Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Experimental and theoretical investigation of

prestressing steel strand subjected to tensile load

Yusuf Aytaç Onur

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

PII: S0020-7403(16)30211-9
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.09.006
Reference: MS3411
To appear in: International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
Received date: 1 July 2016
Revised date: 31 August 2016
Accepted date: 3 September 2016
Cite this article as: Yusuf Aytaç Onur, Experimental and theoretical investigation
of prestressing steel strand subjected to tensile load, International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2016.09.006
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Experimental and theoretical investigation of prestressing steel strand

subjected to tensile load

Yusuf Aytaç ONURa,*

a
Mechanical Engineering, Bulent Ecevit University, 67100 Zonguldak, Turkey
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aytaconur@hotmail.com (YA Onur)

Abstract

In this study, the response of prestressing strands to axial tensile load is investigated
theoretically and experimentally. Experimental data acquisitions of prestressing strand
subjected to tensile load are performed by means of strain gages and linear variable
differential transformer (LVDT). Feyrer’s and Costello’s theories are used for theoretical
calculation of strain and stress values occurred on wires of prestressing strand. Linear
regression model is devised to predict tensile load-strain and tensile stress-strain relations by
using experimental results. Results indicate that there is a powerful correlation between
results obtained by experimental data and linear regression model.

Keywords: theory of wire rope, prestressing strand, strain gages, tensile testing of wire rope

1. Introduction

Prestressing strands are used in vast variety of practical applications such as hoisting member

for lifting heavy load, precast concrete industry, post tensioning member in bridges, stadiums

and railway infrastructures. It is mostly subjected to tensile load. The behaviour of strands

subjected to tensile load has been of great deal of interest in many scientists. Investigation on

wire rope dates back to 1950’s. Love [1] presented general theory of bending and twisting of

thin rods. Machida and Durelli [2] gave explicit expressions for the determination of axial

force, bending and twisting moments in the helical wires and for the axial force and twisting

moments in the core of a 7-wire strand subjected to axial and torsional displacements.

Costello and Phillips [3] published a brief note to consider contact stresses between several
initially straight wires which are then twisted and pulled. Costello [4] presented a theory

which will predict stresses in a multi-layered cable subjected to axial, bending and torsional

loads. Velinsky, Anderson and Costello [5] developed a theory to predict static response of

wire rope with complex cross sections. Velinsky [6] developed a theory for the analysis of

fibre core wire rope with multi-layered strands. Velinsky [7] developed a general nonlinear

theory to analyse complex wire rope. Phillips and Costello [8] determined stresses in the

individual wires of complex wire rope. Their theory neglected effects of friction. Kumar and

Cochran [9] developed closed form solutions for elastic deformation characteristics of multi-

layered strands under tensile and torsional loads. Utting and Jones [10] performed

instrumented tests on straight simple steel strands of seven wire construction subjected to

axial loads and with various end restraints. Cappa [11] examined wire strains in a wire rope

strand subjected to static and quasi-static tensile load experimentally by using strain gages.

Costello [12] concerned with various theories of wire ropes in his book. Feyrer’s book [13]

presents wire loads, stresses and deformations on stranded, spiral and rotation resistant ropes

subjected to axial load. Ghoreishi, Messager, Cartraud and Davies [14] assessed the validity

domain of several analytical models such as Hrusca’s, McConnell, Costello etc. for the elastic

static axial behaviour of simple straight metallic strand. Gnanavel, Gopinath and

Parthasarathy [15] attempted to model wire-wire and core-wire contact effects to the

equilibrium equations about twisted wire cable. Argatov [16] employed asymptotic

modeling approach for solving the three-dimensional wear contact problem with

increasing contact zone under a prescribed constant normal load. The developed

asymptotic modeling approach has resulted in simple formulas for the main parameters

of the reciprocating sliding wear governed by Archard's generalized wear equation. The

accuracy of the constructed approximate solution has been verified against the finite

element method simulations taken from the literature. Argatov, Gomez, Tato and
Urchegui [17] applied mathematical models of fretting wear to elaboration of the

experimental results previously reported studies. Based on the experimental and

analytical results, auhors discussed some implications to fatigue life estimations of wire

ropes. Cho, Kim, Park and Park [18] propose a method enabling to compute the prestressing

strand resistance using strain measured on only one core wire. Numerical analysis is

conducted considering the pitch length of the strand and diameters of the core wire and helical

wires as parameters. Abdullah, Rice, Hamilton and Consolazio [19] conducted an extensive

investigation on stressing and post-breakage dynamic behaviour of a prestressing strand. In

addition, authors conducted sensitivity study of finite element parameters such as load ramp

profile, load ramp duration, friction model and damping to determine appropriate parameters

for an efficient model and authors used their model to conduct detailed investigation on load

distribution among wires followed by various parametric studies on wire breaks. The aim of

this study is to determine axial strain and tensile stress values occurred on core wire and

helical wires wrapped around core wire of prestressing strand which is 15.24 mm in diameter

subjected to tensile load after experimental instrumentation is made. Theories proposed by

Costello [12] and Feyrer [13] are used to calculate theoretical strain and stress values occurred

on core wire and helical wire. Linear regression is done to predict force-strain and stress-

strain relation by using experimental results.

2. Experimental Studies
2.1 Investigated strand

In this study, prestressing steel strand which are frequently used in hoisting member for lifting

heavy load, precast concrete industry, post tensioning member in bridges, stadiums and

railway infrastructures is used to conduct experimental and theoretically studies. Dimension

and properties of prestressing strand used are selected in accordance with ASTM A416

standard [20] shown in Table 1. It has 5.24 mm diameter one core wire and 5.02 mm diameter
six helical wires wrapped around core wire. It has (1+6) wire construction. Diameter of strand

is 15.24 mm. Pitch length is 210 mm. Strand metallic cross-sectional area is computed by

summing of one core wire area and six outer wire areas as 140.319 mm2. Strand sample

length is 1650 mm.

Table 1. Properties of prestressing strand

Diameter of prestressing strand 15.24 mm

Radius of the external wires 2.51 mm
Radius of the center wire 2.62 mm
Lay length 210 mm
Lay angle (α2) 81.27382°
Length of the prestressing strand sample 1650 mm
Metallic area 140.319 mm2
Modulus of elasticity of wires (E) 196500 MPa

2.2 Experimental instrumentation

Experimental instrumentation and tensile test studies on prestressing strand have been

performed in the Wisconsin Structures & Materials Testing Laboratory of University of

Wisconsin-Madison,WI. Test strand is instrumented by strain gages and LVDT sensors and

chucks are mounted at each ends of prestressing strand to fasten sample to tensile testing rig

as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Instrumented test sample before testing

Strain gages and LVDT are installed before fastening strand sample to tensile testing

machine. Four strain gages named as SG1 (strain gage 1) , SG2 (strain gage 2), SG3 (strain
gage 3) and SG4 (strain gage 4) in Fig. 1 are carefully instrumented on cleaned wire surfaces

following micro measurements strain gage installation bulletins. Strain gages are then wired

in accordance with signal conditioner configuration. NI SCXI 1000 DC controlled by

Labview is used as signal conditioner in this study. Two different SCXI modules are used to

connect strain gage wires and LVDT wires to chassis. Quarter bridge wire configuration is

done according to procedure of data acquisition system. Strain gage resistance and gage factor

are important input to be defined in software. SG1 and SG3 grids are parallel to strand axis

and SG2 and SG4 grids are parallel to wire axis. SG3 and SG4 are installed on same outer

wire at a pitch length distant. Chucks used for fastening of test strand comprise of spring, jaw

and barrel. Schaevitz 100 HR type LVDT is used to measure strand axial displacement

thereby strain measurement of core wire or strand. Displacement is same in core wire and

strand. LVDT is thrusted into wood plate hole. A thin rod is connected by wood plate at

upper end and by bracket at bottom end. LVDT ferromagnetic core passing through the

cylinder is hot glued by thin rod which is 885.825 mm in length. This length is LVDT gage

length as shown in Fig. 1. Other side of thin rod is also glued to prevent movement. This

configuration provides parallelism between strand axis and thin rod axis. Due to this reason

strand displacement can be read by LVDT measuring thin rod displacement. Depending on

core’s location two different currents are induced into the secondary coils. These different

current can then be measured. The relationship between the signal voltage, the excitation

voltage, and the displacement to the core is quantified as the sensitivity of the LVDT. The

sensitivity can be thought of as the slope of the line that relates voltages in the device to the

displacement observed by the device. Calibration is done by using LVDT output voltage and

real displacement values and linear relation ratio is applied to results. The displacement is

then calculated depending on the wiring configuration used [21]. A view of experimental

setup is shown in Fig. 2. Static tensile loads are applied to 15.24 mm diameter prestressing
 strand sample by means of tensile testing machine depicted in Fig. 2. Test strand is gripped by

using steel plates and chucks at the each to the frame block of test machine which is white

colour in Fig. 2.

Thin rod

LVDT Wood
plate

Test strand
Thin rod bracket Thin rod Steel Chuck
plate

Fig. 2. A view of experimental setup

2.3 Experimental results

Static tensile test is performed on 15.24 mm diameter prestressing strand sample. Ten

different tensile axial loads are applied to measure micro strains (  ) with strain gages and

displacement ( L ) with LVDT of center wire or strand and outer wires whose surfaces glued
by strain gages. Since experimental studies were conducted in University of Wisconsin

laboratory American unit system has been used for tensile load values which are converted to

Newton unit. The wires were bright and the strand was not lubricated. Displacements read by

LVDT are converted to  values by using strain formula of   L / L . Table 2 shows

experimental strain results on center wire where data collected by LVDT corresponding to

tensile loads applied.

Table 2. Strains on center wire

Strain (µε)
LVDT
(experimental)
Tensile load
(N)
8896,443 427,95134
17792,89 711,06596
26689,33 1047,05782
35585,77 1376,18604
44482,22 1716,84023
53378,66 2071,07499
62275,1 2463,65817
71171,55 2822,47622
80067,99 3158,52454
88964,43 3450,21872

Table 3 shows experimental strain results on outer wires where data collected by strain gages

corresponding to tensile loads applied.

Table 3. Strains on outer wire(s)

Strain Strain Strain Strain

Strain (µε) gauge 1 gauge 2 gauge 3 gauge 4
(in the (in the (in the (in the direction
direction of direction of direction of of wire axis)
Tensile load
strand axis) wire axis) strand axis)
(N)
8896,443 342,072906 393,690704 381,253479 383,665344
17792,89 619,984314 678,099121 654,031128 664,757019
26689,33 971,010681 1033,215820 1003,176697 1023,686218
35585,77 1294,071289 1356,827148 1320,973633 1345,003906
44482,22 1615,833862 1677,770020 1634,197754 1664,113281
53378,66 1947,857178 2010,615845 1959,071655 1991,765381
62275,1 2271,113037 2335,939453 2276,454102 2310,848877
71171,55 2595,055420 2660,791992 2593,112549 2631,537842
 80067,99 2926,122559 2992,707520 2917,352783 2958,818115
88964,43 3257,770264 3324,508057 3240,407959 3287,832520

Tensile stresses occurred on wires of prestressing strand can be easily calculated since steel

strand material obey Hook’s law formula (   E. ). Table 4 shows tensile stress occurred on

center wire corresponding to tensile loads applied.

Table 4. Tensile stresses on center wire

Stress results
(MPa) LVDT
Tensile load (experimental)
(N)
8896,443 81,182
17792,89 139,724
26689,33 205,75
35585,77 270,4206
44482,22 337,3591
53378,66 406,966
62275,1 484,1088
71171,55 554,6166
80067,99 620,6501
88964,43 677,968

Table 5 shows tensile stress occurred on outer wires corresponding to tensile loads applied.

Table 5. Tensile stresses on outer wires

Strain Strain Strain Strain

Stress results
gauge 1 gauge 2 gauge 3 gauge 4
(MPa)
(in the (in the (in the (in the
direction direction direction direction
of strand of wire of strand of wire
Tensile load axis) axis) axis)
(N) axis)

8896,443 67,217 77,36 74,917 75,39

17792,89 121,83 133,25 128,52 130,62
26689,33 190,8036 203,027 197,124 201,154
35585,77 254,285 266,616 259,571 264,293
44482,22 317,511 329,682 321,12 327
53378,66 382,754 395,086 384,958 391,3819
62275,1 446,274 459,01 447,32 454,08
71171,55 509,93 522,85 509,55 517,098
80067,99 574,983 588,067 573,26 581,408
88964,43 640,152 653,266 636,74 646,06
SG1 and SG3 are installed on outer wires where SG3 is placed in two wires ahead of SG1 at

outer layer as shown in Fig. 1. SG1 and SG3 are parallel to strand axis. The distance between

them is 250 mm. The reason why SG1 and SG3 are installed on outer wires parallel to strand

axis is that whether how outer wires are strained corresponding to strain of strand. It is

expected that if there is not unequal load share in strand wires strains and stresses in same

direction on each wires are same. When strain results are considered on SG1 and SG3 there is

a good harmony in the results obtained. Small deviation in results is caused by strain gage

misalignments with strand axis. It is obvious from results presented in Table 2 and Table 3

that strains on outer wires are smaller than center wire when strand subjected to axial tensile

load. It is found that strain and stress values on center wire obtained by means of LVDT

sensor are 8.44% greater than strain and stress values on outer wires in the direction of strand

axis when average of SG1 and SG3 results is taken. It is found that strain and stress values in

the direction of wire axis of outer wire are 3.34% greater than strain and stress values in the

direction of strand axis of outer wires when average of SG1 and SG3 results and SG2 and

SG4 results are taken. It is an important finding drawn from in Table 2 and Table 3 that outer

wires are subjected to greater strain and stress values in the direction of wire axis than in the

direction of strand axis. It is concluded from findings that center wire suffers a slightly greater

strain and stress than outer wires which obey Costello’s [12] study.

3. Theoretical Studies

There have been several of theoretical models which are based on different assumptions as

explained in the literature survey. In this study, two different analytical models are considered

one of which is Costello’s model and second is Feyrer’s model. Both of theories draw

scientist’s attention for five decades to derive new findings on wire rope technical literature.
3.1 Costello’s theory

Costello’s theory based on Love’s general theory of bending and twisting of thin rods [1].

Axial response of a simple straight strand is expressed by a set of six nonlinear equations of

equilibrium for large deflections assuming that outside wire is not subjected to external

bending moments per unit length. It is assumed that center wire is of sufficient size to prevent

the outer wires from touching each other in theory [12]. It is initially checked before applying

the theory. Fig. 3 shows the configuration and cross section of an unloaded prestressing

straight strand. Costello’s theory first needs strain or center wire strain (ξ1) value and angle of

twist per unit length of the strand (τs) to calculate outer wire strain(ξ2) and change in helix

angle (  2 ) before and after loading. Equation set (1) is used to calculate ξ2 and  2 .

 2
1   2 
tan  2

r2 s 
2  R   R22 
  2  1 1
tan  2 r2 tan  2

p2
tan  2  (1)
2 r2

where R1 is radius of center wire (mm), R2 is radius of outside wire (mm), r2=R1+R2 is initial

radius of the helix of an outside wire (mm),  is poisson ratio.

The change in curvature  2 and the change in twist per unit length  2 are then calculated

after linearization is made by using equation set (2).

2 sin  2 cos  2 R   R2 2  cos 2  2

R2  2 =   2   1 1
r2 / R2 r2 r2 / R2

(1  2 sin 2  2 ) R   R2 2  sin  2 cos  2

R2  2 =  2   1 1 (2)
r2 / R2 r2 r2 / R2
 Fig. 3. Technical drawing of prestressing strand before loading

Bending moment, axial wire tension, twisting moment, shearing fore components on a wire

cross section in the x,y and z directions caused by change in curvature and change in twist per

unit length for outside wires as follows,

G2 
3
 R2  2
ER 2 4

H2 
 R2  2
ER2
3
4(1   )

F1
2
  1
ER1

T2
2
  2 (3)
ER 2
where G2 is bending moment on an outside wire in y direction (Nmm), H 2 is twisting moment

on an outside wire (Nmm), F1 is axial force acting on the center wire (N), T2 is the axial

tension in the outside wire (N). Subscript 1 in the force denotes center wire. Subscript 2 in the

moment and force denotes an outside wire.

Stresses caused by these loads are also given in [12]. In the case of center wire, the axial wire

stress is calculated by using equation (4).

F1
 1 (4)
R1 2
F

The outside wires are subjected to axial, bending and torsional loadings in addition to

shearing load. The stresses caused by the shearing force in general are very small and will be

neglected. The axial stress caused by the load T2 is given in equation (5).

T2
2  (5)
R2 2
T

Maximum normal stress due to the bending moment on an outside wire in y direction is given

in equation (6).

4G2 (6)
G 2 
 R23

The maximum normal tensile stress acting on an outer wire is given in equation (7).

  T  2 + G 2 (7)

Angle of twist per unit length of the strand (τs) is assumed to be zero. Equation (4) gives axial

wire stress on center wire and equation (7) gives tensile stress on an outside wire. LVDT
sensor outputs are taken as center wire strain (ξ1) value in the application of Costello theory.

Outer wire strains (ξ2) calculated by using Costello’s theory are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Strains calculated by using Costello’s theory on an outer wire

Strain (µε)
Costello
(in the direction of wire axis)
Tensile load
(N)
8896,443 415,1894
17792,89 689,8612
26689,33 1015,834
35585,77 1335,147
44482,22 1665,642
53378,66 2009,313
62275,1 2390,189
71171,55 2738,307
80067,99 3064,334
88964,43 3347,330

It can be seen from Table 6 that there is 2.32% deviation in strain values on an outer wire

obtained by using Costello’s theory than average of SG2 and SG4 strain outputs depicted in

Table 3 which are installed in the direction of wire axis for each tensile loads. Axial wire

stresses on center wire are calculated by using Costello’s theory and presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Tensile stresses on center wire for Costello theory

Stress results
(MPa)
Tensile load Costello
(N)
8896,443 84,092
17792,89 139,75
26689,33 205,75
35585,77 270,4206
44482,22 337,36
53378,66 406,97
62275,1 484,1088
71171,55 554,617
80067,99 620,65
88964,43 677,97
Tensile stresses on center wire nearly overlap with the LVDT results. Costello’s theory gives

satisfactory results. Tensile wire stresses on an outer wire are calculated by using Costello’s

theory and presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Tensile stresses on outer wires for Costello theory

Stress results
(MPa) Costello
(in the direction of
wire axis)
Tensile load
(N)

8896,443 83,703
17792,89 139,076
26689,33 204,792
35585,77 269,166
44482,22 335,794
53378,66 405,08
62275,1 481,8624
71171,55 552,042
80067,99 617,77
88964,43 674,822

It is easy to see from Table 8 that tensile stress values on an outer wire obtained by using

Costello theory are greater than SG2 and SG4 stress outputs depicted in Table 5. It is found

that stress values on an outer wire obtained by using Costello theory are 4.42% greater than

averages SG2 and SG4 strain outputs.

3.2 Feyrer’s theory

Feyrer’s book [13] presents a calculation method on wire strain and stress. Forces on a strand

are shown in Fig. 4a neglecting shearing force which is very slight. In fig. 4a, Si is tensile

strand force in strand axis direction (N), Fi is wire tensile force (N) and Ui is circumference

force (N).

It is an important notation change about lay angle (α) that lay angle αi in Feyrer equation is

taken 90- α2=8,72618° in prestressing strand investigated since Feyrer’s equations are derived
by using this lay angle. Simple relation for the tensile force in a wire in the layer i depicted in

Fig. 4a is given in equation (8).

Si (8)
Fi 
cos( i )

Circumference force Ui is found by using equation (9) .

(9)
Ui  Fi .sin(i )

The length of the outer wire (li) is found by using equation (10).

ls (10)
li 
cos( i )

where ls is strand length (mm) which is taken as 885.825 mm in calculation.

Elongation of strand or center wire ls is easily calculated by using strand length ls and strand

strain value  s correspond to applied tensile load (  s = ls /ls). Strain of a wire in the layer i is

found such a manner that  i = li /li. Elongation of a wire in the layer i is found regarding

Poisson’s ratio ( i ) and Fig. 4b using equation (11).

ls .cos  i
li  (11)
1  i .sin 2  i
 Strand
axis

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Feyrer’s wire load and elongation diagrams

Outer wire strain is found by using equation (10) and equation (11). Table 9 show strain

values of an outer wire corresponding to applied load.

Table 9. Strains calculated by using Feyrer’s theory on an outer wire

Strain (µε) Feyrer

(in the direction
of wire axis)
Tensile load
(N)
8896,443 415,0864
17792,89 689,9351
26689,33 1015,943
35585,77 1335,291
44482,22 1665,821
53378,66 2009,530
62275,1 2390,446
71171,55 2738,602
80067,99 3064,664
88964,43 3347,690

Results indicate that there is a good match between Costello and Feyrer’s theoretical strain

results on one outer wire of prestressing strand at each loading levels. It is easy to see from

Table 9 that strain values on an outer wire obtained by using Feyrer’s theory are greater than

SG2 and SG4 strain outputs depicted in Table 3 for each tensile loads. It is found that there is
2.32% deviation in strain values on an outer wire obtained by using Feyrer’s theory than

average of SG2 and SG4 strain outputs.

Strand tensile force S is found by using equation (12).

ls n  zi .cos3  i 
S .  .Ei . Ai  (12)
ls i 0  1  i .sin  i
2


where zi is the number of wires in the wire layer i, Ei is modulus of elasticity (MPa) in the

wire layer i, Ai the cross section of a wire in the wire layer i.

The tensile stress in a wire of specific wire layer k is found by using equation (13).

cos 2  k
.Ek
Fk 1  k .sin 2  k
 çk   n .S (13)
Ak  zi .cos3  i 
 
i  0  1   i .sin  i
2
.Ei . Ai 


αk in equation (13) is taken as zero in the center wire stress calculation since center wire is

straight. Axial wire stresses on center wire is calculated by using Feyrer’s theory and

presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Tensile stresses on center wire for Feyrer theory

Stress results
(MPa)
Feyrer
Tensile load
(N)
8896,443 84,086
17792,89 139,75
26689,33 205,749
35585,77 270,419
44482,22 337,378
53378,66 406,994
62275,1 484,141
71171,55 554,643
80067,99 620,642
88964,43 678,004
Tensile stresses on center wire nearly overlap with Costello and LVDT results. Feyrer’s

theory gives satisfactory results. Tensile wire stresses on an outer wire are calculated by using

Feyrer’s theory and presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Tensile stresses on outer wires for Feyrer theory

Stress results Feyrer

(MPa) (in the
direction
of wire
Tensile load axis)
(N)

8896,443 81,587
17792,89 139,75
26689,33 199,635
35585,77 262,383
44482,22 327,352
53378,66 394,9
62275,1 469,754
71171,55 538,161
80067,99 602,2
88964,43 657,856

It is found from Table 11 that there is 2.64% deviation in tensile stress values on an outer wire

obtained by using Feyrer’s theory than average of SG2 and SG4 strain outputs depicted in

Table 5 for each tensile loads. Feyrer’s tensile stress results for an outer wire give more

accurate than Costello’s when experimental results are considered.

3.3 Linear regression analysis

Regression analysis is used to investigate the relation between dependant variable and

independent variable(s). First phase of the regression analysis is to find the best mathematical

model definition. In this study, dependent variables are tensile force and tensile stress. There

is independent variable which is strain of center wire or outer helical wire in micro epsilon

unit. Since there is one independent variable author proposes linear regression model adhering

to the experimental results. General form of linear regression model has been shown in

equation set (14) [22].

F  a0  a1 ( )  E

  a2  a3 ( )  E (14)

where ai’s are constant and E is residual term. To constitute a novel theoretical prediction

equation authors used the least square method. The least square method is the one of the most

convenient method for curve fitting. The best fit in the least square method means that

minimize the sum of squared residuals. Minimum of the sum of residual squares is found by

resolving the gradient and equalizing them to zero [23]. ai’s are determined by solving

equation set in least square method application.

LVDT readings are used as independent variable (  ) to predict tensile load and center wire

stress which are dependent variable. The novel theoretical prediction equations by using the

least square method is given in equation set (15).

F  734,9898350059  25,806853053(  )

  1,1461563996  0,1969444595(  ) (15)

In statistics, in order to check the validity of the theoretical prediction equation the coefficient

of determination (r2) is determined. This coefficient is obtained by using equation reported in

[24]. The coefficient of determination (r2) has been found as 0.9990 for F-  equation and

0.9999 for  -  equation respectively.

There is a powerful correlation between the results obtained by theoretical model presented

and the experiment results since the correlation coefficient converges to 1 [21].

SG2 and SG4 readings are used as independent variable (  ) separately to predict tensile

load and outer wire stress which are dependent variable. Since coefficient of determination is

found greater in SG2 results than SG4 for F-  equation only theoretical prediction equation

constituted by using SG2 results is presented in equation set (16). Since coefficient of
determination is found equal in SG2 and SG4 results for  -  equation author presented one

of theoretical prediction equations in equation set (16).

F  1267, 4242606912  27,1866400197(  )

  0,001924522  0,1965008512(  ) (16)

Negative constant values in equation sets (15) and (16) are only based on mathematical
operations of least square method. Finally, negative constant values are stochastic.

The coefficient of determination (r2) has been found as 0.9998 for F-  equation and 0.9999

for  -  equation respectively.

There is a powerful correlation between the results obtained by theoretical model presented

and the experiment results. Signal conditioners frequently give micro strain (  ) as output

value so author uses (  ) variable instead of using ( ) .

4. Results and discussion

Experimental instrumentation and tensile test studies on prestressing strand have been

performed in the Wisconsin Structures & Materials Testing Laboratory of University of

Wisconsin-Madison, WI. Axial tensile stress and strain values of center wire and outer wire(s)

are obtained by using several of sensors such as LVDT and strain gages. Experimental data

are collected and presented. Costello and Feyrer’s theory are used to calculate axial tensile

stress and strain values of center wire and outer wire(s) of prestressing strand. Experimental

and theoretical results are compared. Linear regression is performed to obtain novel

theoretical prediction equation about F-  or  -  relations.

Fig. 5 shows  -F graph which is obtained by theoretically and experimentally for center
wire.
 800
Costello
700 Feyrer
LVDT
600
Tensile Stress (MPa)

500

400

300

200

100

0
8896,443 17792,89 26689,33 35585,77 44482,22 53378,66 62275,1 71171,55 80067,99 88964,43

Tensile Load (N)

Fig. 5.  - F graph for center wire

Tensile stresses obtained experimentally and theoretically on center wire related to tensile

loads overlapped. Feyrer’s and Costello’s theories give satisfactory results.

Fig. 6 shows  - F graph which is experimentally obtained by LVDT sensor for center wire.

3450,2187 LVDT

3158,5245

2822,4762

2463,6582
micro epsilon

2071,075

1716,8402

1376,186

1047,0578

711,066

427,9513

8896,443 17792,89 26689,33 35585,77 44482,22 53378,66 62275,1 71171,55 80067,99 88964,43

Tensile Load (N)

Fig. 6.  - F graph obtained by LVDT sensor for center wire

LVDT sensor strain outputs gathered experimentally are extremely important for theoretical

stress and strain calculations of wires of wire rope since LVDT outputs are taken as initial

assumption of center wire strain in the theoretical Costello’s and Feyrer’s calculations.

Fig. 7 shows  -%  graph which is obtained theoretically and experimentally for an outer

wire.

800

Costello
700
Feyrer
Strain gage 2
600 Strain gage 4
Tensile Stress (MPa)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35

%Strain

Fig. 7.  -%  graph for an outer wire

It is easy to see from Fig. 7 that tensile stress values on an outer wire obtained by using

Costello’s theory are greater than SG2 and SG4 stress outputs depicted in Table 5 for each

load level. When reliability of outer wire of prestressing strand is considered Costello’s safety

factor values become always lower than Feyrer’s and experimental results . It is found that

stress values on an outer wire obtained by using Costello’s theory are 4.42% greater than

average of SG2 and SG4 strain outputs. In addition, there is 2.64% deviation in tensile stress

values on an outer wire obtained by using Feyrer’s theory than average of SG2 and SG4 strain

outputs. Feyrer’s tensile stress results for an outer wire give more accurate than Costello’s

when experimental results are considered. Beside tensile stress results, there is 2.32%

deviation in strain values on an outer wire obtained by using Costello’s theory than average of
SG2 and SG4 strain outputs. There is 2.32% deviation in strain values on an outer wire

obtained by using Feyrer’s theory than averages SG2 and SG4 strain outputs. Results indicate

that there is a good match between Costello and Feyrer’s theoretical strain results on one outer

wire of prestressing strand at each loading levels.

 - F diagram which is obtained theoretically and experimentally for an outer wire of

prestressing strand is depicted in Fig. 8. Fig. 8 is a different projection of results obtained in

which reader can also observe  - F variation on an outer wire and together with  -%  graph

as Fig. 7.

800

Costello
700
Feyrer
Strain gage 2
600 Strain gage 4
Tensile Stress (MPa)

500

400

300

200

100

0
8896,443 17792,89 26689,33 35585,77 44482,22 53378,66 62275,1 71171,55 80067,99 88964,43

Tensile Load (N)

Fig. 8.  - F graph for an outer wire

Author used SG1 and SG3 results to gather strain values on an outer wire of prestressing

strand in the direction of strand axis since wire rope theories only focused on outer wire strain

and stress calculation in the direction of wire axis. When strain results are considered on SG1

and SG3 there is a good harmony in the results obtained. Small deviation in results is caused

by strain gage misalignments with strand axis. It is obvious from results presented in Table 2

and Table 3 that strains on outer wires are smaller than center wire when strand subjected to

axial tensile load. It is found that strain and stress values on center wire are 8.44% greater
than strain and stress values on outer wires in the direction of strand axis when average of

SG1 and SG3 results is taken. It is an important finding drawn from SG1,SG2, SG3 and SG4

results in Table 2 and Table 3 that outer wires suffer greater strain and stress values in the

direction of wire axis than in the direction of strand axis. It is found that strain and stress

values in the direction of wire axis of outer wire are 3.34% greater than strain and stress

values in the direction of strand axis of outer wires when average of SG1 and SG3 results and

SG2 and SG4 results are taken. It is concluded from findings that center wire suffers a slightly

greater strain and stress than outer wires which obey Costello’s[12] study.

Linear regression models are devised to predict force-microstrain and tensile stress-

microstrain relations by using data obtained by experimental studies when prestressing strand

is subjected tensile load for center wire and outer wire. Least square method is used to find

equation constant ai’s. The novel theoretical prediction equations by using the least square

method are given in equation set (15) and (16) for center wire and outer wire separately.

5.Conclusions

In this study, experimental strain measurements of wires of prestressing strand which is 15.24

mm in diameter subjected to tensile load have been performed by using strain gages and

LVDT sensors. Theories proposed by Costello and Feyrer are used to calculate theoretical

strain values occurred on core wire and helical wire. Tensile stresses occurred on center wire

and outer wire of prestressing strand are then calculated and presented experimentally and

theoretically. Linear regression models are devised to predict force-strain and stress-strain

relation by using experimental results.

The following conclusions can be acquired from this study:

1) There is a good match between Costello and Feyrer’s theoretical strain results on one

outer wire of prestressing strand at each loading levels.

 2) Outer wires suffer greater strain and stress values in the direction of wire axis than in

the direction of strand axis.

3) When reliability of outer wire of prestressing strand is considered Costello’s safety

factor values become always lower than Feyrer’s and experimental results .

4) Center wire suffers a slightly greater strain and stress than outer wires which obey

Costello’s study.

5) Feyrer’s tensile stress results for an outer wire give more accurate than Costello’s

when experimental results are considered.

6) Presented force-microstrain and tensile stress- microstrain theoretical prediction

equations have powerful correlation with experimental results.

Acknowledgement

The author is immensely grateful to Prof. Michael G. Oliva who is faculty of University of

Wisconsin-Madison for being advisor during postdoctoral study. Author was supported by

Council of Higher Education for postdoctoral study.

References

[1] Love AEH. A treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity. Fourth edition, Dover

Publications, New York: 1944.

[2] Machida S, Durelli AJ. Response of a strand to axial and torsional displacements. J Mech

Eng Sci 1973; 15(4): 241-51.

[3] Costello GA, Phillips JW. Contact stresses in thin twisted rods. J Appl Mech 1973; 40(2):

629-630.

[4] Costello GA. Stresses in multilayered cables. Journal of Energy Resources Technology,

1983; 105(3): 337-40.

[5] Velinsky SA, Anderson GL, Costello GA. Wire rope with complex cross sections. J Eng

Mech 1984; 110(3): 380-91.

[6] Velinsky SA. Analysis of fiber-core wire rope. J Energy Resour Technol 1985; 107(3):

388-93.

[7] Velinsky SA. General nonlinear theory for complex wire rope. Int J Mech Sci 1985;

27(7/8): 497-507.

[8] Phillips JW, Costello GA. Analysis of wire ropes with internal-wire-rope cores. J Appl

Mech 1985; 52(3): pp. 510-16.

[9] Kumar K, Cochran JE. Closed-form analysis for elastic deformations of multilayered

strands. J Appl Mech 1987; 54(4): 898-903.

[10] Utting WS, Jones N. The response of wire rope strands to axial tensile loads-Part II.

Comparison of experimental results and theoretical predictions. Int J Mech Sci 1987;

29(9): 621-36.

[11] Cappa P. An experimental study of wire strains in an undamaged and damaged steel

strand subjected to tensile load. Exp Mech 1988; 28(4): 346-49.

[12] Costello GA. Theory of wire rope. Second edition, Springer, New York: 1997.

[13] Feyrer K. Wire ropes: tension, endurance, reliability, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New

York: 2007.

[14] Ghoreishi SR, Messager T, Cartraud P, Davies P. Validity and limitations of linear

analytical models for steel wire strands under axial loading, using a 3D FE model. Int J

Mech Sci 2007; 49(11): 1251-61.

[15] Gnanavel BK, Gopinath D, Parthasarathy NS. Effect of friction on coupled contact in a

twisted wire cable. J Appl Mech 2010; 77(2): 024501-6.

[16] Argatov II. Asymptotic modeling of reciprocating sliding wear with application to

local interwire contact. Wear 2011; 271(7-8);1147-1155.

[17] Argatov II, Gómez X, Tato W, Urchegui MA. Wear evolution in a stranded rope

under cyclic bending: Implications to fatigue life estimation. Wear 2011;271(11-

12);2857-2867.

[18] Cho K, Kim ST, Park SY, Park YH. Computation of the strand resistance using the core

wire strain measurement. Eng 2013; 5(11): 850-55.

[19] Abdullah ABM, Rice JA, Hamilton HR, Consolazio GR. An investigation on stressing

and breakage response of a prestressing strand using an efficient finite element model.

Eng Struct 2016; 123: 213-24.

[20] ASTM A416, Standard specification for uncoated seven wire steel strand for prestressed

concrete. USA: 2012.

[21] Johnson GP, Robertson IN, Structural health monitoring systems for civil and

architectural structures: lvdt-taut-wire baselines, crack monitoring devices, & strain based

deflection monitoring algorithms. University of Hawaii Department of Civil

Environmental Engineering Research Report (Project Code: UHM/CEE/07-02), Manoa:

2007.

[22] Chapra SC, Canale RP. Numerical Methods for Engineers. McGraw-Hill, Inc, USA:

1988.

[23] Onur YA, İmrak CE. Experimental and theoretical investigation of bending over sheave

fatigue life of stranded steel wire rope. Indian J Eng Mater S 2012; 19(3): 189-95.

[24] Onur İ. Introduction to Numerical Analysis in Engineering. Filiz Publishing House

İstanbul, Turkey: 1999 (in Turkish).

Journal name: International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

Manuscript title: Experimental and theoretical investigation of prestressing steel strand

subjected to tensile load

Highlights

 There is a good match between Costello and Feyrer’s theoretical strain results on one

outer wire of prestressing strand at each loading levels.

 Outer wires suffer greater strain and stress values in the direction of wire axis than in

the direction of strand axis.

 When reliability of outer wire of prestressing strand is considered Costello’s safety

factor values become always lower than Feyrer’s and experimental results .

 Center wire suffers a slightly greater strain and stress than outer wires which obey

Costello’s study.

 Feyrer’s tensile stress results for an outer wire give more accurate than Costello’s

when experimental results are considered.

 Presented force-microstrain and tensile stress- microstrain theoretical prediction

equations have powerful correlation with experimental results.