange above
the web is subjected to shear, which acts in the opposite direct to the shear force in the flange cantilever.
The stirrups which are provided in these members do not provide shear reinforcement for this portion of
flange as they do not extend into the local compression zone.

Rotation of the support relative to the double tee unit may move the reaction towards the outside edge of
the flange cantilever. In this position the vertical component of the reaction combined with any outward
directed tension force, associated with creep/shrinkage/thermal shortening or elongation of supporting
structure, will induce high tensile stresses in the concrete adjacent to the pigtail bars. This action may
result in spalling of concrete, reducing the effective length of flange that can provide support.

Figure 12: Different forms of stirrups used in double tee units tees

A 4. Previous research on flange hung double tees using pigtail bars

A 4.1 Experimental work
Over the last 4 decades a number of tests have been made of flange hung double tee units, which looked
specifically at the performance of the flange support detail. Unfortunately the results of some of these tests
have not been released and consequently comments cannot be made on these. It is difficult to draw firm
conclusions from the limited results of tests that have been made except to conclude for the loading
condition in which they were tested the support detailing was adequate. Unfortunately the tests appear to
have been far from comprehensive in considering the range of support conditions, which can arise in
practice. Likewise the theory which was developed to account for apparent strength of the test specimens

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 18 12 Jan 2009

fails to consider some of these practical loading situations. This is discussed in the next sub-section. A
detailed analysis of these test results has not been made.

Conclusions from a preliminary review of test results include the following points.
1. Generally the strength of reinforcement used in the test units has not been reported.
2. In all the test results that have been sighted the test units were supported at both ends on supports
which could sustain friction forces at the reaction points. As discussed in previous sections this is
predicted to have a major influence on measured strength. Under the loading conditions applied in
the tests the friction force would have always been directed in to the unit to reduce tension stresses
in the flexural tension zone of the flange cantilever. This direction of friction force reduces the
tension force in the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars, reduces the bond stresses on these bars,
reduces crack width at the critical section and hence it increases shear strength through aggregate
interlock action. This direction of friction force also favours the separation crack between the web
and flange to form in a more favourable location (down in to the web) than would otherwise be the
case, as described in A 3.3 and A 3.4.
3. No consideration was given to loading cases where shortening of the double tee units occurs due to
shrinkage of concrete and creep of concrete and/or thermal change. This movement could result in
a friction force at the supports acting in a direction that induces tension in the member which as
previously noted could be expected to reduce the strength.
4. The influence of elongation pushing the supporting beams apart and relative rotation between
precast unit and support was not considered.
5. In many of the tests point loads were applied relatively close to the support detail. Firstly with
point loads, which were too close, part of the shear that they induce can be carried by a strut
between the load point and support. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Secondly applying a point load
anywhere above or near the horizontal legs of the pigtail bars increases their bond performance.
Hence the results of these tests may result in artificially high failure loads which are not
representative of typical loading conditions.
6. In no case was axial tension applied to the flange by bars connecting the insitu concrete topping to
the supporting structure. In practice shrinkage, creep and thermal shortening of the precast units
and floors can open up cracks with widths typically in the range of 0.5 to 3mm. The stress in bars
spanning these cracks would be high and they could well result in separation of the insitu concrete
from the precast concrete, as described in section A 3.4 (c). Such cracking may in some situations
greatly reduce the flexural strength of the flange cantilever.
7. An assessment of the test results indicates that none of the tests appear to have failed in flexure at
the springing of the flange cantilever as illustrated in Figure 8 (a).
8. In one set of tests pigtail bars made for plain round reinforcement were replaced with the
equivalent number and diameter of deformed bars. Tests showed that this substitution nearly
doubled the failure load. These results indicate that bond performance of the reinforcement is of
major importance.
9. In another set of two tests the number of pigtail bars was doubled in the second test, yet it was
found to result in only a small percentage of increase in strength.
10. In the tests the support did not rotate and in many cases the position of the reaction on the flange
was not controlled. In these tests as the cantilever flange deformed the location of the reaction
could be expected to move towards the end of the web, reducing the bending moments induced at
the springing to the flange cantilever. This favourable situation would not occur in many loading
cases where the supporting beam (or structure) rotated relative to the double tee unit.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 19 12 Jan 2009

A 4.2 Previous analytical research
The original method of analysis11 recognised flexural failure of the nib, as described in A 3.4 (a) and
separation of the flange from the web as described in A 3.4 (f). However, it was assumed that all
reinforcement, pigtail bars and stirrups (without consideration for anchorage in the bottom of the flange
close to the separation crack), could sustain their yield strengths. The possibilities of shear failure, of
spalling of support concrete and of friction forces at the supports inducing tension into the units and bond
failure of the pigtail bars were not considered. One of the early tests indicated horizontal cracking occurred
near the level of the horizontal pigtail bars. The length of these bars was increased with the aim of ensuring
loss of anchorage did not occur. Unfortunately as friction at the supports acted in a favourable direction
there was no experimental evidence to indicate that with the extended bars anchorage conditions were
satisfactory for all practical loading conditions.

A method of assessing flange hung double tee units was proposed by DBH and presented at a meeting on
28th October 2008 in Auckland. This proposed assessment has two weaknesses. Firstly it assumes the
diagonal tensile strength of the cantilever flange can be calculated on the basis of shear friction (see A2).
Secondly it assumed the horizontal leg of the pigtail can sustain appreciable tension to contribute to the
flexural tension force required for equilibrium but at the same time it assumes the compression force is
located in a position which prevents this reinforcement from sustaining the level of strain associated with
the required assumed level of stress in the reinforcement. For the horizontal leg of the pigtail bars to resist
tension the flexural compression force in the concrete at the springing must be located close to the top of
the member (see A3.4(d) and Figure 10) and not in the arbitrary position assumed in this assessment
method. As noted in section A 2.2 and A 2.4 shear friction equations cannot be used to predict diagonal
tensile strength of members.

A 4.3 Details of pigtail flange hung supports and NZS 3101: 2006
1. The only viable design method for the flange hung support detail consistent with the Structural
Concrete Standard, NZS 3101-2006, is the strut and tie method. With this method the loads and
reactions have to be balanced by an equivalent truss with compression struts sustained by concrete
and tension forces, acting as ties resisted by reinforcement. Shear resisted by concrete is
neglected. The strut and tie model has to be constructed so that strains are compatible. In
particular a tension tie force can only develop if a crack crosses the reinforcement so that the bar
can sustain tensile strain associated with the tension force required for equilibrium of the truss.
Likewise struts cannot be assumed to cross open cracks.
Looking at the reinforcement detail of the flange hung support, it is not possible to find a strut and
tie model which will fit the reinforcement details. The problem is illustrated in Figure 13, where it
can be seen that the compression strut in the flange cantilever has to rise to near the top surface of
the concrete to enable the near vertical crack to open up and thereby stress the horizontal legs of
the pigtail bars. To achieve this condition the compression strut has to be inclined at the section
immediately above the flexural crack. For equilibrium the vertical component of this compression
force must be balanced by a tension force. However, there is no reinforcement available to resist
this force as the stirrups are all anchored in the bottom of the flange. Hence the reinforcement
details violate the basic requirements for a strut and tie analysis.
2 The pigtail bars are bent to an inside diameter of 50mm, which is considerably smaller than the
limit given by 8.4.2.1 1. The limiting bend diameter in the Standard is set to prevent possible
crushing of concrete due to bearing against the bar and to control splitting in the plane of the bend.
3 The Standard requires plain round bars to be anchored with standard hooks. Both the horizontal
and diagonal legs of the pigtail bars violate this requirement.
4 All the critical load conditions in AS/NZS 1170.1 need to be considered. This includes axial
tension due to shortening of precast units and elongation associated with cracking in beams
parallel to the precast units.
5 The 20mm bars are welded to the pigtail bars in a region where the pigtail bars are bent to a high
curvature. This detail is specifically forbidden in NZS 3101:2006, clause 8.5.3.

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 20 12 Jan 2009

 Figure 13 Strut and tie analysis of flange hung support

.A 5. A suggested way ahead

1. The details and results of previous tests should be sought and analysed.
2. Finite element analyses and some tests should be carried out to assess the significance of friction forces
associated with the reaction on the potential locations of cracks and of changing the position of where
the reaction acts due to relative rotation between the unit and supporting structure in different loading
situations.
3. Tests and finite element analyses should be planned considering the following points:
• Tests to assess the significance of starter reinforcement in the topping being strained to high levels
due to creep and shrinkage shortening of the floor or due to elongation of beams which are parallel
to the double tee units forming plastic hinges in a major earthquake. In particular the extent of
delamination of the insitu and precast concretes should be observed:
• In all tests material strengths should be measured and stress strain characteristics of critical
reinforcement found:
• The significance of starter reinforcement in the insitu concrete topping on gravity load capacity of
flange hung support detail should be investigated:
• In some tests the flange should be cut away from the sides of the web close to the support to
eliminate strength associated the load path through the flange and into the web, as illustrated in
Figure 5. The strength of this load path is uncertain due to potential damage at the interface of
flange and web:
• In all tests the friction force at the reaction should be controlled and measured:
• In all tests the location of the reaction on the cantilever flange should be clearly identified:
• The sequence of loading should be controlled to ensure the critical conditions associated with the
formation of cracks are attained. The loading sequence has the potential to alter the location of
SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 21 12 Jan 2009
 cracks which in turn may have a very significant influence on strength. Hence the sequence in
which vertical and lateral forces are applied is likely to be crucial to the magnitude of the ultimate
strength:
• To ensure that critical crack locations develop in some of the tests consideration should be given
to the use of crack initiators:
• The location of load points on the test units should be planned to prevent artificially high ultimate
strengths being obtained in tests (see A.1.3 and Figure 2):
• Consideration should be given to the influence of deformation of supporting structure, beams or
walls, on the actions induced into the double tee units.
4. Where strain gauges are to be used to measure forces in reinforcement the following points should be
addressed:
(i) Strain gauges should be located at cracks so that the total tension force is resisted by
reinforcement. To achieve this objective crack initiators should be used;
(ii) Each bar should have two gauges placed on opposite sides of the bar to eliminate local strains
associated with local bending of the bar. Strain gauges should not be located on bends;
(iii) In the immediate locality of the strain gauges bond should be eliminated;
(iv) Strain readings should be started before concrete is cast so that strains sustained in the
reinforcement associated with creep and shrinkage of the concrete prior to the addition of any
load are known;
(v) Preferably the gauges bars should be tested in axial load tests to calibrate the gauges prior to
instillation in the reinforcement cage.

References
1. “Concrete Structures Standard, NZS 3101”, 2006, Standards New Zealand.
2. “Structural design actions, AS/NZS 1170. Part 0, General principles”, 2002, Standards New Zealand
3. Fenwick, R C., “Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams”, PhD thesis, University of Canterbury,
Civil Engineering, 1966
4. Matthews J., Hollow-core floor slab performance following a severe earthquake”, PhD thesis,
University of Canterbury, Civil Engineering, 2004
5. Lindsay, R., “Experiments on seismic performance of hollow-core floor systems in precast concrete
buildings”, ME thesis, University of Canterbury, 2004
6. McPherson C., “Seismic performance and forensic analysis of a precast concrete hollow-core floor
super-assemblage”, ME thesis, University of Canterbury, Civil Engineering, 2005
7. Jensen J., “The seismic behaviour of existing hollowcore seating connections pre and post retrofit”,
ME thesis, University of Canterbury, Civil Engineering, 2004
8. Goto, Y., “Cracks formed in concrete round deformed tension bars”, ACI Journal Proceedings, No. 4,
Vol. 68, Apr. 1971, pp244-251
9. Forrest, E., “The bonding of concrete to concrete”, SESOC Journal, No. 1, Vol. 21, Apr. 2008, pp23-
29
10. Comite euro-international du beton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, published Thomas Telford, London,
1993
11. Stresscrete, “Standard flange support detail, test report”, reference no 609, article no. 107,
Stresscrete, 1976

SESOC Double Tee Draft Paper V2.3 – Appendix A 22 12 Jan 2009