Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Analysis of bond stress distribution for prestressing strand by Standard

Test for Strand Bond
Canh N. Dang a, Cameron D. Murray a, Royce W. Floyd b, W. Micah Hale a,⇑, J.R. Martí-Vargas c
a
University of Arkansas, Department of Civil Engineering, 4190 Bell Engineering Center, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
b
University of Oklahoma, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, 202 W. Boyd St., Norman, OK 73019, USA
c
Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 4G, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

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

Article history: Strand bond is the unique interaction between prestressing strand and adjacent concrete, and directly
Received 18 February 2014 affects the performance of the strand in the anchor region. However, strand bond depends upon numer-
Revised 22 April 2014 ous factors, such as concrete properties and strand surface condition. The Standard Test for Strand Bond
Accepted 22 April 2014
(STSB) has been developed to assess the bonding capacity of prestressing strands. Test data are used to
propose a bond stress–slip model and investigate the bond stress distribution. The study outcomes are
verified by STSB of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand conducted at the University of Arkansas
Keywords:
and collected in the literature. Experimental and analytical results show that the proposed model can
Stress–slip relationship
Bond stress distribution
predict bond stress versus slippage of prestressing strand within a 2% error. The results also show that
Strand bond the bond stress distribution along the embedment length is not linear or uniform as was assumed by pre-
Prestressed concrete vious researchers.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Strand bond can be defined as the shearing stress at the inter-
face between prestressing strand and the surrounding concrete.
The bond guarantees the transferring of prestress force from the
strand to the concrete. The bond ensures that the prestressing
strand and concrete can work as a composite material under exter-
nal loading. When tension stress occurs in the strand, it tends to
move in the same direction with applied force. The relative strand
movement is prevented by the bond between the two materials. If
the bond is inadequate to prevent the movement, a bond failure
will occur because of excessive slippage of the prestressing strand.
Research conducted by Janney [1] showed that the three mecha-
nisms of bond between the prestressing strand and concrete are
adhesion, Hoyer’s effect, and mechanical interlock. Adhesion is a
chemical mechanism between the strands and concrete. Once
strand slip occurs, adhesion no longer contributes to bond. Hoyer’s
effect is the lateral expansion due to tensioning and detensioning
of the prestressing strands. Mechanical interlock is the resistance
provided between the helical shaped prestressing strands and the
concrete.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 479 575 6348.
E-mail address: micah@uark.edu (W. Micah Hale).
Many pull-out tests have been developed to assess strand bond.
The Moustafa Pull-out Test [2] was the earliest test; in this test,
strands were pulled from a large concrete block. It was developed
to quantify the bond capacity for lifting loops. Another strand bond
test is the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) Bond Test [3]. In this test,
a single strand is pulled from neat cement mortar. This test was
developed to investigate the bond performance of strands used
as rock anchors. Another test, the North American Strand Produc-
ers (NASP) Bond Test [4], was derived from PTI Bond Test. The
NASP Bond Test used mortar in order to reduce shrinkage and
increase dimensional stability when compared to the neat cement
mortar used in the PTI Bond Test. The NASP Bond Test was modi-
fied through four rounds of testing [4–7]. Data from these rounds
showed that the NASP Bond Test was a reproducible, repeatable
test for assessing and qualifying the bond properties of prestress-
ing strand. The contemporary version of the NASP Bond Test
method is known as the Standard Test for Strand Bond (STSB).
The STSB has been adopted by American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) and is known as the Standard Test Method for
Evaluating Bond of Seven-Wire Steel Prestressing Strand [8]. The
STSB was developed to evaluate the surface condition of prestress-
ing strands. The STSB measures the pull-out force at the bottom of
the prestressing strand corresponding to a slip of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm)
at the top of the strand. The average value of a set of six strand
specimens is considered the STSB value. This value is used to vali-
date bond quality of the strand. During STSB testing, researchers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.040
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.N. Dang et al. / Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159
Nomenclature
a exponential factor of bond stress–slip model
db nominal strand diameter
fs tensile stress of prestressing strand
fc0 compressive strength of mortar at 1-day
fc compressive stress of mortar
k a constant of nonlinear ordinary deferential equation
u(x) bond stress at location x
u01 average bond stress at a slip of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm)
u001 average bond stress at a slip of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm)
u bond stress along the embedded length
s(x) strand slip at location x
s01 slip corresponding with the STSB value, 0.1 in. (2.5 mm)
s001 the first recorded slip during conducting STSB, 0.01 in.
(0.25 mm)
may also measure the pull-out force at a slip of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm)
[6,7,9,10]. This value is regarded as the first slip of the prestressing
strand. However, the ratios of pull-out forces and slips are not pro-
portional. In other words, the average bond stresses calculated
from these forces are not linearly proportional with the measured
slips.
The bond stress–slip model is a nonlinear curve that is used to
calculate bond stress from a given slip. In concrete structures, mea-
suring reinforcement slip is easier than measuring the bond stress.
The slip is determined by measuring the movement of the rein-
forcement or strands at the ends of prestressed beams or girders.
Bond stresses act at the interface of the reinforcement and the con-
crete, which makes direct measurement of bond stress compli-
cated. However, the bond stress can be computed using the
measured slip and the bond stress–slip model. For non-prestressed
reinforcement, the bond stress–slip model has been well estab-
lished and is provided in the fib Model Code for Concrete Struc-
tures 2010 [11]. For prestressing strands, a bond stress–slip
model is not well established. This is due to the smooth surface
of the prestressing strands and the complex interaction of the
numerous factors influencing the bond stress such Hoyer’s effect
and mechanical interlock. However, there are limited experimental
studies that investigated the bond stress–slip model of prestress-
ing strand [12].
Bond distribution shows the variation of bond stress along an
embedded length of prestressing strand. Quantifying the bond dis-
tribution is critical to make a precise estimation of the transfer
length in prestressed concrete. Bond stresses along the transfer
length at the interface strand and concrete are not uniform. Like-
wise, the tensile stress in the prestressing strand along the transfer
length is not uniform either. The change of strand stress is propor-
tional with the bond stress. Research conducted by Den Uijl [13]
showed that the bond stress nonlinearly decreased within the
transfer zone of prestressed beams. In particular, the bond stress
achieves its maximum value near the free-end of the beam. This
is due to lateral expansion or Hoyer’s effect of the prestressing
strand as it is being released. The stress gradually decreases at
throughout the transfer zone. However, the distribution of bond
stress is assumed linear to simplify computations. The linear
assumption was used to establish the transfer length equation
found in the ACI 318 Building Code and Commentary [14]. In this
equation, the bond stress was assumed to be a constant along
the length with a nominal value of 400 psi (2.76 MPa) [15]. Also,
the prestressing strand stress is assumed to linearly increase from
zero to the effective stress within transfer length.
The bond between the prestressing strand and adjacent con-
crete plays a critical role in the behavior of prestressed concrete
153
s slip along the embedded length
x coordinate
Ac area of mortar
As cross-sectional area of strand
Cs perimeter of strand
Ec modulus of elasticity of mortar
Es modulus of elasticity of strand
L embedded length of STSB, 16 in. (410 mm)
P01 pull-out force corresponding with a slip of 0.1 in.
(2.5 mm)
P001 pull-out force corresponding with a slip of 0.01 in.
(0.25 mm)
P pull-out force corresponding with a slip of s
members. However, direct measurement of the bond is compli-
cated. The quantification of bond at a specific location depends
on the measured slip and bond stress–slip model. The distribution
of bond along the prestressing strand constitutes the accuracy of
the transfer length estimation. Accordingly, this research develops
a bond stress–slip model for 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) strands from STSB. Also presented in the paper is an
analytical analysis to verify the distribution of bond stress along
the prestressing strands in STSB. The proposed bond stress–slip
model can accurately predict the performance of prestressing
strands in the STSB. Likewise, the STSB results have been shown
to adequately assess the bonding capacity of prestressing strands.
Therefore, the proposed model can be implemented for prestress-
ing strands by incorporating a coefficient which calibrates the dif-
ferent behaviors of tensioned strands and non-tensioned strands
[16]. The use of bond stress–slip model to estimate the transfer
length and validate the assumption ACI 318 equation is discussed
in detail in the upcoming paper.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Material
Grade 270, low relaxation, 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) strands were used in this study. The properties of these
strands are conformed to ASTM A416 [17]. Eighteen specimens of
0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strand were cut from the prestressing strand
coils [9,18]. All specimens were stored inside Engineering Research
Center of the University of Arkansas (UARK) in order to prevent
surface damages from weathering impacts or other environment
effects. The strands were not cleaned or prepared in any way
before performing the STSB. The rest STSB data, eighteen speci-
mens of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and twelve specimens of 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm), were collected from previous study [10].
2.2. STSB
The STSB, ASTM A1081, was used to investigate the bonding
capacity of the prestressing strands [8]. The STSB is a standard test
which provides repeatable, reproducible, and reliable estimates of
the bond capacity of prestressing strand [7]. A STSB specimen con-
sisted of a 1/2 in. (12.5 mm) thick, 18 in. (450 mm) long, 5 in.
(125 mm) diameter steel tube and a 1/2 in. (12.5 mm) thick, 6 in.
(150 mm) by 6 in. (150 mm) steel plate. An 11/16 in. (17.2 mm)
hole was placed in the plate for tests of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strand.
The plate was welded to one end of the tube to seal the tube for
mortar placement and to provide a flat surface for loading. The
154 C.N. Dang et al. / Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159
Fig. 1. Testing frame.
strand was centered in this steel casing with a 2 in. (51 mm) long
section of bond breaker at the bottom, providing a bonded length
of 16 in. (400 mm). The bond breaker was used in order to reduce
the concentric stress at the plate location.
The UARK tests were performed using a 100 kips (445 kN) MTS
machine as shown in Fig. 1. Tensile load was applied to the strand
by displacing the loaded-end of the strand at a rate of 0.100 in./
min ± 0.005 in./min (2.54 mm/min ± 0.0127 mm/min). Strand slip
was measured by a DCT1000A linear variable displacement trans-
ducer (LVDT) and bridge apparatus across the dead end of the
strand. Load and slip were continuous monitored by the MTS data
acquisition system and the load corresponding to a strand slip of
0.01 in. (0.25 mm) and 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) at the free-end was
recorded for each specimen. Each STSB consisted of six or more
individual test specimens; the average force at a slip of 0.1 in.
(2.5 mm) becomes the ‘‘STSB Value.’’ These data were used to
Fig. 2. Bond stress–slip relationship.
derive the bond stress–slip model. A drawing showing the forces
acting on a STSB specimen is shown in Fig. 3a.
The ASTM A1081 [8] does not specify minimum thresholds for
STSB values. However, recent studies proposed minimum thresh-
olds to qualify the bond of prestressing strand. For 0.6 in.
(15.2 mm) strand, the average pull-out force of a set of six strand
specimens should not be less than 12,600 lbf (56 kN) with no indi-
vidual test below 10,800 lbf (48 kN) [19]. This requirement was
established based on a correlation with transfer length of the ACI
318. The strands having STSB equal or larger than 12,600 lbf
(56 kN) would adequately meet the transfer length requirement
of the code and vice versa. For 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand, the average
pull-out force of a set of six strand specimens is not less than
14,700 lbf (65.4 kN), and no individual shows the force below
12,600 lbf (56 kN) [10,20]. These prerequisites were established
basing on a propositional ratio of the strand diameter with 0.6 in.
(15.2 mm) strand, 0.7 in./0.6 in. = 1.167.
The STSB data include six sets of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strand and
three sets of 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand. The sets of specimens are
numbered from S06-1 to S06-6 for 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and from
S07-1 to S07-3 for 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand. Testing data are shown
in Table 1. For 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strand, the STSB values ranged
from 18,000 lbf (80.1 kN) to 23,000 lbf (102.3 kN). For 0.7 in.
(17.8 mm) strand, the STSB values ranged from 21,000 lbf
(93.4 kN) to 23,000 lbf (102.3 kN). All strand specimens exhibited
good performance and satisfy the minimum thresholds.
3. Analytical investigation
3.1. Bond stress–slip model
The analytical expression of the bond stress–slip model for pre-
stressing strand is adapted from fib Model Code for Concrete Struc-
tures 2010 [11]. The model was originally developed for non-
prestressing reinforcement steel. For this research, the coefficients
of the proposed model were established from STSB data. As previ-
ously discussed, the STSB values were measured at the loaded-end
of the specimen corresponding to the slips of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm)
and 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) at the free-end. The average bond stresses
derived from the pull-out forces are used to express the bond
stress–slip equation.
 a
sðxÞ
uðxÞ ¼ u01 ð1Þ
s01
The exponential coefficient in Eq. (1), a, constitutes the shape of
bond stress–slip model. A a of 1.0 was used in a study of Abrishami
and Mitchell [12] which showed the relationship of bond stress and
slip was linear. For this research, however, the value of a is derived
from two data points of STSB; the average bond stresses corre-
sponding to slips of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) and 0.1 in. (2.5 mm). Calcu-
lations for a are in Eq. (2). In STSB, the average bond stress in
embedded length is directly proportional with the pull-out force
that yields a simple expression of Eq. (2) as shown in Eq. (3). This
equation is used to compute a for each kind of strand as shown in
Table 1. Generally, numerical values of a ranges from 0.12 to 0.21.
ln ðu001 =u01 Þ
a¼ ð2Þ
ln ðs001 =s01 Þ
lnðP001 =P01 Þ
a¼ ð3Þ
lnð0:1Þ
Fig. 2 shows the general model of bond stress–slip. The specific
model is plotted for a unique prestressing strand based on the STSB
data. Therefore, different STSB values produce different model
curves.
 C.N. Dang et al. / Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159 155

Fig. 3. Forces acting on an element length dx.

Table 1
STSB values of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands.

Test db (in.) f0 c (psi) N STSB at slip of 0.01 in. STSB at slip of 0.1 in. Ratio of STSB at 0.01 in. and 0.1 in. slip a
Average (lb) STD (lb) Average (lb) STD (lb)
S06-1a 0.6 3650 6 14,590 1170 22,230 3300 0.656 0.183
S06-2a 0.6 4120 6 14,270 1670 20,590 2580 0.693 0.159
S06-3b 0.6 5000 6 14,490 1720 19,180 2110 0.755 0.122
S06-4c 0.6 4770 6 14,500 NA 19,300 1120 0.751 0.124
S06-5c 0.6 4780 6 12,890 NA 20,230 1240 0.637 0.196
S06-6c 0.6 4880 6 13,540 NA 18,900 1340 0.716 0.145
S07-1c 0.7 4780 4 14,560 NA 21,250 550 0.685 0.164
S07-2c 0.7 4880 4 14,100 NA 22,560 2450 0.625 0.204
S07-3c 0.7 5000 4 13,890 NA 22,300 1850 0.623 0.206

Note: 1 lb = 4.448 N; 1 in. = 25.4 mm, STD = Standard of Deviation, NA = Not Available.
a
Ref. [18].
b
Ref. [9].
c
Ref. [10].

3.2. Bond stress distribution
Fig. 3 shows the detail forces acting on an element length of
prestressing strand, dx, which is used to establish the equations
shown below. The slip s(x), at a reference position x, is the relative
displacement between the prestressing strand and concrete as
shown in Eq. (4). This equation is valid as the stress–strain rela-
tionships of prestressing strand and mortar are in the linear
region. For Grade 270, 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and 0.7 in. (17.8 mm)
strands, the yielding forces are 52.7 kips (234.4 kN) and 71.5 kips
(318.1 kN), respectively. These forces are greater than the pull-out
force of STSB, therefore the stress–strain relationship for the
strands are linear during the STSB. For the mortar, the compres-
sive strength during the STSB ranges from 4500 psi (31.1 MPa)
to 5000 psi (34.5 MPa). Mortar exhibits nonlinear behavior as
the compressive stress exceeds 33% of its maximum strength
[21]. This corresponds to mortar strength of 1500 psi (10.3 MPa)
to 1667 psi (11.5 MPa). At these mortar stresses levels, the pull-
out forces range from 29.4 kips (130.8 kN) to 32.7 kips
(145.5 kN), which satisfies the linear relationship assumption.
Eqs. (5) and (6) are equilibrium equations of the compressive force
in the mortar, the tensile force in the prestressing strand, and the
bond stress in element length. These equations were established
based on Fig. 3. The friction force between mortar and steel tube
acts as a layer of chemical bond and is formed when fresh mortar
hardens. This force is invalid as the mortar is shortened during the
STSB. Accordingly, the friction force is insignificant and can be dis-
regarded in Eq. (4).
156 C.N. Dang et al. / Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159

dsðxÞ dfs dfc  Step 6: verify the percentage error between the analytical exper-
¼  ð4Þ
dx Es Ec imental pull-out forces.
uðxÞC s dx þ Ac dfc ¼ 0 ð5Þ
 uðxÞC s dx þ As dfs ¼ 0 ð6Þ
4. Experimental results and discussion
Eq. (7) is obtained by differentiating Eq. (4) after substituting
Eqs. (5) and (6). This equation shows the relationship of slip and The slips along the embedded length of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and
bond stress at position x. As previously mentioned, the bond stress 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands are shown as nonlinear curves in
is a function of the slip, so Eq. (8) can be easily attained by substi- Figs. 4a and 5a, respectively. In the STSB, the embedded length of
tuting Eq. (1) into Eq. (7), and it is simplified by separating into two prestressing strand in mortar is 18 in. (460 mm). However, the last
equations. Eq. (9) is the nonlinear second ordinary differential 2.0 in. (51 mm) is covered by the bond breaker to reduce the stress
equation for the slip along the embedded length, with a constant concentration on the base plate, and the bond stress is neglected in
k as shown in Eq. (10). this region. Therefore, the actual embedded length is 16 in.
  (406 mm). As shown in these figures, slip gradually increased from
2
d sðxÞ Cs Cs the free-end toward the loaded-end. At the free-end, the slip is
2
¼ þ uðxÞ ð7Þ
dx Es As Ec Ac identical to the measured slip by STSB of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm). At the
2    loaded-end, the slip is varied depending on the pull-out force.
d sðxÞ Cs Cs u01 a
 þ s ðxÞ ¼ 0 ð8Þ The measured slip increased as the pull-out force increased. This
dx
2 E s As E c Ac sa01
2
relationship is expressed in Eq. (4) which shows that the slip
d sðxÞ a depends on the elongation of prestressing strand that is linearly
2
 ks ðxÞ ¼ 0 ð9Þ
dx  proportional with the pull-out force. Generally, 0.6 in. (15.2 mm)
 
Cs Cs u01 and 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands exhibit a similar slip curve due to
k¼ þ ð10Þ
Es As Ec Ac sa01 both kinds of strands are Grade 270, seven-wire, and low
relaxation.
The boundary conditions of Eq. (9) are determined based on the Figs. 4b and 5b show that bond stress distribution is not uni-
STSB procedures. In the STSB, a pull-out force is the force at the form along the embedded length. This is due to the variation of
loaded-end of the prestressing strand that corresponds to a slip the slip and the nonlinear relationship between bond stress and
of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) at the free-end of the strand. Therefore, the first slip. Along the embedded length, the slip varies as was previously
boundary condition is the measured slip of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm). The mentioned. At a particular point, the bond stress is derived from
second boundary condition is derived from Eq. (1) at the loaded- the slip by using Eq. (1). In the STSB, the minimum bond stress is
end of the specimen. It is the compressive stress in the mortar at the free-end of prestressing strand, and the maximum bond
and the tensile stress in prestressing strand at the pull-out force stress is at loaded-end. Otherwise, improved estimates of anchor
P01. In mathematical terminology, they are referred as Dirichlet length are achieved with a nonlinear bond stress distribution
and Neumann boundary conditions [22], respectively. The analyti- instead of a linear distribution is assumed from the free-end to
cal forms of boundary conditions are shown in the following the loaded end.
equation: The pull-out force and prestressing strand stress are computed
( by integrating the bond stress on the embedded length using Eq.
sð0Þ ¼ s01
ð11Þ (6) as shown in Figs. 4c–d and 5c–d. These parameters are nonlin-
s0 ðLÞ ¼ EPs01As  EPc01Ac ear along the embedded length, and their accuracy primarily
depends on the bond stress distribution. In this study, the steel
Eq. (9) is a nonlinear second ordinary differential equation with
stress is approximately 100 ksi (690 MPa) which is certainly below
mixed boundary conditions, Dirichlet and Neumann, as shown in
the yielding stress of Grade 270 strand. The pull-out forces are
Eq. (11). This is a highly complicated equation and determining
almost identical to the experimental values as shown in Table 2.
analytical solution is complicated. Therefore, a numerical method
In particular, the pull-out forces corresponding with a slip of
is used in this study to determine a solution instead of the analyt-
0.01 in. (0.25 mm) are identical with measured values in STSB.
ical method. In particular, a combination of ‘‘Block Method’’ and
The pull-out forces corresponding with a slip of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm)
Modified Euler method, which was proposed by Majid et al. [22],
are within 2% error of the measured values.
was applied to determine an approximate solution. In order to
As expected, the bond stress–slip relationship varied with dif-
increase the solution’s accuracy, the Runge–Kutta method was
ferent strand specimens depending on the STSB values which is
used instead of the Modified Euler, and iterative steps divided very
shown in Fig. 6. This figure also shows the regions (labeled inves-
fine at 1/500. The detail procedures of determining the solutions
tigating regions) where the analytical pull-out force corresponding
are shown in Appendix A.
with slips of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) and 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) was com-
The bond stress–slip model and bond stress distribution are
puted. The region begins with the slip at the free-end and ends
analyzed from STSB data by following steps:
with the slip at the loaded-end. For a particular STSB specimen,
two investigating regions are plotted on the bond stress–slip curve.
 Step 1: calculate average bond stresses u001 and u01 from pull-
The first region presented slip along the prestressing strand as the
out forces corresponding with the slips of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm)
slip at free-end of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm). As shown in the figure, this
and 0.1 in. (2.5 mm), respectively.
region exactly matched with the bond stress–slip curve. Therefore,
 Step 2: compute a in Eq. (1) by using Eq. (3) to determine the
the analytical pull-out force calculated by Step 5 is nearly identical
bond stress–slip model.
with the measured pull-out force. The second region was similar to
 Step 3: solve Eq. (9) to determine the slip of prestressing strand
the first region. It showed slip along the prestressing strand, but
along the embedded length.
this region corresponded to the slip at free-end of 0.1 in.
 Step 4: combine the solution of step Eq. (3) and Eq. (1) to inves-
(2.5 mm). The second region well matched with the bond stress–
tigate the bond stress distribution.
slip curve. Hence, the analytical pull-out force calculated by Step
 Step 5: compute analytical pull-out forces basing on the deter-
5 is nearly identical with the measured pull-out force with an error
mined bond stress distribution in step 4 by using Eq. (6).
of 2% as shown in Table 2.
 C.N. Dang et al. / Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159 157

Slip, mm Bond stress, MPa Steel stress, MPa Pull-out Force, kN

2.54 3.05 3.56 3.45 3.79 4.14 0 517 1034 0 44 89 133
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

lenngth, mm
Embedded lenngth, mm

Embedded lenngth, mm
lenngth, in.

Embedded lenngth, mm

Embedded lenngth, in.

Embedded lenngth, in.

Embedded lenngth, in.
4 102 4 102 4 102 4 102

8 203 8 203 8 203 8 203

Embedded

Embedded
12 305 12 305 12 305 12 305
E

E
16 406 16 406 16 406 16 406
0.1 0.12 0.14 500 550 600 0 75 150 0 10 20 30
Slip, in. Bond stress, psi Steel stress, ksi Pull-out Force, kip
S06-1 S06-1 S06-1 S06-1
S06-2 S06-2 S06-2 S06-2
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig. 4. The slip, bond stress, steel stress, and pull-out force along the embedded length of S06-1 and S06-2 specimens by analytical method.

Slip, mm Bond stress, MPa Steel stress, MPa Pull-out Force, kN

2.54 3.05 3.56 3.1 3.45 3.79 0 345 690 0 44 89 133
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Embedded length, mm
Embedded length, mm

Embedded length, mm
Embedded length, in.

Embedded length, in.

Embedded length, in.

Embedded length, in.

Embedded length, mm

4 102 4 102 4 102 4 102

8 203 8 203 8 203 8 203

12 305 12 305 12 305 12 305

16 406 16 406 16 406 16 406

0.1 0.12 0.14 450 500 550 0 50 100 0 10 20 30
Slip, in. Bond stress, psi Steel stress, ksi Pull-out Force, kip
S07-1 S07-1 S07-1 S07-1
S07-2 S07-2 S07-2 S07-2

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 5. The slip, bond stress, steel stress, and pull-out force along the embedded length of S07-1 and S07-2 specimens by analytical method.

Table 2
Comparison of experimental and analytical STSB values of 0.6 in. (15.2 mm) and 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strands.

Test STSB at slip of 0.01 in. STSB at slip of 0.1 in.

Experimental (lb) Analytical (lb) Percent error Experimental (lb) Analytical (lb) Percent error
S06-1 14,590 14,600 0.0 22,230 22,630 1.8
S06-2 14,270 14,260 0.0 20,590 20,900 1.5
S06-3 14,490 14,480 0.0 19,180 19,390 1.1
S06-4 14,500 14,490 0.0 19,300 19,520 1.1
S06-5 12,890 12,890 0.0 20,230 20,590 1.7
S06-6 13,540 13,540 0.0 18,900 19,140 1.3
S07-1 14,560 14,550 0.0 21,250 21,510 1.2
S07-2 14,100 14,100 0.0 22,560 22,920 1.6
S07-3 13,890 13,890 0.0 22,300 22,650 1.6

Note: 1 lb = 4.448 N; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

Relationship of pull-out force and slips of prestressing strand is pull-out force of 10,000 lbs (44.5 kN). The first recorded movement
shown in Fig. 7. The figure shows that the loaded-end is more sen- of 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) at free-end occurs at a pull-out force of P001.
sitive to strand with slip than the free-end. At the loaded-end, slip Beyond that point, the slip increase more linear than the loaded-
occurs as soon as the pull-out force is applied and increases line- end slip to a slip of 0.1 in. (2.5 mm). Pozolo and Andrawes [16]
arly to an approximate slip of 0.03 in. (0.75 mm). Beyond that examined the movement of prestressing strands during a pull-
point, the slip increases more rapidly than what occurred during out test. They determined that as a pull-out force is applied to
the first segment. The free end has zero displacement up to a the prestressing strand, only a short portion of the strand near
158 C.N. Dang et al. / Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159

Slip, mm movement. When the pull-out force increases, a longer portion of

0 1.27 2.54 3.81 the strand receives the energy. At a certain force, the full embed-
1000 6.9 ment length receives the energy and the free-end of strand first
S06-1
S06-2 moves while the loaded-end experiences a greater movement.
S07-1 Fig. 8 shows the relationship curves of bond stress and slip at
800 S07-2 5.52
the ends of prestressing strands during the STSB. The figure only

Bond stress, MPa

Investigating region
Bond stress, psi

shows the relationship curves at two ends of two 0.6 in.

600 4.14 (15.2 mm) specimens and two 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) specimens. These
curves are representative of remaining specimens. For a particular
400 2.76 strand, the slip at the loaded-end is greater than slip at the free-
end, so the relationship curves at the ends are separated. For differ-
ent kinds of strands, the curve shapes mainly depend on the bond
200 1.38 stress–slip model as shown in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the
bond stress–slip relationship at any points along the embedment
0
0.01
0 length can be simply tracked by using the proposed model.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Slip, in.

Fig. 6. The bond stress–slip relationships and investigating regions of S06-1, S06-2, 5. Conclusions
S07-1, and S07-2 specimens.

The bond stress–slip model is an essential parameter to deter-

mine the bond stress from a given slip. For prestressing strand,
Slip, mm
the slip is more sensitive than deformed rebar because of the
0 1.27 2.54 3.81
2.5 111.2
smooth surface of strand and the complicated interaction of
Hoyer’s effect and mechanical interlock. This study proposes a
new bond stress–slip model for prestressing strand by using STSB
2 88.96
Pull-out Force, lb (x 104)

data. The research outcomes are verified by STSB data of six sets of
Pull-out Force, kN

0.6 in. (15.2 mm) strand and three sets of 0.7 in. (17.8 mm) strand.
1.5 66.72 Experimental and analytical results prove that the model can esti-
mated relationship of bond stress and slip of prestressing strand
S06-1 at the top
S06-1 at the bottom within 2% error.
1 S06-2 at the top 44.48 A nonlinear ordinary differential equation was developed to
S06-2 at the bottom quantify the slip of prestressing strand along the embedment
S07-1 at the top
0.5 22.24 length. The equation includes the analytical form and accounts
S07-1 at the bottom
S07-2 at the top for the experimental data, which allows it to accurately compute
S07-2 at the bottom the slip distribution. In particular, the slip is not linear within the
0 0 embedment length.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Slip, in. Bond stress distribution for STSB was fully investigated in this
study. The bond stress distribution is derived from the slip distri-
Fig. 7. Relationships of pull-out force and slip at the top and bottom of S06-1, S06- bution and the bond stress–slip model. The results show that bond
2, S07-1, and S07-2 specimens. stress distribution along the embedment length is not uniform.
Generally, the bond stress gradually increases from the free-end
toward the loaded-end of prestressing strand. Understanding the
Slip, mm shape and quantifying the value of bond stress are fundamental
0 1.27 2.54 3.81
to better estimating the anchor length of prestressing strand.
600 4.14

Appendix A
Bond Stress, MPa
Bond Stress, psi

400 2.76
This section presents procedures to solve the nonlinear second
S06-1 at the top ordinary differential equation as shown in Eq. (7), with the mix
S06-1 at the bottom boundary conditions as stated in Eq. (11). The nonlinear equation
S06-2 at the top is solved by the following steps.
200 S06-2 at the bottom 1.38
S07-1 at the top
S07-1 at the bottom Step 1: Eq. (7) is divided into two new equations in order to sep-
S07-2 at the top arate the Dirichlet boundary conditions and Neumann bound-
S07-2 at the bottom
ary conditions.
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Slip, in.
( a
Fig. 8. Relationships of bond stress and slip at the top and bottom of S06-1, S06-2,
s001 ¼ ks1 ; s1 ð0Þ ¼ s01 ; s01 ð0Þ ¼ 0
a ð12Þ
S07-1, and S07-2 specimens. s002 ¼ ks2 ; s1 ð0Þ ¼ 0; s01 ð0Þ ¼ 1

Step 2: The Runge–Kutta method is used to solve Eq. (12) with

the loaded-end received tensile energy which was transferred to the same iteration steps h. The approximate values of step
the adjacent mortar. That phenomenon explains why the first dis- ‘‘i + 1’’, ðxiþ1 ; yiþ1 Þ, are computed from step ‘‘i’’, ðxi ; yi Þ, as shown
placement occurs at the loaded-end and while the free-end has no in below equation.
 C.N. Dang et al. / Engineering Structures 72 (2014) 152–159 159

8
> xiþ1 ¼ xi þ h [8] ASTM A1081/A1081M. Standard test method for evaluating bond of seven-
>
> wire steel prestressing strand. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International;
>
> yiþ1 ¼ yi þ 16 ðk1 þ 2k2 þ 2k3 þ k4 Þ
>
> 2012.
>
< [9] Floyd RW. Investigating the bond of prestressing strands in lightweight self-
k1 ¼ hf ðxi þ yi Þ
ð13Þ consolidating concrete. AR: University of Arkansas; 2012.
>
> k2 ¼ hf ðxi þ 0:5h; yi þ 0:5k1 Þ [10] Hatami A, Morcous G, Hanna KE, Tadros MK. Evaluating the bond of 0.7-in.
>
>
>
> Diameter prestressing strands for concrete bridge girders. TRB 2011(11-
> k3 ¼ hf ðxi þ 0:5h; yi þ 0:5k2 Þ
>
: 2104);1–13.
k4 ¼ hf ðxi þ h; yi þ k3 Þ [11] FIB 2010. fib Model code for concrete structures 2010. Wiley-VCH Verlag
GmbH & Co. KGaA; 2013.
Step 3: The ‘‘linear shooting method’’ is implemented to com- [12] Abrishami HG, Mitchell D. Bond characteristics of pretensioned strand. ACI
bine Mater J 1993;90(3):228–35.
8 to new solutions by the following expression. [13] Den Uijl JA. Bond modelling of prestressing strand. ACI Spec Publ
< sðxÞ ¼
>

s1 ðxÞ þ ws2 ðxÞ
 1998;180:145–70.
P  P s01 ðLÞ ð14Þ [14] American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318. Building code requirements for
>
:w ¼ Es As Eb Ab
structural concrete (ACI 318-11) and commentary (ACI 318R-11).
s02 ðLÞ Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2011.
[15] Buckner CD. A review of strand development length for pretensioned concrete
members. PCI J 1995;40(2):84–99.
References [16] Pozolo A, Andrawes B. Analytical prediction of transfer length in prestressed
self-consolidating concrete girders using pull-out test results. Constr Build
[1] Janney JR. Nature of bond in pre-tensioned prestressed concrete. ACI 1954. Mater 2011;25(2):1026–36.
[2] Moustafa SE. Pull-out strength of strand lifting loops. WA: Concrete [17] ASTM A416/A416M. Standard specification for steel strand, uncoated seven-
Technology Associates Tacoma; 1974. wire for prestressed concrete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International;
[3] Hyett AJ, Dube S, Bawden WF. Laboratory bond strength testing of 0.6, 7-wire 2012.
strand from 7 different manufacturers. Final report. Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s [18] Staton BW, Do NH, Ruiz ED, Hale WM. Transfer lengths of prestressed beams
University, Department of Mining Engineering; 1994. cast with self-consolidating concrete. PCI J 2009;54(2):64–83.
[4] Russell BW, Paulsgrove GA. Assessing repeatability and reproducibility of the [19] Ramirez JA, Russell BW. Transfer, development, and splice length for strand/
Moustafa test, the PTI bond test and the NASP bond test. Final report 99-04. reinforcement in high strength concrete, 12-60, Washington, DC; 2008.
Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma, Fears Structural Engineering [20] Morcous G, Hatami A, Maguire M, Hanna K, Tadros M. Mechanical and bond
Laboratory; 1999. properties of 18-mm- (0.7-in.-) diameter prestressing strands. J Mater Civ Eng
[5] Russell BW, Paulsgrove GA. NASP strand bond testing round one pull-out tests 2012;24(6):735–44.
and friction bond tests of untensioned strand. Final report 99-03. Norman, OK: [21] Kaushik H, Rai D, Jain S. Stress–strain characteristics of clay brick masonry
The University of Oklahoma, Fears Structural Engineering Laboratory; 1999. under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng 2007 09/01;2014/02;19(9):728–
[6] Russell BW, Brown MD. Evaluation of test methods in assessing bond quality of 739.
prestressing strands. Final report. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University; [22] Majid ZA, Hasni MM, Senu N. Solving second order linear Dirichlet and
2004. Neumann boundary value problems by block method. Int J Appl Math
[7] Russell BW. NASP round IV strand bond testing. Final report. OK; 2006. 2013;43(2):71–6.