Equivalent Unbonded Length for Modeling of Multistrand

Tendons in Precast Segmental Construction

Marc J. Veletzos, P.E., M.ASCE1; and José I. Restrepo, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Recently issued seismic design guidelines for precast segment construction require nonlinear modeling of segment-to-segment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

joints of important bridges. The response of segment joints is highly dependent on the length of debonding of the multistrand tendon. Neither
the seismic design guidelines nor the literature provide sufficient guidance on how to determine the equivalent unbonded length of such tendons.
This paper presents key results and conclusions of a large-scale experimental research program that investigated the debonding characteristics
of multistrand tendons. Results indicate that tendon slip relative to the grout is small in comparison with slip between the duct and the surround-
ing concrete. An equation to evaluate the equivalent unbonded length of multistrand tendons was developed with direct application to modeling
of the segment joint response. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000502. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Concrete bridges; Connections; Nonlinear analysis; Precast concrete; Posttensioning; Seismic design.

Introduction (Veletzos and Restrepo 2011b). In addition, recent seismic design

The jointed nature of precast segmental bridge construction results
in behavioral modes that differ from conventional cast-in-place
posttensioned (PT) concrete construction. Such distinct behavioral
modes may have an effect on a bridge’s response to seismic input.
Because of the jointed nature of precast segmental construction, mild
steel reinforcement is most often detailed as skin reinforcement
only within the segments themselves, creating regions of discon-
tinuity at the joints. Such discontinuities act as crack initiators and
typically confine large cracking to within the concrete adjacent to the
epoxy-bonded segment joints, which is termed hereafter in this paper
as joint opening. A main concern with joint opening is the effect on
the remaining live load that a superstructure could sustain if residual
cracks were left open after a seismic event. Recent research has
shown that the effect of vertical earthquake motion, particularly in
the near field, and the pre-earthquake stress state of the super-
structure, can cause segment joints to open (Veletzos and Restrepo
2009).
As segment joints in a precast segmental bridge open, the strain in
the PT tendons crossing the segment joints must increase to ac-
commodate these deformations. The increased tendon strains pen-
etrate into the segments and will cause debonding of the tendon.
Recent research has shown that the length of debonding signifi-
cantly impacts the rotation capacity of precast segmental bridge
joints, and thus this length is required to accurately estimate the
deformation capacity of segmental joints with bonded tendons
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Merrimack College,
315 Turnpike St., North Andover, MA 01845 (corresponding author).
E-mail: veletzosm@merrimack.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California at San
Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., Mail Code 0085, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085.
E-mail: jrestrepo@ucsd.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 22, 2012; approved on
April 30, 2013; published online on May 2, 2013. Discussion period open
until June 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 19,
No. 1, January 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2014/1-101–109/
$25.00.
guidelines require nonlinear modeling to determine the rotation
capacity of segment joints (Veletzos and Restrepo 2011a). However,
an equation to evaluate the length of debonding of multistrand
tendons is absent from the literature.
The concept of debonding length is somewhat similar to that
used to obtain the flexural bond length of strands. The latter has
been studied extensively and codified for single seven-wire
strands [Ghosh and Fintel 1986; Tabatabai and Dickson 1993;
Russell and Burns 1996; Ramirez and Russell 2007; Naaman
2012; Zia and Mostafa 1977; AASHTO 2012; American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 2005a, b]. The flexural bond length, however, is
inappropriate for use with multistrand tendons because the strands
in a tendon tend to cluster together and act as a group. The effective
bond surface of the group is not a simple multiple of the strand
bond area, but rather the surface area of the whole group. Fur-
thermore, the tendon strands, grout, and duct may act as a unit with
slip occurring between the tendon duct and the surrounding
concrete. Moreover, the length of debonding depends on a com-
plex mechanism in which the incremental stress in the tendon is
transferred to the adjacent mild steel skin reinforcement (see
Fig. 1). Thus, the length of debonding will depend on several
factors, including the detailing of the adjacent mild steel (e.g., bar
size, spacing, and presence of hooks in the skin reinforcement) and
the proximity of adjacent tendons. This complex stress interaction
along the length of debonding is difficult to model. For simplicity,
an equivalent unbonded length, Lu [see Fig. 1(d)], has been used
in detailed segment-to-segment joint models to represent the
deformations associated with debonding of the tendon (Veletzos
and Restrepo 2009, 2011b). The equivalent unbonded length
integrates the strains along the length of debonding and accounts
for half the crack deformations at segment-to-segment joints and
the increased strains associated with debonding on either side of
the joint.
This paper describes the primary results of large-scale experi-
ments of precast, prestressed concrete blocks that studied the re-
lationship between tendon stress-strain and segment joint crack
width and developed an equation to evaluate the equivalent
unbonded length of multistrand tendons. This equation is suitable
for use in nonlinear dynamic time history analysis of a macroscopic
model of segmental bridges.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 101

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Schematic of stress-flow mechanism along length of debonding
of multistrand tendons: (a) element (internal forces shown by gray
arrows); (b) smeared stress distribution in mild steel reinforcement; (c)
smeared stress distribution in tendon; (d) tendon equivalent unbonded
length concept
Fig. 2. Test unit before testing
102 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109
Experimental Development
Three match-cast epoxy-bonded test units were constructed and
tested under pure axial tension using four 2,200-kN-capacity ser-
vocontrolled hydraulic actuators acting in parallel as depicted in
Figs. 2 and 3. An axial-only test unit was used because the flexural
strain gradient along the height of a segmental beam is typically
shallow and can be approximated with a uniform strain in the region
near the tendons. In addition, the tendons are acting in pure axial
tension across the segment joints. The development of the test units
was focused on providing a system that adequately represents the
construction details of a realistic precast segmental bridge and
provides adequate length for the tendon development. The three test
units were developed to investigate the potential influence of grout
type and the number of strands. Table 1 summarizes the test unit
variations.
Test Unit Design
The test units were divided into six precast elements to enhance
maneuverability and construction in the laboratory and to minimize
material costs. Each test unit consisted of two tendon blocks and four
actuator load blocks (see Fig. 3). The tendons had a small bend with
a 5,300-mm radius of curvature near the anchorage to promote
a grouping of the tendon strands that is expected in actual bridges.
The test units were designed using strut-and-tie models and in-
corporated the deviation forces generated by this bend. The testing
region of the tendon blocks had a 533- 3 533-mm cross section, and
the length of the two blocks added to 5,180 mm. The size of the
tendon block was designed to balance the need for a reasonable
concrete compressive stress, realistic mild steel reinforcement ratios,
and constructability issues. Tendons were installed in standard-sized
corrugated metal ducts; specifically, ducts with 114- and 102-mm
inside diameter were used for the 27- and 15-strand tendons, re-
spectively. Fig. 2 depicts Test Unit 2706–1 before beginning of
testing. The testing region was designed with a transverse rein-
forcement ratio of 0.49% within 950 mm of the segment joint and of
0.24% elsewhere. In addition, the testing region was designed with
a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0.45% and consisted of eight
mild steel reinforcing bars on the perimeter of the section and two
adjacent to the duct that were instrumented with strain gauge sensors
(see Fig. 4). The transverse and perimeter reinforcements are ap-
proximately equal to the minimum skin reinforcement observed in
the flanges of recent segmental bridges constructed in California.
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio of the experiment, however,
is likely on the upper bound of typical flange longitudinal rein-
forcement because typical bridge flanges vary in thickness and
lack reinforcement adjacent to the duct.
Two different types of grout were used to study the influence
of the grout specifications on the debond characteristics of multi-
strand tendons. One grout satisfied the requirement of the CAL-
TRANS Standard Specifications (CALTRANS 2006), and the
other grout met the recommendations of the American Segmental
Bridge Institute Grouting Committee (ASBI) (ASBI 2000). Section
50–1.09 (“Bonding and Grouting”) of the CALTRANS Standard
Specifications states that grout for posttensioned prestressing steel
shall consist of portland cement and water. The ASBI recommends
an antibleed or low-bleed grout that may be prepackaged in lieu of
a special mix design and testing. The ASBI makes reference to a
report from the University of Texas, Austin, that recommends
a 0.35 water/cement ratio, 30% cement weight replacement fly ash,
and 4 mL=kg superplasticizer (Schokker et al. 1999). For sim-
plicity, a proprietary grout was used that satisfies the bleed
requirements described by Schokker et al. (1999) and is on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Test unit construction

Table 1. Test Unit Description

Number of 15-mm-diameter Posttensioning stress after
Test unit strands losses (MPa)a Concrete stress (% fc9) Grout type
2706–1 27 1,230 (66% GUTS) 26 ASBI
2706–2 27 1,220 (66% GUTS) 25 CALTRANS
1506 15 1,190 (64% GUTS) 13 ASBI
Note: ASBI 5 American Segmental Bridge Institute; GUTS 5 guaranteed ultimate tensile strength.
a
The PT stresses after losses include friction and anchorage losses as well as creep, shrinkage, and relaxation losses up to the day of test.

Florida DOT’s (FDOT) preapproved product list for post-
tensioning grout (FDOT 2007).
The test units were constructed using a detailed procedure
intended to minimize the damage to the strain gauge instrumentation
on the PT strands. First, one side of the test unit (i.e., an assembly of
one tendon block with two load blocks) was placed at its final lo-
cation. Second, the tendon was fed into the first half of the test unit,
with associated instrumentation wiring fed through their respective
ports. Third, the other tendon block segment was carefully flown in
using the overhead gantry crane. While the segment was moved into
position, the tendon was carefully fed into the duct, with associated
instrumentation wiring fed through their respective ports. Fourth,
the block was placed approximately 305 mm from the face of the
previously set assembly. Finally, posttensioning rods and jacks were
installed through the loading blocks to move the assembly into its
final positions. The jacks were employed to close the gap between
assemblies. Epoxy was applied to the face of both joints prior to
pulling the assemblies into place.
The PT tendon was stressed following the final placement and
closure of the joint. The tendons were jacked to 75% guaranteed
ultimate tensile strength (GUTS), and Table 1 shows their initial
stresses. Posttensioning was performed using multistrand jacks on
both anchorages simultaneously to minimize the movement of the
tendon at the midsection and to preserve the tendon strain gauges
in this critical region. To ensure the jacks were pulling a similar
amount at each anchorage, linear potentiometers were installed to
monitor the stressing head movement at each end. Following the
installation of wedges and locking in the posttensioning, the duct
was grouted and allowed to cure for a minimum of 21 days before
testing.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 103

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109

 Instrumentation
A number of sensors were installed on each test unit to obtain in-
formation pertinent to the development of an incremental strain
relationship. Instrumentation included both internal and external
items such as strain gauges, linear potentiometers, and string
potentiometers.
Strain gauges were placed along the length of two strands of each
tendon. Additionally, two small-diameter reinforcing bars with
strain gauges along the length were placed at the top and bottom of
the PT duct within the testing region of the tendon block segment
to investigate the transfer of forces within the segment. Surface-
mounted strain gauges were also placed on each face of the testing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
region of the tendon block segments. All strain gauges were spaced
at 229 mm and were located on the same plane along the length of
the testing region.
A series of three linear potentiometers was installed across the
midspan segment joint with gauge lengths of 152, 305, and 610 mm
on both the top and bottom of the segment. Linear potentiometers
were also installed along the height of the loading blocks to de-
termine whether any rigid-body deformations occurred at the load-
ing ends. String potentiometers were installed at each corner of the
Fig. 4. Testing region cross section
Fig. 5. Strand measured and analytical stress-strain relationship around yield point
104 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109
loading blocks for total segment deformation determinations. Ad-
ditionally, the actuator forces and displacements were recorded.
Loading Protocol
The test units were physically separated using four 2,200-kN-
capacity actuators. These actuators were under displacement con-
trol and set to hold the displacement at the midspan joint opening as
determined using the average of the top and bottom 152-mm linear
potentiometers. After reaching the specified joint displacement, the
actuators were brought back to a zero-force state, thereby allowing
any residual displacements to occur. The target joint opening was set
to increase with each cycle in accordance with the following target
openings: 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.2, 1.8, 3.0, 5.0, 8.0, 12, 18, 30, 45, and
60 mm. These target openings were selected to gradually monitor the
propagation of tendon debonding.
Material Properties
On average, the 15-mm strands had an ultimate tensile strength of
1,960 MPa and a strain at the peak tensile force of 5.2%. Fig. 5
compares the measured stress-strain relationship for the strands and
the analytical relationship calibrated using a modified Ramberg–
Osgood formula (Mattock 1979).
Material properties were determined for both mild steel and ce-
mentitious materials. Table 2 summarizes the mild reinforcement
properties. Table 3 shows the concrete and grout properties for each
specimen. Properties for the cementitious materials were determined
based on the average of three cylinder breaks under uniaxial com-
pression on the day of the testing. Note that the concrete strengths were
similar for all three test units; however, the grout strength for Test Unit
2706–1 was significantly lower than the other two test units.
Test Results
Visual Performance
The three experimental test units showed very similar visual behav-
ior. A large vertical crack developed adjacent to the epoxy-bonded
 Table 2. Mild Steel Reinforcement Properties
Item Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa)
Longitudinal (#13) 478 676
Transverse (#16) 455 648

Table 3. Cementitious Material Properties at Day of Test

Test unit Concrete strength (MPa) Grout strength (MPa)
2706–1 (ASBI) 63.0 36.0
2706–2 (CALTRANS) 64.0 61.0
1506 (ASBI) 69.0 57.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Slices of Specimen 2706–1 after testing: (a) tendon block

sliced at 102, 356, 864, and 1,370 mm from segment joint; (b) 102 mm;
(c) 356 mm; (d) 864 mm; (e) 1,370 mm

the strands, and some of the mild steel reinforcement. It was very
surprising to observe that strand-grout slip appeared to have been
very limited and only occurred in the segment closest to the midspan
joint [see the right-hand side in Fig. 7(b)]. A number of radial
splitting cracks were observed throughout, suggesting that most of
the bond slip occurred between the duct and the concrete.

Axial Force/Axial Displacement Response

Fig. 6. Test Unit 2706–1: (a) cracking near segment joint; (b) tendon
close-up at failure
midspan joint, and large deformations concentrated at this crack, as
expected. Eventually, the tendons fractured at this crack. Vertical
and bond split cracks were also observed along the segments
themselves. Fig. 6(a) shows the vertical and splitting cracks near the
segment joint crack of Test Unit 2706–1. Fig. 6(b) shows a close-up
of the tendon after failure.
Test Unit 2706–1 was sliced with a diamond saw to obtain ev-
idence of the slippage of the strands along the length of the segments.
Fig. 7 shows the different sections. The distances listed in Fig. 7
were measured from midspan. Each photograph shows the duct,
The axial displacements in the test units were recorded with string
potentiometers along the 5,180-mm testing region and with linear
potentiometers along 152, 305, and 610 mm centered in the plane of
the joint. Fig. 8 plots the recorded displacements versus recorded
axial force for the three units. The 305- and 152-mm displacement
transducers in Test Units 2706–2 and 1506, respectively, mal-
functioned, and their data are not presented in Fig. 8.
In general, the three gauge lengths showed similar displace-
ments, suggesting that they all measured the midspan segment joint
crack with little influence from strain in the adjacent concrete. One
exception to this general observation is shown in the measurements
from Test Unit 2706–1 [see Fig. 8(a)] for displacements greater
than 25 mm, in which the 152-mm gauge length measured the
largest motions, whereas the 610-mm gauge length measured the
smallest. This behavior is attributable to the fact that a splitting crack

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 105

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Recorded axial force versus axial displacement responses:
(a) Test Unit 2706–1; (b) Test Unit 2706–2; (c) Test Unit 1506
altered the location of the instruments with 152- and 305-mm gauge
lengths such that they were no longer taking measurements parallel
to the member, thereby increasing their recorded measurements.
Another exception to the general observation mentioned pre-
viously is in the measured displacements of the 152- and 610-mm-
gauge-length instruments of Test Unit 2706–2 [see Fig. 8(b)]. At
displacements below approximately 13 mm, the 610-mm gauge
length measured noticeably larger displacements than the 152-mm
gauge length, but as the displacements increased, these measure-
ments converged. This response was likely caused by a crack located
between the two instruments. At small joint openings, the strain
accumulated at this crack and was measured only in the 610-mm-
gauge-length instrument. At large joint openings, the debond
mechanism is more fully developed, and the strain accumulated in
the segment joint, rather than the adjacent crack, and was measured
by both instruments.
106 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109
Fig. 9. Axial force versus 152-mm gauge length displacement
responses of 2706 test units: (a) full response; (b) response near yield
By far, the largest axial displacements were recorded by the
string potentiometers near the actuators, which integrated all the
axial strains along the 5,180-mm test region. The axial displace-
ments at failure recorded by the string potentiometers were 84.1,
75.4, and 45.0 mm for Test Units 2706–1, 2706–2, and 1506, re-
spectively. From this point of view, the two 2706 test units showed
very similar ultimate displacements, indicating that the tendon’s
grout has little influence in the ultimate displacement. Test Unit
1506 failed at a significantly smaller axial displacement than the
2706 test units. This is an indication that mild steel reinforcement
constrained this unit further than the 2706 test units and that the
tendon size plays a strong role in the debonding characteristics of
multistrand tendons.
It should be noted that the 152-mm-gauge-length displacement
transducers in the 2706 test units measured quite different maximum
joint openings at fracture: 50 mm for Test Unit 2706–1 and 34 mm
for Test Unit 2706–2. However the backbone curves are virtually
identical to each other (see Fig. 9), which suggests that the tendon
debond behavior is similar. The difference in maximum joint
opening at fracture is likely attributable to variability in the ultimate
strain of the strands. It is interesting to note that, based on the size
of the unloading and reloading loops, Test Unit 2706–1 dissipated
more energy than Test Unit 2706–2. Furthermore, Test Unit 2706–1
exhibited a smaller residual displacement for a given load cycle. This
is particularly evident in the 30-mm load cycle.
 The average incremental axial strains in the posttensioned
blocks outside the 610-mm region near the segment joint were
0.74, 0.88, and 0.56% in Test Units 2706–1, 2706–2, and 1506,
respectively. These strains were calculated based on the ultimate
displacement measured over the entire 5,180-mm test region, minus
the axial displacement measured by the 610-mm-gauge-length linear
potentiometers, divided by 4,570 mm (55,180 2 610 mm). Adding
these average incremental strains to the prestrain locked into the
tendon after setting the anchorages and grouting (approximately
0.6%) indicates that the average tendon strains were 1.36, 1.50, and
1.16% for Test Units 2706–1, 2706–2, and 1506, respectively. Note
that all these strains are larger than the yield strain of 1.0%, indicating
that the tendons yielded along the full length of the testing region prior
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to fracture at the segment-to-segment joint.
Tendon Strain Readings
The tendon strain gauge readings were very unreliable in general. It
should be noted that, despite the authors’ best efforts, a significant
number of strain gauges were damaged during the stressing and
grouting operations. During the testing, some tendon strain gauges
remained operable up to intermediate strain levels but became
unreliable at higher applied axial displacements, possibly owing to
elongation in the lead wires caused by tendon-to-concrete slip. The
last set of reliable readings was obtained at approximately one-half
the ultimate displacement. Reliable data were determined to be
Fig. 10. Total segment displacements versus (a) tendon stress;
(b) tendon strain
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 107
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109
inconclusive with respect to the development of an understanding of
the debond characteristics along the length of the tendon. Thus,
a clearly defined debond length could not be measured directly from
the PT tendons because the tendon strain gauge readings were highly
variable both along the length of the tendon and between different
strands at the same location.
Tendon Stress-Strain/Total Segment
Displacement Relationship
Fig. 10 shows the total segment displacement as a function of
tendon stress and strain. The 2706 test units behaved in a similar
manner, and the 1506 test unit showed smaller displacements for
the same stress or strain. This figure indicates that for the same
amount of mild steel reinforcement in the member, the size of the
tendon plays an important role in estimating the overall segment
displacement.
It is important to note that Fig. 10(b) was generated using the
stress-strain model of the PT strands described in Eq. (1).
Tendon Stress-Strain/Crack-Width Relationship
Fig. 11 shows the segment joint crack width as a function of
tendon stress and strain. The 2706 test units behaved in a similar
manner, and the 1506 test unit showed smaller crack widths for the
Fig. 11. Segment joint crack width versus (a) tendon stress; (b) tendon
strain
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Tendon equivalent unbonded length
same stress-strain. This figure indicates that for the same amount
of mild steel reinforcement in the member, the size of the tendon
plays an important role in estimating the crack width at a segment
joint.
The crack widths were defined based on the measurements
from the 305-mm gauge length for Test Units 2706–1 and 1506, and
as the average of the 152- and 610-mm gauge lengths for Test Unit
2706–2. Recall, in Test Unit 2706–2, one of the 305-mm-gauge
potentiometers malfunctioned and rendered the data recorded with
such gauge length unreliable. As shown in Fig. 8, the joint opening
recorded over different gauge lengths was very similar in all the test
units and only differed slightly in Test Unit 2706–2 at a joint opening
below 13 mm.
Equivalent Unbonded Length
The tendon equivalent unbonded length was determined for differ-
ent stages during the testing of each of the test units. The equivalent
unbonded length was calculated as one-half of the crack width, as
defined previously, divided by the tendon incremental strain. Given
the fact that tendon incremental strains were not reliably measured,
the strain was back-calculated using the modified Ramberg–Osgood
relationship (Mattock 1979) calibrated for the stress-strain relation-
ship of the strands. The tendon stress was calculated as the force
measured in the test divided by the tendon area.
Fig. 12 plots the equivalent unbonded lengths computed for Test
Units 2706–1, 2706–2, and 1506 at various tendon strains. Recall
that the locked-in strain after stressing and losses was approximately
0.6%; thus, an incremental strain of 0.4% represents tendon yield,
and an incremental strain of 0.6% represents full yield of the tendon.
This figure indicates that the equivalent unbonded lengths are es-
sentially constant up to an incremental strain of 0.8%. The equivalent
unbonded lengths for the 2706 test units are approximately 33%
larger than that of the 1506 test units.
Fig. 13 shows the tendon equivalent unbonded length normalized
by the square root of the tendon cross-section area. The average
value for all test units between incremental strains of 0.1 and 0.8% is
10.3, and all test units are within 10% of the average. Based on this
figure it is clear that, at the onset of the full-yield limit state, the
equivalent unbonded length can be represented as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Lu ¼ 10:3 APT (1)
108 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109
Fig. 13. Normalized equivalent unbonded length
Eq. (1) is valid up to full yielding of the tendon (i.e., tendon strains
of 1.2%) grouted in a metal duct and in a segment detailed with
a 0.45% longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and is appropriate for
modeling because full yielding of the tendon is the most critical
limit state at segment joints. Segments detailed with a longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio less than 0.45% will likely have an
equivalent unbonded length slightly larger than that estimated
by Eq. (1). Furthermore, the equivalent unbonded length of
multistrand tendons is related to the development length of the
mild longitudinal reinforcement in the section (as indicated
in Fig. 1). Thus, any parameter that decreases the development
length of reinforcement will also decrease the equivalent unbonded
length.
Conclusions
Three large-scale precast concrete blocks, each with a single grouted
multistrand tendon, were constructed and tested to study the debond
characteristics of the multistrand tendon. The differences between
the test units were the size of the tendon and the type of grout used to
bond the tendon to the corrugated metal duct. Two test units were
constructed with 27 15-mm strands, and one was constructed with
15 15-mm strands. The mild steel reinforcement in the testing region
of the experiments was designed to represent minimum skin re-
inforcement that is common in precast segmental construction. The
primary conclusions based on the results of the experimental
work presented in this paper include the following:
1. Visual inspection of the tendon indicated that slip between the
strands and the grout occurred primarily within the 300 mm
adjacent to the segment joint.
2. The tendon strands and grouted duct behaved as a single entity
and slipped relative to the surrounding concrete.
3. The tendon yielded along the full length of the test region
prior to failure. Such yielding, however, did not occur until
strains of approximately 1.4% were observed in the joint
region.
4. The debond characteristics of multistrand tendons are primar-
ily influenced by the size of the tendon. The type or strength of
grout showed no noticeable influence on bond characteristics
of multistrand tendons.
5. An equation to evaluate the equivalent unbonded length of
multistrand tendons was developed and is valid up to full
 yielding of the tendon limit state [see Eq. (1)]. The unbonded
length of multistrand tendons is proportional to the square
root of the cross-section area of the tendon. It is important to
note that this equation was based on experiments that utilized
corrugated metal ducts and mild steel longitudinal rein-
forcement ratio of 0.45% and may not accurately repre-
sent conditions that are significantly different from the
experiments.
Acknowledgments
This research project was made possible by funding from the Cal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ifornia Department of Transportation under Contract No. 59A0662.
The input of Dr. Charly Sikorsky and others at CALTRANS was
greatly appreciated. The authors also acknowledge Dywidag Sys-
tems International (DSI) for donating posttensioning materials and
CMC Fontana Steel for donating the reinforcing bars for the experi-
ments. The experiments presented in this paper could not have been
completed without the hard work, dedication, and contributions of
Fernando Pacheco, Matthew Tobolski, Andrew Gunthardt, Chris
Latham, Paul Greco, and the staff at the Charles Lee Powell Structural
Systems Laboratory. Their efforts are gratefully acknowledged.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
APT 5 cross-section area of multistrand PT tendon;
As 5 total mild steel area;
fc9 5 concrete compressive stress;
fp1 5 stress in multistrand PT tendon at Location 1
(i.e., at segment joint);
fp2 5 stress in multistrand PT tendon at Location 2
(i.e., away from segment joint);
fs1 5 stress in mild steel at Location 1 (i.e., at segment joint);
fs2 5 stress in mild steel at Location 2 (i.e., away from
segment joint); and
Lu 5 unbonded length of multistrand tendon.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 109
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 101-109
References
AASHTO. (2012). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications:
Customary U.S. units, 6th Ed., Washington, DC.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2005a). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete.” ACI 318-05, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2005b). “Building code requirements for
structural concrete: Commentary.” ACI 318R-05, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Segmental Bridge Institute (ASBI) Grouting Committee.
(2000). Interim statement on grouting practices, Phoenix.
CALTRANS. (2006). Standard specifications, Sacramento, CA.
Florida DOT (FDOT). (2007). Standard specifications for road and
bridge construction, Tallahassee, FL.
Ghosh, S. K., and Fintel, M. (1986). “Development of prestressing strands,
including debonded strands, and allowable concrete stress in preten-
sioned members.” PCI J., 31(5), 38–57.
Mattock, A. H. (1979). “Flexural strength of prestressed concrete sections
by programmable calculator.” PCI J., 24(1), 32–54.
Naaman, A. E. (2012). Prestressed concrete analysis and design: Funda-
mentals, 3rd Ed., Techno Press 3000, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ramirez, J. A., and Russell B. W. (2007). “Transfer, development, and
splice length for strand/reinforcement in high-strength concrete.”
NCHRP Rep. 603, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Washington, DC.
Russell, B. W., and Burns, N. H. (1996). “Measured transfer lengths of
0.5 and 0.6 in. strands in pretensioned concrete.” PCI J., 41(5), 44–65.
Schokker, A. J., Koester, B. D., Breen, J. E., and Kreger, M. E. (1999).
“Development of high performance grouts for bonded post-tensioned
structures.” Research Rep. 1405-2, Center for Transportation Research,
Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Tabatabai, H., and Dickson, T. J. (1993). “The history of the prestressing
strand development length equation.” PCI J., 38(6), 64–75.
Veletzos, M. J., and Restrepo, J. I. (2009). “Influence of vertical earthquake
motion and pre-earthquake stress on joint response of precast concrete
segmental bridges.” PCI J., 54(3), 99–128.
Veletzos, M. J., and Restrepo, J. I. (2011a). “Development of seismic
design guidelines for segmental construction.” Structural Systems Re-
search Project Rep. SSRP-10/02, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ.
of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Veletzos, M. J., and Restrepo, J. I. (2011b). “Modeling of jointed con-
nections in segmental bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 16(1), 139–147.
Zia, P., and Mostafa, T. (1977). “Development length of prestressing
strands.” PCI J., 22(5), 54–65.