Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioning Monostrand Anchorage Systems Under Monotonic Tensile Loading
Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioning Monostrand Anchorage Systems Under Monotonic Tensile Loading
Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioning Monostrand Anchorage Systems Under Monotonic Tensile Loading
net/publication/275993671
CITATIONS READS
27 321
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Experimental Evaluation of Ground Motion Scaling Methods for the Nonlinear Analysis of Structural Systems View project
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry buildings in the Northeastern United States. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin Quinn Walsh on 10 May 2015.
n Little published information is available on the ultimate perfor- While unbonded post-tensioning has been available in the
mance of strand-anchorage systems. United States since the 1950s (for example, in floor and
roof slab construction) and standards exist for its applica-
n This paper includes recommendations for the design and ac- tion,18–20 the use of this construction method for seismic
ceptance testing of unbonded post-tensioning strand anchorage resistance can be extremely demanding on the anchor-
systems in seismic regions. ages. The significant promise shown by unbonded post-
Coupling
Joint beam
Joint
Foundation
Figure 1. These unbonded post-tensioned structures use high-strength post-tensioning tendons in precast concrete beam, column, and wall members to achieve the lateral
resistance needed under seismic loading.
tensioned seismic structural systems1–17 can be limited by with the research needs in this area, the primary objectives
the brittle fracture of strand wires inside the anchors (Fig. of this paper are to
2). Published information on the ultimate performance of
strand-anchorage systems is limited21 because the valida- • investigate the ultimate strength and strain capacity of
tion tests conducted by anchor manufacturers are typically a representative sampling of monostrand anchorage
not available in archived literature. Furthermore, most configurations under monotonic tensile loading,
of the early work that led to the development of post-
tensioning anchorages in the United States is based on tests • make recommendations for the design and acceptance
of post-tensioned concrete members under gravity-load ef- testing of unbonded post-tensioning strand anchorage
fects,22–25 and anchor designs, configurations, manufactur- systems,
ing processes, and materials have changed over the years.
• make recommendations for the design of unbonded
A comprehensive evaluation of modern unbonded post-ten- post-tensioned structures in seismic regions.
sioning strand anchorage systems is necessary before they
can be used in extreme seismic applications. In accordance More information on the research can be found in the full
project report.26
Background
and research scope
Figure 2. Brittle fractures of individual strand wires inside the anchorages are
possible, limiting the seismic performance of the structure.
Test setup
1 50
Strand wire fractures Strand wire
fractures
Beam shear force Vb, kip
Initial
P/Apfpu
Final
0 -50
-10 0 10 -10 0 10
Beam chord rotation θb, % Beam chord rotation θb, %
Figure 3. Premature strand-wire fractures were observed in unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete coupled wall subassembly experiments. Note: Ap = cross-sectional
area of tendon; fpu = nominal strand strength; P = total tendon force; Vb = beam shear force; θb = beam chord rotation. 1 kip = 4.448 kN.
The post-tensioning-tendon anchorage is one of the most are possible under these extreme demands, limiting the
important components of unbonded post-tensioned struc- seismic performance of the structure.
tures because the entire post-tensioning force is transferred
at these locations. A typical post-tensioning anchorage Unexpected wire fractures inside the anchors of unbonded
consists of a steel barrel or a cast plate with a cone-shaped post-tensioning strands were observed in recent experi-
hole (or holes for multistrand anchorages) that holds a two- ments of wall and frame structures at the University of
piece or three-piece wedge assembly. The design guide- Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Ind. Figure 3 shows a floor-
lines for unbonded post-tensioned structures in seismic level, unbonded post-tensioned, precast concrete, coupled
regions require that the strands remain essentially linear wall subassembly test setup16 and the total measured beam
elastic during a design-basis earthquake.29–31 However, sig- post-tensioning-tendon force (determined as the sum of the
nificant post-yield stresses and strains can develop in the individual strand forces from load cells placed at the dead
strands during a maximum considered earthquake.32 Brittle end of each strand) from a test specimen.
fractures of individual strand wires inside the anchorages
Figure 4. The testing equipment used in the experimental program included a 600 kip (2669 kN) hydraulic universal testing machine and two extensometers.
Figure 5. These diagrams illustrate the test materials used in this study. Note: Diagrams are not drawn to scale. BID = bottom inner diameter; BOD = bottom outer diam-
eter; BW = bottom width; dmw = middle-wire diameter; dow = outer-wire diameter; dp = strand diameter; H = height; IW = inner width; L = length; TID = top inner diameter;
TOD = top outer diameter; TW = top width; W = width.
results in this paper should be viewed not as generaliza- is a class A sensor with a 36-in.-long (910 mm) gauge and
tions for the expected performance of these systems but the other is a class B-1 sensor with a 2.0-in.-long (50 mm)
more as the observed performance of a representative sam- gauge. All test-equipment components, including the load
ple set. The test results are also limited by the specimen cell and position rate of the testing machine as well as the
sample-pool size for each of the configurations considered, gauge lengths and strain measurements of the extensom-
especially because a significant amount of variability is eters, are calibrated at least yearly on-site. Comparisons
observed in the fracture strains. and validation of the measurements from the two exten-
someters are given in the “Validation of Concentric Load-
Research program ing,” “Strain-Measurement Validation,” and “Strain-Rate
Validation” sections in this paper.
Testing requirements
Test-specimen properties
The experiments described in this paper conform to the static and parameters
testing requirements of the International Code Council Eval-
uation Service (ICC-ES).33 According to these requirements, Figure 5 shows the materials tested in this research,
the minimum free length of the test strand between anchors which included monostrand cast anchors, monostrand
should be 3.5 ft (1.1 m) and the strand must be tested with a barrel anchors (single use and reusable), anchor wedges,
monotonic machine position displacement rate that falls in and ASTM A41634 seven-wire, uncoated, low-relaxation
between 0.197 in./min and 0.887 in./min (5.0 mm/min and steel post-tensioning strand with a nominal design ulti-
22.5 mm/min), which corresponds to a nominal strand strain mate strength of 270 ksi (1860 MPa). The test parameters
rate of 0.0047 in./in./min to 0.021 in./in./min (0.0047 mm/ included 0.5-in.-nominal-diameter (13 mm) or 0.6-in.-
mm/min to 0.021 mm/mm/min) for the minimum strand free nominal-diameter (15 mm) strand, cast or barrel anchor
length of 3.5 ft (1.1 m) required by ICC-ES. An extensom- types, two-piece or three-piece wedges, and use or nonuse
eter with a minimum gauge length of 36 in. (910 mm) must of a binding ring around the wedges.
be used within the free length of the strand to measure the
strand strains. ICC-ES requires that tests be conducted on a Because the physical dimensions and shapes of these
minimum of three samples for each configuration. materials could prove to be an important factor in their
performance, Fig. 5 and Tables 1 through 3 provide the
Testing equipment geometrical properties of the anchor, wedge, and strand
specimens. An important factor in the selection of each
Figure 4 shows the testing equipment used in the experi- anchor configuration for testing was the use of wedges and
mental program, which includes a 600 kip (2670 kN) hy- anchors that were compatible with each other and were
draulic universal testing machine and two extensometers. provided by the same manufacturer.
To satisfy ICC-ES requirements, one of the extensometers
Anchor H, in. L, in. W, in. TOD, in. TID, in. BID, in. BOD, in.
Note: BID = bottom inner diameter; BOD = bottom outer diameter; H = height; L = length; TID = top inner diameter; TOD = top outer diameter;
W = width. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Note: BW = bottom width; H = height; IW = inner width; TW = top width. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Note: ap = cross-sectional area of one strand; dmw = middle-wire diameter; dow = outer-wire diameter; dp = strand diameter; Ep,free-length = free-length
elastic modulus; fpm,free-length = free-length maximum strength; fpu = nominal design ultimate strength; εpf,free-length = free-length fracture strain. 1 in. =
25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
Table 1 lists the tested anchors, named according to the vided in the tables are average measurements taken from
anchor type and the nominal diameter of the strand used a minimum of three samples. Variations existed in the
with the anchor. The reusable anchors were essentially dimensions of both the anchors and the wedges, depend-
shaped and tested like single-use barrel anchors. Similarly, ing on the manufacturer and the model. Binding rings held
Table 2 shows the tested wedges, named according to the the wedge pieces together, particularly during seating. The
number of wedge pieces (2P for two-piece wedges or 3P wedges without rings (always two-piece wedges in this
for three-piece wedges) and the nominal strand diameter sample set) did not have the notches shown in Fig. 5.
(0.5 in. [13 mm] or 0.6 in. [15 mm]). The properties pro-
250
200
Stress, ksi
Test paused for
150 extensometer
removal
100
50
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Strain, in./in.
Figure 6. Free-length fracture of the strand samples was achieved using sand-grip anchors as shown in this figure. Note: Maximum free-length strength fpm,free-length is
indicated by the ◊ marker on the strand stress-strain relationship graph. Free-length fracture strain εpf,free-length is indicated by the marker on the strand stress-strain
relationship graph. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
Table 3 shows the properties of the tested strands, named facturer’s specification sheets. The maximum free-length
according to the nominal diameter and differentiated for strength (fpm,free-length) and fracture strain (εpf,free-length) for each
each different source (that is, spool) from which the mate- strand were determined by testing strand samples with
rial was obtained. The strand samples used in this paper special sand-grip anchors as described in the next section,
were cut from three different spools. Strand spools 0.5A “Strand Free-Length Failure Tests.”
and 0.6A were provided by one manufacturer, and spool
0.6B was provided by a second manufacturer. The strand Strand free-length failure tests
properties in the table are average measurements from a
minimum of three samples. The actual maximum strengths and fracture strains of the
strand from the three spools were determined by testing
The measured wire and strand diameters (dmw, dow, and dp, strand samples with special sand-grip anchors to result in
as defined in Fig. 5) are all within ASTM A41634 toler- free-length seven-wire fracture of each specimen.26 ASTM
ance limits. The cross-sectional area ap of each strand was A37035 strand-testing requirements were followed in these
calculated from the following measurements: length of the experiments, which are referred to as free-length experi-
sample, weight of the sample, weight of the middle wire ments in this paper. Figure 6 shows the sand-grip-anchor
from the sample (to determine the steel unit weight), and components, placement, the measured free-length stress-
diameter of the middle wire. The calculated strand areas strain relationship of a sample 0.6A strand, and the free-
compared well with the areas provided on the strand manu- length seven-wire fracture of the strand. The combination of
72 in.
Testing machine
Schematic
Figure 7. The diagram and photos show the test setup for the strand/anchor experiments. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm
the relatively large 11 in. (279 mm) length of the sand-grip strength and fracture strain being reached at the same point
plates and the wet sand provided a more even distribution of on the stress-strain curve. Stress-strain relationships from
stress transfer between the strand and the anchor than would the free-length experiments of 10 different strand spools
occur with typical post-tensioning strand anchorage assem- (including the three spools used in this paper) can be found
blies, permitting the strand to achieve free-length failure. in the project report.26
Table 3 lists the average (from three samples) free-length The position rate of the testing machine was adjusted to re-
maximum strength fpm,free-length, free-length fracture strain sult in a strain rate of about 0.02 in./in./min (0.02 mm/mm/
εεpf,free-length, and free-length elastic modulus Ep,free-length for min). As permitted by ASTM A370, the extensometer used
each strand. The 0.5-in.-diameter (13 mm) strand samples in the free-length experiments was removed from the spec-
consistently achieved higher yield stress and ultimate imen at a minimum strain of 0.01 in./in. (0.01 mm/mm) to
strength than the 0.6-in.-diameter (15 mm) strand samples. prevent damage to the extensometer due to the explosive,
The free-length fracture strain was reached at a stress near-simultaneous fracture of all seven strand wires during
slightly smaller than the maximum strength as a result of the test. This is different from the post-tensioning anchor
the necking that occurred in the strand wires in the case experiments in which both extensometers were left on the
of free-length fracture. This behavior is different from the specimen through wire fracture.
brittle wire fractures observed inside the post-tensioning
anchors investigated in this research (Fig. 2), which oc- In the free-length experiments, the strand incremental
curred with no visible necking, resulting in the maximum strains after extensometer removal were determined by di-
Stress, ksi
necking strains were assumed to be distributed over the
entire free length of the specimen and any strand slip inside 150
the sand-grip anchors (albeit small) that might have oc-
curred following extensometer removal was included in the 100
strain calculations. 50
270 270
260 260
250 250
240 240
230 230
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Fracture strain, in./in. Fracture strain, in./in.
Cast anchors (0.5 in.) Barrel anchors (0.5 in.) Two-piece wedges (0.5 in.) Three-piece wedges (0.5 in.)
Cast anchors (0.6 in.) Barrel anchors (0.6 in.) Two-piece wedges (0.6 in.) Three-piece wedges (0.6 in.)
Figure 11. Comparisons between the fracture strains from cast-anchor and Figure 12. This graph shows the results obtained from strand/anchor assemblies
barrel-anchor assemblies are shown in this graph. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; utilizing three-piece versus two-piece wedges. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm;
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa. 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
Two-piece wedges without ring Two-piece wedges with ring Three-piece wedges with ring
Differ- Differ-
Number Differ- Differ- Differ- Differ-
Date Average ence in ence in
Anchor of speci- Standard Coef- ence in ence in ence in ence in
code fracture coef- coef-
mens deviation, ficient of average standard average standard
strain, ficient of ficient of
in./in. variation fracture deviation, fracture deviation,
in./in. variation, variation,
strain, % % strain, % %
% %
Cast-0.5B n.a. 3 0.0326 0.0052 0.16 -48.8 44.2 182 -16.9 -35.5 -22.3
Cast-0.5C n.a. 3 0.0311 0.0016 0.05 -63.3 -20.3 117 -48.0 176 430
Cast-0.6A 1 3 0.0212 0.0091 0.43 -18.1 -11.9 7.6 2.4 -70.5 -71.2
Cast-0.6A 2 1 0.0379 n.a. n.a. -36.2 n.a. n.a. -49.2 n.a. n.a.
Barrel-
n.a. 3 0.0182 0.0128 0.70 -26.0 -76.8 -68.6 11.1 -26.4 -33.7
0.5B
Barrel-
n.a. 3 0.0262 0.0007 0.03 19.5 1040 855 -12.7 354 420
0.6A
Total n.a. 16 0.0266 n.a. n.a. -30.7 n.a. n.a. -19.3 n.a. n.a.
cantly farther into the anchor hole than the other wedge). Reusable anchors
While there were a few poorly seated anchors in the
experiments conducted in this research program,26 the data Unless otherwise stated, all of the barrel-anchor results
from these tests are excluded from the results shown. presented in this paper are for single-use anchors. Two
0.5 in. (13 mm) reusable barrel anchor types were also
A summary of the test data on the anchor-wedge and ring- tested in this research, as shown in Table 1. Reuse 0.5A
configuration variables can be seen in Table 4, including was a strand chuck for multiple live-end jacking opera-
the sample size used for each configuration; the average, tions, whereas reuse 0.5B was a dead-end anchor chuck for
standard deviation, and coefficient of variation of the anchoring strand over multiple uses (typically in preten-
fracture strains for the configurations utilizing two-piece sioning applications). Both of these anchors were provided
wedges without ring; and comparative data for the other by the same manufacturer and used the same wedge 3P-
configurations that were investigated. 0.5C. The primary difference between the anchors was that
the live-end strand chuck had an extended-length barrel
with a spring-loaded cap for the prestressing jack to bear.
Four tests of previously unused reuse 0.5A anchors re-
0.04
270
0.02 250
0.01 240
0 230
0 1 2 3 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Test series Fracture strain, in./in.
Figure 14. This graph shows the performance of reusable anchors over multiple Figure 15. The effect of the cast-anchor date code on the strand fracture strains
test series. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm. and stresses is shown in this graph. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
sulted in an average fracture strain of 0.0369 in./in. (0.0369 test series, but the performance actually improved. It is not
mm/mm), while four tests of previously unused reuse 0.5B known what caused this performance improvement over
anchors resulted in an average fracture strain of 0.0320 in./ the retesting of the anchors and the number of uses after
in. (0.0320 mm/mm). Compared with most of the single- which degradation in performance may begin to occur.
use anchors tested in this research, the reusable anchors
performed significantly better. Performance difference
per cast-anchor date code
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, both the reusable anchors
themselves and the corresponding wedges were taller The cast-anchor test results described in the previous sec-
than all of the single-use anchors and wedges for 0.5 in. tions include anchors made using several different molds.
(13 mm) strand, and the steel was manufactured with supe- However, the date code, which provides information on
rior strength, hardness, and tolerance limits for extended when the casting was made, was the same for each type of
life (based on both the manufacturer’s specification sheets anchor tested. To investigate the possible effects of anchor
and visual observation of wear and damage after test- properties from different casting dates, a series of experi-
ing). Of course, reusable anchors are significantly more ments were conducted using the cast 0.6A anchor with a
expensive than single-use anchors, so it is not the intention 2P-0.6B wedge configuration with two different anchor
of this evaluation to conclude that reusable anchors should date codes. A total of 10 specimens were tested for each
always be used over single-use anchors in seismic unbond- date code, with all other anchor, strand, and testing param-
ed post-tensioned structural applications. Furthermore, the eters kept the same.
authors are not aware of any reusable anchors in multi-
strand configurations, which may be an important limita- Figure 15 shows the results from the 20 tests. The anchors
tion for the use of reusable anchors in some applications. with date code 2 clearly outperformed those with date code
1. Table 6 provides the average, standard deviation, and
Following the initial test series, the reuse 0.5B anchors coefficient of variation of the fracture stresses and strains
were retested in two additional series, and the change in for the two date codes, indicating that not only did anchors
performance can be observed in Table 5 and Fig. 14. Not with date code 2 outperform those with date code 1 on
only did a drop in performance not occur over these three average, but they were also more consistent.
Figure 16. Etching revealed the smeared microstructural features along the interior surface of the sample with date code 1 compared with the sample with date code 2.
Because all of these anchors and wedges were provided tions in a sample. The microscopic images in Fig. 16, how-
by the same manufacturer, labeled as the same model, and ever, indicate that the sample with date code 2 had a more
measured to have the same nominal geometrical features uniform microstructure with larger graphite spheroids and
and dimensions, it was hypothesized that metallurgical stronger pearlite from surface decarburization, most likely
differences between the anchors may have played a role in as a result of being exposed to higher temperatures during
their relative performances. the post-casting heat-treatment process.
The holes used to position the test strand through the post-
tensioning-anchor bearing plates were aligned using a laser
alignment tool, and the bearing plates were screwed to
the test-machine crossheads to ensure consistent concen-
tric loading conditions during each test. To validate this
setup, two sets of additional experiments were conducted:
doubling the strand free length between the anchors and
using spherical load washers between the anchors and the
bearing plates. Hypothesizing that if these variations were
indeed effective, they would enhance the performance
of the system, the tests were conducted using anchor and
wedge configurations that had performed relatively poorly
in earlier tests to increase the chances of observing im-
provements in the fracture strains.
Once again, the average fracture strains were minimally As described previously, ICC-ES and all of the other
altered due to the addition of spherical load washers to the relevant documents18–20 require a rather long, 36-in.-gauge-
test setup, with one configuration showing a slight reduc- length (910 mm) extensometer for the measurement of the
tion and one configuration showing a slight improvement strand strains. Because the strains over the free length of
(Table 8). Hence, the use of spherical load washers did not an unbonded strand should be uniform, the reason behind
have a significant effect on the performance of the strand/ this gauge-length requirement is not clear, though it may
anchor systems tested. Coupled with the trends observed be argued that the twisted nature of a strand can prohibit
from the extended-length tests, it is concluded that the the use of a short gauge length. To investigate this issue
fracture stress and strain results presented previously are and validate the strain measurements from each test, two
representative of a concentric-tensile-loading application. extensometers, one with a 36-in.-long gauge and the other
1 0.0169 0.0114
3 0.0115 0.0111
1 0.0116 0.0134
3 0.0111 0.0117
1 0.0246 0.0303
3 0.0194 0.0289
1 0.0242 0.0223
3 0.0164 0.0095
with a 2-in.-long (50 mm) gauge, were used in this project extensometers for all of the ICC-ES and extended-length
(Fig. 4). tests (Fig. 21).
The typical strain time-history chart in Fig. 20 shows Data points were removed from Fig. 21 only for tests in
the extensometer readings to be almost identical, sug- which a noticeable error, such as slippage, occurred with
gesting that, in the case of unbonded post-tensioning one of the extensometers. Of almost 170 data points taken,
strands, gauge length does not appreciably affect the strain only four tests exceeded 0.001 in./in. (0.001 mm/mm) in
measurements. This important conclusion is fortified by differential measurements, and these four points correlated
charting the difference in the fracture-strain measurements with specimens that failed at relatively high strains, mean-
from the 36-in.-long (910 mm) and 2-in.-long (50 mm) ing that the differences were small when considered as
Washer components
Placement
Figure 19. The application of concentric loads on the strands was also investigated by using spherical washers in the test setup.
1 0.0169 0.0131
3 0.0115 0.0139
1 0.0246 0.0158
3 0.0194 0.0304
0.001
Strain-rate validation
fracture strain, in./in.
0.0005
One of the ICC-ES requirements for the monotonic test-
ing of unbonded post-tensioning strand anchorage sys- 0
0 50 100 150 200
tems is that the test must be conducted with a machine
-0.0005
position rate of 0.197 in./min to 0.887 in./min (5.0 mm/
min to 22.5 mm/min), which corresponds to a nominal -0.001
strand-strain rate of 0.0047 in./in./min to 0.021 in./in./
min (0.0047 mm/mm/min to 0.021 mm/mm/min) for the -0.0015
minimum strand free length of 3.5 ft (1.1 m) required by Test number
ICC-ES. Figure 22 shows the time versus strain rate data
from a typical test in this research project. The strain rate
from the machine position (that is, crosshead displacement Figure 21. The fracture strain differences measured using the 2 in. and 36 in.
extensometers were negligible. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
divided by the 72 in. [1830 mm] free length of the strand
between anchors) remains within the ICC-ES limits and
near the target rate of 0.02 in./in./min (0.02 mm/mm/min) Looking at the strain rates obtained from the extensometer
over the course of the test. measurements, it is observed in Fig. 22 that the extensom-
0.02
– The 0.6 in. (15 mm) anchors provide a better
probability than 0.5 in. (13 mm) anchors for
0.01 both cast and barrel anchor types, or, in general,
anchors and wedges with larger dimensions, such
0 as reusable anchors.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, min – The 0.5 in. (13 mm) cast anchors provide a better
Position 2 in. extensometer 36 in. extensometer probability than 0.5 in. (13 mm) barrel anchors.
This paper presented an experimental research program • Cast anchors of the same model and provided by the
on the ultimate performance of unbonded post-tensioning same manufacturer, but with different casting-date
monostrand anchorage systems under monotonic tensile codes, can perform significantly differently. This
loading. The tests were conducted following the static could be due to differences in the uniformity and
testing requirements of the ICC-ES.33 Several conclusions hardness of the anchor surfaces where the wedges
were made based on the results: seat, resulting from temperature variations during the
postcasting heat-treatment process.
• The ultimate stress and strain capacities of the strands
are limited by the fracture of individual strand wires • The strain measurements from a 36-in.-long-gauge
inside the anchor-wedge assembly. (910 mm) extensometer and a 2-in.-long-gauge
(50 mm) extensometer are nearly identical, with the dif-
• As a result of the brittle nature of the strand-wire frac- ference in measured fracture strains less than ±0.001 in./
tures, there is a significant amount of scatter in the test in. (±0.001 mm/mm) for most tests. The current strand-
data, with fractures occurring at strains almost as large anchor testing requirement for a minimum extensome-
as 0.04 in./in. and as small as 0.01 in./in. (or slightly ter-gauge length of 36 in. (910 mm) is not justified.
less for a small number of samples), right around the
strain corresponding to a significant change in the • The large standard deviation and coefficient of varia-
slope of the strand stress-strain relationship. tion of the strand fracture-strain data suggest that a
larger sample pool size should be used in the vali-
• Design strains should be limited to 0.01 in./in. dation testing of post-tensioning strand anchorage
(0.01 mm/mm) for unbonded post-tensioning strand systems than the pool size of three samples currently
anchorage systems. If the required design strains required by the ICC-ES. It may also be necessary
are higher than this limit, reusable anchors or other to include samples with different date codes in the
anchors that have been proven to consistently achieve experimental validation of cast anchors.
higher fracture strains [generally those anchors with
larger dimensions] should be specified. Acknowledgments
• Limited to the strand and anchorage systems consid- This research was funded by PCI under a Daniel P. Jenny
ered, the number of tests conducted, and the parame- Fellowship. The support of the members of the PCI
References 12. Perez, F., S. Pessiki, and R. Sause. 2004. Lateral Load
Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Con-
1. Priestley, M., and J. Tao. 1993. Seismic Response crete Walls with Vertical Joints. PCI Journal, V. 49,
of Precast Prestressed Concrete Frames with Par- No. 2 (March–April): pp. 48–64.
tially Debonded Tendons. PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 1
(January–February): pp. 58–67. 13. Morgen, B., and Y. Kurama. 2004. A Friction Damper
for Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Moment Frames.
2. Cheok, G., and H. Lew. 1993. Model Precast Concrete PCI Journal, V. 49, No. 4 (July–August): pp. 112–
Beam-to-Column Joints Subject to Cyclic Loading. 133.
PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 4 (July–August): pp. 80–92.
14. Kurama, Y. 2005. Seismic Design of Partially Post-
3. Stone, W., G. Cheok, and J. Stanton. 1995. Perfor- tensioned Precast Concrete Walls. PCI Journal, V. 50,
mance of Hybrid Moment-Resisting Precast Beam- No. 4 (July–August): pp. 100–125.
Column Concrete Connections Subjected to Cyclic
Loading. ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2 (Febru- 15. Perez, F., R. Sause, and S. Pessiki. 2007. Analytical
ary): pp. 229–249. and Experimental Lateral Load Behavior of Unbonded
Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls. Journal of
4. Priestley, M., and G. MacRae. 1996. Seismic Tests Structural Engineering, V. 133, No. 1 (January–Feb-
of Precast Beam-to-Column Joint Subassemblages ruary): pp. 1531–1540.
with Unbonded Tendons. PCI Journal, V. 41, No. 1
(January–February): pp. 64–81. 16. Weldon, B., and Y. Kurama. 2007. Unbonded Post-
Tensioned Precast Concrete Coupling Beams: An
5. Stanton, J., W. Stone, and F. Cheok. 1997. A Hybrid Experimental Evaluation. In Proceedings of the ASCE
Reinforced Precast Frame for Seismic Regions. PCI Structures Congress, Long Beach, CA, May 16–19.
Journal, V. 42, No. 2 (March–April): pp. 20–32. CD-ROM. Reston, VA: ASCE.
6. Cheok, G., W. Stone, and S. Kunnath. 1998. Seismic 17. Morgen, B., and Y. Kurama. 2008. Seismic Response
Response of Precast Concrete Frames with Hybrid Evaluation of Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete
Connections. ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 5 Frames with Friction Dampers. Journal of Structural
(May): pp. 527–539. Engineering, V. 134, No. 1 (January): pp. 132–145.
7. El-Sheikh, M., R. Sause, S. Pessiki, and L. W. Lu. 18. Joint ACI–American Society of Civil Engineers
1999. Seismic Behavior and Design of Unbonded Committee 423. 2007. Specification for Unbonded
Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Frames. PCI Jour- Single-Strand Tendons and Commentary. ACI 423.7.
nal, V. 44, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 54–71. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
8. Kurama, Y., S. Pessiki, R. Sause, and L. W. Lu. 1999. 19. Joint ACI–American Society of Civil Engineers Com-
Seismic Behavior and Design of Unbonded Post-Ten- mittee 423. 2005. Recommendations for Concrete
23. Burns, N., and D. Pierce. 1967. Strength and Behavior 34. ASTM A416. 2006. Standard Specification for Steel
of Prestressed Concrete Members with Unbonded Ten- Strand, Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Con-
dons. PCI Journal, V. 12, No. 5 (October): pp. 15–29. crete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
24. Nawy, E., and F. Salek. 1968. Moment-Rotation 35. ASTM A370. 2008. Standard Test Methods and
Relationships of Non-bonded Post-tensioned I- and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Prod-
T-Beams. PCI Journal, V. 13, No. 4 (August): pp. ucts. Annex A7 Method of Testing Multi-Wire Strand
40–55. for Prestressed Concrete. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
25. Mattock, A., J. Yamazaki, and B. Kattula. 1969.
A Comparison of the Behavior of Post-Tensioned 36. PCI. 2004. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Pre-
Pre-stressed Concrete Beams with and without Bond. stressed Concrete. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: PCI.
Structures mechanics report SM69-3, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Notation
WA.
ap = cross-sectional area of one strand
26. Walsh, K., and Y. Kurama. 2009. Behavior and De-
sign of Unbonded Post-tensioning Strand/Anchorage Ap = cross-sectional area of tendon
Systems for Seismic Applications. Structural engineer-
ing research report NDSE-09-02, University of Notre Apfpu = total nominal design strength of tendon
Dame, Notre Dame, IN. www.nd.edu/~concrete.
dmw = middle-wire diameter in strand
27. Kurama, Y., B. Weldon, and Q. Shen. 2006. Experi-
mental Evaluation of Post-tensioned Hybrid Coupled dow = outer-wire diameter in strand
Wall Subassemblages. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, V. 132, No. 7 (July): pp. 1017–1029. dp = strand diameter
28. Ricles, J., R. Sause, S. Peng, and L. Lu. 2002. Ex- Ep,free-length = free-length elastic modulus of strand
perimental Evaluation of Earthquake Resistant Post-
tensioned Steel Connections. Journal of Structural fpi = initial stress
Engineering, V. 128, No. 7 (July): pp. 850–859.
fpm,free-length = free-length maximum strength of strand
29. Stanton, J., and S. Nakaki. 2002. Design Guidelines
for Precast Concrete Seismic Structural Systems. fpu = nominal design ultimate strength of strand
PRESSS-01/03-09. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA. H = height
W = width
About the authors this paper focuses on the strand stresses and strains at
wire fracture, considering the following design and
Kevin Q. Walsh is a project configuration parameters: strand diameter, anchor
engineer for Frost Engineering type (cast-type and barrel-type anchors), number of
and Consulting in Granger, Ind. anchor wedges (two-piece and three-piece wedges),
Walsh graduated with an MSCE presence of a binding ring around the wedges, and
from Notre Dame University in cast-anchor date code and metallurgical properties.
2009. The test results are used to make design recommenda-
tions and to evaluate strand/anchor configurations that
Yahya C. Kurama, PhD, P.E., may provide a better probability of reaching higher
MPCI, is an associate professor at strand ductility. In addition, current industry require-
the University of Notre Dame. ments for the acceptance testing of post-tensioning
monostrand anchorage systems are assessed.
Keywords