2 views

Uploaded by Chan Dara Koem

Bond of 13 Mm Prestressing Steel Strands in Pretensioned Concrete Members

- IRC sp.065.2005
- Sika PDS E Intraplast ZX
- Methodology for Stressing of Psc Girders (c)
- c 04601011014
- Cnpy - Semi Integral AbutmentBridges
- Slab on Grade en[1]
- 0_1405_9
- 4- Prestressed Concrete
- A Ash To
- VSL_News_2002_1
- 580646
- Is.1343.2012(PrestressedConcrete)
- lampiran rasuk (beam).pdf
- SongwutHengprathaneeDissertation.pdf
- dsi-usa-dywidag-bonded-post-tensioning-systems-us.pdf
- Finite Element Analysis
- FMDS0101.pdf
- Crm
- Chapter 4 Introduction to Prestressed Concrete
- Vol1_SDG

You are on page 1of 10

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

J.R. Martí-Vargas ⇑, P. Serna, J. Navarro-Gregori, L. Pallarés

Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 4G, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an experimental research work to determine both the transmission and the anchor-

Received 5 May 2011 age lengths of seven-wire prestressing steel strands in different concrete mixes. A testing technique

Revised 22 February 2012 based on a bond behavior analysis by measuring the force supported by the prestressing strand on a ser-

Accepted 30 March 2012

ies of specimens with different embedment lengths has been used. Relationships between the average

Available online 7 May 2012

bond stress for both the transmission length and anchorage length as a function of the concrete compres-

sive strength have been found. Equations to compute transmission and anchorage lengths of 13 mm pre-

Keywords:

stressing strands have been obtained. The experimental results have been compared with the theoretical

Bond

Concrete

prediction from proposed equations in the literature and with experimental results from other authors.

Strand Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Prestress

Transmission length

Anchorage length

Transfer length

Development length

1. Introduction ment, have been conducted over the years. Bond strength, as well

as transmission and anchorage lengths, depend on several factors

In pretensioned concrete members, the prestressing force in the [1,3]: concrete strength at the time of the prestress transfer, initial

reinforcement is transferred to the concrete by the bond in the end reinforcement stress, concrete cover, prestress transfer process

region of the member. Furthermore, when a pretensioned concrete condition, reinforcement geometry, reinforcement surface condi-

member is loaded, the activation of bond stress increases the pre- tion, concrete strength at the time of loading, etc. However, no con-

stressing reinforcement force. Therefore, in pretensioned concrete sensus has been reached on the main parameters to be considered

members it is essential a correct design and an accurate prediction in the equations to calculate both transmission and anchorage

of the lengths affected in the end region of the member by means lengths. An example of this is ACI Code 318-11 [2], provisions for

of the required bond stress. transmission (transfer) and anchorage (development) lengths

In the end region of a pretensioned concrete member and after which are not a function of concrete strength. On the other hand,

the prestress transfer operation, the stress in the prestressing rein- Eurocode 2 [4] and Model Code 2010 [5] provisions for transmis-

forcement varies from zero at the free end to a maximum value sion and anchorage lengths include concrete properties.

(effective stress) along the distance, deﬁned as the transmission Nowadays, it is assumed that bond performance is essential for

length in agreement with the terminology presented in [1] (trans- an adequate response of pretensioned prestressed concrete appli-

fer length according to [2]). When a pretensioned concrete mem- cations. ACI 318-11 [2] indicates that the quality assurance proce-

ber is loaded, a complementary bond length beyond the dures for bonded applications should be used to conﬁrm that the

transmission length is required to develop the corresponding rein- bond properties of reinforcement are adequate. However, there

forcement stress from the effective prestress. The embedment are no minimum requirements for the bond performance of pre-

length from the free end required to reach a design stress is known stressing strands in [2], or in standards like in [6,7].

as the anchorage length [1] (development length according to [2]). In spite of the large number of experimental research works

The anchorage length is obtained as the sum of the transmission carried out, there is no consensus on a standard test method for

length and the complementary bond length. bond quality [1]. Recently, an experimental methodology has been

Several theoretical and experimental works about bond and developed, the ECADA test method, which is based on both the

transmission, and on anchorage lengths of prestressing reinforce- measurement and analysis of the force supported by the reinforce-

ment in specimen series with different embedment lengths [8],

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 96 387700775612; fax: +34 96 3877569. and its feasibility has been veriﬁed [9].

E-mail addresses: jrmarti@cst.upv.es (J.R. Martí-Vargas), pserna@cst.upv.es (P. The purpose of this research study is to develop an analytical

Serna), juanagre@cst.upv.es (J. Navarro-Gregori), luipalru@cst.upv.es (L. Pallarés). bond model to predict the transmission and anchorage lengths of

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.056

404 J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412

13 mm prestressing steel strands for bond characterization. To this in prestressing reinforcement after prestress transfer, rp2 the stress

end, an experimental program to determine transmission and in prestressing reinforcement at loading, Ap the cross-sectional area

anchorage lengths, as well as the average bond stress along both of prestressing reinforcement, LA the anchorage length.

the transmission length and the complementary bond length in Fig. 1 shows the idealized increase of the prestressing reinforce-

12 concretes of different compositions and properties, by means ment stress with the embedment length from the free end accord-

of the ECADA test method, has been set up. The experimental re- ing to the bilinear model presented.

sults have been compared with other theoretical and experimental According to Fig. 1 (LA = LT + LC), several equations based on

studies found in the literature. experimental results have been proposed by several codes and

authors to predict the transmission and the anchorage lengths.

2. Background Table 1 shows some of these equations for seven-wire prestressing

strands. For each reference, the equations for transmission length

According to [10], the uniform bond stress distribution hypoth- (Equations (a)) and for complementary bond length (Equations

esis is an unattainable limit since a portion zone that behaves in an (b)) are indicated, resulting in the corresponding equation for

elastic way will always exist in both the transmission length and anchorage length as Equation (c) = Equation (a) + Equation (b).

the complementary bond length. An analytical bond model for Complementary bond length is deduced as LC = LA LT for the case

anchorage length that considers both the plastic and elastic zones of Ref. [15]. Once the notation of the different equations has been

along the transmission and complementary bond lengths was pro- adapted from their original form to SI Units, then:

posed in [11]. These elastic zones are located one after the other at

the end of the transmission length, and also at the beginning of the / nominal diameter of prestressing strand

complementary bond length. However, a plastic response along the rpt initial prestress in prestressing strand prior to release

almost entire transmission length [12,13], and a very small elastic rpi effective stress in prestressing strand just after prestress

zone in the case of complementary bond length [14], have been transfer

reported. rpa maximum stress in strand at loading (for design stress

Currently, the uniform bond stress distribution hypothesis is [5], at nominal strength [2])

generally accepted by several codes [2,4,5] and authors [15–28], rpcs effective stress in prestressing strand after all prestress

which assumes linear variations of the prestressing reinforcement losses

stress for both the transmission and complementary bond lengths, fci concrete compressive strength at time of release

resulting in a bilinear model. fcl concrete compressive strength at loading

In order to obtain the equilibrium of a prestressing reinforce- fc concrete compressive strength at 28 days

ment, the transfer bond force over the transmission length and

the anchorage bond force along the complementary bond length

must equal the force in the prestressing reinforcement according It should be noted that Table 1 includes several equations for

to Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively; consequently, the anchorage transmission length: rp1 = rpi [4,5,16–20,23,24] and others

length can be obtained from Eq. (3): rp1 = rpcs [2,11]. Some cases correspond to the variations proposed

for the ACI Code provisions, which ﬁrst appeared in 1963 [29] and

U T Rp LT ¼ rp1 Ap ð1Þ were derived from Eq. (3) taking into account UT = 2.76 MPa and

UC = 0.94 MPa [30]. This equation has remained up to date in [2]

U C Rp LC ¼ ðrp2 rp1 ÞAp ð2Þ and is applied for all types of concrete in spite of a considerable

number of proposed changes that includes concrete strength

rp1 Ap ðrp2 rp1 ÞAp [11,16,21,24]. In addition, several authors [16,17,19–21,24]

LA ¼ LT þ LC ¼ þ ð3Þ

U T Rp U C Rp consider that the use of term rpi, rather than rpcs, to compute

where UT is the average bond stress along the transmission length, transmission length is more rational, and in [17,19,20,22] the

UC the average bond stress along the complementary bond length, UT = 2.76 MPa is retained resulting in greater transmission lengths.

Rp the perimeter of prestressing reinforcement, LT the transmission For design purposes, it is generally considered that the trans-

length, LC the complementary bond length, rp1 the effective stress mission length (with rp1 = rpi or rp1 = rpcs) established at the time

of the prestress transfer does not signiﬁcantly change with time.

The anchorage length prediction takes into account the term

rp1 = rpcs in the complementary bond length in all the cases pre-

sented in Table 1, except in [25] (rp1 = rpt). This exception is con-

sidered in [25] to obtain the best coefﬁcient of correlation (R2) in

several simple regression models based on measured complemen-

tary bond lengths (R2 = 0.47 when rp1 = rpcs and R2 = 0.69 when

rp1 = rpt; for transmission length, R2 = 0.40 is obtained).

Figs. 2–4 present the transmission length, complementary bond

length, and anchorage length of a seven-wire 13 mm prestressing

steel strand, respectively. These lengths have been predicted from

the equations in Table 1 for concrete compressive strength at the

time of prestress transfer fci, which is equal to 30 MPa and

50 MPa in these comparisons. The following relationships have

been adopted: rpt = 0.75fpu (fpu = 1860 MPa, speciﬁed tensile

strength of prestressing strand), rpi = 0.93rpt, rpcs = 0.8rpt,

rpa = 0.9fpu and fcl = 1.5fci. For the ap2 factor included in the

MC2010 [5] to consider the action effect to be veriﬁed in design

(ap2 = 1 for calculation of anchorage length when moment and

shear capacity is considered; ap2 = 0.5 for veriﬁcation of transverse

Fig. 1. Idealized strand stress proﬁle along the anchorage length. stress in anchorage zone), a value of ap2 = 0.75 has been adopted by

J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412 405

Table 1

Proposed equations for transmission length and anchorage length from the literature (in MPa and mm).

Source [reference] Eq. Equations (a) for Equations (b) for Remarks

number transmission length (LT) complementary bond length

(LC)

ACI 318-63 [29] ACI 318-11 [2] (4) r /

pcs

LT ¼ 20:7 LC ¼ 0:145ðrpa rpcs Þ/

Martin and Scott [15] (5) LT ¼ 80/ LC = LA LT /

LA ¼ 2:69 ðrpa 1595 Þ

/1=6

Zia and Mostafa [16] (gradual release) (6) LT ¼ a

rpi /

b LC ¼ 0:181ðrpa rpcs Þ/ For gradual release: a = 1.3; b = 58 For sudden release:

fci

a = 1.5; b = 117

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Cousins et al. [11] (7) rpcspAp

ﬃﬃﬃﬃ þ 0:5 U 0t fci LC ¼

ðrpa rpcs ÞAp

pﬃﬃﬃ For uncoated strands: U 0t ¼ 0:556; B = 0.0815 MPa/mm;

LT ¼ B p/U0c fc

p/U 0t fci U 0c ¼ 0:110

Shahawy et al. [17] (LT) (8) rpi / LC ¼ 0:145

r rpcs Þ/

ð pa k = 2 for piles k = 1 for slabs and slender members k = 0.5

LT ¼ 20:7 k

Shahawy [18] (LC) when LA/h 6 3 (h = overall thickness of member)

Deatherage et al. [19] (9) LT ¼

rpi / LC ¼ 0:218ðrpa rpcs Þ/

20:7

Buckner [20] (10) LT ¼

rpi / LC ¼ k 0:145ðrpa rpcs Þ/ 16k62

20:7

qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ qﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Mitchell et al. [21] (11) LT ¼

rpi / 20:7

LC ¼ 0:145ðrpa rpcs Þ/ 30

20:7 fci fc

ðrpcs =0:8Þ/

rpa rpa

Tadros and Baishya [22] (12) LT ¼ LC ¼ 186 8 ðrpa rpcs Þ/ 186 8P1

20:7

Lane [23] (13) 4rpt / 6:4ðrpa rpcs Þ/

LT ¼ fc

127 LC ¼ fc

þ 381

Mahmoud et al. [24] (14) rpi / ðrpa rpcs Þ/ at = 2.4 for steel strands af no reported rpcs = effective

LT ¼ 0:67

at fci

LC ¼ af fcl0:67

prestress at loading

Kose and Burkett [25] (15) LT ¼ 0:05

rpt p

ð1/Þ

ﬃﬃﬃ

2

LC ¼ 203:2 þ 0:22

ðrpa rpt Þð1/Þ

pﬃﬃﬃ

2

fc fc

EC2-2004 [4] (16) r ðr r Þ a1 (type of release); a2 (area factor,); gp1 and gp2 account

LT ¼ a1 a2 / g gpif LC ¼ a2 / gpa g fpcs

p1 1 ctdi p2 1 ctd

for the tendon type; g1 account the bond conditions; fctdi

and fctd (concrete tensile strength)

MC 2010 [5] (17) A r A ðr r Þ ap1(type of release); ap2 (action effect to be veriﬁed); ap3

LT ¼ ap1 ap2 ap3 p/p g g pi f LC ¼ p/p g pag fpcs

p1 p2 ctdi p1 p2 ctd

(bond situation); Ap/p/ = 7//36; gp1 (tendon type); gp2

(tendon position); fctdi and fctd (concrete tensile strength)

ratio

EC2-2004/MC2010 [4,5] Eq. (16) (17) (gradual) 1,5

Mahmoud et al.1992 [24] Eq. (14) 1,4

Lane 1998 [23] Eq. (13) 1,8

Tadros and Baishya 1996 [22] Eq. (12) 1,0

Deatherage et al. 1994 [19] Eq. (9) 1,0

Cousins et al. 1990 [11] Eq. (7) 1,2

Transmission length for fci = 50 MPa (LT,50)

the authors from the established values ap2 = 1 and ap2 = 0.5 for the which are related to concrete strength. The ratios of the lengths ob-

upper bound and lower bound values of transmission length, tained for both concrete compressive strengths are shown in the

respectively. With ap2 = 0.75, the provisions for the transmission ﬁgures.

length from [4,5] coincide. Regarding to the experimental results of transmission and

Figs. 2–4 show the wide ranges of predicted values by means of anchorage lengths obtained in the literature, the values of the

different equations of transmission length, complementary bond transmission lengths for 13 mm prestressing steel strands are

length and anchorage length, respectively. In addition, it may be around 600–700 mm, with minimum values of 330–350 mm

seen that these lengths are always decreased when concrete [21,24] and maximum of 1800 mm [11]. Anchorage length values

strength increases for the lengths predicted from those equations are often above 2000 mm [11,19], although some are also around

406 J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412

EC2-2004/MC2010 [4,5] Eq. (16) (17) (gradual) 1,5

Kose and Burkett 2005 [25] Eq. (15) 1,2 LC,30 / LC,50

ratio

Lane 1998 [23] Eq. (13) 1,4

Mitchell et al.1993 [21] Eq. (11) 1,3

Buckner 1995 [20] Eq. (10) (λ=2) 1,0

Buckner 1995 [20] Eq. (10) (λ=1) 1,0

Deatherage et al. 1994 [19] Eq. (9) 1,0

Cousins et al. 1990 [11] Eq. (7) 1,3

Complementary bond length for fci 30 MPa (LC,30) Complementary bond length (mm)

Complementary bond length for fci 50 MPa (LC,50)

ratio

EC2-2004/MC2010 [4,5] Eq. (16) (17) (gradual) 1,5

Kose and Burkett 2005 [25] Eq. (15) 1,3

Tadros and Baishya 1996 [22] Eq. (12) 1,0

Mitchell et al.1993 [21] Eq. (11) 1,3

Buckner 1995 [20] Eq. (10) (λ=2) 1,0

Buckner 1995 [20] Eq. (10) (λ=1) 1,0

Deatherage et al. 1994 [19] Eq. (9) 1,0

Shahawy (et al.1992)-93 [17,18] Eq. (8) (k=2) 1,0

Cousins et al. 1990 [11] Eq. (7) 1,3

Zia and Mostafa 1977 [16] Eq. (6) (sudden) 1,2

Martin and Scott 1976 [15] Eq. (5) 1,0

ACI 318-11 [2] Eq. (4) 1,0

Anchorage length for fci 50 MPa (LA,50)

700 mm [21]. Moreover, the UT/UC ratios to characterize the differ- concrete specimens. Specimens are made in pretensioning frames

ent bond situations have been determined theoretically and exper- with an adjustable strand anchorage as shown in Fig. 5. At the

imentally [20,27,31]. opposite end, an Anchorage-Measurement-Access (AMA) system

is placed to simulate the sectional stiffness of the specimens. The

test equipment is completed with a hydraulic jack that can be

3. Test procedure and instrumentation placed at the pretensioning frames ends.

The force in the strand is controlled and registered while the

The ECADA test method consists in sequentially analysing the test is being carried out by means of a hollow force transducer

transmission and anchorage process of the strand in pretensioned placed in the AMA system. Relative displacements between the

J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412 407

strand and concrete are also continuously measured and registered sand 0/4 and a polycarboxylic ether superplasticiser. All the con-

by means of a displacement transducer at the free end of the spec- crete mixes were designed with a constant gravel/sand ratio of

imen. A pressure transducer completes the instrumentation and is 1.14.

used to control the hydraulic jack. No internal measuring devices The prestressing strand was a low-relaxation seven-wire steel

are used in the specimens tested in order to not distort the bond strand, 13 mm in diameter, at a prestress level of 75% of the guar-

phenomenon. anteed ultimate strength (1860 MPa), speciﬁed as UNE 36094:97 Y

Once the equipment test is set up as shown in Fig. 5, with the 1860 S7 13.0 [6]. The main characteristics were taken from the

hydraulic jack connected to the frame at the free end, the different manufacturer: diameter, 12.9 mm, section, 99.69 mm2, nominal

test procedure phases are as follows. strength, 192.60 kN, yield stress at 0.2%, 177.50 kN, and modulus

of elasticity, 196.70 GPa.

3.1. Preparation stage All the specimens were subjected to the same consolidating and

curing conditions. The prestress transfer was gradually performed

Lining up the strand in the frame. at 24 h after casting to avoid dynamic shock effects [33,34]. A 2-h

Tensioning the strand: The hydraulic jack pulls the anchorage stabilization period from the prestress transfer was established.

plate and separates it from the adjustable strand anchorage. The pull-out operation was carried out after this stabilization per-

Anchorage of the strand: The adjustable strand anchorage is set iod (consequently, fcl = fci) to reach a reference force (PR) of 158 kN

up to contact the anchorage plate thus bearing the force intro- in the prestressing strand, corresponding to the strand’s nominal

duced into the strand. The hydraulic jack is then unloaded. yield strength at 0.1% [6].

Specimen cast: The concrete is mixed, placed into the form pre-

pared in the frame, and consolidated. 5. Determining transmission and anchorage lengths

The specimen is cured to achieve the desired concrete proper-

ties and is then demoulded before testing. With the ECADA method, both the transmission and anchorage

lengths are determined by measuring and analysing the force sup-

3.2. Testing stage ported by the strand in a series of pretensioned concrete specimens

with different embedment lengths [8,9]. By way of example, Fig. 6

Prestress transfer: The hydraulic jack is loaded to recover the shows the results of transferred prestressing and pull-out forces

force in the strand supported by the adjustable strand anchor- versus the embedment length for a concrete mix design.

age which is relieved. The strand prestress transfer takes place The transferred prestressing force values after stabilization per-

at a controlled speed through the unloading of the hydraulic iod PT are ordered according to specimen embedment lengths

jack. The prestressing force is transferred to the concrete and (Fig. 6). The obtained curves present a bilinear tendency, with an

the concrete specimen is supported at the stressed end of the ascendent initial branch and a sensibly horizontal branch corre-

frame. sponding to the effective prestressing force PE (PE = rpiAp). Trans-

Stabilization period: The force in the strand after release (PT) is mission length LT corresponds to the shorter specimen

measured. embedment length with PT = PE; that is, it corresponds to the short-

Pull-out operation: The hydraulic jack is positioned to increase er specimen embedment length that marks the beginning of the

the force in the strand by separating the anchorage plate of horizontal branch.

the AMA system from the frame. The maximum force achieved The pull-out force values PA are ordered according to the spec-

during the pull-out operation before the strand slip at the free imen embedment lengths (Fig. 6). The obtained curves present an

end (PA) is measured. ascendent trend. Anchorage length LA corresponds to the shorter

specimen embedment length of the test specimens in which the

4. Experimental program reference force PR in the strand is reached in the pull-out operation

without a strand slip at the free end of the specimen; that is, it cor-

An experimental program to determine the transmission and responds to the ﬁrst specimen of the series with PA P PR. The com-

anchorage lengths of a 13 mm prestressing steel strand in different plementary bond length is obtained as LC = LA LT.

concrete mixes has been carried out. The resolution in determining the transmission and anchorage

Specimens cross-sections were 100 100 mm2 with a concen- lengths will depend on the sequence of the specimen lengths

trical single prestressing strand. Tests were carried out on 12 dif- tested. For the specimen embedment length equal to the measured

ferent concrete mixes with water/cement ratios (w/c) ranging transmission length, the force reached during the pull-out opera-

from 0.3 to 0.5, cement content (C) from 350 to 500 kg/m3 and a tion before the strand slip (P A ) is slightly greater than the effective

compressive strength at the time of testing fci ranging from 24 to prestressing force PE. This fact indicates that the transmission

55 MPa. The concrete components were: cement CEM I 52.5 R length obtained for the adopted embedment length sequence is

[32], crushed limestone aggregate 7/12, washed rolled limestone somewhat longer than the real transmission length.

Pretensioning frame

Embedment length AMA

Adjustable system

anchorage

Strand

transducer specimen transducer

408 J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412

180 PE in Eq. (18) was chosen instead of PA to directly consider the re-

Anchorage length sults obtained after the stabilization period of the prestress transfer

PR

160

from the embedment length sequence tested at a resolution of

140 50 mm. In this way, slighter average bond stresses than the real

ones were determined for the transmission zone. The P A value will

Strand force (kN)

100 point of the embedment length resolution.

The effect of concrete strength on the average bond may be

80 illustrated by redeﬁning UT and UC as [11,21,24]:

Transmission length

60

U T ¼ U 0T ðfci Þa ð20Þ

40 Pull-out force at end slip

20 Force after transfer and stabilization U C ¼ U 0C ðfci Þa ð21Þ

Force before release

In order to determine U 0T and U 0C and the appropriate a expo-

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 nent, several regression analyses of the test results have been car-

Embedment length (mm) ried out by substituting UT and UC in Eqs. (18) and (19),

respectively, for Eqs. (20) and (21). Figs. 7 and 8 show the obtained

Fig. 6. Test results for concrete C400/0.35. adjustments. Therefore, the proposed equations for both transmis-

sion and complementary bond lengths derived from the test re-

sults of this study are:

6. Results and discussion

PE

6.1. Test results LT ¼ ð22Þ

Rp 0:4fci2=3

For each specimen, the prestress transfer and the pull-out of the

strand operations performed with the ECADA test method have PA P A

LC ¼ ð23Þ

been carried out sequentially. For each concrete mix, transmission Rp 0:25fci2=3

and anchorage lengths are determined from a series of specimens

with different embedment lengths. From the adjustments, the obtained UT/UC ratio is 1.6 (0.4/0.25);

Table 2 summarizes the main results for all the concrete mix consequently, anchorage length can be obtained from the follow-

designs. The effective prestressing force PE is the average value of ing equation:

the force in the prestressing strand in those specimens with an

embedment length equal to or longer than the transmission length 2:5

obtained by the ECADA test method for each concrete mix design LA ¼ ½PE þ 1:6ðP A PA Þ ð24Þ

Rp fci2=3

after the stabilization period.

Figs. 9–11 show the comparisons of the predicted values from

6.2. Proposed bond model Eqs. (22), (23), (24), respectively, versus the measured transmis-

sion lengths, complementary bond lengths and anchorage lengths.

The average bond stresses values along both transmission and The quality of the adjustments is comparable to that obtained in

complementary bond lengths from the measured data in this [24]. Therefore, the 50 mm resolution applied to determine these

study, according to Eqs. (1) and (2), are obtained from the follow- lengths from the sequences of specimen lengths is reliable.

ing equations: In this experimental study for the bond characterization of

13 mm prestressing steel strand, the testing loading time coincides

PE

UT ¼ ð18Þ with the time of the prestress transfer (fcl = fci). For fcl > fci, the UC

Rp LT values can be expected to be above the obtained UC values. As a re-

sult, when fcl > fci, Eq. (23) is conservative for the complementary

P A P A

UC ¼ ð19Þ bond length prediction, while Eq. (24) proves conservative for

Rp LC the anchorage length prediction.

Table 2

Test results from the experimental program.

Designation Cement (kg/m3) w/c ratio fci (MPa) PE (kN) P A (kN) PA (kN) LT (mm) LA (mm) LC (mm)

C350/0.50 350 0.50 26.1 132.49 144.47 158.49 550 650 100

C350/0.45 0.45 37.3 131.49 143.63 161.97 550 700 150

C350/0.40 0.40 46.7 131.49 137.72 159.47 550 700 150

C400/0.50 400 0.50 24.2 127.01 140.35 166.69 650 850 200

C400/0.45 0.45 28.3 133.88 135.02 157.93 550 700 150

C400/0.40 0.40 41.4 129.90 145.20 164.86 550 700 150

C400/0.35 0.35 45.3 131.09 140.36 159.02 500 600 100

C450/0.40 450 0.40 36.3 129.30 137.42 159.20 550 700 150

C450/0.35 0.35 46.6 130.10 131.90 161.35 500 650 150

C500/0.40 500 0.40 30.8 128.90 133.08 158.02 600 800 200

C500/0.35 0.35 46.6 132.19 138.46 160.82 450 600 150

C500/0.30 0.30 54.8 129.50 133.80 169.24 400 600 200

Average 38.7 130.61 138.45 161.42 533 687 154

J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412 409

7 800

Average measured bond

700

y = 0,40x

stress Ut (MPa)

5

600

4 R2 = 0,56

3 500

2

400

1

0 300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

fci 2/3 (in MPa) 200

Fig. 7. Bond stress regression analysis based on transmission length test results. 100

0

7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Average measured bond

stress Uc (MPa)

4 y = 0,25x

300

3

2 250

200 R2 = 0,63

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

150

Fig. 8. Bond stress regression analysis based on complementary bond length test

results.

100

According to the notation used in Table 1, Eqs. (22) and (24) can

be rewritten as Eqs. (25) and (26), respectively: 50

2:5Ap rpi

LT ¼ ð25Þ 0

Rp fci2=3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Measured complementary bond length (mm)

2:5Ap

LA ¼ ½rpi þ 1:6ðrpa rpa Þ ð26Þ Fig. 10. Predicted versus measured complementary bond lengths.

Rp fci2=3

1000

Term rpa in Eq. (26), obtained as P A =Ap , coincides with rpi when P A

900

= PE in the ECADA test methodology. For a general case, rpa should

Predicted anchorege length (mm)

In order to obtain equations for design, additional experimental

works on transmission and anchorage lengths with fcl > fci should 700 R2 = 0,53

be conducted, and term rpa in Eq. (26) should be replaced with

rpcs. Moreover, the 95% conﬁdence intervals for the transmission 600

and anchorage lengths should be established.

500

400

6.3. Comparison with others research works and code provisions

300

The experimental results obtained in this study have been com-

pared with the theoretical predictions obtained from the equations 200

included in Table 1 and the proposed equations by considering the

experimental conditions of this study in all cases. For this purpose, 100

the following relationships have been adopted: rpt = 0.75fpu = 1395

0

MPa, rpi = rpcs = 1310 MPa (obtained on average as PE/Ap), rpa = 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0.9fpu = 1674 MPa (implies PA = 166.88 kN, average LA = 725 mm Measured anchorage length (mm)

and average LC = 192 mm by extrapolation with the experimentally

obtained UC values) and fcl = fci = 38.7 MPa. Fig. 11. Predicted versus measured anchorage lengths.

410 J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412

ratio

Kose and Burkett 2005 [25] Eq. (15) 3,5

Mitchell et al.1993 [21] Eq. (11) 3,7

(l=2)

=2) 6,0

=1) 3,0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

experimental values for Ut Ut for fci 38,7 MPa (Ut)

Bond stress (MPa)

experimental values for Uc Uc for fcl 38,7 MPa (Uc)

Fig. 12. Prediction of bond stress based on test results according to proposed and pre-existing equations.

0,69 LT / LA

ratio

EC2-2004/MC2010 [4,5] Eq. (16) (17) (gradual) 0,57

Lane 1998 [23] Eq. (13) 0,60

Tadros and Baishya 1996 [22] Eq. (12) 0,60

(l=2) 0,37

λ=1)

Buckner 1995 [20] Eq. (10) ((l=1) 0,55

Deatherage et al. 1994 [19] Eq. (9) 0,44

Shahawy (et al.1992)-93 [17,18] Eq. (8) (k=0,5) 0,37

Shahawy (et al.1992)-93 [17,18] Eq. (8) (k=2) 0,71

Zia and Mostaf a 1977 [16] Eq. (6) (gradual) 0,37

Martin and Scott 1976 [15] Eq. (5) 0,34

measured transmission lengths Transmission length for fci 38,7 MPa (LT)

Member length (mm)

measured anchorage lengths Anchorage length for fci 38,7 MPa (LA)

Fig. 13. Prediction of transmission and anchorage lengths test results according to proposed and pre-existing equations.

Fig. 12 shows the comparison for the average bond stresses out in the set of predictions as it comes closer to the obtained

along both the transmission and anchorage lengths, while Fig. 13 results.

shows the comparison for transmission length and anchorage The predicted UT/UC ratios are 1.5–7, as observed in Fig. 12, with

lengths. These ﬁgures also include the average values obtained an average value of 4. A ratio of 4.0 was derived to correlate trans-

for UT (4.6 MPa), UC (2.8 MPa), LT (533 mm) and LA (725 mm). mission to pull-out bond stress–slip relationships [27]. Other the-

Fig. 12 depicts the wide ranges of predicted values. For UT, oretical studies [20] indicate values of 1–8 for the UT/UC ratio, with

Eqs. (6a) and (11a) provide a good prediction of the experimental an average value of 2.4. Moreover, experimental results with UT/

results of this study. For UC, results are greater than the predicted UC = 1.4 (in beams) are presented in [21], and are offered in [31]

values. Only the prediction made by Eq. (8b) with k = 2 stands with UT/UC = 2 (in cylindrical concrete specimens). The UT/UC ratio

J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412 411

obtained in this work is 1.6, similar to the aforementioned exper- anchorage lengths values that vary considerably and differ from

imental results and the prediction by Eq. (8) with k = 2. each other.

Fig. 13 shows that Eqs. (6a) and (11a) offer a good prediction of The predicted transmission length generally overestimates the

the average measured LT in this study. Generally, the measured measured transmission length, with predictions that provide

transmission length is over evaluated by the remaining equations, transmission length values more than twice the measured

with predictions that provide transmission length values more than transmission lengths.

twice the measured transmission lengths. Similar experimental re- From the experimental results of this study a high LT/LA ratio has

sults for transmission length are presented in [15,16,18,23,24]. been obtained.

For anchorage lengths, and in agreement with the greater UC in

relation to that predicted, the test results are distinguished by

short lengths (see Fig. 13), resulting in a poor prediction of the

Acknowledgments

experimental anchorage lengths from the equations found in the

literature. Similar experimental results are found in [11] for coated

The content of this article forms part of the research work that

strands, and in [20] for uncoated strands with fci = 48 MPa and

the Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH) is pres-

fcl = 65 MPa.

ently conducting in conjunction with PREVALESA and ISOCRON.

The predicted LT/LA ratios are 0.34–0.71, as observed in Fig. 13,

This study has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education

with an average value of 0.5. The LT/LA ratio obtained from the equa-

and Science and ERDF (Project BIA2006-05521). The authors wish

tions proposed in this study is 0.69 (LT/LA = 528/ 763 – the experi-

to thank the above companies as well as the concrete structures

mental ratio is LT/LA = 533/725 = 0.73 –), indicating that the

laboratory technicians at the Universitat Politècnica de València

complementary bond lengths obtained are relatively short. In addi-

for their cooperation. Finally, the authors also wish to pay their re-

tion to the proposed equations, the predicted ratio of 0.71 by Eq. (8)

spects to C.A. Arbeláez.

with k = 2 is the best prediction of the experimental LT/LA ratio.

References

7. Conclusions

[1] FIB. Bond of reinforcement in concrete. State of the art report. Fib Bulletin No.

An experimental program to determine transmission and 10. Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete; 2000.

anchorage lengths and the average bond stress along both the [2] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI

318-11). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2011.

transmission length and the complementary bond length of [3] CEB. Anchorage zones of prestressed concrete members. Bulletin d’Information

13 mm prestressing steel strand has been conducted by means of No.181. Lausanne: Comité Euro-International du Béton; 1987.

the ECADA test method. The inﬂuence of concrete strength on [4] CEN. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures – Part 1–1: general rules and

rules for buildings. European standard EN 1992-1-1:2004:E. Brussels: Comité

transmission and anchorage lengths has been analyzed.

Européen de Normalisation; 2004.

The main conclusions drawn from this experimental study are: [5] FIB. Model Code 2010. First complete draft. Fib Bulletin No. 55, vol. 1.

Lausanne: International Federation for Structural Concrete; 2010.

An increase of the concrete compressive strength at the testing [6] AENOR. UNE 36094:1997 Alambres y cordones de acero para armaduras de

hormigón pretensado. Madrid: Asociación Española de Normalización y

time results in an increase of the bond stress along both the Certiﬁcación; 1997.

transmission and complementary bond lengths. However, this [7] ASTM. A416/A416M-10 standard speciﬁcation for steel strand, uncoated

fact is not considered in the current ACI 318 Code provisions. seven-wire for prestressed concrete. West Conshohocken, PA: American

Society for Testing and Materials; 2010.

An average bond stress along the transmission length as a func- [8] Martí-Vargas JR, Serna-Ros P, Fernández-Prada MA, Miguel-Sosa PF, Arbeláez

tion of the concrete compressive strength at the time of the pre- CA. Test method for determination of the transmission and anchorage lengths

stress transfer has been obtained as UT = 0.4 fci2=3 . in prestressed reinforcement. Mag Concr Res 2006;58(1):21–9.

[9] Martí-Vargas JR, Arbeláez CA, Serna-Ros P, Castro-Bugallo C. Reliability of

An average bond stress along the complementary bond length transfer length estimation from strand end slip. ACI Struct J

as a function of the concrete compressive strength at loading 2007;104(4):487–94.

has been obtained as UC = 0.25 fcl2=3 . [10] Guyon Y. Béton précontrainte. Étude théorique et expérimentale. Paris: Ed.

Eyrolles; 1953.

The obtained UT/UC ratio is 1.6, which is in agreement with [11] Cousins ThE, Johnston DW, Zia P. Transfer and development length of epoxy-

other experimental results reported by other authors. coated and uncoated prestressing strand. PCI J 1990;35(4):92–103.

With these relationships for UT and UC, the estimation of the [12] Janney J. Nature of bond in pretensioned prestressed concrete. ACI J

1954;25(9):717–37.

transmission length, the complementary bond length, and the

[13] Barnes RW, Grove JW, Burns NH. Experimental assessment of factors affecting

anchorage length is a good adjustment to the lengths measured transfer length. ACI Struct J 2003;100(6):740–8.

for the 50 mm resolution in the specimen lengths sequences, [14] Brearley LM, Johnston DW. Pull-out bond tests of epoxy-coated prestressing

strand. J Struct Eng – ASCE 1990;116(8):2236–52.

and is reliable.

[15] Martin L, Scott N. Development of prestressing strand in pretensioned

The following equation to predict the transmission length of members. ACI J 1976;73:453–6.

13 mm prestressing steel strand is proposed: [16] Zia P, Mostafa T. Development length of prestressing strands. PCI J

1977;22(5):54–65.

2:5Ap rpi [17] Shahawy M, Moussa I, Batchelor B. Strand transfer lengths in full scale AASHTO

LT ¼ prestressed concrete girders. PCI J 1992;37(3):84–96.

Rp fci2=3 [18] Shahawy M. An investigation of shear strength of pretensioned concrete

AASHTO Type II Girders. Florida: Structures Research Center, FDOT; 1993.

The following equation to predict the anchorage length of [19] Deatherage JH, Burdette E, Chew ChK. Development length and lateral spacing

13 mm prestressing steel strand when the testing loading time requirements of prestressing strand for prestressed concrete bridge girders.

coincides with the prestress transfer time is proposed: PCI J 1994;39(1):70–83.

[20] Buckner CD. A review of strand development length for pretensioned concrete

2:5Ap members. PCI J 1995;40(2):84–105.

LA ¼ ½rpi þ 1:6ðrpa rpi Þ [21] Mitchell D, Cook WD, Khan AA, Tham Th. Inﬂuence of high strength concrete

Rp fci2=3 on transfer and development length of pretensioning strand. PCI J

1993;38(3):52–66.

The test results obtained in this study have been compared with [22] Tadros MK, Baishya MC. Discussion of A review of strand development length

the theoretical predictions obtained from the different equations for pretensioned concrete members. PCI J 1996;41(2):112–27.

[23] Lane SN. A new development length equation for pretensioned strands in

proposed by several authors and codes to determine transmis- bridge beams and piles. Research FHWA-RD-98-116. Mclean, VA: Federal

sion and anchorage lengths. Predictions give transmission and Highway Administration; 1998.

412 J.R. Martí-Vargas et al. / Engineering Structures 41 (2012) 403–412

[24] Mahmoud ZI, Rizkalla SH, Zaghloul ER. Transfer and development lengths of [29] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI

carbon ﬁber reinforcement polymers prestressing reinforcing. ACI Struct J 318-63). Detroit, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1963.

1999;96(4):594–602. [30] Tabatabai H, Dickson Th. The history of the prestressing strand development

[25] Kose MM, Burkett WR. Formulation of new development length equation for length equation. PCI J 1993;38(5):64–75.

0.6 in. prestressing strand. PCI J 2005;50(5):96–105. [31] Abrishami HH, Mitchell D. Bond characteristics of pretensioned strand. ACI

[26] Hegger J, Bülte S, Kommer B. Structural behaviour of prestressed beams made Mater J 1993;90(3):228–35.

with self-consolidating concrete. PCI J 2007;52(4):34–42. [32] CEN. Cement. Part 1: compositions, speciﬁcations and conformity criteria for

[27] Pozolo A, Andrawes B. Analytical prediction of transfer length in prestressed common cements. European standard EN 197-1:2000. Brussels: Comité

self-consolidating concrete girders using pull-out test results. Constr Build Européen de Normalisation; 2000.

Mater 2011;25:1026–36. [33] Belhadj A, Bahai H. Friction-slip: an efﬁcient energy dissipating mechanism for

[28] Martí-Vargas JR, Serna P, Navarro-Gregori J, Bonet JL. Effects of concrete suddenly released prestressing bars. Eng Struct 2001;23:934–44.

composition on transmission length of prestressing strands. Constr Build [34] Moon DY, Zi G, Kim JH, Lee SJ, Kim G. On strain change of prestressing strand

Mater 2012;27:350–6. during detensioning procedures. Eng Struct 2010;32:2570–8.

- IRC sp.065.2005Uploaded byKunwarKhaliqeAhmad
- Sika PDS E Intraplast ZXUploaded bylwin_oo2435
- Methodology for Stressing of Psc Girders (c)Uploaded byHegdeVenugopal
- c 04601011014Uploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- Cnpy - Semi Integral AbutmentBridgesUploaded byMarcoFranchinotti
- Slab on Grade en[1]Uploaded byAnonymous UebIaD8A8C
- 0_1405_9Uploaded bychabaloon
- 4- Prestressed ConcreteUploaded byIsaac Jeb
- A Ash ToUploaded byNishani Sandamalika
- VSL_News_2002_1Uploaded byDrPadipat Chaemmangkang
- 580646Uploaded bySheilly Tan
- Is.1343.2012(PrestressedConcrete)Uploaded byTatsamYadav
- lampiran rasuk (beam).pdfUploaded byFyqa Eddy
- SongwutHengprathaneeDissertation.pdfUploaded byKenyo Loa
- dsi-usa-dywidag-bonded-post-tensioning-systems-us.pdfUploaded byPauloAndresSepulveda
- Finite Element AnalysisUploaded byRonald De Guzman
- FMDS0101.pdfUploaded byselvira
- CrmUploaded byHajarath Prasad Abburu
- Chapter 4 Introduction to Prestressed ConcreteUploaded byMesfin Derbew
- Vol1_SDGUploaded byopppps
- Dbr via Concise v4 CopyUploaded byMantripragada Raju
- Pre Tensioning & Post TensioningUploaded byPrasannanjaneya Kumar Sanagala
- Historia de Freyssinet ACI CI Octubre 2013Uploaded byHalim Mamani
- Prestressed BeamUploaded byMohamed Abbassy
- Sab4323 Ocw Topiwewec 3Uploaded byaraml001
- Hyperstatic.pdfUploaded byAmbrish
- Economic Concrete Frame Elements to Ec2Uploaded byocenkt
- The Design of Precast Concrete Segmental Bridge PiersUploaded byMrAgidas
- 7801.pdfUploaded byMegha Panchariya
- 42 PRES OTEC 2004 AdvancedStrategiesUploaded byMiguel Angel Lezama Valdivia

- 1984-cyclic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete beam.pdfUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 1996-Stress Transfer Mechanicm of Socket Base Connection With Precast Cncrete ColumnsUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 1985-Review of Cracking of Partially Prestressed Concrete Member Canadian Journal of Civil EngineeringUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 1993-Model Precast Concrete Beam-To-Column Connections Subject to Cyclic LoadingUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- Joint StrengthUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 2003-Unbonded Posttensioned Concrete Bridge Piers I Monotonic and Cyclic AnalysesUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 2018-Analytical Displacement Solution for Statically Determanaite Beam Based on Trilinear Moment-curvature ModelUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 1980-Simplified Cracked Section AnalysisUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- Socket Base Connections With Precast Concrete Columns.pdfUploaded byAc2140
- 1984-cyclic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete beam.pdfUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 1984-cyclic behavior of lightly reinforced concrete beam.pdfUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 1-s2.0-0266353895000690-mainUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- Dynamic Test Evaluation of Numerical Models for Unbonded Post-tnsioned Concrete WallsUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- An Investigation on Stressing and Breakage Response of a Prestressing Stands Using an Efficint Finite ElementUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- Bond Slip of Tendon ExperimentUploaded byChan Dara Koem
- MODEL FRP CONFINED rc COLUMN USING SAP2000Uploaded byChan Dara Koem
- 1157Uploaded byChan Dara Koem

- snom_training.pptUploaded byarasteh12
- GATE 2018 CS Paper Answer Key & Analysis (Memory based)Uploaded byNishit kumar
- User Manual Tfp SeriesUploaded byJaekeun Sung
- Pricing ProcedureUploaded byyogesh
- Thermal Insulation Report SNAME No. 4-7Uploaded byMike Roy
- candy_cty104-1-03Uploaded byUnu Decebal
- Mech Cryogenic Grinding ReportUploaded byRajendra Hodgir
- Hamiltonian Descent Methods 1809.05042Uploaded byDom DeSicilia
- Solar Absorption CoolingUploaded byguzman_10
- Aproximación a La Mecánica de Los Cabalgamientos en El Contexto General de La Deformación en El NW de La Península IbéricaUploaded byPaulCaceres
- Geometric Tolerancing - DefinitionsUploaded bySergio Boillos
- Paper(Sunghyun Yoo) Disposable OptrodeUploaded byNeeraj Tripathi
- Dante Fratta - Soil Mechanics Laboratory Testing.pdfUploaded byGeotecnia
- Modern Chords and Extensions, 1974!01!23Uploaded byAlexalvarez88
- Final Comb Filter Ppt_2007Uploaded bySubrat Barsainya
- nmeth1108[1]Uploaded byplastioid4079
- WM ConfigUploaded byasadshoaib
- Alberta Transportation Integral AbutmentUploaded byM56p1358
- asadianUploaded byAbas
- Nomenclature of Complex CompoundsUploaded byChandrani Chakraborti
- S.Y.B.sc. (IT) Sem - III - Paper - II - Computer GraphicsUploaded byRula Shakrah
- 3 FaultsUploaded byTeguh Wage Prakoso
- IES Civil Engineering Paper II 2012Uploaded byHarshal Bhoite
- ABS(diag).pdfUploaded byGabriel Vera
- General Science Class 6 to 8Uploaded byAhmed Zia
- FEMA 450Uploaded byGabriel Patilea
- Electronic Instrument SystemsUploaded byEgor85
- Noise StandardUploaded bylab
- Pic 24Uploaded byalin0604
- CCNA2-9_lab_1Uploaded byferdysaputra