STATE-OF-THE-ART PAPER
The Practice of
Warping Double Tees
Paul Mack, P.E., FPCI
Rocky Mountain Prestress
Denver, Colorado
Gregory Force, P.E., FPCI
Vice President and General Manager
Tindall Corporation
Petersburg, Virginia
Charles Magneslo
Vice President
JVI, Inc.
Lincoinwood, Illinois
Kp Bryan, RE.
Project Manager
FDG, Inc.
Arvada, Colorado
32
This paper presents the results of a study of
warping (twisting) in precast concrete double tees
and draws conclusions on what is being
successfully done within the industry to minimize
or eliminate longitudinal cracking through decks
due to warping. Conclusions are given based on
the results of an industry survey, an assessment of
torsion parameters, theoretical calculation of
cracking point, and empirical data from plant
controlled testing and field experiences. Data are
presented for field-topped tees and pretopped tees
of various lengths and widths. Recommendations
are given on the best practice to follow in
controlling warping in double tees.
ouble tees are perhaps the most widely used mem
D ber in the precast, prestressed concrete industry (see
Fig. 1). In general, double tees have performed ex
tremely well over the past 50 years. However, occasion
ally, a double tee may experience longitudinal cracks at the
interface of stem and deck elements. The cracks may range
in length from 5 to 30 percent of the tee length.
Under close scrutiny, these cracks appear to develop on
top of the deck on one stem and on the underside of the
other stem. The cause and significance related to long-term
performance of double tees experiencing these cracks have
not been universally agreed upon within the industry. Nev
ertheless, one purpose of this paper is to bring all available
knowledge on this subject together so that a consensus can
be reached.
A PCI committee report in the January-February 1983
1 states that the cause of longitudinal cracks
PCI JOURNAL
PCI JOURNAL
is generally warping or twisting that
has been imposed on the double tee
member.
The most common occurrence of
warping is on decks of parking struc
tures. Therefore, many discussions in
this paper are directed toward this ap
plication. In general, cracking is
caused by:
• Twisting that occurs when the tee is
stripped (removed) from its casting
bed (e.g., uneven lifting during
stripping from binding in the form,
uneven sling lengths, or use of two
cranes).
• Racking from improper storage in
the manufacturing plant storage
yard (e.g., dunnage placed on soft or
uneven ground).
• Twisting during handling or hauling
(e.g., a trailer running over a curb).
• Torsion being a condition of the de
sign (geometry) of the structure
containing the erected tee (e.g.,
sloped/warped for drainage in a
parking structure).
Typically, this type of crack is non-
structural and has a negligible effect
on the load carrying capacity of the
tee. If the tee is covered with a com
posite concrete topping (field-topped),
January-February 2003
no repair is necessary unless for cos
metic reasons.
A pretopped tee (one in which the
entire deck is cast monolithically with
the tee stems during manufacture) ex
periencing cracks may need remedial
attention after the tee is erected, de
pending on the crack width and loca
tion. If water penetration is a concern,
a wide range of weather resistant ma
terials is available to fill and seal the
cracks, such as epoxies, caulking ma
terials, and other sealants.
This paper presents the results and
conclusions of a study of warping
(twisting) in double tees. Conclusions
are based on the results and dissemi
nation of an industry survey, theoreti
cal calculation of cracking point and
torsion parameters of the cross sec
tion, and empirical data extracted
from plant controlled testing and field
observations. Data are presented for
field-topped tees and pretopped tees of
various lengths.
Note that double tees may crack
even if the guidelines presented here
are followed closely. Recommenda
tions provided in this article, there
fore, should be considered with engi
neering judgment. There is no
guarantee that adhering to these rec
ommendations will entirely eliminate
the condition, but it should be borne in
mind that concrete cracking is not un
usual and that not all cracks necessi
tate remedial action.
The first three bulleted items identi
fied as causes of longitudinal cracking
are generally unpredicted, but the
fourth is an intentional design condi
tion wherein twisting and warping is
known to occur. To achieve durability
in parking structures, one of the most
important recommendations made in
the American Concrete Institute publi
cation ACI 362.1R-97
2 is to slope
decks in order to drain water from the
deck surface.*
While direct rain or snow may not
enter all areas of a parking structure,
wind blown rain and/or vehicles carry
ing ice/slush/water will distribute
* Other components of durability include
(1) low
water-cementitious material ratios (0.40 or less), (2) air
2 percent, 11/2 percent tolerance),
entrained concrete (6V
(3) coffosion inhibiting admixtures, (4) good cornice
tions, (5) high quality joint sealants, (6) cover over re
inforcement of 1/2 to 2 in. (38 to 51 mm), and (7) a
well-planned maintenance program. Other less effec
tive measures like surface scalers and traffic bearing
membranes are sometimes employed.
33

Fig. 2. Warping of double tee section.
water throughout the facility. If the
water is contaminated with salts from
deicing materials or other sources,
corrosion of reinforcement may be ac
celerated due to chloride penetration.
As a result, the life of the structure
may be shortened.
Frequent floor wash-downs that are
part of a maintenance program are
also a source of water throughout the
facility. If the floor is not adequately
sloped for proper drainage, pools of
water or sheets of ice can form, pro
moting the potential for deterioration
of the concrete slab due to freeze-thaw
cycles. If a floor is to be sloped, how
much slope is necessary? Parking in
dustry guidelines are cited in the fol
lowing paragraphs.
Floor Slope Recommendations
—
Standard References
Recommendations on the amount of
slope necessary to drain a floor has
been based mainly upon experience.
Many references on the subject are
available, and the following excerpts
are taken from the most often cited
sources:
1. Parking Structures: Recom
mended Practice for Design and Con
struction, PCI publicaton MNL-129-
98:
“Parking Decks should be pitched
for draining. Slopes of 11/2 percent
are common with 1 percent being
the minimum acceptable field limit
after construction tolerances are
considered.”
2. The Dimensions of Parking,
Third Edition, ULI & NPA:
4 tures: Recommended Practice for De
“The recommended slope to drains
is 2 percent minimum in all direc
tions. Normally, in precast parking
structures, the main slope (typically
in the span direction) is 2 percent
and the cross slope (perpendicular
34
made about the flexibility of the mem
bers. A sketch indicates how a typical
bay of a parking structure could be
sloped for drainage, but warping is not
Amount of warping shown.
displacement jAJ Cross-bay drainage is achieved by
i lowering one end of the double tee
members. Transverse drainage is typi
cally achieved by one of three meth
ods:
1. Pitching the supporting girder or
spandrel at the low end only.
to the direction of the main slope) is
2. Sloping the structural topping.
limited to about 1 percent or even
3. Pitching both the high and low
less. If a traffic membrane is used, 1
ends of the member by using sloped
percent slopes are acceptable, but 2
ledges, variable dap depths in the dou
percent slopes are still preferable.”
ble tee stems, corbels at varying
3. Guide for the Design of Durable
heights on the supporting spandrel,
Parking Structures, ACT 362.1R-97:
2
and/or sloping of the entire supporting
“A minimum slope in any direction
element.
of 11/2 percent is recommended with
The cause of warping (twisting) in
2 percent being preferred.”
double tee members in situ is due to
4. Parking, ENO Foundation for
transverse floor slopes (Method No.
5
Transportation:
1). Many times the other two methods
“Storage floors of cast-in-place
are neither practical nor cost effective.
floor garages should be sloped
Sloping the field placed topping adds
about 2 percent (approximately 1/4
cost for the additional concrete and its
in. per ft). Precision manufactured
weight can require more prestressing
(and installed) precast floors can
force (usually, more strands), thereby
provide positive drainage with 1
adding even more cost to the project.
percent (approximately 1/8 in. per ft)
Using sloped ledges, varying height
slopes, although some designers
daps, or placing corbels at varying
prefer a 2 percent slope.”
heights on the face of the spandrel all
5. Parking Structures, Planning, De
require particular attention to engi
sign, Construction, Maintenance and
neering detailing and to setup within
Repair, Third Edition:
6
the form so as to ensure proper orien
“For drainage, the absolute mini
tation and dimension. Higher material,
mum slope should be 1/8 in. per ft or
labor and forming costs are intro
about 1 percent preferred slope is
duced. It should also be noted that aes
u16 in. per ft or about 1/2 percent.”
thetic considerations often preclude
6. The Parking Professional, May
utilization of sloped spandrels on the
2000, “Parking Design Checklist
exterior of a parking deck.
2000”:
Using varying height daps on the
“Slopes: 2 percent preferable (1 per
exterior may create a condition
cent is used typically in precast con
wherein the ends of the stems are visi
crete and is based on the use of
ble from the outside, which may also
quality sealer on surface and the
be objectionable. Accommodating
denser type of concrete normally as
varying height ledges or corbels on the
sociated with precast concrete).”
support spandrel may require that the
depth of the spandrel be increased by
Warping of Double Tees at least the change in elevation from
The PCI document, Parking Struc highest to lowest stem support within
a given span.
sign and Construction, MNL 129-98, This may create a problem in that
presents a cursory discussion of warp the deck must contain a certain
ing of double tees in Chapter 4, Sec amount of open area (i.e., the space
tion 4.4. Mention is made of warping between the top of one spandrel and
for both pretopped and field topped the bottom of the spandrel above) on
members, and a general comment is its perimeter in order to be considered
PCI JOURNAL
an open parking structure. Reference
should be made to the governing
model building code for specific re
quirements.
For these reasons, designers often
maintain a constant elevation for the
deck surface at the exterior perimeter
of the deck and slope beams or walls
on the interior gridline to achieve the
transverse slope to the drains. A twist
or warp (see Fig. 2) is thereby intro
duced at the low end of the double tee.
This twist propagates along the length
of the tee.
The purpose of this paper is to pro
vide a rationale to designers on the
limits of warping that can be reason
ably expected of typical double tee
members currently used in parking
deck construction.
As a matter of definition, warping
occurs in a double tee when the four
stem bearing points are not co-planar
and the ends of the tee are rotated with
respect to each other. The difference
in the slopes at the ends of the tee de
fines the amount of warp (twist angle).
The warp can be expressed as a per
cent slope (equal to 100 times twist
angle) or as a twist with dimensions of
in. per ft across the cross section.
INDUSTRY SURVEY
Over the years, the PCI Parking
Structures Committee has received nu
merous questions regarding the pro
cess of warping double tees, with par
ticular reference to allowable warp
and stresses that will initiate cracking.
To provide guidance to the engineer
ing community, the committee con
ducted a survey of PCI producer mem
bers to determine the industry
common practice and collect feedback
regarding testing or other means of an
alyzing the limits of twisting and
cracking. Fifty-eight surveys were re
turned to the committee from produc
ers in the United States and Canada.
Survey Results
The survey requested producers to
provide section properties, deck rein
forcement and the amount of warping
they recommend, given various
lengths of double tees. Producers were
also asked to provide a rationale for
their recommendations. All survey re
January-February 2003
Table 1. Field-topped double tees [2 in. (51 mm) average deck thickness].
Span length
Average warp (twisQ 0.068 in/ft
< 20 ft
Standard deviation 0.026 in/ft
Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Table 2. Pretopped double tees [4 in. (102 mm) average deck thickness].
Span length 1 <20 ft 1
20 to 30ft 31 to 40 ft I
Average warp (twist) 0.076 in./ft
Standard deviation
Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. =
J 0.039 in./fi
25.4 mm.
sponses contained information for tees
longer than 50 ft (15.2 m).
The information received (see Ta
bles 1 and 2) regarding the amount of
warping (A/Span Length) diminished
as the double tee lengths decreased.
Some respondents reported that short
tees are so stiff that they would not
settle into their desired (warped) posi
tion without forcing the stem down
with weights. Blank responses were
not considered in the statistical evalu
ations.
Producer Comments —
Amount of Warping:
• Double tees with widths of 10 ft
(3.05 m) or less and with a 2 in. (51
mm) thick deck have been warped
as much as 0.6 in. per ft (A 3 in.).
The decks cracked but are function
ing well.
• Pretopped double tees with widths
of 10 ft (3.05 m) or less with a 4 in.
(102 mm) thick deck have been
warped as much as 0.4 in. per ft (A
2 in.) and had cracks.
• Three producers reported testing a
10 ft (3.05 m) wide, 60 ft (18.30 m)
long double tee. Two found that the
tees began to crack at 0.2 in. per ft
with a 4 in. (102 mm) thick deck.
The third producer conducted a fi
nite element analysis on a 10 ft
(3.05 m) wide, 60 ft (18.30 m) long
double tee with a 43/4 in. (121 mm)
thick deck. The tee cracked at 0.175
in. per ft of warp. Test results con
firmed their theoretical analysis.
Producer Comments —
Regarding Cracking:
• Double tees are less susceptible to
torsion cracking if the transition
20 to 30 ft
0.100 in./ft
J 31 to 40 ft
0.151 in.Ift 0.224 in/ft
0.035 in./ft 0.043 in/ft 0.128 in/ft
> 50ft -
0.082 in./ft 0.128 in./ft 0.160 in/ft
0.040 in./ft 0.056 in/ft 0.074 inJft
from stem to deck is a radius rather
than a chamfer; this is because
stress concentration is less.
• Using a ‘8 in. (9.5 mm) diameter
longitudinal prestressing strand
(parallel to the stems) at the stem lo
cations in pretopped decks helps
control cracks. The strand also pro
vides a surface for supporting the
deck reinforcement, ensuring proper
placement. Typically, the strand is
stressed to a nominal value of about
5 kips (22.3 kN).
• It is possible to initiate warping in
the plant by shimming one leg
higher than the other while the tee is
in storage and the shear modulus is
smaller. By doing this, the warping
is taking place while the concrete is
curing and allows the double tee to
warp more without developing
cracks. Care must be taken to warp
the tee in the proper direction.
• Allowing a double tee to settle into
its warped position may increase the
total amount a double tee can be
warped versus forcing the double
tee down to make the deck connec
tions.
• There was insufficient data to deter
mine whether or not the type of ag
gregate in the concrete mix (normal
weight or lightweight) influenced
the amount double tees can be
warped without cracking. However,
engineers should keep in mind that,
in the end, it is the shear modulus
that is important.
• The depth of the tee or the spacing
of tee stems appears to have little
effect on the amount double tees
can be warped without cracking. No
reason for this observation was
given. It is shown later in this article
that the depth of the tee stems has a
35

Fig. 3. Trailer
rocker beam
supporting a
double tee.
Table 3. Double tee geometry.
Tee size Tee width
8DT22+2
8DT22+4
8DT30+2
8DT30+4
100T22+2
10DT22+4
1ODT3O±2
J lOft
1ODT3O+4
12DT26+2
I 2DT26+4
12DT30+2
12DT30+4
Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; tin. = 25.4 mm.
dramatic effect on the warping be
havior of a double tee.
• There was too much variation in
deck reinforcement to conclude how
or if this affects cracking or the
amount double tees can be warped
prior to cracking.
• The data indicate that the thicker the
deck, the less double tees can be
warped. The reason for this is that
the torsion constant is proportional
to the cube of thickness. There was
insufficient data to determine suc
cessful warping criteria for deck
thicknesses other than 2 and 4 in.
(51 and 102 mm).
• Using rocker-beam assemblies
under the front end of hauling trail
ers can mitigate cracks resulting
from transportation of tees within
plant storage areas or to jobsites.
Fig. 3 shows a trailer fitted with a
rocker beam. The double tee stems
sat on rubber softeners in the two
brackets located on top of the steel
36
cause shear stresses. An analysis of
standard double tee sections subjected
to pure torsion was carried out to iso
late the effects of torsion. The com
plex interaction of stresses caused by
gravity and axial loads are not ad
dressed in this paper.
The purposes of the study were to:
(1) Compare rotational stiffness and
maximum torsion stresses for the vari
ous tee sections, and (2) Determine the
percentage of total torsion resisted by
the deck and by the stems. It was also
expected that computer modeling
would reveal regions on the section
where stress concentrations are likely
to occur.
Tee sections and their properties
were taken from Chapter 2 of the Fifth
Stem height Deck thickness Edition of the PCI Design Handbook.
9
8 ft 22 in. 2 in. Field topped
-
The sections are somewhat “histori
8 ft 22 in. 4 in. Pretopped
-
cal” in that tee widths have increased
8 ft 30 in. 2 in. Field_topped
-
over time. For a brief period, produc
8 ft 30 in. 4 in. Pretopped
ers manufactured 6 ft (1.83 m) wide
-
10 ft 22 in. 2 in. Field topped
-
10 ft 22 in. 4 in. Pretopped
-
members. The 8 ft (2.44 m) wide tee
2iit-Field topped became the industry standard for about
30 in.
two decades, followed by 10 ft (3.05
10 ft 30 in. 4 in. Pretopped
-
12 ft 26 in. 2 in. Field topped
-
m) tees, then 12 ft (3.66 m) wide tees.
12 ft 26 in. 4 in. Pretopped
-
Currently, 15 ft (4.57 m) wide tees
12 ft 30 in. 2 in. Field topped
- are fabricated in some locations. The
12 ft 30 in. 4 in. Pretopped
-
Design Handbook presents data for 8,
10, and 12 ft (2.44, 3.05, and 3.66 m)
sections with varying stem heights and
deck thicknesses. Table 3 summarizes
tube section. Without the rocker the sections used in this analysis.
beams, twisting transmitted from Two methods were used to calculate
the trailer to the tee can be consider the torsion constant K. First, the dou
ably more than the amount designed ble tee sections were modeled using
into the structure to accommodate low-order finite differences to solve
floor drainage. Truck drivers cannot the general partial differential equa
always avoid curbs and potholes. tion for cross sections without open
ings:
RATIONAL METHOD TO
DETERMINE TORSION + (1)
2
8x 2
3y
STIFFNESS
where
Described below is a simplified ap
H = -2G0
proach for analyzing torsion and a dis
G = shear modulus of elasticity
cussion of some practical results ob
(9 = twist angle per unit length
tained from using this methodology.
Eq. (1) is derived by using the
Prandtl stress function, where is a
Method of Analysis function of the orthogonal coordinates
Tension and shear stresses in double X and Y.
tee sections that are warped are influ The differential equation accounts
enced by a number of stress combina for stresses due to pure rotation as
tions. Prestress forces and flexure well as the out-of-plane warping that
cause tension and compression occurs for non-circular cross sections.
stresses, whereas flexure and torsion The stress function for torsion has
PCI JOURNAL
 b

ts—top

I t

ts_avg

tsbot
—

-
J
tsavg =

A =
A
2h
bi -

cross section area

II h

Fig. 4. Typical
double tee section.

the same form as the differential equa was calculated. After the volume was Table 4. Constant c based on ratio bit.
tion describing the deflection of an calculated, the torque on the double bit
elastic membrane subjected to pres tee was easily obtained by multiplying or Constant
sure. It is also analogous to the shape the volume by 2. (Ii + 2t)It avg c
of the deflected membrane. The relationship between the angle 1.0 0.141
The tangent to the membrane paral of twist and the torque is taken from 1.5 0.196
lel to the ZX-plane is equal to the pure Reference 9: 2.0 0.229
torsion shear stress acting in the Y-di 2.5 0.249
rection. The tangent to the membrane 3.0 L 0.263
QL (4)
parallel to the ZY-plane is equal to the 4.0 0.281
KG
5.0 29i
torsion shear stress acting in the X-di
10.0 0.312
rection. These tangents give the fol in which
= 0.333
lowing equations: o = twist angle per unit length
1 = calculated torsion moment
M
7
T = (2) G = shear modulus of elasticity
ay K = torsion constant for section Fig. 4 shows a cross section of a typi
In Eq. (4), the only unknown quan cal double tee member.
tity is the torsion constant K. Eq. (5) gives the St. Venant’s tor
T =— (3) The second method of calculating sion constant K in terms of the thick
8x
K, using a simplified approach, is de ness (t) and width (b) for a rectangular
The volume under the elastic mem scribed in the following paragraphs. section (see Reference 9):
brane is exactly equal to one-half of
the applied torsion moment. The
derivation of Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) is
beyond the scope of this paper; how
ever, it can be found in most advanced
mechanics of materials textbooks.
A fine mesh size [0.10 in. (2.54
mm)] was utilized so that stress con
centrations could be discerned. This
resulted in solving more than 125,000
equations for the larger tee cross sec
tions. Stresses and bending moments
were numerically integrated over the
C
cross section to check equilibrium re
quirements and the accuracy of each
model.
As a verification, twist angles and
stresses were also checked and found
to be within 1 percent of known closed
form solutions for elliptical, triangular
and rectangular cross sections. Once Double Tee Size
the computer program had generated
the membrane surface, the volume Fig. 5. Torsion stiffness vs. double tee size with 30 in. (762 mm) stem depth.

January-February 2003 37
 KDeck = 3
b
1
c t (6)
22” Stem 26” Stem 32” Stem
Ktem = c
(
2 h + 2t)(ts
avg)
3 (7)

The torsion constant for the com

plete double tee section was obtained
by summing the values of K for the
deck and the two stems as shown in
=
Eq. (8):
‘U

C
Ksjmpie Kieci + 2
Ktem (8)

All of the double tee cross sections

listed in the Fifth Edition of the PCI
Handbook that are practical to be used
for typical parking deck spans were
analyzed for stiffness and stresses. A
8-0” DT 10-0” DT 12-0” DT 15 ft (4.57 m) wide tee was also ana
DoubieTee Size lyzed to evaluate an upper bound.
A shear modulus G = EI(2)(1 +
Fig. 6. Contribution of stems to torsion stiffness for 2 in. (51 mm) deck. in which E is the modulus of elasticity
and i is Poisson’s ratio, was calcu
lated to be 2006 ksi (13.8 GPa). This
value was held constant for all tee sec
tions. [E = 4696 ksi (32.4 GPa) forf’
I 22” Stem 26” Stem 32” Stem I = 6000 psi (41.4 MPa) and = 0.17

80.0% for concrete].

Two sets of analyses were done for
each section, assuming a 60 ft (18.30
70.0% m) tee length. The first assumed a A =
11/2 in. (38 mm) warp while the sec

C ond assumed a 2 in. (51 mm) warp

60.0%
(U
measured over the full width of the tee
[i.e., 10 ft (3.05 m)1.
=
50.0% Unit twist angles of 0 = 0.000018
radians per in. and 0 0.000023 radi
ans per in. were used for the 11/2 and 2
40.0% in. (38 and 51 mm) warp cases, re
spectively. For reference, the twist
30.0%
angle of 0.000023 radians per in. for a
8-0” DT 10-0” DT 12-0” DT
10 ft (3.05 m) wide x 60 ft (18.30 m)
long tee corresponds to a warping dis
Double Tee Size placement of:

Fig. 7. Contribution of stems to torsion stiffness for 4 in. (102 mm) deck. A = (0.000023)(10)(12)(60)(12)
= 1.987 in. (50.5 mm)

K = cbt
3 (5)
In this equation, c is a constant
whose value depends on the bit ratio
as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 gives the values for the con
stant c for corresponding bit ratios.
Double tee sections are subdivided
into three rectangular sections, two
stems and one deck. For double tees, b
and t are the long and short sides of
the deck and stem rectangles, respec
tively. The contribution of the stems to
the total torsion constant K was modi
fied by adding two times the deck
thickness to the length.
The reason for this modification will
be discussed later. By doing so, the
simplified value of K matched the
more accurate value from the finite
difference method. The torsion contri
bution to constant K for the deck and
the stems are calculated using the fol
lowing equations:
Tables 5 and 6 show the results of
the analysis for 8, 10 and 12 ft (2.44,
3.05 and 3.66 m) wide double tees.
Column (2) lists the theoretical
twisting moment M 1 needed to cause
the assumed angle of twist.
Column (3) lists the torsion stiffness
constant K calculated by Eq. (4).
Column (4) lists the K calculated by
the proposed simple method.
Column (5) shows the margin of
error of K by using the simple method.

38 PCI JOURNAL
Table 5. Torsion stiffness of double tee members: 11/2 in. warp. C = 2006 ksi; Maximum recommended principal
tensile stress = 4Iöb = 309 psi; 0 = 0.000018 radians per in. (11/2 in. warp over 10 ft width for 60 ft span).
Double tee M actual KA, K Error KDek/KSjm t, KAf relative to
size (in.-kips) /rad)
4
(in. /rad)
4
(in. (percent) (percent) (percent) (psi) (psi) 10DT22+4 (percent)
8DT22+2 64.2 1946.9 1937.0 —0.5 12.7 87.3 199 2.57 40.5
8DT22+4 135.3 4104.4 3897.4 —5.0 49.7 50.3 258 3.33 85.3
8DT30+2 173.4 5257.9 5203.5 —1.0 4.7 95.3 238 3.07 109.3
8DT30+4 257.4 7804.8 7506.2 —3.8 25.8 74.2 314 4.05 162.2
10DT22+2 69.1 2095.4 2094.0 —0.1 14.8 85.2 205 2.65 43.6
10DT22+4 - 158.6 4810.7 4499.7 —6.5 54.0 46.0 254 3.28 100.0
10DT30+2 179.0 5428.1 5415.0 —0.2 5.7 94.3 3.27 112.8
10DT30+4 282.4 8564.9 8166.4 —4.7 29.8 70.2 309 3.99 178.0
-.
12DT26+2 -
158.2 4796.5 4842.5 1.0 7.8 92.2
---___
251 3.24 99.7
12DT26+4 276.1 8371.8 8046.5 —3.9 36.4 63.6 305 3.94 174.0
12DT30+2 181.1 5492.7 5480.4 —0.2 6.9 93.1 253 I 3.27 114.2
if
-

- --- - - - —-- -

12DT30+4 299.5 9081.7 8665.7 —4.6 33.8 66.2 309 3.99 188.8
Note; I ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 25.4 ann; 1 psi =0.006895 MPa; 1 kip=4.448 kN; 1 in.-kip=0.113 kN-m.

Table 6. Torsion stiffness of double tee members: 2 in. warp. C = 2006 ksi; Maximum recommended principal
tensile stress = 4Jöö = 309 psi; 0 = 0.000023 radians per in. (2 in. warp over 10 ft width for 60 ft span).
Double tee M, actual KAC.S K Error KDkIKs,,, ,,/Ks
5
Ks
,
1 ,, tma
: KAj relative to
size (in..kips) lrad)
4
(in. /rad)
4
(in. (percent) (percent) (percent) (psi) (psi) 10DT22+4 (percent)
8DT22±2 - 82.0 1946.9 1937.0 —0.5 12.7 87.3 255 3.29 83.0
.
8DT22+4
-
172.9 4104.5 3897.4 —5.0 49.7 50.3 1I 330
- -
4.26
-____ -
175.0
8DT30+2 221.6 5258.0 5203.5 —1.0 I 4.7 95.3 I 304 3.92 224.2
. -
I - - I - -. -

8DT30+4 328.9 7804.9 7506.2 —3.8 25.8 74.2 401 5.18 332.8
10DT22+2 88.3 2095.4 — 2094.0 0.1 J 14.8 85.2 262 3.38 89.4
10DT22+4 202.7 4810.7 4499.7 —6.5 54.0 46.0 325 4.20 205.1
IODT3O+2 228.7 5428. 5415.0 —0.2 5.7 94.3 324 4.18 231.5
IODT3O+4 360.9 8564.9 8166.4 -4.7 29.8 70.2 395 5.09 250.1
12DT26+2 202.1 4796.6 4842.4 0.9 7.8 92.2 321 4.14 204.5
12DT26+4 352.8 8372.0 8046.4 =
8
.
3 36A 63.6 390 5.03 357.0
12DT30+2 231.4 5492.8 5480.4 —0.2 6.9 93.1 324 4.18 234.2
12DT30+4 382.7 9081.8 8665.7 -4.5 33.8 66.2 395 5.10 387.3
Note; I ft=0.3048 m; I in. = 25.4 mm; I psi = 0.006895 MPa; 1 kip = 4.448 leN; 1 in.-kip=0.113 kN-m.

Column (6) lists the percentage of stems and the deck (flange). For all tee sections with 2 in. (51 mm) decks
torsion moment resisted by the deck. stem heights and deck thicknesses shows that if the stem depth is held
Column (7) lists the percentage of shown in the preceding tables, the constant, the contribution of the deck
the torsion moment resisted by the two contribution of stem and deck thick decreases as the width increases.
stems. ness for a given tee width is shown. The same trend holds true for 4 in.
Column (8) lists the maximum re Fig. 5 shows the variation of the tor (102 mm) decks. The difference be
sultant torsion shear stress found any sion stiffness constant (K) for all three tween 2 and 4 in. (51 and 102 mm)
where on the cross section. double tee widths with a constant 30 decks is that for the 2 in. (51 mm)
Column (9) shows how the calcu in. (762 mm) stem depth. decks the contribution of the stems to
lated shear stresses compare to the The figure shows two interesting the total stiffness is between 85 and 95
maximum tensile stress as rec items; first, as the width of the double percent while for the 4 in. (102 mm)
ommended in ACT 31899,b0 Section tee is increased the stiffness is in decks it is between 45 and 75 percent.
11.6, Commentary. creased moderately and, second, as the Note that all of the sections in Ta
Column (10) compares the torsion deck thickness increases the stiffness bles 5 and 6 have fillets. The effect of
stiffness for each section to the increases significantly. 3 in. (76 mm) chamfers was also in
10DT22+4. The contribution of the deck in rela vestigated. Table 7 shows a compari
tion to that of the stems varies as the son of 10 ft (3.05 m) wide double tees
dimensions of the double tees change. with 3 in. (76 mm) fillets and 3 in. (76
Discussion of Results Figs. 6 and 7 show the contribution of mm) chamfers.
The torsion stiffness constant (K) of the stems to the total stiffness of the Table 7 shows that both the torsion
a double tee is dependent upon the two section. A comparison of the double constant and maximum stress for a

January-February 2003 39
Table 7. Comparison of 3 in. fillet to 3 in. chamfer for 10 ft wide double tee sections:
11/2 in. warp; G = 2006 ksi; maximum recommended principal tensile stress = 4Jöö = 309 psi;
0 = 0.000023 radians per in. (2 in. warp over 10 ft width for 60 ft span).
Double lee M, actual KA, KsI,,.,,k K Error KDk/KSjm im/Ksj,
5
K r,,,.,,/.j 15 relative to
K,
size (in.-kips) 4 per radian)
(in. 4 per radian)
(in. (percent) (percent) (percent) (psi) (psi) 10DT22+4 (percent)
I 0DT22+2
. 69.1 2095.4 2094.0 —0.1 14.8 85.2 205 2.65 43.6
3 in. fillet
10DT22+2
.

3 in. chamfer
77.3 t 2345.0 2373.7 I
1.2 13.1 86.9 309 3.98 48.7

10DT22+4
. 158.6 4810.7 4499.7 —6.5 54.0 46.0 254 3.28 100.0
in. fillet
I
‘—

10DT22+4
. . 176.3 5346.5 4823.6 —9.8 50.4 49.6 372 4.81 111.1
3 in. chamfer
IODT3O+2
. 179.0 5428.1 5415.0 —0.2 5.7 94.3 254 3.27 112.8
3 in._fillet
1ODT3O+2 —

. 189.2 5737.4 5861.8 2.2 5.3 94.7 375 4.84 119.3

In. chamfer
IODT3O+4
. 282.4 8564.9 8166.4 -4.7 29.8 70.2 309 3.99 178.0
3 in._fillet
IODT3O+4
. 304.5 9234.4 8667.5 —6.1 28.1 71.9 459 5.92 192.0
3 in. chamfer
‘ote: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 25. I mm; 1 psi = 0.006895 MPa; 1 kip=4.448 kN; I in.-kip=0.113 kN-m. —

double tee with a chamfer is larger

than that of a double tee with a fillet.
However, for 10 ft (3.05 m) wide dou
ble tees, the torsion constant increased
by about 10 percent but the maximum
stress increased by over 45 percent.

Torsion Stress Behavior

The pure torsion shear stresses were
extremely well behaved and consis
tent. A single discontinuity always oc
cuffed in the form of a short “crease”
when chamfers were provided at the
Fig. 8. Torsion membrane for double tee section. stem-to-deck interface. Fig. 8 shows a
three-dimensional plot of, the stress
membrane that represents the solution
to the differential Eq. (1) by the finite
difference method.
Torsion stresses are obtained from
this membrane. Theory indicates that
Double Tee wI the steeper the curve, the higher the
3 in. (76 mm) stress. Maximum shear stresses occur
Fillet in the deck over each stem and along
the exterior edges of the stems just
below the deck, i.e., at the fillets or
chamfers on the underside of the deck.
Fig. 9 shows contour lines of stresses
on a double tee section with fillets and
chamfers, respectively.
Double Tee w/
Stresses induced by chamfers were
3 in. (76 mm)
much greater than tees that had fillets.
Chamfer
Fillets were substituted for chamfers
to provide consistency in modeling
Fig. 9. Shear stresses caused by pure torsion on double tees. and stress comparisons. Fillet sizes

40 PCI JOURNAL
 500

• 300
0.

+
x
400

200
E g:Trendne
-*

Fig. 10. Relationship

between maximum
• A 4Deck
torsion stress and
4 Deck Trenciflne
.

4*fcA1/2 torsion stiffness for

100 5*ftAlI2 standard PCI double
.
6*fcA1I2 tee sections: warp
of approximately
0 I 11/2 in. (38 mm) for
I I
0 5000 10000 15000 a lOft (3.05 m) wide
K (in
lradian)
4
- double tee over a
60 ft (18.30 m) span.

500

400

300
r_
.._
A

• ÷ 2 Deck Fig. 11. Relationship

—2’ Deck Trendline
j 200
: A 4”Deck
between maximum
torsion stress and
.:: 4” Deck Trendline
• 4*fcA1I2 torsion stiffness for
100 standard PCI double
6*fc1!2 tee sections: warp of
approximately
0
2 in. (51 mm) for a
0 5000 10000 15000 lOft(3.05 m)wide
K (in.
lradian)
4-
double tee over a
60 ft (18.30 m) span.

from 2 to 10 in. (51 to 254 mm) were
analyzed for a few of the tees but were
found to have little impact on the mag
nitude of the maximum torsion
stresses.
The portion of deck outside of the
stems behaves much like that of long
thin rectangles subjected to torsion.
Concentric stress contours are parallel
to the deck surfaces with the highest
stresses occurring on the exterior sur
faces. The stress contours diminish to
zero at the interior of the deck. The
stems also reveal concentric stress
contours that are parallel to the verti
cal axis rather than parallel to the ta
pered sides of the tee stems. The over
lapping stem and deck regions show a
smooth transition of horizontal deck
contours and vertical stem contours.
With the exception of the overlap
ping stem and deck regions, the plot
ted stress functions show, as expected,
that the deck and stems tend to behave
as independent torsion resisting com
ponents. However, the classical ap
proach of summing the stiffness of
component rectangles to calculate the
torsion constant of a built-up section
was found to consistently underesti
mate the theoretical stiffness.
This behavior is caused by the in
creased resistance found in the over
lapping stem and deck regions (see
Fig. 8). A good correlation with the
theoretical stiffness was found by sim
ply increasing the depth of the stems
by two times the deck thickness.
It was noted that torsion stiffness in
creases at a much greater rate than the
cross-sectional area. For instance, the
torsion stiffness for a 12DT30+4 is
nearly twice that of a 1 0DT22+4. It is
also interesting to note that increasing
the deck widths from 8 to 10 ft (2.44
to 3.05 m), while holding the stem and
deck thickness constant had absolutely
no effect on the maximum shear
stresses.
The relationship between the torsion
constant K and the torsion stress can
be used as a guideline for designers to
assess any particular double tee cross
section for its potential for cracking.
By using the least squares fit theory,
the data from Tables 5 and 6 were re
duced to the simple curves shown in

January-February 2003 41

1800
1600
1400
1200
ioco
80O
600
400
200
0 The finite analysis model was also
o o.i 0.2 0.3 0.4
Degree 01 Warp (Stem to Stem), in
Fig. 12. Maximum elastic tension stresses in warped double tee flanges.
Figs. 10 and 11. The first figure uses
data for a warp of 11/2 in. (38 mm)
across the full width of the double tee
section, while the second curve is for a
2 in. (51 mm) warp.
Note the following assumptions:
1. Elastic analysis assumes 3 in. (76
mm) deck/stem fillets —deck stem
chamfers tend to increase stress.
2. Plots are for a unit twist angle of
0.000018 and 0.000023 radians per in.
This is equivalent to about 1’/2 and 2
in. (38 and 51 mm) of warp fora lOft
(3.05 m) width over a 60 ft (18.30 m)
span for Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
3. Plotted shear stresses are maxi
mum resultant ;. and occur on or
near the deck/stem chamfers.
4. Linear interpolation is used to
calculate Tmax for other twist angles.
The three horizontal lines on Figs.
10 and 11 represent stresses equal to 4,
5, or These allow the designer
to exercise judgment as to how much
stress is acceptable for the particular
design conditions.
Stresses are sensitive to the degree
of warp. When the warp is 11/2 in. (38
mm), all but one of the data points fall
under the 4JI line, but when the tee
is warped to 2 in. (51 mm), the
stresses shift to the 5J state of
stress.
THEORETICAL
CALCULATION OF
CRACKING POINT
An in-depth research project on the
durability of precast, prestressed park
ing structures was carried out by PCI
in 1995 by the Consulting Engineers
Group of San Antonio, Texas.” Part
42
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
of the focus of this research was the
determination of warping without
cracking of pretopped double tees
with 4 in. (102 mm) thick decks
(flanges).
To determine the theoretical limits
of warping for these members, a finite
element analysis was performed using
a 1 in. (25.4 mm) grid mesh modeling
a system with three supported ele
ments (stems) and the fourth sup
ported on a spring with a constant K.
The model assumed 5 ft (1.52 m) be
tween the stems [10 ft (3.05 m) overall
width] and analyzed tee lengths of 40
and 60 ft (12.2 and 18.3 m).
The model varied the degree of
warp to determine the maximum dis
placement between the stems at the
maximum tension stress as defined by
the modulus of rupture for a specific
concrete. Note that ACT 31810 recom
mends using a value of fr in the range
of 0.1f to 0.15f.
The maximum tensile stress occurs
in the top of the flange near the un
warped (non-spring-supported) stem
at the end that is warped. The stress
distribution across the flange is similar
to a classical bending stress distribu
tion. However, the stress distribution
at the top surface is similar to that
caused by a concentrated load. Once
the maximum tensile stress is reached,
the crack length is approximately 3 in.
(76.2 mm).
For a high quality concrete with ser
vice compressive strength of 6500 psi
(44.8 MPa) and corresponding modu
lus of rupture of 975 psi (6.72 MPa)
(equal to 0.1 5f’), the permissible warp
(measured between stems) would be
on the magnitude of 0.45 in. (11.4
mm) for a 40 ft (12.2 m) tee length
and 0.50 in. (12.7 mm) for a 60 ft
(18.3 m) length member. Fig. 12
shows the maximum stresses in the
deck with respect to stem-to-stem
warping. The program write-up cau
tions that the values chosen forfr are a
function of the acceptability of non
critical cracking.
used to predict crack propagation. The
analysis revealed that the crack propa
gates along the flange rather than
through the flange. This is an impor
tant point when considering the crack
containment afforded by welded wire
fabric reinforcement typical in this
type of member. For more information
regarding this study, see Reference 11.
EMPIRICAL DATA
The program referred to in the pre
vious section also included full scale
testing of two double tee members, 10
ft (3.05 m) wide by 28 in. (711 mm)
deep with 4 in. (102 mm) thick flanges
(10DT24+4). The last 2 ft (0.61 m) of
length at each end of the members was
held down to a 2 in. (51 mm) thick
ness as though a pour strip was to be
added in the field.
One double tee was 47 ft (14.3 m)
long and the other was 60.5 ft (18.4
m) long. Warping was induced in the
tee by setting the tee stems on level
shim stacks and then removing shims
incrementally from beneath one stem.
Based on the test results, the follow
ing observations can be made:
The 60.5 ft (18.4 m) long member
withstood a warp of 3/4 in. (19 mm)
between the stems before cracking,
while the 47 ft (14.3 m) long mem
ber had a very small crack start at 5/
in. (16 mm) differential between its
stems. The shorter member was dif
ficult to test because it tended to rise
up on opposite corners as shims
were removed.
• Cracking in the top flange pro
gressed diagonally across the flange
and the bottom cracking remained in
the flange to stem intersection. Fig.
13 shows the crack pattern devel
oped in the 60.5 (18.4 m) long
member.
• The maximum crack width for 1/8
in. (43 mm) differential between the
PCI JOURNAL
 stems was 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) in
the longer member. The crack
length extended approximately 6 ft
(1.83 m) from the end of the mem
ber.
As the warping increased, cracking
occurred at the juncture of the stem
and the flange bottom for the leg
that was lowered. Cracking occurred
in the top of the flange above the
adjacent stem on the same end. No
cracking occurred at the end with
both stems at the same elevation.
• Maximum crack widths increased as
warping increased.
• Crack widths were less at the bot
tom of the flange than at the top.
The load tests substantiated the re
sults predicted by the finite element
study. Both studies confirmed that ob
servable cracking occurred when the
overall warp exceeded 11/2 in. (38
mm).
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Results are summarized for the in
dustry survey and theoretical analysis.
Industry Survey
Industry practice and associated ex
perience gained therefrom indicate
that warping of twin stemmed tee
members in parking structures is not
only ongoing, but also commonplace
in order to create transverse slopes.
When double tees are to be warped, all
parties should be well informed re
garding the potential for cracks in the
members.
The study indicates that a 60 ft (18.3
m) long double tee element can be
twisted to the amounts shown in Tables
1 and 2 without cracking. Warping to
produce floor slopes of about 11/4 per
cent is routinely done within the indus
try with no cracking, and as much as
21/2 percent with minor cracking.
As previously stated, not all flange
cracking is attributable to the in-place
condition of the tee. Stripping, han
dling, and, probably most significantly,
hauling the product to the jobsite in
duce torsion stresses in the element.
Because prestressed concrete produc
ers have been facing the challenge of
manufacturing plant-cast 4 in. (102
mm) thick flange double tees for park-
January-February 2003
TOP VIEW
1) /8 in. warp no cracks
3/4
2) in. warp 0.002 in. width
Fig. 13. Crack pattern for 10 ft (3.05 m) wide 60.5 ft (18.4 m) long tee.
(Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
ing deck applications for over twenty
years, special procedures for handling
these members have been developed.
One of the methods successfully
used by several precast concrete manu
facturers involves using a specially de
signed rocker beam, which was dis
cussed earlier in the paper (see Fig.
14). Other precautions include provid
ing adequate jobsite access for delivery
trucks because the jobsite typically has
the worst terrain encountered en route.
Theoretical Analysis
The following is a list and discus
sion of the conclusions that can be
drawn from the theoretical analysis.
Narrower tees have a lower torsion
stiffness constant (K) than wider
tees.
Results from both the finite differ
ence method and simplified method
confirm that as the width of the deck
decreases, the torsion constant K also
decreases.
Double tees with 2 in. (51 mm)
decks are more flexible than those
with 4 in. (102 mm) decks.
By reviewing Tables 5 and 6, it is
seen that double tees with 2 in. (51
mm) decks have a much lower K
BOTTOM VIEW
lV in. warp 0.005 in. @
3) 8
PT1 and 0.002 in. @PT3
4) 1/g in. warp 0.010 in. @
PT1 and 0.005 in. @PT3
value than double tees with 4 in. (102
mm) decks. By looking at the stiffness
of a 1ODT3O+2 and 1ODT3O+4 it is
seen that the contribution of the stems
Ktem remains constant and the contri
bution of the deck KDeCk changes.
• In general, the stems contribute
more to the total stiffness than the
deck.
As the ratio of the area of the stems
to the total area of the double tee in
creases so does the ratio of the stiff
ness of the stems to the total stiffness.
• At the junction of the tee stems and
the deck, chamfers cause higher
stress concentrations in the double
tees than do fillets.
The relationship between the torsion
stiffness, K, and the maximum stresses
is not evident from the analysis. How
ever, it is clear that the use of cham
fers rather than fillets affects the maxi
mum torsion stress much more than it
affects the torsion constant (K).
• Results confirm that the simplified
method for calculating the torsion
constant K is quite accurate when
compared to the classical solution.
The torsion constant calculated by
the simplified method differs from the
more accurate method by only 21/2 per
cent on average for all cross sections.
43

Fig. 14. Trailer rocker beam supporting a double tee.
• A relationship exists between the 1. Double tees have an inherent
torsion constant and the torsion ability to sustain a certain amount of
stress. twist, thereby providing the designer
As a tee becomes stiffer, the stress two-way slope capability utilizing ei
developed in the cross section in ther field-topped or pretopped ele
creases. The degree of warp greatly ments. While surface cracking can be
affects the state of torsion stress in the controlled, it should be noted that
double tee. For standard tees (as con most surface cracks require no further
tained in the PCI Design Handbook
),
8 remedial action than to be covered
stresses are less than 4’Z when the with a sealer to prevent water penetra
warp is 11/2 in. (38 mm), but stresses tion. The double tee cast in factory
rise to about 5/ when the warp is controlled conditions with high per
increased to 2 in. (102 mm). formance concrete is one of the best
• Curves were developed to aid de tools in the designer’s arsenal for high
signers in evaluating torsion cracks quality, cost effective parking deck
in typical double tee sections. construction. Key aspects of high per
Using simple equations, a designer formance concrete are low water
can calculate the torsion stiffness of a cementitious material ratio (< 0.40),
double tee shape and enter a curve to high strength [>6000 psi (41.4 MPa)],
determine the state of torsion stress and sufficient air entrainment (6’/2
that will be induced in the tee when it percent ± 1 ‘/2 percent).
is warped. 2. It should not be assumed that the
• Lightweight concrete double tees presence of a crack in the top surface
are less flexible than normal weight of a double tee flange is cause for
tees. structural or long-term durability con
The shear modulus (G) for cern. Reports issued by ACI, PCI, and
lightweight concrete is smaller than others within the industry indicate that
that for nonnal weight concrete. Look cracking on the magnitude of 0.0 15 in.
ing at Eq. (4), if M, and 0 are held (0.38 mm) wide or less is generally in
constant, as G decreases K increases. significant. The depth of the crack,
This combined with the fact that when compared to the depth of rein
lightweight concrete cracks at lower forcement (as opposed to cracking in
stresses than normal weight concrete line with the reinforcement), is not
means that double tees constructed of typically cause for concern. The na
lightweight concrete are more suscep ture of the cracking described earlier
tible to warping cracks. in this paper falls into that category.
The significance of a crack in the sur
face becomes more pronounced when
CONCLUSIONS that crack occurs in an area where
Based on the results of this study, there is ponded water, perhaps con
the following conclusions can be taminated with chloride ions that lead
drawn: to corrosion of reinforcement. This is
44
why proper drainage is imperative in
the design of the deck.
3. The information contained herein
is informational and not a directive for
warping double tee elements. Individ
ual owners and producers need to es
tablish what they are willing to accept
regarding the amount double tees
should be warped. Also, cracks in
double tee elements can originate from
other sources such as shipping and
handling.
Needs for Future Study
This article presents a comprehen
sive analysis of double tee sections
subjected to torsion only. It excludes
other stress combinations. Prestress
forces and flexure cause tension and
compression stresses, while shear
stresses are caused by flexure and tor
sion. The complex interaction of grav
ity and axial loads are not addressed
here. Further analysis taking these fac
tors into account will help verify the
results derived from the torsion only
model or may give new information
regarding the initiation of cracking at
the interface of the stem and the flange
as influenced by member geometry
and applied loads.
Controlled member testing could be
done to provide actual data that could
be used to expand the knowledge of
double tee warping. A prescribed
method of testing and results docu
mentation could be prepared to assist
those willing to do the tests and thus
create a database for empirically de
rived warping limits. As of this writ
ing, one producer is performing tests
to determine the relation between
member width and the initiation of
torsion cracking, as well as the impli
cations of a “starter” crack to the de
velopment of torsion cracks. This
study will be made available to PCI
upon completion.
Closer scrutiny of product through
its various cycles (i.e., production, cut
ting of strand, stripping, storage, ship
ping, and erection) will expand the ex
perience database and provide better
correlation of theoretical and observed
performance of warped double tees. A
number of producers are actively col
lecting this information. A central
database would be helpful in assessing
PCI JOURNAL
where cracking is most likely to occur
based on the highest number of obser
vations available.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to the
many individuals who contributed
technical comments and guidance
throughout the various stages of this
project. They are Bob Corry, Tom
D’Arcy, John Garlich, Degan Ham
bacher, Roger Kaness, Joe Miller, and
Leo Whiteley.
Particular thanks go to John Hanlon
for his understanding and application
of numerical methods and advanced
mathematics used to develop a ratio
nal method to determine torsion stiff
ness. His computer modeling and
methodology in integrating graphic re
sults into custom AutoCAD drawings
made concepts and data presentations
much easier to read and understand.
The authors are also appreciative of
the excellent technical contributions
made by the PCI JOURNAL review
ers. They are Alex Aswad, Ken Baur,
Suresh Gami, Walter Korkosz, George
Nasser, and Kim Seeber.

REFERENCES
1. PCI Committee on Quality Control Performance Criteria,
“Fabrication and Shipment Cracks in Prestressed Hollow-Core
Slabs and Double Tees,” PCI JOURNAL, V. 28, No. 1, Jan
uary-February 1983, pp. 18-39.
2. ACI Committee 362, “Guide for the Design of Durable Park
ing Structures (ACI 362.1R-97),” Section 3.1 Drainage, Amer
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1997.
3. Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and
Construction, MNL-129-98, Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1 Slope,
PrecastlPrestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 1997, pp.
4-16.
4. The Dimensions of Parking, Third Edition, Chapter 18,
Drainage, ULI-the Urban Land Institute & NPA-the National
Parking Association, Washington, DC, 1993.
5. Weant, R. A., and Levinson, H. S. (Editors), Parking, Chapter
9, Garage Design, ENO Foundation for Transportation, Inc.,
Westport, CT, 1990.
6. Chrest, A. P., Smith, M. S., Bhuyan, S., Monahan, D. R., and
Iqbal, M., Parking Structures: Planning, Design, Construction,
Maintenance and Repair, Third Edition, Chapter 12, Section
12.2.3.2, Drainage, Kiuwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dor
drecht/London.
7. Lew, I. P., Gutman, A., Hoffman, R. G., “Parking Design
Checklist 2000,” The Parking Professional, May 2000, 25 pp.
8. PCi Design Handbook — Precast and Prestressed Concrete,
Fifth Edition, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
IL, 1999.
9. Ugural, A. C., and Fenster, S. K., Advanced Strength and Ap
plied Elasticity, Chapter 1 and 2, Elsevier North-Holland Pub
lishing Company, Inc., 1977.
10. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Struc
tural Concrete (318-99) and Commentary (31 8R-99),” Ameri
can Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
11. PCI Research and Development Committee, Durability of Pre
cast Prestressed Concrete Structures, Prepared by the Consult
ing Engineers Group, Inc. for the Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute, Chicago, IL, 1995.

January-February 2003 45
 APPENDIX A — NOTATION
b long side of deck rectangle
= M = calculated torsion moment
c constant whose value depends on bit ratio
= t = short side of stem rectangle
E = modulus of elasticity T = tangent to membrane parallel to ZX plane
f = specified compressive strength of concrete Tz), = tangent to membrane parallel to ZY plane
fr = modulus of rupture of concrete = vertical warp
G = shear modulus of elasticity = function of orthogonal coordinates X and Y
H =-2G0 = Poisson’s ratio
K = torsion constant for section B = twist angle per unit length
KDeck = torsion contribution to constant K for deck = torsional stress in XZ plane
Ktem = torsion contribution to constant K for stem = torsional stress in YZ plane
Ksjmpie torsion constant for complete double tee section Tmax = maximum torsional stress

APPENDIX B — EXAMPLE OF WARPING FOR DRAINAGE

Fig. B 1 shows a typical framing plan for a two-bay, single
helix parking structure that has been designed in general
conformance with the floor slope recommendations of Sec
tion 1. The west bay includes a 5.83 percent ramp, while the
east bay is flat (not ramped). Typical east bay double tees
are longer than typical west bay tees [64 ft 6 in. and 59 ft 6
in. (19.66 and 18.14 m), respectively] to accommodate a 4 ft
(1.2 m) wide walkway needed to satisfy the client’s require
ment for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces.
The shorter tees are I 0DT22+2 members while the longer
tees are 10DT26+2 and 10DT26+4.
The tees from Gridlines 3 to 8 are pretopped with a 4 in.
(102 mm) thick deck. The short tees by stair cores, by the
southeast notch, and the tees from Gridlines 2 to 3 and 9 to
10 are field-topped with a constant 3 in. (76 mm) thickness
of cast-in-place concrete placed over the precast members.
The rationale for field-topping these tees were to elimi
nate differential cambers between adjacent short/long tees
and the need to slope these tees greater than recommended
values for pretopped members.
In the flat (east) bay, drains are located about every 60 ft
(18.29 m) along Grid B at the wash line. Tees are set at a
constant elevation around the perimeter of the structure
(top-of-tee at elevation zero). Typically then stem bearings
at the west end of tees are lowered and tees warped in a 30
ft (9.14 m) pattern that allows a ridge/valley arrangement to
establish a suitable drainage scheme. Basically, tees are
lowered 16 in. (406 mm) at valley lines and 12 in. (305 mm)
at ridge lines so that over each 30 ft (9.14 m) bay, a 4 in.
(102 mm) rise or fall along Grid B is developed.
Floor slopes resulting from this geometry are 2.07 percent
along valley lines and 1.55 percent along ridge lines. These
slopes are adequate to drain the floor properly. Because
some tees by the elevator/stair core are shorter than typical
tees, slopes along the diagonals vary slightly, but are gener
ally about 1.9 percent. Adjustments were necessary in the
end bays (turning radius bays), to accommodate notches and
not-typical drain locations. On the ramp bay, drains are lo
cated in only two places as shown because water will run
down the ramp along washes.
To accomplish the drainage pattern shown, tees in the flat
bay were warped as shown in Fig. Bi. Table Bi shows the
anticipated stress created in each section given the specified
amount of warp. This example was chosen because it uses
double tee sizes that were not included in the analysis. The
example shows how the information presented in this paper

Table Bi. Double tee warping summary.

Double tee Location Length Warp Angle of Ksjj r Tensile stress range
section (Grids) (ft) (in.) twist (0) 4 per radian)
(in. (psi) (psi) 6j7 (psi)
10DT22+2 1-2&B-C 45.25 1.90 0.000029 2094 344 310 465
10DT26+2 2-3 &B-C 64.33 2.90 0.000031 5003 404 310 465
100T26+4 3-9 & B-C 64.33 1.33 0.000014 7837 230 310 465
10DT26+2 9-10&B-C 64.33 3.00 0.000032 5003 421 310 465

Note: 1 jn.= 25.4 mm; 1 psi = 0.006895 MPa.

46 PCI JOURNAL
C
LI)

LI)

11
CD I-
P RU—K’ RE-V
P 1
P iOU4K.
0• NT-V
PI 4.1
C 5-r
LI)
I I
FL)
0
0
Co) 24’ 24’
P*TEORSMI’\ 7r DDT
LI.
II U II II II II II II II U II U U II II II II II II II II I U II II U H II II II II II IOkTX.CJ1
II II II II II II II U II U II U II II II U II II U II I U II U U U II £01 TON
U U U II II U
.

‘4

I000TNjJJj NAn
T Dali. ROW KM
II II
z T.0.I
01
I— .4
En

‘C
SO.
A TOM
• II1ONOR
II II
0.—D. II
Il4 II II II IL II II

I I I
9 B II —IQ’ j
ui U T. TX
T•TOT44f I U -TI-N’
It U II II ii Ii TOT
hi I’ Ifr.
NOON —000IN
2.0’ 2. 2.4’ 2.N’ 0_N. TiLE
(D)
1.22’ 1.32’ ISO’ ISLE TiLE 1.52’
CR) (
>-I

z
(/,

I’
U II I
:9,, ;9
006

\— 71
-TB’ .7 \
I II It II II U .Il’ II II II II II II II I? II II II II ii II U II II II II T
11
MTt
r’
TTTI
)(‘ II ii ii ii it II ii U II II Ii II H It
II II I II II II II It ii

FIELD TPED TEES

NOTES:
I. THIS STOIJCTORE IS A OWNS HElix DESON. TIlE NEST NAY IS RPAIPED. TIE Enor RAY IS fl_AT
EXCEPT FOR DRAMADE NLOPE5 END any PANGRIG IS PRODDED AT THE SOUTH END OF THE
GRRAGE. OUT NKI.Y A DRIVE LANE COSTS A THE NORTH END.
0. DOUBLE TEES 01 ThE FLAT ODE ME *OOIJT 54—A• LONG MID TO FEET HIDE. THEY ARE PR€TOPPCO
TIITN * 4’ DOOR DECK EXCEPT US INDICATED. THE GELD—TOPPED TEES ARC COVERED IDYll A
CONSTANT t ThICKNESS OF COIAPOSITT TOPPING EXCEPT AT THE TEE ENDS WHERE * FOOT
SIRE WANT TAPERS TO A 0’ TNIOTNCSS
FIGURE 81. TYPICAL FRAMING PLAN 3. DRAWS ODE PL.S ADMIT 50 FEET DPPDT. NIOCE Kilo 501EV tRIES ME LOCATED ODOR! TA
FEET WANT. TEES 01W II hOlES FRTNI THE EXTERIOR DEANTIG TO TIC DITERTOR DENONG AT
VALLEY EWES. OCT TITER ARE TEEMED UP K MOTES TO ROOF ONES OVER THREE TEES *1*0
SCALA i’ — —0’ 0050 FlOOR MOTES DREG THREE TEES TO VALlEY LINES ALONG GRID B. Oils TIRE NOPE
0.000 THE ITOCATED LINES.
I. NETNEEN MO EWES (5)— OWPEKEOTTOI. TWYT — 0.4’ I’ — IA’ —

,• Fig. Bi. Typical framing plan.

can be used to help predict warping behavior of various KTotal = 4 per radian [Eq. (8)]
5003 in.
sizes of double tees.
The following is an explanation of how each item in Table Calculated Shear Stress (-r):
Bi was obtained using the 10DT26+2 at Grids 2-3 and B-C
as an example. From Fig. 11, read off the stress for a 2 in. (51 mm) warp
Double tee section, location, length and warp are obtained 4 per radian)
for the given torsion constant (Kgjmpie = 5003 in.
from Fig. B1. and deck thickness (t = 2 in.):

Angle of Twist (9): warp = 300 psi (2.07 MPa)

Warp Multiply the stress obtained from Fig. 11 by the angle of

Width x Length twist (8 = 0.000031) and divide it by the angle of twist asso
2.90 in. ciated with a 2 in. (51 mm) warp (2” warp = 0.000023).
(l0ftxl2in.ift)(64.33ftx12 in./ft)
var
2
T xQ 300 psi x 0.00003 1
= 0.000031 radians per in. = T
°2,varp 0.00023
= 404 psi (2.79 MPa)
Torsion Constants (K):
Ksjmpie is calculated using the method described in the
“Rational Method to Determine Torsion Stiffness” portion All the stresses in this example fall between 4L and
of this article. See Fig. 4, Table 4 and Eqs. (6), (7) and (8). 6,/j. This does not mean that the tees will not crack, rather
A = 577 sq in. (645.2 mm
)
2 it simply gives a range of stresses for comparison. When
b = 10 ft (3.05 m) using the information presented in this article, it is left to the
2 in. (51 mm) designer’s judgment as to whether the calculated stresses are
h = 26 in. (660.4 mm) acceptable for each individual project.
tsavg 6.48 in. (164.6 mm) This example shows that setting double tee elevations re
bit =60 quires a careful study regarding drainage. This is particu
(h + 2t)it avg = 4.63 larly true when the designer-of-record desires to minimize
1
c = 0.324 (Table 4) the number of floor drains by placing them far apart. Partic
= 0.287 (Table 4) ular attention must be given to the camber of the double
KDcck = 311 in.4 per radian [Eq. (6)] tees. Designers should not depend on camber of the pre
Kgtem 4 per radian [Eq. (7)1
2346 in. stressed members to provide drainage slopes.

48 PCI JOURNAL