See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275993671

Behavior of unbonded post-tensioning monostrand anchorage systems

under monotonic tensile loading

Article  in  Pci Journal · December 2010

DOI: 10.15554/pcij.01012010.97.117

CITATIONS READS

27 321

2 authors:

Kevin Quinn Walsh Yahya C. Kurama

University of Notre Dame University of Notre Dame
51 PUBLICATIONS   189 CITATIONS    112 PUBLICATIONS   1,582 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Editor’s quick points
n  Using unbonded post-tensioning for seismic resistance can be
demanding on the anchorages.
n  Little published information is available on the ultimate perfor-
mance of strand-anchorage systems.
n  This paper includes recommendations for the design and ac-
ceptance testing of unbonded post-tensioning strand anchorage
systems in seismic regions.
Behavior
of unbonded
post-
tensioning
monostrand
anchorage
systems
under
monotonic
tensile
loading
Kevin Q. Walsh
and Yahya C. Kurama
Research conducted since the 1990s1–17 has investigated
the use of unbonded post-tensioning in new types of pre-
cast concrete structural systems to resist seismic loading.
These structures use high-strength post-tensioning tendons
through precast concrete beam, column, and wall members
and joints to achieve the lateral resistance needed under
seismic loading (Fig. 1). The post-tensioning tendons are
intentionally not bonded to the concrete over their length
and are connected to the structure only at end anchorages.
The use of unbonded tendons results in a uniform distri-
bution of strand strains, which significantly delays the
yielding of the strands. Furthermore, it eliminates tensile
stress transfer to the concrete as the strands elongate under
lateral loading, thus reducing concrete cracking.
While unbonded post-tensioning has been available in the
United States since the 1950s (for example, in floor and
roof slab construction) and standards exist for its applica-
tion,18–20 the use of this construction method for seismic
resistance can be extremely demanding on the anchor-
ages. The significant promise shown by unbonded post-
Wi n t e r 2010 | PCI Journal 97
 Unbonded post- Post-tensioning
tensioning tendon anchor
Post-tensioning
anchor Joint Post-tensioning anchor Wall

Beam Wall panel

Column
Unbonded Unbonded
post-tensioning post-tensioning
tendon tendon

Coupling
Joint beam

Joint
Foundation

Frame Shear wall Coupled wall

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
the brittle fracture of strand wires inside the anchors (Fig.
2). Published information on the ultimate performance of
strand-anchorage systems is limited21 because the valida-
tion tests conducted by anchor manufacturers are typically
not available in archived literature. Furthermore, most
of the early work that led to the development of post-
tensioning anchorages in the United States is based on tests
of post-tensioned concrete members under gravity-load ef-
fects,22–25 and anchor designs, configurations, manufactur-
ing processes, and materials have changed over the years.
A comprehensive evaluation of modern unbonded post-ten-
sioning strand anchorage systems is necessary before they
can be used in extreme seismic applications. In accordance
with the research needs in this area, the primary objectives
of this paper are to
• investigate the ultimate strength and strain capacity of
a representative sampling of monostrand anchorage
configurations under monotonic tensile loading,
• make recommendations for the design and acceptance
testing of unbonded post-tensioning strand anchorage
systems,
• make recommendations for the design of unbonded
post-tensioned structures in seismic regions.
More information on the research can be found in the full
project report.26

Background
and research scope

Compared with monolithic, cast-in-place, reinforced

concrete structures, primary lateral-load-resisting systems
composed of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete
offer self-centering capabilities provided by the restor-
ing effect of the post-tensioning force, better quality
control, construction efficiency, and an ability to undergo
large nonlinear lateral displacements without significant
damage.1–17 Applications of unbonded post-tensioning in
steel-frame structures and steel-concrete hybrid coupled
wall structures for seismic regions have also been investi-
gated.27,28

Figure 2. Brittle fractures of individual strand wires inside the anchorages are
possible, limiting the seismic performance of the structure.

98 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 Precast concrete
coupling beam
Wall region
Wall region Angle
Post-tensioning
tendon and anchorage Fiber-reinforced
grout
Concrete Gap opening
confinement
Strong floor

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, %

Total post-tensioning-tendon force Beam shear force versus rotation

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
important components of unbonded post-tensioned struc-
tures because the entire post-tensioning force is transferred
at these locations. A typical post-tensioning anchorage
consists of a steel barrel or a cast plate with a cone-shaped
hole (or holes for multistrand anchorages) that holds a two-
piece or three-piece wedge assembly. The design guide-
lines for unbonded post-tensioned structures in seismic
regions require that the strands remain essentially linear
elastic during a design-basis earthquake.29–31 However, sig-
nificant post-yield stresses and strains can develop in the
strands during a maximum considered earthquake.32 Brittle
fractures of individual strand wires inside the anchorages
are possible under these extreme demands, limiting the
seismic performance of the structure.
Unexpected wire fractures inside the anchors of unbonded
post-tensioning strands were observed in recent experi-
ments of wall and frame structures at the University of
Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Ind. Figure 3 shows a floor-
level, unbonded post-tensioned, precast concrete, coupled
wall subassembly test setup16 and the total measured beam
post-tensioning-tendon force (determined as the sum of the
individual strand forces from load cells placed at the dead
end of each strand) from a test specimen.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 99

 The tendon force P is normalized by the total design
ultimate strength Ap fpu of the tendon, where Ap is the area
of the tendon (consisting of two 0.6-in.-diameter [15 mm]
strands) and fpu is the nominal strand strength (equal to
270 ksi [1860 MPa]). Despite a relatively low average ini-
tial stress fpi of 0.50fpu in the tendon, the performance of the
tendon during the test was limited, as can be seen from the
two sudden drops in the measured post-tensioning-tendon
force.
Each drop in the post-tensioning force occurred as a result
of the fracture of a single-strand wire inside an anchor
where the anchor wedges grip the strand. The first wire
fracture occurred prematurely at a strand stress of about
196 ksi (1350 MPa), or about 0.73fpu. The second fracture
occurred in the second strand at an even lower stress of
about 189 ksi (1300 MPa), or about 0.70fpu. The strand-
wire fractures resulted in a reduction in the self-centering
capability of the subassembly upon unloading, as well as a
reduction in the lateral stiffness and resistance of the struc-
ture during the subsequent loading cycles (Fig. 3).
This paper focuses on the ultimate performance of monos-
trand anchorage systems under monotonic concentric ten-
sile loading. Unbonded post-tensioned structures in seismic
Testing machine
Figure 4. The testing equipment used in the experimental program included a 600 kip (2669 kN) hydraulic universal testing machine and two extensometers.
100 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
regions may use multistrand tendons and anchorages
instead of monostrand systems. Furthermore, the strands
in these structures may undergo cyclic tensile loading
with an end eccentricity due to the lateral displacements
of the structure during an earthquake or the presence of
strand flares inside the trumpet in the case of a multistrand
anchorage.
While a complete evaluation of post-tensioning strand an-
chorage systems for use in seismic regions should ultimate-
ly include these effects, the study described in this paper
constitutes a fundamental investigation before additional
factors can be taken into consideration. In addition, a com-
plete assessment of the seismic performance of unbonded
post-tensioning strand anchorage systems requires esti-
mates of the maximum strain demands expected in typical
structural applications under extreme earthquake loading.
The research presented in the paper focuses on the strand-
anchorage-system capacities rather than the expected
demands, which can be found in other studies.7,8,14,17,29–31
It should also be noted that the experimental results
presented in this paper are limited to the strand-anchorage
specimens tested. There are many different strand-anchor-
age systems and configurations used in practice, and the
Extensometers attached to strand
 L TW
TOD
TOD TID
TID
H H
Boss
BID
BOD BOD
W
TOD
L
Monostrand Monostrand
cast anchor barrel anchor
(single-use
or reusable)
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-
tions for the expected performance of these systems but
more as the observed performance of a representative sam-
ple set. The test results are also limited by the specimen
sample-pool size for each of the configurations considered,
especially because a significant amount of variability is
observed in the fracture strains.
Research program
Testing requirements
The experiments described in this paper conform to the static
testing requirements of the International Code Council Eval-
uation Service (ICC-ES).33 According to these requirements,
the minimum free length of the test strand between anchors
should be 3.5 ft (1.1 m) and the strand must be tested with a
monotonic machine position displacement rate that falls in
between 0.197 in./min and 0.887 in./min (5.0 mm/min and
22.5 mm/min), which corresponds to a nominal 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 minimum strand free
length of 3.5 ft (1.1 m) required by ICC-ES. An extensom-
eter with a minimum gauge length of 36 in. (910 mm) must
be used within the free length of the strand to measure the
strand strains. ICC-ES requires that tests be conducted on a
minimum of three samples for each configuration.
Testing equipment
Figure 4 shows the testing equipment used in the experi-
mental program, which includes a 600 kip (2670 kN) hy-
draulic universal testing machine and two extensometers.
To satisfy ICC-ES requirements, one of the extensometers
IW
Notch
for ring
H dmw
BID dp
BW
dow
Two-piece Three-piece
Anchor wedge Seven-wire strand
is a class A sensor with a 36-in.-long (910 mm) gauge and
the other is a class B-1 sensor with a 2.0-in.-long (50 mm)
gauge. All test-equipment components, including the load
cell and position rate of the testing machine as well as the
gauge lengths and strain measurements of the extensom-
eters, are calibrated at least yearly on-site. Comparisons
and validation of the measurements from the two exten-
someters are given in the “Validation of Concentric Load-
ing,” “Strain-Measurement Validation,” and “Strain-Rate
Validation” sections in this paper.
Test-specimen properties
and parameters
Figure 5 shows the materials tested in this research,
which included monostrand cast anchors, monostrand
barrel anchors (single use and reusable), anchor wedges,
and ASTM A41634 seven-wire, uncoated, low-relaxation
steel post-tensioning strand with a nominal design ulti-
mate strength of 270 ksi (1860 MPa). The test parameters
included 0.5-in.-nominal-diameter (13 mm) or 0.6-in.-
nominal-diameter (15 mm) strand, cast or barrel anchor
types, two-piece or three-piece wedges, and use or nonuse
of a binding ring around the wedges.
Because the physical dimensions and shapes of these
materials could prove to be an important factor in their
performance, Fig. 5 and Tables 1 through 3 provide the
geometrical properties of the anchor, wedge, and strand
specimens. An important factor in the selection of each
anchor configuration for testing was the use of wedges and
anchors that were compatible with each other and were
provided by the same manufacturer.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 101
 Table 1. Anchor properties

Anchor H, in. L, in. W, in. TOD, in. TID, in. BID, in. BOD, in.

Cast-0.5B 1.48 4.96 2.19 1.67 1.00 0.66 1.34

Cast-0.5C 1.31 5.01 2.26 1.69 0.96 0.64 1.38

Cast-0.6A 1.65 5.86 3.03 2.05 1.12 0.72 1.32

Barrel-0.5B 1.44 n.a. n.a. 1.62 0.98 0.65 1.62

Barrel-0.6A 1.76 n.a. n.a. 1.87 1.14 0.74 1.87

Reuse-0.5A 3.11 n.a. n.a. 1.73 1.37 0.74 1.73

Reuse-0.5B 1.93 n.a. n.a. 1.65 1.18 0.74 1.65

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.

Table 2. Wedge properties

Wedge Ring H, in. TW, in. BW, in. IW, in.

2P-0.5C No 1.17 1.00 0.74 0.48

2P-0.5D Yes 1.29 0.99 0.72 0.47

3P-0.5B Yes 1.28 0.82 0.58 0.37

3P-0.5C Yes 1.97 0.95 0.59 0.40

2P-0.6A No 1.61 1.12 0.79 0.57

2P-0.6B Yes 1.61 1.12 0.81 0.57

3P-0.6B Yes 1.60 0.94 0.66 0.46

Note: BW = bottom width; H = height; IW = inner width; TW = top width. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Table 3. Strand properties

fpm,free-length, εpf,free-length, in./ Ep,free-length,

Strand spool dmw, in. dow, in. dp, in. ap, in.2 fpu, ksi
ksi in. ksi

0.5A 0.171 0.162 0.500 0.149 270 286.7 0.0736 28,028

0.6A 0.205 0.196 0.600 0.219 270 280.9 0.0752 27,872

0.6B 0.207 0.198 0.597 0.215 270 275.7 0.0676 27,827

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
anchor type and the nominal diameter of the strand used
with the anchor. The reusable anchors were essentially
shaped and tested like single-use barrel anchors. Similarly,
Table 2 shows the tested wedges, named according to the
number of wedge pieces (2P for two-piece wedges or 3P
for three-piece wedges) and the nominal strand diameter
(0.5 in. [13 mm] or 0.6 in. [15 mm]). The properties pro-
vided in the tables are average measurements taken from
a minimum of three samples. Variations existed in the
dimensions of both the anchors and the wedges, depend-
ing on the manufacturer and the model. Binding rings held
the wedge pieces together, particularly during seating. The
wedges without rings (always two-piece wedges in this
sample set) did not have the notches shown in Fig. 5.

102 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 300

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.

Sand-grip-anchor components Strand stress-strain relationship

Bottom anchor Free-length fracture

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
according to the nominal diameter and differentiated for
each different source (that is, spool) from which the mate-
rial was obtained. The strand samples used in this paper
were cut from three different spools. Strand spools 0.5A
and 0.6A were provided by one manufacturer, and spool
0.6B was provided by a second manufacturer. The strand
properties in the table are average measurements from a
minimum of three samples.
The measured wire and strand diameters (dmw, dow, and dp,
as defined in Fig. 5) are all within ASTM A41634 toler-
ance limits. The cross-sectional area ap of each strand was
calculated from the following measurements: length of the
sample, weight of the sample, weight of the middle wire
from the sample (to determine the steel unit weight), and
diameter of the middle wire. The calculated strand areas
compared well with the areas provided on the strand manu-
facturer’s specification sheets. The maximum free-length
strength (fpm,free-length) and fracture strain (εpf,free-length) for each
strand were determined by testing strand samples with
special sand-grip anchors as described in the next section,
“Strand Free-Length Failure Tests.”
Strand free-length failure tests
The actual maximum strengths and fracture strains of the
strand from the three spools were determined by testing
strand samples with special sand-grip anchors to result in
free-length seven-wire fracture of each specimen.26 ASTM
A37035 strand-testing requirements were followed in these
experiments, which are referred to as free-length experi-
ments in this paper. Figure 6 shows the sand-grip-anchor
components, placement, the measured free-length stress-
strain relationship of a sample 0.6A strand, and the free-
length seven-wire fracture of the strand. The combination of

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 103

 Post-tensioning
strand Post-tensioning
anchor
72 in.
Extensometer
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
plates and the wet sand provided a more even distribution of
stress transfer between the strand and the anchor than would
occur with typical post-tensioning strand anchorage assem-
blies, permitting the strand to achieve free-length failure.
Table 3 lists the average (from three samples) free-length
maximum strength fpm,free-length, free-length fracture strain
εεpf,free-length, and free-length elastic modulus Ep,free-length for
each strand. The 0.5-in.-diameter (13 mm) strand samples
consistently achieved higher yield stress and ultimate
strength than the 0.6-in.-diameter (15 mm) strand samples.
The free-length fracture strain was reached at a stress
slightly smaller than the maximum strength as a result of
the necking that occurred in the strand wires in the case
of free-length fracture. This behavior is different from the
brittle wire fractures observed inside the post-tensioning
anchors investigated in this research (Fig. 2), which oc-
curred with no visible necking, resulting in the maximum
104 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
Anchor and support plate
Strand, anchor, support plate,
bearing-plate assembly
strength and fracture strain being reached at the same point
on the stress-strain curve. Stress-strain relationships from
the free-length experiments of 10 different strand spools
(including the three spools used in this paper) can be found
in the project report.26
The position rate of the testing machine was adjusted to re-
sult in a strain rate of about 0.02 in./in./min (0.02 mm/mm/
min). As permitted by ASTM A370, the extensometer used
in the free-length experiments was removed from the spec-
imen at a minimum strain of 0.01 in./in. (0.01 mm/mm) to
prevent damage to the extensometer due to the explosive,
near-simultaneous fracture of all seven strand wires during
the test. This is different from the post-tensioning anchor
experiments in which both extensometers were left on the
specimen through wire fracture.
In the free-length experiments, the strand incremental
strains after extensometer removal were determined by di-
viding the crosshead separation with the free length of the
strand at extensometer removal (in accordance with ASTM
A41634 requirements). Thus, the free-length fracture strains
listed in Table 3 are approximate because the wire-fracture
necking strains were assumed to be distributed over the
entire free length of the specimen and any strand slip inside
the sand-grip anchors (albeit small) that might have oc-
curred following extensometer removal was included in the
strain calculations.
Test setup and procedure
Figure 7 shows the test setup for the post-tensioning strand
anchor experiments (only one extensometer is shown for
clarity). Each strand specimen was positioned through the
crossheads of the testing machine, with a post-tensioning
anchor placed on the outer surface of each crosshead. The
anchors bore on 1.5-in.-thick (38 mm) steel plates, each
with a central hole that was oversized 1/16 in. (1.59 mm)
with respect to the nominal strand diameter. The bearing
plates were screwed to the machine crossheads, and the
central holes were aligned vertically using a laser align-
ment tool such that each strand sample was placed in the
same position with minimal accidental eccentricity be-
tween the ends of the strand. More information is provided
in the “Validation of Concentric Loading” section.
For cast anchors with the wedge hole protruding from the
bottom surface of the anchor, which is referred to as the an-
chor boss, each anchor was screwed to a fitted steel support
plate (Fig. 7) to utilize the full bearing area of the anchor,
simulating an anchor embedded inside concrete. These sup-
port plates then rested directly on the 1.5-in.-thick (38 mm)
steel bearing plates. The necessity for the support plates was
proved by preliminary tests that compared strand-anchorage
performance with and without support plates. The support
plates were machined such that the bottom of the anchor
boss was flush with the underside of the plate.
At the beginning of each test, the crossheads of the testing
machine were positioned to provide an initial free length of
about 71 in. (1800 mm) between the top and bottom bear-
ing surfaces such that a strand free length of about 72 in.
(1830 mm) was achieved after seating the anchor wedges.
That is, the wedges were assumed to seat about 0.5 in.
(13 mm) in each of the top and bottom anchors.
Prior to seating, the anchor wedges were tapped in lightly
by hand using the back of a spare anchor barrel before a
preload of about 750 lb (3340 N) was applied to the strand.
Then, the wedges were checked for proper seating, the
extensometers were zeroed, and the strand was loaded to
fracture by moving the top machine crosshead upward at
a constant speed of 1.44 in./min (36.6 mm/min), while
the bottom crosshead remained stationary. This position
rate resulted in a nominal strain rate of 0.02 in./in./min
(0.02 mm/mm/min), which is near the upper limit of the
300
250
200
Stress, ksi
150
100
50
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Strain, in./in.
0.5 in. 0.6 in.
Figure 8. These sample strand stress-strain relationships were limited by wire frac-
ture inside the post-tensioning anchors. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
ICC-ES–required33 strain-rate range.
As also required by ICC-ES, the extensometers were
placed within the free length of the strand between the
anchors. Both extensometers were left on the specimen
through fracture. Following each test, the raw strain data
from the extensometers needed to be adjusted (initialized)
by using the slope (stiffness) of the measured strand stress-
strain relationship in the linear-elastic range to ensure that
the linear portion of the curve passed through the origin.
This adjustment accounted for a number of controllable
(for example, preload) and uncontrollable (for example,
effect of the initial bend in the strand) factors affecting the
measured strains.
It should be noted that while the strand-wire fractures oc-
curred inside the anchors and thus outside the extensome-
ter gauge length, little deformation occurred at the fracture
location due to the lack of necking (see Fig. 2). Thus, the
extensometer strains presented from the post-tensioning
strand anchorage tests provide an accurate measurement of
the strand strains up to fracture.
Test results
A total of three specimens were tested for each configura-
tion, unless stated otherwise. During each test, the strand
stress and strain data, time elapsed, applied load, crosshead
displacement, and strand elongation (based on the strain
data) were recorded continuously at a rate of 100 Hz. The
strand stress was calculated by dividing the measured load
with the measured strand area ap (Table 3). While both the
2-in.-long (50 mm) and the 36-in.-long (910 mm) exten-
someters measured the strand strains up to fracture, the
strain measurements presented are from the 36-in.-long ex-
tensometer unless stated otherwise. Also, unless otherwise
stated, the test results shown are for spool 0.5A and spool
0.6A strand samples.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 105
 280 anchor and no moving-end effect was ultimately observed
in the tests.
270
Fracture stress, ksi

The data of primary importance from each test were the

260 strand stress and strain at wire fracture. As stated previ-
ously, due to the brittle nature of wire fracture, the fracture
250
points in all of the post-tensioning anchor tests coincided
240 with the points of peak stress, unlike the free-length failure
tests. A series of fracture stress versus fracture strain plots
230 are used in the following sections to illustrate the results
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 from the experiments in which different anchors, wedges,
Fracture strain, in./in. strands, and specimen configurations were tested fol-
lowing the ICC-ES monotonic loading requirements. No
0.5 in. 0.6 in.
consistent performance differences were observed among
the anchor and wedge specimens from the different manu-
facturers.
Figure 9. This graph shows the strand fracture stress versus fracture strain results
obtained using the 0.5 in. and 0.6 in. strand/anchor assemblies.
Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa. Effect of anchor and wedge
variables

Figure 9 shows the fracture stress versus fracture strain

280 data obtained using the 0.5 in. (13 mm) and 0.6 in.
(15 mm) cast-anchor and single-use barrel-anchor as-
270
Fracture stress, ksi

semblies. As also depicted in Fig. 8, the 0.5-in.-diam-

260
250
240
230
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Fracture strain, in./in.
0.5 in. barrel anchors 0.6 in. barrel anchors
Figure 10. The 0.6 in. barrel anchor systems were found to reach greater ultimate
strains at fracture than the 0.5 in. systems. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
Figure 8 shows sample strand stress-strain relationships as
limited by wire fracture inside the post-tensioning anchors.
Each test was concluded following the point at which the
first strand-wire fracture occurred, resulting in a drop in
stress. After the test, the number of simultaneous wire
fractures and the location of the fractures (that is, top or
bottom anchor in order to observe any tendency regarding
the loaded end of the strand at the moving crosshead) were
recorded.
The majority of the tests in this investigation resulted in
a single fractured wire. However, as many as four simul-
taneous wire fractures were observed. All of the fractures
occurred inside the anchor-wedge assembly, either at the
top anchor or the bottom anchor and within the first few
full-depth wedge teeth where the strand entered the anchor.
The fractures occurred randomly in the top or bottom
eter (13 mm) strand had a slightly greater yield stress
than that of the 0.6-in.-diameter (15 mm) strand. It
should be noted that especially for the 0.6-in.-diameter
(15 mm) strand samples, the measured stress-strain re-
lationships were lower than the idealized strand stress-
strain relationship given by the PCI Design Handbook:
Precast and Prestressed Concrete.36 This is investigated
in full detail in the project report.26
The most significant observation from the fracture
stress-strain data is that, due to the brittle nature of the
fractures, there is a lot of scatter in the strain at wire
fracture. Fractures occurred at strains as large as almost
0.04 in./in. (0.04 mm/mm) and as small as 0.01 in./in.
(0.01 mm/mm, or slightly less for a small number of
samples), near the strain corresponding to a significant
change in the slope of the stress-strain relationship (Fig.
8). None of the fractures occurred at as small a stress as
those observed in Fig. 3, which may be because of the
reversed cyclic lateral loading applied in the coupled-
wall-subassembly tests or an anomaly in the hardware
used.
Note that the lowest fracture points in Fig. 9 (see, for
example, the point at a stress of about 240 ksi [1655
MPa] and a strain of about 0.01 in./in. [0.01 mm/mm])
occurred at relatively large strains when the measured
fracture stresses are divided by the expected36 strand
linear-elastic modulus of 28,500 ksi (196,500 MPa).
There are two reasons for this:
• For most of these strand specimens, the measured26

106 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 280 280

Fracture stress, ksi

Fracture stress, ksi

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.

• linear-elastic modulus (Table 3 shows the average

moduli from the free-length failure experiments) was 280
lower than 28,500 ksi (196,500 MPa).
Fracture stress, ksi
270

• All of the strand specimens showed some small 260

amount of nonlinearity starting at strains below
0.01 in./in. (0.01 mm/mm).26
Figure 9 includes data from a variety of anchor and wedge
configuration parameters plotted together (for example,
barrel anchors and cast anchors and two-piece and three-
piece wedges), making it difficult to compare similar con-
figurations. When, for example, the data pool in Fig. 9 is
reduced to include only barrel anchors or only cast anchors
(for example, Fig. 10 has barrel anchors only), the 0.6 in.
(15 mm) assemblies tend to reach greater ultimate strains
at fracture than the 0.5 in. (13 mm) systems for the barrel
anchors, and the average fracture strains are about the same
for the cast anchors.
Figure 11 exhibits comparisons between cast-anchor as-
semblies and single-use barrel-anchor assemblies. This
data pool reveals trends such as the 0.5 in. (13 mm) cast
anchors providing a greater probability of reaching greater
strand strains at fracture than their barrel-anchor coun-
terparts. In contrast, the 0.6 in. (15 mm) barrel anchors
perform as well as the cast anchors. Of course, detailed
comparisons must be made when all other parameters, such
as the number of wedges or existence of binding rings, are
kept constant, but this general chart is shown here for sim-
plicity. Ultimately, these results may be more related to the
dimensional differences in the anchors than to the different
anchor types.26
Figure 12 compares anchors with three-piece wedges
against those with two-piece wedges. This comparison
includes only the two-piece wedges with rings because all
250
240
230
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Fracture strain, in./in.
Without ring (0.5 in.) With ring (0.5 in.)
Without ring (0.6 in.) With ring (0.6 in.)
Figure 13. It was generally observed that wedges without rings tend to outperform
those with rings. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.
of the three-piece wedges tested had rings. One can deduce
from subsets of this general chart that anchors with three-
piece wedges outperformed those with two-piece wedges,
particularly for the 0.5 in. (13 mm) configurations. This
may be because the three-piece wedges seat in a fashion
more accommodating to the uneven, spiraled surface of
the strand and transfer a more even distribution of stresses
onto the strand wires.
Figure 13 compares wedges with binding rings to wedges
without rings. Only two-piece wedges are included in this
comparison because all of the three-piece wedges tested
had rings. It can be observed that the configurations with-
out wedge rings outperformed those with rings. This may
be because the rings may prohibit each wedge from seating
more naturally around the strand’s uneven circumference.
However, the absence of a ring also heightens the risk of
uneven seating (that is, one wedge being pulled signifi-

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 107

 Table 4. Effect of anchor wedge and ring configuration variables

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.

Note: n.a. = not applicable. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

cantly farther into the anchor hole than the other wedge).
While there were a few poorly seated anchors in the
experiments conducted in this research program,26 the data
from these tests are excluded from the results shown.
A summary of the test data on the anchor-wedge and ring-
configuration variables can be seen in Table 4, including
the sample size used for each configuration; the average,
standard deviation, and coefficient of variation of the
fracture strains for the configurations utilizing two-piece
wedges without ring; and comparative data for the other
configurations that were investigated.
Reusable anchors
Unless otherwise stated, all of the barrel-anchor results
presented in this paper are for single-use anchors. Two
0.5 in. (13 mm) reusable barrel anchor types were also
tested in this research, as shown in Table 1. Reuse 0.5A
was a strand chuck for multiple live-end jacking opera-
tions, whereas reuse 0.5B was a dead-end anchor chuck for
anchoring strand over multiple uses (typically in preten-
sioning applications). Both of these anchors were provided
by the same manufacturer and used the same wedge 3P-
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-

Table 5. Performance of reusable anchors

Average Maximum Minimum Standard

Number of Coefficient of
Anchor Wedge fracture fracture strain, fracture deviation,
specimens variation
strain, in./in. in./in. strain, in./in. in./in.

Reuse-0.5A 3P-0.5C 4 0.0369 0.0402 0.0334 0.0030 0.08

Reuse-0.5B (first test

3P-0.5C 4 0.0320 0.0408 0.0266 0.0067 0.21
series)

Reuse-0.5B (second test

3P-0.5C 4 0.0340 0.0389 0.0261 0.0059 0.17
series)

Reuse-0.5B (third test

3P-0.5C 4 0.0415 0.0472 0.0282 0.0090 0.22
series)

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

108 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 0.05
280
Fracture strain, in./in.

0.04
270

Fracture stress, ksi

0.03 260

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.

Average Standard deviation Date code 1 Date code 2

Maximum Minimum

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
mm/mm), while four tests of previously unused reuse 0.5B
anchors resulted in an average fracture strain of 0.0320 in./
in. (0.0320 mm/mm). Compared with most of the single-
use anchors tested in this research, the reusable anchors
performed significantly better.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, both the reusable anchors
themselves and the corresponding wedges were taller
than all of the single-use anchors and wedges for 0.5 in.
(13 mm) strand, and the steel was manufactured with supe-
rior strength, hardness, and tolerance limits for extended
life (based on both the manufacturer’s specification sheets
and visual observation of wear and damage after test-
ing). Of course, reusable anchors are significantly more
expensive than single-use anchors, so it is not the intention
of this evaluation to conclude that reusable anchors should
always be used over single-use anchors in seismic unbond-
ed post-tensioned structural applications. Furthermore, the
authors are not aware of any reusable anchors in multi-
strand configurations, which may be an important limita-
tion for the use of reusable anchors in some applications.
Following the initial test series, the reuse 0.5B anchors
were retested in two additional series, and the change in
performance can be observed in Table 5 and Fig. 14. Not
only did a drop in performance not occur over these three
test series, but the performance actually improved. It is not
known what caused this performance improvement over
the retesting of the anchors and the number of uses after
which degradation in performance may begin to occur.
Performance difference
per cast-anchor date code
The cast-anchor test results described in the previous sec-
tions include anchors made using several different molds.
However, the date code, which provides information on
when the casting was made, was the same for each type of
anchor tested. To investigate the possible effects of anchor
properties from different casting dates, a series of experi-
ments were conducted using the cast 0.6A anchor with a
2P-0.6B wedge configuration with two different anchor
date codes. A total of 10 specimens were tested for each
date code, with all other anchor, strand, and testing param-
eters kept the same.
Figure 15 shows the results from the 20 tests. The anchors
with date code 2 clearly outperformed those with date code
1. Table 6 provides the average, standard deviation, and
coefficient of variation of the fracture stresses and strains
for the two date codes, indicating that not only did anchors
with date code 2 outperform those with date code 1 on
average, but they were also more consistent.

Table 6. Effect of cast-anchor date code

Fracture strain, in./in. Fracture stress, ksi

Cast-anchor date
code Standard Coefficient of Standard Coefficient of
Average Average
deviation variation deviation variation

Date code 1 0.0180 0.0079 0.44 252.4 11.0 0.04

Date code 2 0.0288 0.0053 0.18 265.6 5.4 0.02

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 109

 Sample with date code 1 (100X, Nital) Sample with date code 2 (100X, Nital)

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
by the same manufacturer, labeled as the same model, and
measured to have the same nominal geometrical features
and dimensions, it was hypothesized that metallurgical
differences between the anchors may have played a role in
their relative performances.
tions in a sample. The microscopic images in Fig. 16, how-
ever, indicate that the sample with date code 2 had a more
uniform microstructure with larger graphite spheroids and
stronger pearlite from surface decarburization, most likely
as a result of being exposed to higher temperatures during
the post-casting heat-treatment process.

Further research on the chemical composition, microstruc- Strand comparison

ture, and hardness of anchors with different date codes was
performed using the worst-performing sample of date code
1 and the best-performing sample of date code 2. The full
metallurgical report can be found in the project report.26
The sample with date code 2 was found to have a slightly
higher carbon content and HRB Rockwell hardness than
the sample with date code 1, but these differences were
relatively minor and generally within typical local varia-
280
270
Fracture stress, ksi
All of the test results presented previously were based on
strand samples from spools 0.5A and 0.6A provided by a
single manufacturer. Strands with the same nominal design
strength but from different spools or manufacturers could
perform differently due to small differences in dimensions
or material properties. To investigate this possibility, ad-
ditional tests were conducted to compare strand samples
from spool 0.6B with samples from spool 0.6A, keeping
all of the other test variables the same. A total of 18 tests
were conducted for each spool. The tests were conducted
using cast 0.6A date code 1 anchors with 2P-0.6B wedges
to investigate whether the relatively poor performance of

this specimen configuration in Fig. 15 was influenced by

the strand properties.
260

250 Figure 17 shows the strand fracture stresses and strains

from the 36 tests. The average fracture stress and strain
240 from strand spool 0.6A were 254.3 ksi (1753 MPa) and
0.0197 in./in. (0.0197 mm/mm), respectively. In com-
230 parison, the average fracture stress and strain from the
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 alternative strand spool 0.6B were 252.2 ksi (1739 MPa)
Fracture strain, in./in. and 0.0196 in./in. (0.0196 mm/mm), respectively. Figure
Strand 0.6A Strand 0.6B 17 shows that the fracture strains from spool 0.6A had a
slightly larger dispersion. However, the average fracture-
stress and fracture-strain results from the two spools were
Figure 17. These test data show that the fracture strains were not significantly essentially identical. Thus, the effects of the tested strands
affected by the tested strand spool. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa.

110 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

on the observed strand/anchor performance were relatively
small.

Validation of concentric loading

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.

Figure 18 shows the extended-length test setup where

the strand free length between anchors was doubled from
72 in. (1830 mm) to 144 in. (3660 mm), effectively cutting
any accidental angular offset between the strand ends in
half. Table 7 compares the fracture strains of four different
anchor and wedge configurations using the two lengths.
The resulting average fracture strains for each configura-
tion were very close, with two configurations showing
slight reduction and two configurations showing slight
improvement as the strand free length was doubled. One
can deduce from this trend that the strand free length did
not have a significant effect on the test results presented
previously.

Figure 19 illustrates the use of spherical load washers be-

tween the anchors and the bearing plates. Because the cast
anchors in this paper could not utilize their full bearing sur-
faces when placed on top of these spherical load washers,
only two configurations with barrel anchors were tested.
Washers with a hole diameter of 25/32 in. (19.8 mm) and
outside diameter of 15/8 in. (41.3 mm) were used for the
0.5 in. (13 mm) barrel anchors, and washers with a hole di-
Figure 18. Extended-length strand samples were tested as shown in this photo to
ameter of 15/16 in. (23.8 mm) and outside diameter of 17/8 in.
validate the application of concentric loads on the specimens. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
(47.6 mm) were used for the 0.6 in. (15 mm) anchors. The
tests were conducted using a strand free length of 72 in.
(1830 mm). Strain-measurement validation

Once again, the average fracture strains were minimally
altered due to the addition of spherical load washers to the
test setup, with one configuration showing a slight reduc-
tion and one configuration showing a slight improvement
(Table 8). Hence, the use of spherical load washers did not
have a significant effect on the performance of the strand/
anchor systems tested. Coupled with the trends observed
from the extended-length tests, it is concluded that the
fracture stress and strain results presented previously are
representative of a concentric-tensile-loading application.
As described previously, ICC-ES and all of the other
relevant documents18–20 require a rather long, 36-in.-gauge-
length (910 mm) extensometer for the measurement of the
strand strains. Because the strains over the free length of
an unbonded strand should be uniform, the reason behind
this gauge-length requirement is not clear, though it may
be argued that the twisted nature of a strand can prohibit
the use of a short gauge length. To investigate this issue
and validate the strain measurements from each test, two
extensometers, one with a 36-in.-long gauge and the other

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 111

 Table 7. Effect of strand free length

Fracture strain, in./in.

Anchor Wedge Specimen number
72 in. strand 72 in. average 144 in. strand 144 in. average

1 0.0169 0.0114

Barrel-0.5B 2P-0.5D 2 0.0116 0.0133 0.0166 0.0130

3 0.0115 0.0111

1 0.0116 0.0134

Cast-0.5C 2P-0.5D 2 0.0114 0.0114 0.0115 0.0122

3 0.0111 0.0117

1 0.0246 0.0303

Barrel-0.6A 3P-0.6B 2 0.0247 0.0229 0.0155 0.0249

3 0.0194 0.0289

1 0.0242 0.0223

Cast-0.6A 2P-0.6B 2 0.0099 0.0168 0.0156 0.0158

3 0.0164 0.0095

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

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
the extensometer readings to be almost identical, sug-
gesting that, in the case of unbonded post-tensioning
strands, gauge length does not appreciably affect the strain
measurements. This important conclusion is fortified by
charting the difference in the fracture-strain measurements
from the 36-in.-long (910 mm) and 2-in.-long (50 mm)
Data points were removed from Fig. 21 only for tests in
which a noticeable error, such as slippage, occurred with
one of the extensometers. Of almost 170 data points taken,
only four tests exceeded 0.001 in./in. (0.001 mm/mm) in
differential measurements, and these four points correlated
with specimens that failed at relatively high strains, mean-
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.

112 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

Table 8. Effect of spherical load washers

Fracture strain, in./in.

Anchor Wedge Specimen number
No washer
No washer Washer Washer average
average

1 0.0169 0.0131

Barrel-0.5B 2P-0.5D 2 0.0116 0.0133 0.0116 0.0129

3 0.0115 0.0139

1 0.0246 0.0158

Barrel-0.6A 3P-0.6B 2 0.0247 0.0229 0.0257 0.0240

3 0.0194 0.0304

Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

percentages of their corresponding fracture strains. There

was also no observable trend in the differences between the 0.04
extensometer measurements, with the fracture strain dif-
ference randomly distributed over the tests conducted (that 0.03
Strain, in./in.
is, neither sensor consistently provided larger or smaller
strains compared with the other sensor). The average strain 0.02
difference for all of the ICC-ES and extended-length tests
was a minuscule -0.00018 in./in. (-0.00018 mm/mm). 0.01

The small differences in the strain measurements from the 0

two extensometers could more likely be a function of the 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
different gripping mechanisms rather than the different Time, min
gauge lengths. Thus, it is concluded that the current require- 36 in. extensometer 2 in. extensometer
ment calling for a 36-in.-long (910 mm) gauge extensometer
to measure strains in unbonded post-tensioning strands is
not justified. In addition to the significantly lower initial Figure 20. This time-history plot shows no significant difference between the 2 in.
cost, the 2-in.-long (50 mm) extensometer was found to be and 36 in. extensometer strains. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
easier to use and less susceptible to damage throughout this
experimental program. In comparison, the 36-in.-long-gauge
extensometer had to be repaired and recalibrated several
times due to damage sustained from strand-wire fracture. 0.0015
36 in. minus 2 in. extensometer

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-

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 113


0.03
Strain rate, in./in./min
0.02
0.01
0 as reusable anchors.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, min
Position 2 in. extensometer 36 in. extensometer
Figure 22. This strain-rate time-history graph validates the loading rate used in
the experiments. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
eter strain rate lags behind the position strain rate during
the initial part of the test, where most of the movement
of the testing machine results in the seating of the anchor
wedges without causing much strain in the strand. None-
theless, the strain rates measured from the extensometers
ultimately meet the target rate and match the strain rate
from the machine position.
Conclusion
This paper presented an experimental research program
on the ultimate performance of unbonded post-tensioning
monostrand anchorage systems under monotonic tensile
loading. The tests were conducted following the static
testing requirements of the ICC-ES.33 Several conclusions
were made based on the results:
• The ultimate stress and strain capacities of the strands
are limited by the fracture of individual strand wires
inside the anchor-wedge assembly.
• As a result of the brittle nature of the strand-wire frac-
tures, there is a significant amount of scatter in the test
data, with fractures occurring at strains almost as large
as 0.04 in./in. and as small as 0.01 in./in. (or slightly
less for a small number of samples), right around the
strain corresponding to a significant change in the
slope of the strand stress-strain relationship.
• Design strains should be limited to 0.01 in./in.
(0.01 mm/mm) for unbonded post-tensioning strand
anchorage systems. If the required design strains
are higher than this limit, reusable anchors or other
anchors that have been proven to consistently achieve
higher fracture strains [generally those anchors with
larger dimensions] should be specified.
• Limited to the strand and anchorage systems consid-
ered, the number of tests conducted, and the parame-
114 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
ters investigated, the following configurations provide
a better probability of reaching higher strand strength
and ductility.
– The 0.6 in. (15 mm) anchors provide a better
probability than 0.5 in. (13 mm) anchors for
both cast and barrel anchor types, or, in general,
anchors and wedges with larger dimensions, such
– The 0.5 in. (13 mm) cast anchors provide a better
probability than 0.5 in. (13 mm) barrel anchors.
– Three-piece wedges with rings provide a better
probability than two-piece wedges with rings.
– Two-piece wedges without rings provide a better
probability than two-piece wedges with rings.
• Neither extending the free length of the test strand nor
utilizing spherical load washers for anchor bearing af-
fects the performance of the strand/anchor systems to
any significant degree.
• For the systems considered in this paper, the test re-
sults are not significantly affected by the strand spool
or manufacturer.
• Cast anchors of the same model and provided by the
same manufacturer, but with different casting-date
codes, can perform significantly differently. This
could be due to differences in the uniformity and
hardness of the anchor surfaces where the wedges
seat, resulting from temperature variations during the
postcasting heat-treatment process.
• The strain measurements from a 36-in.-long-gauge
(910 mm) extensometer and a 2-in.-long-gauge
(50 mm) extensometer are nearly identical, with the dif-
ference in measured fracture strains less than ±0.001 in./
in. (±0.001 mm/mm) for most tests. The current strand-
anchor testing requirement for a minimum extensome-
ter-gauge length of 36 in. (910 mm) is not justified.
• The large standard deviation and coefficient of varia-
tion of the strand fracture-strain data suggest that a
larger sample pool size should be used in the vali-
dation testing of post-tensioning strand anchorage
systems than the pool size of three samples currently
required by the ICC-ES. It may also be necessary
to include samples with different date codes in the
experimental validation of cast anchors.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by PCI under a Daniel P. Jenny
Fellowship. The support of the members of the PCI
Research and Development Committee and the Project
Advisory Members Tom D’Arcy (chair), Ned Cleland, and
Richard Sause is gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the
authors recognize the support provided by Kenneth Bondy;
Greg Chacos of G. P. Chacos PLLC; Neil Hawkins of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Pawan Gupta
of the Post-Tensioning Institute; Cary Kopczynski of Cary
Kopczynski & Co.; Susie Nakaki of the Nakaki Bashaw
Group Inc.; John Pearson and Roger Pelletier of Wiss, Jan-
ney, Elstner Associates Inc.; John Reihl and Ken Everett of
StresCore Inc.; Alan Stone of Aston Metallurgical Ser-
vices; Brent Bach, Michael Gekhtman, Kapil Khandelwal,
Tracy Kijewski-Correa, Albert Miller, Patrick Murren,
and Brad Weldon of the University of Notre Dame; and
a number of material suppliers and donors. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed in the paper are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
PCI or the individuals and organizations acknowledged.
References
1. Priestley, M., and J. Tao. 1993. Seismic Response
of Precast Prestressed Concrete Frames with Par-
tially Debonded Tendons. PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 1
(January–February): pp. 58–67.
2. Cheok, G., and H. Lew. 1993. Model Precast Concrete
Beam-to-Column Joints Subject to Cyclic Loading.
PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 4 (July–August): pp. 80–92.
3. Stone, W., G. Cheok, and J. Stanton. 1995. Perfor-
mance of Hybrid Moment-Resisting Precast Beam-
Column Concrete Connections Subjected to Cyclic
Loading. ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2 (Febru-
ary): pp. 229–249.
4. Priestley, M., and G. MacRae. 1996. Seismic Tests
of Precast Beam-to-Column Joint Subassemblages
with Unbonded Tendons. PCI Journal, V. 41, No. 1
(January–February): pp. 64–81.
5. Stanton, J., W. Stone, and F. Cheok. 1997. A Hybrid
Reinforced Precast Frame for Seismic Regions. PCI
Journal, V. 42, No. 2 (March–April): pp. 20–32.
6. Cheok, G., W. Stone, and S. Kunnath. 1998. Seismic
Response of Precast Concrete Frames with Hybrid
Connections. ACI Structural Journal, V. 95, No. 5
(May): pp. 527–539.
7. El-Sheikh, M., R. Sause, S. Pessiki, and L. W. Lu.
1999. Seismic Behavior and Design of Unbonded
Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Frames. PCI Jour-
nal, V. 44, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 54–71.
8. Kurama, Y., S. Pessiki, R. Sause, and L. W. Lu. 1999.
Seismic Behavior and Design of Unbonded Post-Ten-
sioned Precast Concrete Walls. PCI Journal, V. 44,
No. 3 (May–June): pp. 72–89.
9. Priestley, M., S. Sritharan, J. Conley, and S. Pam-
panin. 1999. Preliminary Results and Conclusions
from the PRESSS Five-Story Precast Concrete Test
Building. PCI Journal, V. 44, No. 6 (November–
December): pp. 42–67.
10. Allen, M., and Y. Kurama. 2002. Design of Rectan-
gular Openings in Precast Walls under Combined
Vertical and Lateral Loads. PCI Journal, V. 47, No. 2
(March–April): pp. 58–83.
11. Holden, T., J. Restrepo, and J. Mander. 2003. Seismic
Performance of Precast Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, V.
129, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 286–296.
12. Perez, F., S. Pessiki, and R. Sause. 2004. Lateral Load
Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Con-
crete Walls with Vertical Joints. PCI Journal, V. 49,
No. 2 (March–April): pp. 48–64.
13. Morgen, B., and Y. Kurama. 2004. A Friction Damper
for Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Moment Frames.
PCI Journal, V. 49, No. 4 (July–August): pp. 112–
133.
14. Kurama, Y. 2005. Seismic Design of Partially Post-
tensioned Precast Concrete Walls. PCI Journal, V. 50,
No. 4 (July–August): pp. 100–125.
15. Perez, F., R. Sause, and S. Pessiki. 2007. Analytical
and Experimental Lateral Load Behavior of Unbonded
Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls. Journal of
Structural Engineering, V. 133, No. 1 (January–Feb-
ruary): pp. 1531–1540.
16. Weldon, B., and Y. Kurama. 2007. Unbonded Post-
Tensioned Precast Concrete Coupling Beams: An
Experimental Evaluation. In Proceedings of the ASCE
Structures Congress, Long Beach, CA, May 16–19.
CD-ROM. Reston, VA: ASCE.
17. Morgen, B., and Y. Kurama. 2008. Seismic Response
Evaluation of Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete
Frames with Friction Dampers. Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 134, No. 1 (January): pp. 132–145.
18. Joint ACI–American Society of Civil Engineers
Committee 423. 2007. Specification for Unbonded
Single-Strand Tendons and Commentary. ACI 423.7.
Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
19. Joint ACI–American Society of Civil Engineers Com-
mittee 423. 2005. Recommendations for Concrete
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 115
 Members Prestressed with Unbonded Tendons. ACI
423.3R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
20. Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI). 2000. Specification
for Unbonded Single Strand Tendons. Phoenix, AZ:
PTI.
21. Schechter, E., and H. Boecker. 1971. Wedge Anchor-
age System for Strand Post-Tensioning. PCI Journal,
V. 16, No. 4 (July–August): pp. 49–63.
22. Feldman, A. 1954. Bonded and Unbonded Prestressed
Concrete Beams Failing in Flexure. Progress report
of investigation of prestressed concrete for highway
bridges for Bureau of Public Roads, University of Il-
linois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
23. Burns, N., and D. Pierce. 1967. Strength and Behavior
of Prestressed Concrete Members with Unbonded Ten-
dons. PCI Journal, V. 12, No. 5 (October): pp. 15–29.
24. Nawy, E., and F. Salek. 1968. Moment-Rotation
Relationships of Non-bonded Post-tensioned I- and
T-Beams. PCI Journal, V. 13, No. 4 (August): pp.
40–55.
25. Mattock, A., J. Yamazaki, and B. Kattula. 1969.
A Comparison of the Behavior of Post-Tensioned
Pre-stressed Concrete Beams with and without Bond.
Structures mechanics report SM69-3, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA.
26. Walsh, K., and Y. Kurama. 2009. Behavior and De-
sign of Unbonded Post-tensioning Strand/Anchorage
Systems for Seismic Applications. Structural engineer-
ing research report NDSE-09-02, University of Notre
Dame, Notre Dame, IN. www.nd.edu/~concrete.
27. Kurama, Y., B. Weldon, and Q. Shen. 2006. Experi-
mental Evaluation of Post-tensioned Hybrid Coupled
Wall Subassemblages. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, V. 132, No. 7 (July): pp. 1017–1029.
28. Ricles, J., R. Sause, S. Peng, and L. Lu. 2002. Ex-
perimental Evaluation of Earthquake Resistant Post-
tensioned Steel Connections. Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 128, No. 7 (July): pp. 850–859.
29. Stanton, J., and S. Nakaki. 2002. Design Guidelines
for Precast Concrete Seismic Structural Systems.
PRESSS-01/03-09. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
30. ACI Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators.
2003. Special Hybrid Moment Frames Composed of
Discretely Jointed Precast and Post-tensioned Con-
116 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
crete Members. ACI Proposed Standard T1.2-03 and
Commentary ACI T1.2R-03. Farmington Hills, MI:
ACI.
31. Innovation Task Group 5 and Collaborators. 2008.
Design of a Special Unbonded Post-Tensioned Pre-
cast Shear Wall Satisfying ACI ITG-5.1 Requirements.
ACI ITG-5.2. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. Draft 5.
32. International Code Council (ICC). 2006. International
Building Code 2006. Falls Church, VA: ICC.
33. International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-
ES). 2007. Acceptance Criteria for Post-Tensioning
Anchorages and Couplers of Prestressed Concrete.
Whittier, CA: ICC-ES.
34. ASTM A416. 2006. Standard Specification for Steel
Strand, Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Con-
crete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
35. ASTM A370. 2008. Standard Test Methods and
Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Prod-
ucts. Annex A7 Method of Testing Multi-Wire Strand
for Prestressed Concrete. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
36. PCI. 2004. PCI Design Handbook: Precast and Pre-
stressed Concrete. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: PCI.
Notation
ap = cross-sectional area of one strand
Ap = cross-sectional area of tendon
Apfpu = total nominal design strength of tendon
dmw = middle-wire diameter in strand
dow = outer-wire diameter in strand
dp = strand diameter
Ep,free-length = free-length elastic modulus of strand
fpi = initial stress
fpm,free-length = free-length maximum strength of strand
fpu = nominal design ultimate strength of strand
H = height
L = length
P = total force in tendon
Vb = beam shear force
W = width
εpf,free-length = free-length fracture strain of strand
θb = beam chord rotation
About the authors
Kevin Q. Walsh is a project
engineer for Frost Engineering
and Consulting in Granger, Ind.
Walsh graduated with an MSCE
from Notre Dame University in
2009.
Yahya C. Kurama, PhD, P.E.,
MPCI, is an associate professor at
the University of Notre Dame.
Synopsis
This paper presents an experimental study on the
ultimate behavior of unbonded post-tensioning
monostrand anchorage systems under monotonic
tensile loading. New types of seismic precast concrete
structural systems using unbonded post-tensioning
have emerged in recent years. While unbonded post-
tensioned gravity systems (for example, floor and roof
slabs) are common throughout the United States, the
use of this construction technique for seismic resis-
tance can put the anchorage regions (where all of the
post-tensioning forces are transferred from the strand
to the structure) under extreme demands. Strand-wire
fractures can occur inside the anchorages, limiting the
lateral strength, stiffness, ductility, and self-centering
capability of the structure. The research described in
View publication stats
this paper focuses on the strand stresses and strains at
wire fracture, considering the following design and
configuration parameters: strand diameter, anchor
type (cast-type and barrel-type anchors), number of
anchor wedges (two-piece and three-piece wedges),
presence of a binding ring around the wedges, and
cast-anchor date code and metallurgical properties.
The test results are used to make design recommenda-
tions and to evaluate strand/anchor configurations that
may provide a better probability of reaching higher
strand ductility. In addition, current industry require-
ments for the acceptance testing of post-tensioning
monostrand anchorage systems are assessed.
Keywords
Barrel anchor, binding ring, cast anchor, date code,
metallurgy, monostrand, reusable anchor, strand-wire
fracture, unbonded post-tensioning, wedge.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal
editor-in-chief Emily Lorenz at elorenz@pci.org or
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal,
209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60606. J
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 117