ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 102-S42
Evaluation of Code Requirement for 0.6 in. (15 mm)
Prestressing Strand
by Mehmet M. Kose and William R. Burkett
This study investigated the effects of concrete strength and strand
surface condition on the transfer and development lengths of fully
bonded and various combinations of bonded and debonded strands
in AASHTO Type I I-beams. Furthermore, the effect of H-bars on
the transfer length and end-slip of the strand was investigated. Six
beams with lower-strength concrete and rusty strand were tested.
The results were used to evaluate the requirements of ACI and
AASHTO and equations by Buckner and Lane. Transfer length
results showed that ACI, AASHTO, and Buckner equations are
conservative but the Lane equation is very conservative. Development
length results showed that ACI and AASHTO requirements are
conservative for fully bonded strand and are overly conservative for
debonded strand. Buckner and Lane equations are very conservative
for fully bonded strand and decreasingly conservative for debonded
strand. H-bars were effective in decreasing strand end slip and
shear crack widths within the H-bar region.
Keywords: development length; prestressed concrete; transfer length.
INTRODUCTION
The use of newer and improved materials in construction
(such as low-relaxation prestressing strand, 0.6 in.-diameter
[15 mm] prestressing strand, and high-strength concrete)
calls into question several code requirements that were
developed from research conducted using older materials,
properties, and sizes. The efficient use of high-strength
concrete requires a much larger prestressing force to fully
precompress the service load tension zone of the member.
This, in turn, requires a much larger area of prestressing
strand if the strand is pretensioned to its typical value of 75%
of guaranteed ultimate tensile strength. The number of
strands, however, that can be placed in any given I-beam
section on a 2 in. (50 mm) grid spacing is limited. This
necessitates the use of a 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter strand to
obtain the required increase in strand area and prestressing
force. The cross-sectional area of a 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter
strand is over 40% greater than that of a 0.5 in. (13 mm)
diameter strand, which is the more common previously used
size, thus providing over a 40% increase in the prestressing
force with the same number of strands and at the same level
of prestress.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) placed a
moratorium1 on the use of 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter
prestressing strands at a 2 in. (50 mm) grid spacing for
pretensioned bridge applications in October 1988. The
research conducted at Texas Tech University (TTU) in 1996
and the results reported herein are an integral part of a larger
joint research project conducted with The University of Texas
at Austin (UT) for the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) that was designed to provide additional test data
for consideration toward lifting the FHWA moratorium.
Prohibition of the use of 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter prestressing
422
TECHNICAL PAPER
strands at a 2 in. (50 mm) grid spacing in pretensioned
concrete beams was lifted by another FHWA memorandum2
in May of 1996 due to numerous experimental studies that
have been conducted using 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter
prestressing strands. The other 1988 FHWA restrictions
remain in effect.
In a pretensioned concrete beam, the tension force in the
prestressing strand is transferred as a compression force into
the concrete via two primary bond mechanisms: wedge/
friction action and mechanical interlock. The length of beam
required to fully transfer the force in the strand into the
concrete is defined as the transfer length. The efficient
transfer of the prestress force from the steel strand to the
concrete is very important to the composite action of the
materials. Also, sufficient embedment of the strand in the
concrete beyond the point of maximum service load moment
must be available to provide adequate anchorage of the
strand. As flexural moments increase, internal forces in the
strand increase, requiring additional embedment length of
the strand in the concrete for proper anchorage. The length
of embedment required to fully develop the maximum
tension force in the strand is defined as the development
length, which is also very important to the composite action
of the materials. The overall joint project was developed and
executed to provide additional full-scale test data on the
transfer and development lengths of 0.6 in. (15 mm) diameter
prestressing strands for two key variables: concrete strength
and strand surface condition. The effects of the two key
variables were investigated for fully bonded and various
combinations of bonded and debonded strands when used in
standard AASHTO I-beams. Beams tested by TTU were
limited to the lowest of the three concrete strengths used in
the joint project and were limited to strands with rusty
surface conditions. Transfer and development lengths
determined in TTU’s portion of this experimental study are
compared with the values predicted by the current codes
(ACI 318,3 AASHTO-Standard,4 and AASHTO-LFRD5) and
two proposed equations: one by Lane6 and one by Buckner.7
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The main significance of this research is to investigate the
bond performance of 0.6 in.-diameter (50 mm) prestressing
strands in fully bonded and partially debonded pretensioned
concrete beams. Moreover, results obtained from this
research will increase the current available database of
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 3, May-June 2005.
MS No. 04-036 received March 1, 2004, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2005, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-
April 2006 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2005.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005

Mehmet M. Kose is an assistant professor at K. Sutcu Imam University, Kahraman-
maras, Turkey. He received his BS from Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey, and his MS and PhD from Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Tex. His research
interests include reinforced and prestressed concrete design, finite element analysis,
and structural dynamics.
ACI member William R. Burkett is an associate professor at Texas Tech University.
He received his BS from Lamar University, Beaumont, Tex; his Master of Engineering
from Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.; and his PhD from The University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex. His research interests include reinforced and prestressed
concrete design, finite element analysis, and full-scale experimental testing.
The rusty strand had a light, somewhat uniform coating of
rust on the strand. The corrosion, however, was not severe
and had not significantly affected the cross-sectional area of
the strand. Three concrete strength ranges were used during
the project as identified in Table 1. Beams tested by TTU
used the lowest concrete strength range. Actual concrete
strength and modulus of elasticity values were determined
for each I-beam and deck slab at the time of flexural testing.
These values are reported in Table 2.

experimental data for the bond characteristics of 0.6 in.- Beam fabrication
diameter (15 mm) prestressing strands. Consequently, the All specimens tested by TTU were fabricated using a
expanded database could be used to modify the current target beam concrete strength in the 5000 to 7000 psi (34.5
specifications or to set new specifications concerning the to 48.2 MPa) range and a prestressing strand with a rusty
transfer and development lengths of 0.6 in.-diameter (15 mm) surface condition. With these conditions, three pairs of
prestressing strands. Furthermore, the effect of horizontal beams were fabricated with varying levels of bonded/
web reinforcement (H-bar) on transfer and development debonded strands: fully bonded, 50% debonded, and 60%
lengths was investigated. debonded. The specific identification codes assigned to the
six beams tested by TTU were L0R0, L0R1, L4R0, L4R1,
PROJECT OVERVIEW L6R0, and L6R1. The first code character (L) indicates a
The joint project was designed using standard AASHTO lower-strength concrete range in the test specimen. The
Type I I-beams with cast-in-place concrete deck slabs to second code character (0, 4, or 6) indicates the total number
provide additional full-scale test data on the transfer and of debonded strands used in the specimen and represents
development lengths of 0.6 in.-diameter (15 mm) prestressing fully bonded, 50% debonded, and 60% debonded, respectively.
strands. A total of 36 beams were fabricated and tested The third code character (R) indicates a rusty surface condition
during the entire project. The beams were cast in pairs with on the strand used in the test specimen. The fourth code
variations between the pairs in concrete strength, strand character (0 or 1) was an identifier used to distinguish
surface condition, and the percentage of bonded/debonded between the two beams in the like pair. Specific details as to
strands used. Table 1 provides the test matrix and target the number and location of strands, levels of initial prestress,
material values used in the overall project as well as those and lengths of debonding are provided for the three-beam
assigned to the beams tested by TTU. Each end of each beam Series L0RX, L4RX, and L6RX in Fig. 1, 2, and 3, respec-
was tested separately resulting in the four tests per pair of tively. In Specimens L0RX and L4RX, two strands were placed
beams as shown in Table 1. It should be noted that each beam in the upper region of the beams and stressed to only 92 ksi
end was tested separately for both transfer length and devel-
opment length. Thus, six beams (three pairs) resulted in Table 1—Test matrix and material target values
12 tests for transfer length and 12 tests for development
Steel strand
length. The test results were compared with ACI 318,
Bright Rusty
AASHTO-Standard, and AASHTO-LRFD code requirements
and to requirements proposed by Buckner and by Lane. Concrete Fully Debonded Fully Debonded
strength, psi bonded 50% 60% 75% bonded 50% 60% 75%
FABRICATION 5000 to 4/UT 4/UT 4/UT — 4/TTU 4/TTU 4/TTU —
7000
Material properties
The prestressing steel used in this project was a 0.6 in.-diam- 9500 to 4/UT 4/UT — 4/UT 4/UT 4/UT — 4/UT
11,500
eter (15 mm), seven-wire, low-relaxation strand with a specified
13,000 to
ultimate tensile strength of 270 ksi (1860.3 MPa) and a nominal 4/UT 4/UT — 4/UT 4/UT 4/UT — 4/UT
15,000
cross-sectional area of 0.217 in.2 (140 mm2).8,9 A rusty strand
surface condition was used in all the beams tested during
TTU’s portion of this study, whereas bright and rusty strand Table 2—Concrete material properties
surface conditions were used in UT’s portion of the study. Precast beam Deck slab
Beam 6
series ′ , psi
f ci f c′ , psi Ec, 10 psi f c′ , psi Ec, 106 psi
L0R0-1 4540 5440 4.20 6500 4.42
L0R0-2 4540 5440 4.20 6500 4.42
L0R1-3 4540 5440 4.20 6120 4.32
L0R1-4 4540 5440 4.20 6120 4.35
L4R0-1 3790 5050 3.80 5835 4.29
L4R0-2 3790 5050 3.80 5700 4.29
L4R1-3 3790 5050 3.80 6070 4.31
L4R1-4 3790 5050 3.80 5700 4.32
L6R0-1 4630 7480 5.45 6850 4.69
L6R0-2 4630 7480 5.45 5360 4.12
L6R1-3 4630 7480 5.45 6360 4.48
Fig. 1—Beam cross section of L0RX series. L6R1-4 4630 7480 5.45 6360 4.48

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005 423

(634 MPa), as shown in Fig. 1 and 2, to help control tensile
stresses in the top extreme fiber of the beams at release.
The specimen cross sections were developed through an
iterative process that sought to optimize the concrete deck size
and the number and location of the prestressing strands.
Specimen configurations were controlled by project specifi-
cations that required that the bottom row of prestressing
strand should reach a minimum ultimate tensile strain of
0.035 during flexural testing, that the levels of stress in the
concrete at release remained within code allowable limits,
and six strands should be contained in the bottom row of
strands. Also, in the L6RX series, debonded strands were
placed in the web of the beam to address concerns about web
shear cracking. The split sheathing method of debonding
was used to prevent a bond from developing between the
concrete and the prestressing strand where specified.
Deck slab fabrication
A 6.5 in. (165 mm) thick by 60 in. (1524 mm) wide
(1524 mm) reinforced concrete deck slab was cast-in-place
to provide composite action with the I-beam. The deck slab
details were selected to model an in-place bridge deck and to
provide a compression flange adequate to fully develop the
prestressing strands and strain them to a total strain greater
than 3.5% at ultimate, well beyond their yield strain. Specific
deck slab details are shown in Fig. 4.
TRANSFER LENGTH TESTS
Prior to the release of the prestress force, Demec points
were epoxied to each side of the lower beam flange on both
ends of the beams at the height of the centroid of the
prestressing strands in the bottom flange. They were placed
on an approximate 2 in.-center-to-center (50 mm) spacing
Fig. 2—Beam cross section of L4RX series.
Fig. 3—Beam cross section of L6RX series.
424
over a distance greater than the estimated transfer length.
Measurements were then taken using a Demec mechanical
strain gauge device to determine the actual distance between
the Demec points, shown in Fig. 5. These measurements
were taken twice along each series of Demec points,
resulting in two sets of measurements along each series of
Demec points. If a significant variation occurred between
the two sets of measurements was observed, additional
measurements were taken until the discrepancy was
resolved. This general procedure was used every time
Demec point measurements were taken.
Immediately after release, Demec point measurements
were taken again using the same general procedure described
previously. Knowing the distance between any pair of Demec
points prior to and after release, the compressive strain
between the points caused by the release of the prestress
force was determined. Using this data, a concrete compression
strain profile along each end of each beam was developed
and was used to evaluate the transfer length of the strand in
each beam. In addition, Demec point measurements were taken
4 to 6 weeks after release to investigate long-term effects on
transfer lengths. Concrete compression strain profiles were also
developed from the delayed Demec point measurements.
DEVELOPMENT LENGTH TESTS
A typical configuration of the test geometry used during
this portion of the project is shown in Fig. 6. After completion
of the first flexural test (as shown in Fig. 6) on the left-hand
end of the member, the supports and load-spreader beam
were moved to the opposite end of the specimen using an
approximate mirror image, and a second similar flexural test
was conducted on the undamaged right-hand end of the
member. The distance from the end of the member to the first
load point is equal to the sum of unbonded length and the
embedment length of the prestressing strand and is shown as
Lub + Le. The beam span Ls was selected large enough to
prevent a shear failure from occurring and to allow two tests
Fig. 4—Concrete deck slab details.
Fig. 5—Demec point measurements.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
to be conducted on each beam (one on each end). Ls,
however, was selected small enough to prevent significant
damage from occurring to the beam near the midlength
support. Any damage to the beam near the midlength support
or at the far end would affect the bond between the
prestressing strand and the concrete in that region and would
have the potential to impact the results of the far end test. The
dimension a was selected to provide a constant moment
region between the two spreader beam load points.
The last test of each series always tested the end of the
beam in each pair that contained extra hairpin H-bars in the
lower web end region. The embedment length for the last test
in each series was set equal to the shortest embedment length
of that series in which a flexural failure mode occurred. This
was done to determine whether or not the H-bars had any
impact on the response of the beam.
Prior to loading, instrumentation was installed for test data
collection. Test data included applied load, beam deflection
at the load center point, concrete strain in the top fiber of the
deck slab in the constant moment region, and prestressing
strand end-slip. The load was applied incrementally to the
beam by a 400 ton (3560 N) hydraulic ram. Test data values
were recorded at each load increment.
TEST RESULTS
Transfer length
Short-term and long-term transfer lengths were determined
for each beam using the beam’s concrete compression strain
profile. To reduce variations in the strain data, the data was
smoothed by averaging the strain at a point over three points
along the length of the beam. The following equation was
used to smooth the strain data
εi – 1 + εi + εi + 1
εi,smoothed = ------------------------------------
- (1)
3
Fig. 6—Test geometry.
Fig. 7—Typical smoothed strain profile for fully bonded
strands.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
Typical smoothed strain profiles for beams with fully
bonded, 50% debonded, and 60% debonded strands are
shown in Fig. 7, 8, and 9, respectively. While only one
transfer region exists at each end of the beam with only a
fully bonded strand, it should be noted that there are three
and four transfer regions on each end of each beam
containing 50% and 60% debonded strands, respectively. A
transfer region exists at each location where debonding stops
and bonding between the strand and concrete starts.
The 95% average maximum strain (AMS) method was
applied to the smoothed concrete compression strain data to
determine the transfer length in each transfer region of each
beam. This method is described in detail in Russell and
Burns.10 In this method, the AMS for the specimen was
determined by computing the numerical average of all of the
compressive strains contained within the plateau region of
the strain profile at the end of the beam. A line corresponding
to 95% of the AMS was drawn. For fully bonded strand, the
transfer length was selected as the distance from the end of
the beam to the intersection of the 95% AMS line and the
beam’s strain profile. For the partially debonded strand, the
transfer length was selected as the distance from the
debonding point of that strand to the intersection of the 95%
AMS line and the beam’s strain profile. The corresponding
calculated values for the experimental short-term and
long-term transfer lengths are provided in Table 3.
Effect of time and debonding on transfer lengths
The effect that time and debonding of strands has on the
transfer length was also considered. Because of the variability
or scatter of data typically associated with experimental
work, average or mean values were used to look at the effect
of time and debonding. As seen from Table 3, transfer
Fig. 8—Typical smoothed strain profile for 50% debonded
strands.
Fig. 9—Typical smoothed strain profile for 60% debonded
strands.
425
lengths increased with time as well as with increases in
levels of debonding. Increases in transfer length with time
range from 8 to 12%. Also, as seen from Table 3, the transfer
length is longer in beams with debonded strands. Short-term
transfer lengths for fully bonded strands increased by 12%
when 60% of the strands were debonded. Long-term transfer
lengths for fully bonded strands increased by 8% when 60%
of the strands were debonded.
Development length
The development length was determined for each given
beam series (L0RX, L4RX, and L6RX) by testing each of the
four beam ends from each series with incrementally shortened
strand embedment lengths. When the failure mode changed
from a flexural mode to a hybrid or a bond slip mode, the
development length was bracketed. The development length
for each beam series was taken as the shortest strand
embedment length at which a flexural failure mode occurred.
From this definition, the development length for each of the
three beam series was determined to be 54, 96, and 114 in.
(1372, 2438, and 2896 mm) from tests L0R1-3, L4R1-3, and
L6R0-1, respectively. Only one bond slip failure mode
occurred: Beam Test L4R0-2. Three beams (L6R0-2, L6R1-3,
and L6R1-4) failed in a hybrid mode. The hybrid mode was
characterized by an end-slip of approximately 0.1 in. (0.25 mm)
when the theoretical moment capacity of the section was
reached. It should be noted again that the strand embedment
length for the fourth beam end tested in each series was a
repeated value from a previous test in an effort to determine
H-bar effects on the strand development length.
Effect of H-bars
Two identical tests were done on each of the three beam
series to evaluate the effect of the H-bars on end-slippage of
the prestressing strands. Because the second beam in each of
the three series (L0RX, L4RX, and L6RX) had the H-bars
installed at only one end, these beams were tested with the
same embedment length on each end of the beam.
In the L0RX series, the length of the H-bars extended
beyond the critical section. Because the H-bars were inside
the maximum moment region and had enough flexural bond
length beyond the critical section, they increased the beam
moment capacity. Because there was no end-slip in either of
the identical tests of this series, the effect of the H-bars on
end-slip for the fully bonded strands could not be determined.
In the L4RX and L6RX series, the H-bars did not extend
into the critical section as in the L0RX series. Therefore, the
H-bars were outside of the maximum moment region and did
not affect the beams’ moment capacities. The maximum
end-slip reduced from 0.028 in. (0.71 mm) in Beam Test
L4R1-3 to 0.005 in. (0.127 mm) in Beam Test L4R1-4 that
had the H-bars. No significant end-slip effect was observed
in the L6RX series between Beam Tests L6R1-3 and L6R1-4.
Another effect of the H-bars that was observed in all three
series was that of reduced crack widths in the H-bar regions.

COMPARISON WITH CODE AND

PROPOSED EQUATIONS
Transfer lengths
The values of the short-term and long-term transfer
lengths that were experimentally determined in this project
are compared with three code values (ACI 318, AASHTO-
Standard, and AASHTO-LRFD) and to two proposed equations:
one by Buckner and one by Lane. All of the comparative
equations are provided in Table 4. The transfer length values
Fig. 10—Comparison of short- and long-term transfer from Table 3 were normalized by dividing by db, 0.6 in.
lengths with code values. (15 mm), for use in Fig. 10, 11, and 12.

Table 3—Short- and long-term transfer lengths

First, in. Second, in. Third, in. Fourth, in. Beam end average, in.
Beam series ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
L0R0-1 16.0 16.5 — — — — — — 16.0 16.5
L0R0-2 18.0 22.0 — — — — — — 18.0 22.0
L0R1-3 16.5 18.5 — — — — — — 16.5 18.5
L0R1-4 15.5 18.5 — — — — — — 15.5 18.5
Mean 16.5 19.0 — — — — — — 16.5 19.0
L4R0-1 14.0 12.5 16.0 19.5 14.5 18.0 — — 15.0 16.5
L4R0-2 15.0 16.0 16.5 26.5 27.5 29.5 — — 20.0 24.0
L4R1-3 13.5 15.0 20.0 19.5 30.5 28.5 — — 21.5 21.0
L4R1-4 17.0 16.5 * * * * — — 17.0 16.5
Mean 15.0 15.0 17.5 22.0 24.0 25.5 — — 18.5 20.0
L6R0-1 16.5 15.0 17.5 18.5 27.5 30.0 19.5 18.5 20.5 20.5
L6R0-2 19.5 18.5 24.0 24.0 21.5 20.5 16.0 21.0 20.5 21.0
L6R1-3 17.5 14.5 23.5 23.5 16.0 19.5 14.5 22.0 18.0 20.0
L6R1-4 14.0 16.5 21.0 23.0 24.5 22.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.5
Mean 17.0 15.0 21.5 21.0 22.5 23.0 17.5 20.0 19.5 20.5
*Transfer length could not be calculated because of erratic strain profile.

426 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005

 Short-term and long-term experimentally determined
transfer lengths for each beam series are compared with code
values in Fig. 10. It can be seen that only one short-term
transfer length exceeds the current ACI and AASHTO-
Standard code values of 50db. This occurred in the third
transfer region of Beam L4R1-3 where the transfer length of
30.5 in. (775 mm) exceeds the code requirement by 1.6%.
There were two other transfer lengths—one short-term and
one long-term—that had values of 30 in. (762 mm), exactly
matching the code requirement of 50db. It can also be seen in
Fig. 10 that no transfer length values, short-term or long-term,
reached or exceeded the AASHTO-LRFD code requirement
of 60db. Short-term and long-term experimentally determined
transfer length values are compared with values predicted by
Buckner’s equation in Fig. 11. No experimentally determined
transfer lengths exceed Buckner’s predicted values. Also,
Fig. 11—Comparison of short- and long-term transfer
short-term and long-term experimentally determined
length with Buckner equation.
transfer length values are compared with values predicted by
Lane’s equation in Fig. 12. It can be seen that no experi-
mentally determined transfer lengths exceed Lane’s
predicted values. It should be noted that Lane’s equation
yielded very conservative results.

Development lengths
The development lengths were selected for Beam Series
L0RX, L4RX, and L6RX as 54, 96, and 114 in. (1372, 2438,
and 2896 mm), respectively, as discussed previously. The
experimentally determined and equation-predicted values of
the development length for each beam series are provided in
Table 5.
The development lengths for Beam Series L0RX as
predicted by the three equations are significantly longer than
the value experimentally determined, as seen in Table 5.
This shows that all three equations yield fairly conservative
Fig. 12—Comparison of short- and long-term transfer predictions with regard to development length for fully
lengths with Lane equation. bonded strands. The development lengths for the Beam
Series L4RX and L6RX as predicted by the three equations
Table 4—Equations used to compare have mixed results when compared with the values experi-
with measured data mentally determined in this project. The code equations for
Author Transfer length Development length fully bonded strand overpredict the development lengths
L d = L t ( f ps – f se )d b determined in this portion of the project. The limited data in
ACI 318 f se this portion of the project indicates that debonding some of
AASHTO - d b ≈ 50d b
L t = ----
=  f ps – --- f se d b
2
Standard 3  3 
the strands increases the development length of the strand. It
appears, however, that the current code factor of 2 is overly
AASHTO- Lt = 60db L d =  f ps – --- f se d b
2 conservative. With respect to Beam Series L4RX and L6RX,
LRFD  3  both the Buckner and the Lane equations again yield
4f 6.4 ( f ps – f se )d b
conservative development length values for beams with
Lane L t = -------pt- d b – 5 L d = L t ----------------------------------
- + 15 some percentage of debonded strands. Both the Buckner and
f c′ f ′c
the Lane equations yield less conservative results as the
1250f Ld = Lt + λ(fps – fse)db 1.0 ≤ λ ≤ 2.0 percentage of debonded strands increases.
L t = ----------------si- d b
Ec λ = (0.6 + 40εps) or
Buckner
f si β CONCLUSIONS
≈ ----d b (0.72 + 0.102 -----1- )
3 ωp Average short-term transfer lengths increased by 15, 8,
and 5% over time for Beam Series L0RX, L4RX, and L6RX,
respectively. Also, average values of both short- and long-term
Table 5—Comparison of development lengths transfer lengths for each beam series increased as the number
Experimental
Code Buckner Lane of debonded strands increased. Average values of short-term
Beam
series ld, in. ld, in. Ratio* ld, in. Ratio* ld, in. Ratio* transfer lengths for fully bonded strands increased by 12 and
L0RX 54 94 0.57 160 0.34 171 0.32 18% as 50 and 60% of the strands were debonded, respectively.
Average values of long-term transfer lengths for fully
L4RX 96 94† 1.02 159 0.60 183 0.52
bonded strands increased by 5 and 8% as 50 and 60% of the
L6RX 114 96† 1.19 164 0.70 129 0.88 strands were debonded, respectively.
*
Ratio = ld,exp./ld,predicted. All individual short- and long-term transfer length values
†
Code requires equation values to be doubled for debonded strand. that were experimentally determined were compared with

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005 427

 code requirements for ACI-318, AASHTO-Standard, and
AASHTO-LRFD. Only one short-term transfer length value
exceeded the 50db requirement. None of the short-term
transfer length values exceeded the 60db requirement. Also,
none of the long-term transfer length values exceeded either
the 50db or 60db requirements.
All individual short- and long-term transfer length values
that were experimentally determined were compared with
those predicted by the Buckner and the Lane equations.
None of the short- or long-term transfer length values
exceeded the value predicted by the Buckner or the Lane
equations. The Lane equation, however, was shown to be
extremely conservative.
The development lengths from this project were compared
with the requirements of the three codes (ACI 318,
AASHTO-Standard, and AASHTO-LRFD). Beam Series
L0RX had a development length that was 57% of the code
requirement. This would indicate that the code requirement
for a fully bonded strand is adequate and that the additional
FHWA requirement to increase the code value by 1.6 is not
necessary. The experimentally determined development length
values for Beam Series L4RX and L6RX, which contained
debonded strand, are 51 and 59% of the code requirement,
respectively. This indicates that some lengthening of the devel-
opment length for debonded strands is necessary, but that the
current code requirement of doubling may be too conservative.
The development lengths determined in this project were
compared with values predicted by the Buckner and the Lane
equations. The development length values that were experi-
mentally determined in this project are 34, 60, and 70% of
the values predicted by the Buckner equation and 32, 52, and
88% of the values predicted by the Lane equation for Series
L0RX, L4RX, and L6RX, respectively. This indicates that
the Buckner and the Lane equations are very conservative
for fully bonded strands and decreasingly conservative for
beams containing debonded strands.
Two identical tests were done on each of the three beam
series to evaluate the effect of additional hairpin-shaped
reinforcing bars, H-bars, that were installed in only one end
of the beam in its lower web region. In all three beam series,
smaller crack widths were observed in the H-bar region of
the beams that contained the H-bars. No strand end-slip was
observed in the L0RX beam series. The maximum end-slip was
reduced from 0.028 to 0.005 in. (0.71 to 0.127 mm) in the L4RX
beam series, indicating some possible H-bar benefit. No signif-
icant end-slip effect was observed in the L6RX beam series.
428
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of N. Burns and R. Barnes
from University of Texas-Austin (UT-Austin) for their cooperation and support
in this project. We also thank H. L. Jobson, J. W. Grove, J. H. Kilgore, and
U. Tuladar from UT-Austin for their help in reading data at the Texas Con-
crete Plant in Victoria, Tex. We also want to thank the people at the Texas
Concrete Co. in Victoria, Tex., for their cooperation and contribution to this
project.
NOTATION
a = distance to provide constant moment region between two loader
beam load points
db = diameter of prestressing steel, in.
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, ksi
f ′c = concrete compressive strength at 28 days, ksi
fps = stress in prestress strand at nominal strength, ksi
fpt = initial stress in prestressing steel prior to transfer, ksi
fse = effective stress in prestress strand after all losses, ksi
fsi = initial stress in prestressing steel, immediately after release, ksi
Le = embedment length of prestressing strand
Ls = beam span
Lub = unbonded length of prestressing strand
εi = measured concrete strain data
REFERENCES
1. Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), “Memorandum,” FHWA,
Washington, D.C., Oct. 26, 1988.
2. Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), “Memorandum,” FHWA,
Washington, D.C., May 8, 1996.
3. ACI Committee 318, “”Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), “LRFD Specifications for Highway Bridges,” 2nd Edition,
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1998, 1216 pp.
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,” 16th Edition,
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1996, 760 pp.
6. Buckner, C. D., “An Analysis of Transfer and Development Lengths
For Pretensioned Concrete Structures,” Research Report FHWA-RD-94-
049, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Military
Institute, Lexington, Va., 1994, 108 pp.
7. Lane, S. N., “A New Development Length Equation for Pretensioned
Strands in Bridge Beams and Piles,” Research Report FHWA-RD-98-116,
Structures Division, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Va., 1998,
131 pp.
8. Nawy, E. G., Prestressed Concrete, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, N.J.,
1999, 938 pp.
9. Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), PCI Design Handbook—Precast
and Prestressed Concrete, 5th Edition, Chicago, 1999, 540 pp.
10. Russell, B. W., and Burns, N. H., “Design Guidelines for Transfer,
Development and Debonding of Large Diameter Seven Wire Strands in
Pretensioned Concrete Girders,” Research Report 1210-5F, Center for
Transportation Research, the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.,
Jan. 1993, 300 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2005
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.