Mechanical and Bond Properties of 18-mm- (0.7-in.

-)
Diameter Prestressing Strands
G. Morcous, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE1; A. Hatami, S.M.ASCE2; M. Maguire, A.M.ASCE3;
K. Hanna, Ph.D., P.E.4; and M. K. Tadros, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE5

Abstract: For several years, 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands have been successfully used in cable bridges and for mining applications.
The use of these large diameter strands in pretensioned concrete girders could allow approximately 35% increase in the prestressing force
compared to the same number of 15-mm- (0.6 in.-) diameter strands and 92% increase compared to 13-mm- (0.5 in.-) diameter strands.
Consequently, this process will allow for longer spans, shallower structural depth, and/or wider girder spacing in bridge construction. For the
same prestressing force, the use of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands results in fewer strands to jack and release, fewer chucks, and greater
flexural capacity due to lowering the center of gravity of the strands. Despite the advantages of using large diameter strands in pretensioned
concrete girders, the lack of data on their mechanical and bond properties hinder their wide use in bridge construction. In this paper, the
mechanical and bond properties of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands are evaluated. One hundred and two strand specimens were obtained
from different strand producers and production cycles to evaluate the ultimate strength, yield strength, modulus of elasticity, and elongation at
two different laboratories. Test results indicated that all strands adequately met the requirements of the ASTM standard A416-06, with the
exception of the minimum yield strength requirements (90% of the specified ultimate strength). The power formula for stress-strain relation-
ship was used to provide an accurate predictor of the behavior of strands. Also, 58 strand specimens were tested for their bond in mortar
and concrete using the North America Strand Producers (NASP) test method. Test results demonstrated that the bond of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
diameter strands is proportional to the concrete strength. A formula for predicting the NASP pull-out test value as a function of concrete
strength was also developed. In addition, NASP test results for clean and rusted strands were measured and compared at different slip values.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000424. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Prestressed concrete; Bonding; Mechanical properties; Yield.
Author keywords: Prestressed concrete; Strand; Bond; Mechanical properties; Yield strength.

Introduction
For several years, 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands have been
used in cable bridges and mining applications in the United States,
and for posttensioning tendons in Europe and Japan. The Pacific
Street Bridge over I-680 in Omaha, Nebraska, is the first bridge
in the world to use 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter prestressing strands
in the precast-pretensioned concrete girders (Schuler 2009). This
strand has a cross-sectional area of 190 mm2 (0:294 in2 ) and den-
sity of 1:5 kg∕m (1 lb∕ft). Prestressing one 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
diameter strand up to 75% its ultimate strength results in a pre-
stressing force of 265 kN (59.5 kip), which is 35% higher than that
1
Associate Professor, Durham School of Architectural Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Omaha, NE (corresponding
author). E-mail: gmorcous@mail.unomaha.edu
2
Graduate Student, Durham School of Architectural Engineering and
Construction, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Omaha, NE.
3
Graduate Student, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
Blacksburg, VA.
4 The ASTM standard A416-06 (2006) is the first specifications
Postdoctoral Fellow, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Nebraska-
Lincoln, Omaha, NE.
5
Emeritus Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Nebraska-
Lincoln, Omaha, NE.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 7, 2011; approved on
November 10, 2011; published online on November 12, 2011. Discussion
period open until November 1, 2012; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-
1561/2012/6-735–744/$25.00.
of 15-mm- (0.6 in.-) diameter strand and 92% higher than that of
13-mm- (0.5 in.-) diameter strand. Also, for the same prestressing
force, using 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strand results in fewer
strands to jack and release, fewer chucks, and higher flexural capac-
ity due to lowering the center of gravity of the strands.
Russell et al. (1997) performed a detailed study on optimized
sections for high-strength concrete bridge girders. Despite the
unavailability of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands in the U.S.
market at the time of the study, its cost-effectiveness compared with
other strand sizes was evaluated. This study indicated that using
18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands at 50-mm-(2 in.) in a 69-MPa
(10 ksi) bulb-tee girder that is 1.83-m (72 in.) deep (known as
BT-72) results in the longest girder span and most cost-effective
superstructure compared to 13-(0.5 in.) and 15-mm- (0.6 in.-) diam-
eter strands. Another analytical study conducted by Vadivelu
and Ma (2008) has shown that the span capacity of a BT-72 with
15-mm- (0.6 in.-) diameter strands can be achieved by using a
bulb-tee girder that is 1.37 m (54 in.) deep (known as BT-54) with
18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands.
that explicitly include the 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter, Grade 1860
(270), low-relaxation strands. Currently, there are only two manu-
facturers in the United States that produce 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diam-
eter strands. As with all new products, the lack of information on
the behavior of large diameter strands in pretensioned concrete rep-
resents the main impediment to their use in bridge construction,
despite their advantages mentioned earlier. This behavior includes
the mechanical properties of strands, strand surface quality and

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 735

its impact on the bond with concrete, and transfer and development
length when different strands spacing and levels of confinement
are provided. The paper focuses on evaluating the mechanical
properties and bond properties of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter
strands. Transfer and development length of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
diameter strands as well as design and production challenges of
adopting these large diameter strands are discussed in detail in other
publications (Morcous et al. 2010, 2011).

Mechanical Properties
Over the course of nearly 2 years, 102 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter
prestressing strands were tested to verify that the currently pro-
duced strands meet the ASTM standard A416-06 (2006) require-
ments. The two strand producers were referred to as Producer 1
and Producer 2 throughout this paper for confidentiality. Testing
was performed according to the testing specifications of ASTM
standard A370-05 (2005; Annex A7). Roughly two thirds (69 spec-
imens) were tested at the material testing laboratory of the Univ. of
Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), and the remaining third (33 specimens)
were tested at the material testing laboratory Nebraska Dept. of
Roads (NDOR) to verify the strand mechanical properties indepen-
dent from the testing equipment and operator. The requirements for
18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands included breaking strength,
yield strength, and elongation as listed in Table 1.
All tested strands were received in ideal condition free of lubri-
cants, rust, and any visible defects. Strands usually came in groups
of three or four, where each group was produced from a different
heat or mill order. Strands were kept in a safe place to protect them
from oil, excessive bending, or physical damage, which could
have adulterated test results. For testing the strands, gripping de-
vices were manufactured to conform to section A7.3.5 of ASTM
standard A370 (2005), similar to the “Sand Grips” outlined by
Preston (1985). Grips were manufactured to fit in the jaws of
the Tinius Olsen testing machine. Dimensions of the grips are
shown in Fig. 1, and a picture of the assembly (grips, grit mesh,
and strand) is shown in Fig. 2. The grips contain smooth semicy-
lindrical grooves where the strand was to be placed. The radius of
curvature of the grooves conforms to Note A7.2 of ASTM standard
A370, which states that grooves must prevent the grips from
Table 1. ASTM Standard A416 (2006) Requirements for 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
Diameter Strands
Parameter Minimum required value
Steel area 190 mm2 (0:294 in:2 )
Breaking strength 353,400 N (79,400 lbs)
Load @ 1% extension 318,060 N (71,500 lbs)
Extension 3.5%
Fig. 2. Grip assembly for 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strand testing
clamping against each other, ensuring that all gripping force is
transmitted to the strand. Disposable, abrasive grit mesh was used
to aid in producing friction between the grips and the specimen to
prevent slippage.
The extensometer used for strand testing had a gauge length
of 610 mm (24 in.) [ASTM standard A370 (2005], section
A7.5.2) and an accuracy of at least 0.01 % [ASTM standard
A416 (2006), section 6.3.1]. The extensometer was attached to
specimen before loading and up to approximately 1.25 to 1.5%
strain, after which it was removed and the movement of the loading
frame was used to monitor the ultimate elongation. A position rate
of 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) per second was used to test the specimens,
conforming to section 7.4.1 of ASTM standard A370 (2005) for
determining yield properties. Masking tape was attached to the
strand where the extensometer was to grip to aid in gripping exten-
someter clamps. Also, the diameter of individual strand wires was
measured using a micrometer with an accuracy of 0.0025 mm
(0.0001 in.) to determine the actual cross-sectional area of each
strand.
A summary of the 102 strand tests is presented in Tables 2 and 3,
for Producers 1 and 2, respectively, and in Table 4 for all strands.
Visual representations of strand testing results [load at 1% strain,
ultimate load, and modulus of elasticity (MOE)] are shown in
Figs. 3–8. It should be noted that all strands tested at NDOR labo-
ratory were tensioned until they reach the minimum breaking
strength and then released to reduce the risk of damaging the testing
equipment due to the violent rupture of prestressing strands.
Because specimens tested at NDOR laboratory were not loaded
to rupture, their data points were not included in the average of

Fig. 1. Dimensions of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) strand gripping device ð1 mm ¼ 0:0394 in:Þ

736 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

Table 2. Statistical Summary of Producer 1 Strand Test Results
Area mm2 Load at 1% f py MPa f py ∕f pu Peak load f pu MPa Peak position Elongation E ps MPa
Producer 1 (in2 ) N (lb) (psi) (%) N (lb) (psi) mm (in.) (%) (ksi)
Nominal 190 317,790 1,675.4 90.0% 353,100 1,860 29.6 (1.167) 3.50% 196,500
(0.2940) (71,442) (243,000) (79,380) (270,000) (28,500)
Maximum 191 333,884 1,766.3 94.9% 369,647 1,948.8 71.4 (2.810) 9.37% 200,713
(0.2961) (75,060) (256,177) (83,100) (282,653) (29,111)
Minimum 189 316,936 1,672.2 89.8% 354,123 1,853.9 41.4 (1.630) 4.89% 185,834
(0.2930) (71,250) (242,537) (79,610) (268,896) (26,953)
Average 190 325,774 1,717.7 92.3% 364,292 1,922.2 54.1 (2.130) 7.05% 194,246
(0.2940) (73,237) (249,129) (81,896) (278,788) (28,173)
Standard deviation 0.516 5,022 25.90 1.39% 4,577 22.45 10.2 (0.401) 1.42% 3,716
(0.0008) (1,129) (3,756) (1,029) (3,256) (539)
5% Percentile 189 317,861 1,679.0 90.2% 354,123 1,873.8 41.6 (1.638) 4.91% 187,834
(0.2930) (71,458) (243,517) (79,610) (271,766) (27,243)

Table 3. Statistical Summary of Producer 2 Strand Test Results

Area mm2 Load at 1%
N f py MPa f py ∕f pu Peak load f pu MPa Peak position- Elongation Eps MPa
Producer 2 (in2 ) (lb) (psi) (%) N (lb) (psi) mm-(in.) (%) (ksi)
Nominal 190 317,790 1,675.4 90.0% 353,100 1,860 29.6 (1.167) 3.50% 196,500
(0.2940) (71,442) (243,000) (79,380) (270,000) (28,500)
Maximum 191 332,149 1,755.2 94.3% 370,982 1,958.8 76.5 (3.010) 9.03% 223,390
(0.2952) (74,670) (254,577) (83,400) (284,106) (32,400)
Minimum 186 300,700 1,580.0 84.9% 343,848 1,806.7 40.8 (1.607) 3.11% 159,255
(0.2884) (67,600) (229,153) (77,300) (262,034) (23,098)
Average 190 319,391 1,682.1 90.4% 360,422 1,896.3 57.9 (2.281) 6.54% 194,191
(0.2943) (71,802) (243,964) (81,026) (275,033) (28,165)
Standard deviation 0.71 8,216 46.65 2.51% 6,561 36.06 10.8 (0.426) 1.63% 8,405
(0.0011) (1,847) (6,766) (1,475) (5,230) (1,219)
5% Percentile 189 307,372 1,614.2 86.7% 351,410 1,846.4 42.9 (1.688) 3.83% 183,566
(0.2927) (69,100) (234,118) (79,000) (267,797) (26,624)

Table 4. Statistical Summary of All Strand Test Results

Combined Area mm2 Load at 1% −N f py MPa f py ∕f pu Peak load f pu MPa Peak position Elongation Eps MPa
producers (in2 ) (lb) (psi) (%) N (lb) (psi) mm (in.) (%) (ksi)
Nominal 190 317,790 1,675.4 90.0% 353,100(79,380) 1,860 29.6 (1.167) 3.50% 196,500
(0.2940) (71,442) (243,000) (270,000) (28,500)
Maximum 191 333,884 1,766.3 94.9% 370,982(83,400) 1,958.8 76.5 (3.010) 9.37% 223,390
(0.2961) (75,060) (256,177) (284,106) (32,400)
Minimum 186 300,700 1,580.0 84.9% 343,848(77,300) 1,806.7 40.8 (1.607) 3.11% 159,255
(0.2884) (67,600) (229,153) (262,034) (23,098)
Average 190 321,642 1,694.6 91.0% 362,926 (81,589) 1,910.4 56.6 (2.228) 6.72% 194,212
(0.2942) (72,308) (245,787) (277,320) (28,168)
Standard deviation 0.65 7,847 43.88 2.36% 6,269 33.41 10.7 (0.422) 1.57% 7,088
(0.0010) (1,764) (6,364) (1,393) (4,850) (1,028)
5% Percentile 189 307,861 1,617.5 86.9% 351,410(79,000) 1,846.4 41.9 (1.650) 4.02% 185,828
(0.2930) (69,210) (234,602) (267,797) (26,952)

ultimate strength. Based on the average values, strands obtained
from both producers met all the requirements listed in Table 1.
Strands from Producer 1 had significantly higher average load at
1% strain than strands from Producer 2, but they had slightly lower
average ultimate loads than strands from Producer 2. Many strands
(two strands from Producer 1 and 27 strands from Producer 2) did
not meet the ASTM standard A416 (2006) yield strength require-
ment, as shown in the data points to the left of the dashed line in
Fig. 3. It should be noted that a large number of strand specimens
from Producer 2 were obtained from the same spool because of its
availability for other experiments. None of the strands failed the
minimum extension requirement.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 737

 3 3
Producer 1 Producer 1
Producer 2 Producer 2
Idealized Normal Distribution Idealized Normal Distribution
ASTM Minimum Load at 1% ASTM Minimum Breaking Load
2 2

Standard Normal Variate (Z)

1 1
Standard Normal Variate (Z)

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
290,000 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 340,000 345,000 350,000 355,000 360,000 365,000 370,000 375,000
Load at 1% Strain (N) Breaking Load (N)

Fig. 3. Normalized probability versus load at 1% strain for 18-mm- Fig. 5. Normalized probability versus ultimate load for 18-mm-
(0.7 in.-) diameter strands from different producers (1 N ¼ 0:225 lbs) (0.7 in.-) diameter strands from different producers (1 N ¼ 0:225 lbs)

3
of the data points, when plotted against the standard normal
Combined Producers probability, indicates a higher degree of variation, because the slope
Idealized Normal Distribution
is inversely proportional to the standard deviation. Furthermore, it
ASTM Minimum Load at 1%
can be seen that Producer 2’s data are scattered on both sides of the
2
minimum, whereas nearly all of the data are above the minimum for
Producer 1. The data plotted in Figs. 5 and 6 are slightly skewed by
NDOR’s practice of stopping the test immediately after attainment
of the minimum breaking load, which is a common practice in sev-
1
eral material testing laboratories. This resulted in the data points
Standard Normal Variate (Z)

slightly to the right of the dashed line representing the minimum.

Therefore, breaking strength did not follow a normal distribution,
because it did not fit a straight line on the standard normal scale.
The MOE of the strand affects precast jacking stresses
0
and actual effective prestress of a girder. In the precast plant,
the measured load and the load calculated using strand elongation
must agree within 5% (Preston 1985). The average MOE for all
tested strands was 194,210 MPa (28,168 ksi), which is approxi-
-1
mately 1% less than the assumed design average 196,500 MPa
(28,500 ksi). Figs. 7 and 8 indicate that MOE is normally distrib-
uted. A much steeper slope is observed in Producer 1 strands,
which indicates less variation in strands MOE. Although the ASTM
-2
A416 Standard does not set a requirement for MOE, it has been
suggested that tolerance of the manufacturer’s wire drawing prac-
tice can create a variation of 1.2% in MOE (Preston 1985), which
may explain the low values obtained here.
-3
290,000 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 The stress-strain relationship for prestressing steel is very
Load at 1% Strain (N) important for the strength design of prestressed concrete girders.
The PCI Design Handbook gives the following equations for this
Fig. 4. Normalized probability versus load at 1% strain for all relationship (PCI 2010):
18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands (1 N ¼ 0:225 lbs)

εps ≤ 0:0086: f ps ¼ E ps εps

From Figs. 3 and 4, it can be seen that the data follow an
f pu ∕6;750
approximate normal distribution and a large difference in variability εps < 0:0086: f ps ¼ f pu

exists between the producers for load at 1% strain. A larger slope εps
0:007

738 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

 3 3
Combined Producers
Idealized Normal Distribution
ASTM Minimum Breaking Load
2 2

Standard Normal Invariate (Z)

1
1
Standard Normal Variate (Z)

0
0

-1
-1

-2

-2 Combined Producers
Idealized Normal Distribution
Design Assumed MOE
-3
150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 230,000
-3 MOE (MPa)
340,000 345,000 350,000 355,000 360,000 365,000 370,000 375,000
Breaking Load (N) Fig. 8. Normalized probability versus MOE for all 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
diameter strands (1 MPa ¼ 0:145 ksi)
Fig. 6. Normalized probability versus ultimate load for all
18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands (1 N ¼ 0:225 lbs)

3
Producer 1
Producer 2
Idealized Normal Distribution
2 Design MOE
Standard Normal Invariate (Z)

-1
Fig. 9. Comparing stress-strain diagrams of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter
strands versus existing models (1 MPa ¼ 0:145 ksi)

-2

" #
1
Q
f ps ¼ εps Eps Qþn
R o1∕R
E ps εps
-3 1þ Kf py
150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 230,000
MOE (MPa)
The constants Q, K, and R were determined by fitting the stress-
Fig. 7. Normalized probability versus MOE for 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
strain curves of 40 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands tested in this
diameter strands from different producers (1 MPa ¼ 0:145 ksi)
study. The constants of the Power Formula were found to be
Q ¼ 0:02, K ¼ 1:03, and R ¼ 7:33. The stress versus strain curves
Another formula, known as Power Formula, was proposed were then compared with the PCI Design Handbook Equation.
by Mattock (1979) to describe the stress-strain relationship of Fig. 9 shows the stress versus strain curves of the 40 strands along
prestressing strands as shown below: with the predicted curves using the PCI Design Handbook Equation

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 739

and Power Formula. It is obvious that the stress versus strain pre-
diction of the Power Formula adequately matches the lower bound
of the tested strands and provides more conservative estimate of the
yield stress than PCI Design Handbook Equation, which overesti-
mates the yield strength. Both predictions underestimate the slope
after yielding, which is due to limiting the ultimate strength to
1,860 MPa (270 ksi), which can be easily corrected in the formula
if needed. The developed formula also matches the slightly lower
MOE of the tested strands, which allows accurate prediction of the
behavior of girder designed using the developed formula.

Strand Bond Testing

Five test methods are available for evaluating the bond of pre-
stressing strands. Two test methods for tensioned strands: ASTM
A981 (2007) “Standard Test Method for Evaluating Bond Strength
for 15-mm- (0.6 in.-) Diameter Prestressing Steel Strand, Grade
1860 (270), Uncoated, Used in Prestressed Ground Anchors”;
and a simple quality assurance test for strand bond (Peterman
2009). Three bond test methods are currently available for unten-
sioned prestressing strands (Ramirez and Russell 2008): (1) Mous-
tafa test, which is known as Large Block Pull-out Test, where
strands are pulled-out from large concrete block (Moustafa
1974; Logan 1997); (2) Posttensioning Institute (PTI) test, where
strands are pulled-out from neat cement mortar; and (3) NASP test,
which is recently known as Standard Test for Strand Bond, where
strands are pulled-out from sand-cement mortar (Russell and Burns
2008). NASP test results have proven to be the most repeatable at a
testing site, reproducible among sites, and provide a reliable pre-
diction of the performance of a pretensioned concrete product. In
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Fig. 11. Specimen preparation: (a) steel mold; (b) strand with
50-mm- (2 in.-) bond breaker

Table 5. NASP Acceptance Criteria for Different Strand Diameters

Strand diameter Average value—kN Minimum value—kN
mm (in.) (kips) (kips)
0.5 ≥ 47:3 ð10:5Þ ≥ 40:5 ð9:0Þ
0.6 ≥ 56:7 ð12:6Þ ≥ 48:6 ð10:8Þ
0.7 ≥ 66:2 ð14:7Þ ≥ 56:7 ð12:6Þ

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of NASP test setup at UNL
(1 mm ¼ 0:0394 in:)
Project 12-60, the NASP test was modified to evaluate the bond
of 13-mm- (0.5 in.-) and 15-mm- (0.6 in.-) diameter strands in con-
crete, and equations were developed to predict strand bond for a
given concrete strength.

740 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

Table 6. Concrete Mixture Proportions for NASP Bond Test Specimens
Concrete mixture designation Mix 1 Mix 2 Mix 3 Mix 4 Mix 5
Constituent materials, kg∕m3 (lb∕cy) Cement type III 481 (810) 419 (705) 564 (950) 564 (950) 624 (1,050)
Fly ash, Class C 225 (378) 59 (100) 59 (100) 178 (300)
Silica fume 89 (150)
Coarse aggregate 1,240 (2,088) 1,045 (1,760) 1,010 (1,700) 1,010 (1,700) 399 (672)
Fine aggregate 417 (702) 582 (980) 683 (1,150) 683 (1,150) 939 (1,580)
Water 176 (297) 154 (260) 232 (390) 196 (330) 143 (240)
Super plasticizer 3.2 (5.4) 5.2 (8.75) 19 (32) 16 (27) 26 (44)
Water–cement ratio 0.37 0.24 0.37 0.31 0.16
1-Day concrete strength MPa (ksi) 33.1 (4.80) 36.0 (5.23) 44.9 (6.52) 50.5 (7.33) 68.8 (9.99)

Table 7. NASP Bond Test Values for 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) Diameter Strands in Concrete
f 0c MPa Number of Ave. NASP Standard deviation UNL power regression Difference
Mix (ksi) specimens test result kN (kip) kN (kip) kN (kip)a %
1 33.1 (4.80) 6 97.9 (22.0) 8.94 (2.01) 103.6 (23.29) 5.9
2 36.0 (5.23) 6 125.4 (28.2) 8.36 (1.88) 110.7 (24.88) 11.8
3 44.9 (6.52) 6 128.1 (28.8) 6.27 (1.41) 131.1 (29.48) 2.4
4 50.5 (7.33) 6 131.7 (29.6) 31.14 (7.00) 143.5 (32.27) 8.3
5 68.3 (9.99) 6 188.6 (42.4) 14.77 (3.32) 182.2 (40.95) 3.4
Average 6.4
a
UNL power regression: NASP ðkNÞ ¼ 7:5f 00:75
c ðMPaÞ ½NASP ðkipÞ ¼ 6:96f 00:77
c ðksiÞ.

In this study, criteria for evaluating the bond of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) 200
NASP pull-out value in concrete (kN)

diameter strands in mortar and concrete using NASP test method are 180
presented. Fifty-eight 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands obtained 160
y = 2.25x + 30.93
from the same manufacturer but from different production cycles 140 y = 7.52x0.75
R² = 0.91
R² = 0.87
120
are tested, and their results are used to develop an equation to predict
100
the NASP pull-out test value as a function of concrete strength.
80
Moreover, NASP test results for 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) strand diameter
60
with clean and rusted strands are measured and compared at different 40
slip values. It should be noted that the NASP test does not evaluate 20
either the transfer length or development length of prestressing 0
20 30 40 50 60 70
strands because it is performed on untensioned strands. It is a quality Concrete strength (Mpa)
control test to determine whether the surface condition of strands is
UNL Results Minimum Value = 56.7 kN
acceptable for bond with concrete (Bryan 2008). Average Value = 66.2 kN Linear (UNL Results)
The NASP bond test specimen consists of a 450-mm-(18 in.) Power (UNL Results)
long, 125-mm- (5 in.-) diameter, and 3-mm- (1∕8 in:-) thick steel
pipe and a 150 × 150 × 6 mm (6 × 6 × 1∕4 in:) steel plate as Fig. 12. NASP bond test values for strand 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter
shown in Fig. 10. The plate is attached to one pipe end with 4 bolts strands versus concrete strength
and nuts to seal the pipe end for concrete placement and provide a
flat surface for loading. A 19 mm (3∕4 in:) hole is made in the plate
for passing the 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strand, and a 50-mm-
(2 in.-) bond breaker is used around the strand to reduce stress con-
centration at the plate location. Fig. 11 shows the preparation of
NASP specimen and the NASP specimen mounted in the loading
frame at UNL.
Each test specimen is prepared by casting sand-cement mortar in
the steel pipe around a single prestressed strand. The sand-cement-
water volume ratio is 2∶1∶0:45, and the cement used is Type III
cement. The sand-cement mortar is proportioned to produce
strength of 31.0 to 34.5 MPa (4.5–5.0 ksi) at 24 h, using standard Fig. 13. Surface condition of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter rusted (top)
curing, for cube specimens [ASTM standard C109-08 (2008)]. Ad- and clean (bottom) strands
ditionally, the sand-cement mortar is required to produce a flow in
the range of 100 to 125% as measured by ASTM standard C1437-
01 (2001). The strand is pulled-out of the mortar at a displacement to the hardened mortar. The NASP bond test records the pull-out
rate of 2.5 mm ð0:10 in:Þ∕ min, 24 h after casting. Pull-out force is force that corresponds to 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) of free strand end slip.
measured in relation to the movement of the free end of the strand Each NASP bond test consists of six or more individual test

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 741

specimens; the average value from the six specimens becomes
the “NASP Bond Test Value.” Values corresponding to 0.25-mm
(0.01-in.) strand slip at the free end are also recorded (Russell
and Brown 2004).
The test method for the bond of prestressing strands limits the
loading rate to 35,600 N ð8;000 lbÞ∕ min for 13-mm- (0.5 in.-)
diameter strands and 42,700 N ð9;600 lbÞ∕ min for 15-mm-
(0.6 in.-) diameter strands. Because the loading rate is directly pro-
portion to strand diameter, the loading rate for 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
diameter strands is estimated at 49,300 N ð11;200 lbÞ∕ min
ð35;600 N∕ min ×18 mm∕13 mm ¼ 49;300 N∕ minÞ. Table 5 lists
the acceptance criteria for 13-mm- (0.5 in.-) and 15-mm- (0.6 in.-)
diameter strands according to Appendix H of the NCHRP Report
603 (Ramirez and Russell 2008). Because these criteria are in pro-
portion to the strand diameter, the acceptance criteria for 18-mm-
(0.7 in.-) diameter strands are derived as shown in Table 5.
NASP bond test was performed on 58 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diam-
eter strands in mortar and concrete. The concrete used in this test
had a 1-day strength varying from 27.5 (4 ksi) to 68.9 MPa (10 ksi)
and a slump in the range of 50 to 75-mm-(2 to 3 in.). The handling
and preparation of the strands, the steel pipe, and the bond breakers
were identical to the NASP bond tests conducted in sand-cement
mortar. Table 6 shows the design of the five concrete mixtures used
in this test as well as their 1-day compressive strength. Target
strengths were 27.5, 34.5, 41.3, 55.0, and 68.9 MPa (4, 5, 6, 8,
and 10 ksi); however, actual strengths were slightly different.
Table 7 shows the results of 30 NASP bond tests for 18-mm-
(0.7 in.-) diameter strands in concrete. The concrete strengths
reported in Table 7 were averages of three or more concrete speci-
mens tested during the NASP test. Fig. 12 plots the pull-out values
from the NASP bond test for strands 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter
versus the concrete strength, which results in five data points. Both
linear and power regression formulas were developed and plotted.
Fig. 12 clearly shows that the increase in concrete strength results in
a higher NASP pull-out value for strands 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diam-
eter. Differences between average NASP test values and the pre-
dicted value using power regression formula are presented to
indicate the accuracy of the developed formula. Also, the results
show that the entire specimen passed the acceptance criteria pre-
sented earlier in Table 5. The best-fit equation for 18-mm-
(0.7 in.-) diameter strands is as follows:
NASP ðkNÞ ¼ 7:5f 00:75
c ðMPaÞ ½NASP ðkipÞ ¼ 6:96f 00:77
c ðksiÞ
Table 8 lists the results of 12 NASP bond tests for 18-mm-
(0.7 in.-) diameter strands in mortar. These results indicate that
all of the specimens passed the acceptance criteria presented earlier
in Table 5. The average difference between test values and pre-
dicted values is relatively high due to the small number of tests
performed.
To investigate the effect of the strand surface condition on the
NASP bond test results, additional 16 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter
strands with rusted surface were tested. Fig. 13 shows a picture of
rusted and clean 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands used in the
NASP bond test. Table 9 lists the pull-out force recorded at two
different end slip values: 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) and 2.5 mm
(0.1 in.). Comparing these results for rusted and clean strands in-
dicates that rusted strands always have higher bond capacity with
concrete than clean strands at end slip of 0.25 mm (0.01 in.). This is
primarily due to the roughened surface of rusted strands and its
effect on the coefficient of friction at the interface between the

Table 8. NASP Bond Test Values for 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) Diameter Strands in Mortar
Strand diameter Water–cement Ave. NASP test UNL power regression Difference
Test mm (in.) ratio fc’ MPa (ksi) N result kN (kip) SkN (kip) kN (kip)a %
1 18 (0.7) 0.45 32.9 (4.78) 4 94.52 (21.25) 2.45 (0.55) 84.65 (19.03) 8.5
2 18 (0.7) 0.45 33.6 (4.88) 4 100.35 (22.56) 10.90 (2.45) 84.78 (19.06) 11.2
3 18 (0.7) 0.45 34.5 (5.00) 4 99.20 (22.30) 8.23 (1.85) 85.58 (19.24) 7.2
Average 8.9
a
UNL power regression: NASP ðkNÞ ¼ 7:5f 00:75
c ðMPaÞ ½NASP ðkipÞ ¼ 6:96f 00:77
c ðksiÞ.

Table 9. NASP Bond Test Values for Clean and Rusted 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) Diameter Strands
NASP test values—Clean strands NASP test values—Rusted strands
Slip 0.25 mm Slip 2.5 mm Slip 0.25 mm Slip 2.5 mm
Ratio of NASP Ratio of NASP
(0.01 in.) (0.1 in.) (0.01 in.) (0.1 in.)
values at values at
Avg.kN SkN Avg.kN SkN 0.1 in. and 0.01 in. Avg.kN SkN Avg.kN SkN 0.1 in. and 0.01 in.
Mix # fc′ MPa (ksi) N (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) Slips N (kip) (kip) (kip) (kip) Slips
1 33.1 (4.8) 6 78.73 10.2 97.86 8.90 1.24 4 110.8 11.1 112.5 8.45 1.02
(17.7) (2.3) (22.0) (2.0) (24.9) (2.5) (25.3) (1.9)
3 44.8 (6.5) 6 104.1 1.78 128.1 0.45 1.23 4 154.4 0.45 137.9 31.6 0.89
(23.4) (0.4) (28.8) (0.1) (34.7) (0.1) (31.0) (7.1)
4 50.3 (7.3) 6 118.3 30.7 131.7 31.1 1.11 4 173.5 4.0 180.6 0.45 1.04
(26.6) (6.9) (29.6) (7.0) (39.0) (0.9) (40.6) (0.1)
5 68.3 (9.9) 6 180.2 13.8 188.6 14.7 1.05 4 250.0 8.01 103.2 1.33 0.41
(40.5) (3.1) (42.4) (3.3) (56.2) (1.8) (23.2) (0.3)
Average 1.18 Average 0.84
Standard Deviation 0.09 Standard Deviation 0.29

742 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012

 NASP pull-out value at 0.25 mm slip (kN)

NASP pull-out value at 2.5 mm slip (kN)

Clean Strand Rusted Strand
Clean Strand Rusted Strand

NASP Rusted / NASP Clean =1.44

(a) Concrete strength (MPa) (b) Concrete strength (MPa)

Fig. 14. NASP bond test values for clean and rusted 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands versus concrete strength at (a) 0.25-mm (0.01 in.) end slope;
and (b) 2.5-mm (0.1 in.) end slip (1 MPa ¼ 0:145 ksi;1 N ¼ 0:225 lbs)

two materials. At higher end slip values, such as 2.5 mm (0.1 in.), test method can be successfully applied to 18-mm- (0.7 in.-)
the effect of the roughened surface on the bond capacity is signifi- diameter strands in both mortar and concrete.
cantly reduced due to the relative movement of the strand, which • The bond of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands is exponentially
results in a drop in the pull-out force. proportional to the concrete strength and can be predicted using
Figs. 14(a) and 14(b) plot the average NASP bond test values for the following equation:
rusted and clean strands at end slip 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) and 2.5 mm
NASP ðkNÞ ¼ 7:5f 00:75
c ðMPaÞ ½NASP ðkipÞ
(0.1 in.), respectively. At 0.25 mm (0.01 in.), end slip rusted strands
have approximately 40% higher NASP bond value than clean ¼ 6:96f 00:77
c ðksiÞ
strands. However, at 2.5-mm (0.1-in.) end slip, some rusted strands
• At 0.25-mm (0.01 in.) end slip, the average NASP bond test
had approximately the same NASP bond value of clean strands,
values of rusted 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter strands are approxi-
whereas others had even lower NASP bond values than clean
mately 40% higher than those of clean strands. However, at
strands. It should be also noted that bond of clean and rusted strands 2.5-mm (0.1 in.) end slip, the average NASP values of rusted
is proportion to concrete strength at the lower end slip values. strands are highly variable and can be even lower than those
of clean strands.
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
This paper presents the experimental investigation performed to
introduce the use of 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter, Grade 1860 The authors thank NDOR for their financial and technical support
(270), low-relaxation strands in pretensioned concrete structures. of this project. The authors are also very thankful for Ivy Steel &
This investigation focuses on testing strands for their mechanical Wire and InSteel Industries Inc. for material donation and technical
properties and evaluating strand surface quality using NASP test support.
method. The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
• The tension testing of 102 18-mm- (0.7 in.-) diameter prestres-
Notation
sing strands obtained from different strand producers has indi-
cated that all the strands adequately meet the requirements of the
The following symbols are used in this paper:
ASTM standard A416-06 (2006) of breaking strength and elon-
Eps = modulus of elasticity of prestressing strands;
gation. However, several strands did not meet the minimum
f 0 c = concrete compressive strength;
yield strength requirement of 90% of the specified ultimate
f ps = stress in prestressing strands;
strength. Strands obtained from one producer had average yield
f pu = prestressing strand ultimate tensile strength;
strength of 92.3% of the specified ultimate strength and standard
f py = yield strength of prestressing strands;
deviation of 1.4%, whereas strands obtained from another
Q, K, R = constants; and
producer had average yield strength of 90.4% of the specified
εps = strain in prestressing strands.
ultimate strength and standard deviation of 2.5%.
• Current strand stress-strain models, such as the PCI Design
Handbook Formula, are inaccurate when applied to 18-mm- References
(0.7 in.-) diameter strands. The Power Formula used in this
study was found to be a more robust predictor of the behavior
ASTM. (2005). “Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical
of the strand. The constants of the power formula that fit the
testing of steel products.” A370, West Conshohocken, PA.
behavior of the tested strands were obtained. ASTM. (2006). “Standard specification for steel strand, uncoated seven-
• The experimental investigation performed on 58 18-mm- wire for prestressed concrete.”A416, West Conshohocken, PA.
(0.7 in.-) diameter strands to evaluate its surface quality using ASTM. (2007). “Standard test method for evaluating bond strength for
the NASP bond test method has indicated that the NASP bond 15.2 mm (0.6″) diameter prestressing steel strand, grade 270,

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012 / 743

 uncoated, used in prestressed ground anchors.” A981, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard test method for compressive strength of hy-
draulic cement mortars (using 2-in. or [50-mm] cube specimens).”
C109/C109M, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2001). “Standard test method for flow of hydraulic cement
mortar.” C1437, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bryan, J. L. (2008). “Bond and material properties of grade 270 and grade
300 prestressing strands.” M.S. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Logan, D. R. (1997). “Acceptance criteria for bond quality of strands for
pretensioned prestressed concrete application.” PCI J., 42(2), 52–90.
Mattock, A. H. (1979). “Flexural strength of prestressed concrete sections
by programmable calculator.” PCI J., 24(1), 32–54.
Morcous, G., Hanna, K., and Tadros, M. (2010). “Transfer and develop-
ment length of 0.7 in. diameter strands in pretensioned concrete
bridge girders.” 〈http://www.hpcbridgeviews.com/i64/Article3.asp〉
(Apr. 2012).
Morcous, G., Hanna, K., and Tadros, M. (2011). “Use of 0.7 in. diameter
strands in precast/prestressed bridge girders.” PCI J., 54(4), 65–82.
Moustafa, S. (1974). “Pull-out strength of strand and lifting loops.”
Concrete Technology Associates Technical Bulletin, 74-B5, Precast/
Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago.
Peterman, R. J. (2009). “A simple quality assurance test for strand bond.”
744 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2012
PCI J., 54(2), 143–161.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. (2010). PCI design handbook,
(7th Ed.), Chicago.
Preston, H. K. (1985). “Testing 7-wire strand for prestressed concrete—the
state of the art.” PCI J., 30(3), 134–155.
Ramirez, J., and Russell, B. (2008). “Transfer, development, and splice
length for strand/reinforcement in high-strength concrete.” NCHRP
Report 603, Washington, DC.
Russell, B. W., and Burns, N. H. (2008). “NASP test protocols.” Appendix
I, NCHRP Report 603, Washington, DC.
Russell, B. W., and Brown, M. D. (2004). “Evaluation of test methods in
assessing bond quality of prestressing strands.” Final Report, NASP
Round III Strand Bond Testing, OK.
Russell, H. G., Volz, J. S., and Bruce, R. N. (1997). “Optimized sections for
high-strength concrete bridge girders.” Federal Highway
Administration (FHwA), FHwA-RD-95-180, Washington, DC.
Schuler, G. (2009). “Producer’s experience with 10,000 psi concrete
and 0.7-in. diameter strands.” 〈http://www.hpcbridgeviews.com/i54/
Article4.asp〉 (Apr. 2012).
Vadivelu, J., and Ma, Z. (2008). “Potential impact of 0.7-inch strands on
precast/prestressed concrete bridge i-girders: Spacing of large diameter
strands.” Proc., 2008 PCI National Bridge Conf., Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute, Chicago.
Copyright of Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering is the property of American Society of Civil Engineers
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.