Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Evaluation of strand bond properties along the transfer length

of prestressed lightweight concrete members
Cristina Vázquez-Herrero a,b,⇑,1, Isabel Martínez-Lage a,1, Gerardo Aguilar b,2,
Fernando Martínez-Abella a,1
a
Center for Technological Innovation in Construction and Civil Engineering, Universidad de La Coruña, Campus de Elviña SN, 15071 La Coruña, Spain
b
Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, Delegación Coyoacán, CP 04510 México, DF, Mexico

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

Article history: This paper presents the results of an experimental program developed to study the feasibility of produc-
Received 19 June 2012 ing prestressed concrete girders using lightweight concrete. During the experimental campaign, bond
Revised 10 November 2012 tests were performed in push-in (TL bond test) and pull-out (FB bond test) types of specimens. To-scale
Accepted 19 November 2012
prestressed concrete elements were produced, implemented, and tested. The variables studied were the
Available online 8 February 2013
type of concrete, the test age, and the delayed effects of bond. The TL bond test allowed the behavior of
the transfer length to be characterized, governed by the Hoyer effect. Equations have been calibrated to
Keywords:
identify the upper and lower transfer lengths using the experimental results of this trial. The proposed
Prestressed
Concrete
equations delimit the safety boundaries of the experimental transfer length values obtained in the exper-
Bond iments performed on the beams. The results obtained in the experimental phase discourage the use of the
Transfer studied lightweight concrete for producing pre-tensioned concrete elements.
Pre-tensioning Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Strand
Lightweight
Test
Flexural

1. Introduction
In prestressed concrete structures with pre-tensioned reinforce-
ment, the prestressing force is transmitted by bond, a property that
is manifested in different forms for each of the two parts into
which the development length is divided [1–3]:
 The transfer length, lt, is the minimum distance measured from
the end of a pre-tensioned element and is required for transfer-
ring the effective prestress tension, fpe(t), which is the existing
strand tension at the moment of the measurement, to the con-
crete trough bond.
 The flexural bond length, lfb, is the additional distance to the
transfer length and is required for the prestressing cable to
reach a tension stress corresponding to the ultimate limit state,
fps.
The development length, ld, is the sum of the transfer length and
flexural bond length, as shown in Fig. 1. In this figure, the initial
⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous
University of Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, Delegación Coyoacán, CP 04510 México,
DF, Mexico. Tel.: +52 1 55 56233600; fax: +52 55 1 56233641.
E-mail address: cvazquezh@udc.es (C. Vázquez-Herrero).
1
Tel.: +34 981167000; fax: +34 981167170.
2
Tel.: +52 1 55 56233600; fax: +52 55 1 56233641.
cable tension, fpi, as well as the prestress tension stress reached
after transfer during an instant of the service life rp(x), is plotted
vs. the distance x from the bond end.
During the transfer, pre-tensioned cables (both wires and
strands) experience a recovery of diameter by the Poisson effect
due to the instantaneous prestress losses experienced during the
transfer. This recovery generates tensile hoop stresses in the con-
crete. This diameter recovery is greater at the end of the structure,
where the pre-tensioning force after the transfer is zero, and is lower
in the central zone of perfect bond, where the prestress tension is the
effective stress. At both ends of the structure, where the Hoyer effect
occurs, the concrete hoop tensile stresses are higher than those in
the central zone; in this document, we will refer to these stresses
as splitting/bursting stresses. The wedging of the cable that occurs
at the ends due to the Hoyer effect increases the bond capacity [4,5].
The opposite effect occurs in the flexural bond length when the
structure is put into service. By increasing the tensile stress of the
pre-tensioned element, the diameter of the cable decreases due to
the Poisson effect, reducing the contact between the cable and con-
crete and, hence, the friction. The result is decreased bond. In those
sections where the prestress tension exceeds the initial value fpi,
tensile hoop stresses in the concrete are hardly produced; the
stress state of the concrete around the pre-tensioned cable is
therefore more favorable than that occurring at the transfer length.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.11.027
 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058
Fig. 1. Transfer length and flexural bond length.
Due to the Hoyer effect, the bond capacity in the transfer length
is greater than that occurring in the flexural bond length, which
makes the gradient of the pre-tensioning force of the cable greater
in the transfer length than in the flexural bond length. For this rea-
son, structural concrete requirements postulate a bilinear law for
the pre-tensioning force in the anchor length, with a straight line
with a greater slope for the transfer length than for the flexural
bond length, as shown in Fig. 1 [5–7].
There are different experimental techniques for characterizing
the bond behavior of pre-tensioned cables:
 Tests to determine the transfer length through the fabrication
and implementation of pre-tensioned elements with centered
prestressing, called prisms [3,8–12].
 Testing for determining the development length by the fabrica-
tion, instrumentation and flexural testing of to-scale pre-ten-
sioned beams with eccentric prestressing [13,14,3,15].
 Tests on specimens to characterize the bond behavior of pre-
tensioned strands which can be classified as follows:
– Pull-out tests, in which a specimen is concreted around a
strand with or without previous tension. After curing and
hardening, the tension is increased from one end of the spec-
imen [3,16].
– Push-in testing, in which a specimen is concreted around a
strand that had been previously stressed at a determined
tension. After the specimen is set and hardened, the test is
performed by gradually reducing the pre-tensioning force
on the upper end, which generates a gradient of the pre-ten-
sioning force along the bonded length of the specimen
[3,16,17].
– Tests that combine the pull-out and push-in techniques
[18,19].
In recent years, extensive experimental tests were conducted
in several laboratories in the United States to characterize the
bond behavior of prestressing strands by carrying out three types
of tests: Large Block pull-out tests (formerly known as Moustafa
pull-out tests) [20], Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) bond tests
[21] and North American Strand Producers (NASPs) bond tests
[15]. The results obtained in different laboratories were compared
to evaluate the reproducibility of each test. The results of each
test were also compared with the transfer and development
lengths obtained from the fabrication and testing of pre-tension-
ing elements, specifically rectangular section beams and Ameri-
can Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) beams. The study concluded that the NASP bond test
is the most reproducible. According to recent studies, this test
is also the most representative of the bond capacity of prestress-
ing strands [15].
1049
2. Research significance
The aim of the developed experimental campaign is to study
the feasibility of producing large pre-tensioned beams of
straight pre-tensioned reinforcement with lightweight concrete
that has a compressive strength similar to that of the conven-
tional concretes that are normally used. Because the self weight
of these elements is a limiting factor during transport and erec-
tion, lightweight concrete would increase the maximum length
of the precast girders. This increased length would allow the
span length of prefabricated viaducts to increase, reducing the
number of structural supports and thus reducing the cost of
the substructure. Knowledge of the development length is
essential in this type of structural element because the strength
of structures in this zone is diminished from the design
strength. This investigation emerged to thoroughly study the
bond properties of prestressing strands embedded in light-
weight concrete, using the conventional concrete that is nor-
mally used in the production of large pre-tensioned beams as
a reference for the study.
Let us suppose a bilinear profile for the longitudinal tension of
prestressing, as shown in Fig. 1. The average bond stress in each
zone is determined by dividing the gradient of the pre-tensioning
force by the bond perimeter per unit length of the cable. The aver-
age bond stress value is constant in each zone of the development
length: the transfer and flexural bond lengths. Knowing the value
of the average bond stress in each of these areas and the values
of fpe(t) and fps, it is possible to deduce both the transfer length
and flexural bond length, and thus the value of the development
length.
It seems logical that the pull-out tests reproduce the behavior of
the strand along the flexural bond length, whereas the push-in
tests, performed on previously pre-tensioned strands, should sim-
ulate the pre-tensioning transfer that occurs in the transfer length
and thus the tensional state that occurs due to the Hoyer effect in
the concrete. Based on this hypothesis, the objectives of this study
are as follows:
 Gain insights into the relationship between the transfer length
and the strand draw-in immediately after transfer by explaining
the wide scatter of prestressing strand draw-in values mea-
sured by different researchers.
 Characterize the bond behavior for various mixes of lightweight
concrete, taking a conventional concrete mix as a reference, by
performing pull-out and pull-in tests based on those developed
by Abrishami and Mitchell [16].
 Determine and compare the upper and lower boundaries of the
average bond stress produced for each test type and for each
material type.
 Develop a procedure for establishing the boundaries for the
transfer length in pre-tensioned elements from the results of
the average bond stress obtained through the pull-out and
push-in tests, which are assumed to be representative of the
flexural bond length and transfer length, respectively.
 Calibrate the obtained predictions for each type of concrete
with the experimental transfer length measures obtained from
the fabrication and testing of prestressed concrete beams and
prisms.
3. Description of the research
Three lightweight concrete mixes (LC3-1, LC10-1, LC10-2) were
designed with an average compressive strength for a given transfer
age similar to that of the conventional concrete (RC) employed in
the production of large beams in heavy prefabrication factories;
these mixes are shown in Table 1.
1050 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058
Table 1
Concrete mixes.
Material Water Gravel 12/ Gravel 6/ Dry Arlita F-7
(kg/m3) 18 mm (kg/m3) 12 mm (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
NC 184 345 515 – –
LC3-1 205 – – 550
LC10-1 190 – – 550
LC10-2 180 – – 402
The experimental study consisted of the following tests:
 Bond tests on specimens; the required equipment was devel-
oped, and the procedures for two bond tests were performed
on cylindrical specimens, based on the tests of Abrishami and
Mitchell [16]. These tests were used to characterize the bond
behavior of the prestressing strands. During the tests, the stud-
ied variables were concrete type and concrete age during
testing.
– The first bond test simulates the transfer length bond behav-
ior of the prestressed concrete elements. This test is a ‘‘push-
in’’ type of test. During the test, the prestressing force trans-
fer on the specimen, that is cast following the stressing of the
strand, is simulated.
– The second bond test allows for an evaluation of the bond
behavior of the prestressed concrete girders in service, dur-
ing which the tensioned prestressing reinforcement
increases its stress due to the external load, generating bond
stresses. This test is a ‘‘pull-out’’ type of test, which is per-
formed using a prestressing strand that is previously
stressed to a level that mimics the prestress force existing
at some point during its service life. During the test, the
stress increase that occurs in the prestressing reinforcement
during the loading of the girder is simulated.
 The design, production and analysis of the prestressed concrete
members (hereinafter referred to as prisms) that are 3.75 m
long, with a square cross-section with 105 mm side length,
and reinforced with only one prestressing strand that is
15.2 mm in diameter, centered within the cross section; this
test consists of measurements before, during, and after transfer
of the following: the longitudinal strains on both sides of the
prisms, the prestress force existing in both anchorages during
transfer, and the strand draw-in at each end of the prism. This
test was performed following the procedure specified in UNE
7436-82 [8,9]. This testing procedure allows for the character-
ization of the transfer of prestress force along the prism, as well
as an analysis of the sensitivity of the prestressed concrete ele-
ments to cracking due to excessive circumferential stresses by
changing the concrete type, the prestressing strand stress, the
number of strands, the strand cover, or other variables. Here,
the concrete type was the studied variable.
 The design, fabrication and analysis of prestressed concrete
beams, with eccentric prestressing, that are 9 m long with a
rectangular section of 20  40 cm; the prestressing reinforce-
ment consists of three horizontally aligned lower strands, each
15.2 mm in diameter, and one upper strand. The separation
between the centers of the lower strands is 50 mm, the same
as their cover as measured from the center of the strand (corre-
sponding to typical values used at the precast concrete plants in
Spain). The vertical cover of the upper strand, horizontally cen-
tered in the transversal section, is 75 mm from the upper face.
The analyzed variables were the concrete type and the amount
of confining reinforcement. During fabrication, the strands were
equipped with load cells at the prestressing bench anchorages
to obtain the current prestress force. The following parameters
were also measured: the concrete strain on the lateral sides of
Moisture content Sand 0/6 mm Cement I- Plasticizer Plasticizer
of Arlita (%) (kg/m3) 52,5R (kg/m3) (BASF-CC) content (kg/m3)
877 450 Melcret 222 6
3 610 500 Melcret 222 6
10 610 500 Melcret 222 6
10 877 500 Glenium 52 6
the beams, the strain of the prestressing strands at several cross
sections of each beam, and the draw-in of some strands. The
transfer length was evaluated immediately after transfer and
periodically thereafter for 1 year through the Demec points
attached to one side of several beams.
The strand tested was that which is normally used in Spain in
the production of precast concrete girders. The cable was a
Y1860 S7 strand with a nominal diameter of db = 15.2 mm (0.600 ),
an average elastic modulus of 197.4 GPa, a characteristic elastic
limit corresponding to a residual deformation of 0.2% of 229 kN,
a breaking strength of 260 kN, and a cross section of
142.04 mm2. All of the strands used during the experimental peri-
od came from the same roll, which was fabricated by the Trefilerías
Quijano company. The strand surface was slightly rusted, and in
every test, the surface was cleaned with acetone before concrete
casting.
4. Description of the TL and FB bond tests
The specimen bond tests are based in the research by Abrishami
and Mitchell [16], who developed protocols for two types of tests:
a push-in-type test for simulating the bond behavior in the transfer
length and a pull-out-type test for simulating the bond along the
flexural bond length. Abrishami and Mitchell performed the tests
on conventional concrete. In this article, the results obtained for
the concrete mixes shown in Table 1 are summarized.
For the experimental phase, two devices like the one shown in
Fig. 2 were designed and fabricated. This equipment was used to
perform both types of test: the push-in (TL bond) and pull-out
(FB bond) tests. The procedures are explained below. In Fig. 2,
the upper and lower anchoring devices that held the strand’s
pre-tensioning force can be observed, as well as the upper and low-
er mechanical devices that allowed the strength of the cable to be
varied during the test. The strand was tensioned before concreting
the cylindrical specimen, which rests on the plate. After the man-
datory specimen curing and hardening period, the actual test was
performed by varying the strand tension at the corresponding end,
depending on the type of test.
During the tests, the following parameters were recorded:
 The tension of the strand in both upper and lower anchors,
through the appropriate hollow load cells.
 The relative slip between the strand and concrete at the upper
end and lower sides of the specimen, by means of displacement
transducers attached to the strand by elastic clips.
 The deformation of the prestressing strand, through extenso-
metric gauges adhering to an outer wire from the strand in
the free zone below the specimen, to detect the eventual plas-
tification of the strand during the FB bond tests.
4.1. TL bond test procedure
The following section summarizes the procedure followed to
perform the TL bond test, which was designed to reproduce the
pre-tension transfer in the transfer length [16]:
 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058
Fig. 2. Testing device.
 The strand was tensioned to 75% of the maximum allowable
unit load for a strand according to the Spanish structural con-
crete standard before the 15  30-cm cylindrical specimen
was concreted. The bond length of the strand inside of the spec-
imen matched the height thereof [8].
 After concreting, the specimen was cured in saturation condi-
tions for 20 h at room temperature before its demolding, after
which the curing continued for a few hours before testing.
 At the preset age of testing (2 or 3 days, which is the normal age
for pre-tensioning transfer in the prefabricated industry), the TL
bond test was performed by a gradual reduction of the upper
anchorage strength (Pt), while the lower anchorage strength
(Pb) remains equal to the initial prestressing strand force (P0);
the diameter of the strand is db, and the specimen bonded
length, l; Fig. 3 shows an initial stage of the test. The difference
in strength between the upper and lower ends (DPt) was bal-
anced by supporting the specimen on the plate, creating a lon-
gitudinal compressive stress in the specimen with a cross
sectional area Ac, with a value of rc, and an average bond stress
s. At a certain instant, the adhesion was lost along the specimen,
resulting in slip between the wire and concrete at the lower
end. This slip caused a decrease in the strength at the lower
end of the cable. Throughout the test, the relative slips were
recorded on both ends of the specimen. The trial was considered
completed when the pre-tensioning force was null at the upper
end, after which the bottom force was maintained for several
days before disassembling the test to analyze the deferred bond
effects.
4.2. FB bond test procedure
The FB bond test was designed to simulate the bond behavior in
the flexural bond length [16]. The following section briefly de-
scribes the test procedure, using the same notation as in Fig. 2:
1051
 The strand was initially pre-tensioned with a force
P(t) = 0.75P0 before concreting the 15  30-cm cylindrical
specimen, simulating the total loss of pre-tension at an instant
in the useful life with respect to the initial value of the pre-
tensioning force, P0. The bond length of the cable inside of
the specimen was the totality of its height, as was the case
for the TL test.
 The test procedure was similar to the TL test until the test
age. The test age was the same as in the TL test, allowing
the results of both tests to be compared for each material.
Because the age of the prestressing transfer is a lower bound
than the age of the commissioning and the mechanical prop-
erties of the concrete increase or stabilize with time, we
remained on the safer side. The test was performed mechan-
ically by gradually increasing the tension of the lower end
(Fig. 2). Fig. 4 shows an initial stage of the test, where adhe-
sion had not yet been lost throughout the specimen. The dif-
ference in tension between the lower (Pb) and upper (Pt)
anchorages was balanced by the support of the specimen on
the plate, resulting in moderate longitudinal compression
stresses in the specimen. As in the case of the TL bond test,
in addition to the force in both anchors, the strand-concrete
slip was recorded at both ends of the specimen. The test
ended after yielding of the pre-tensioned strand in the lower
end of the specimen was reached. Once the reinforcement
yielded, the force was maintained at the lower end for several
days before dismantling the test to assess the delayed effects
of bond during that period.
5. Experimental results for the TL and FB bond tests
Before analyzing the experimental results, it is important to de-
fine the following concepts:
1052 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058
Fig. 3. TL bond test setup.
Fig. 4. FB bond test setup.
 The average bond stress at the bond length of the specimen is
calculated by dividing the force difference between both ends,
Pb  Pt, by the specimen bond length (in our case, the actual
height of the cylinder) and by the nominal perimeter of the
strand, pdb.
 The general slip stage along the specimen begins when the slip
is recorded at the side of the specimen opposite the force vari-
ation of the cable (lower end in the TL test, upper end in the LF
test). When this stage occurs, bond has been lost along the
entire specimen bond length. The general slip state can occur
gradually or suddenly (pull-out). Each pull-out is characterized
by a sudden slip accompanied by a decrease in the specimen’s
average bond stress.
In this document, the compressive forces and their accompany-
ing movements are positive; the tensile forces and their accompa-
Fig. 5. Average bond stress vs. upper slip, TL bond test, RC concrete.
nying movements are negative. In the next section, we analyze the
experimental results obtained for each test type.
5.1. TL bond test results
Fig. 5 shows the average bond stress with respect to the upper
end slip (active end for the TL bond test) for two nominally equal
specimens, TL2RC-2d and TL1RC-2d, which were fabricated with
conventional RC concrete and tested after 2 days (2 d). After an ini-
tial stage of adhesion (characterized by zero slip at the upper end),
once a bond stress of approximately 0.5–1 MPa was exceeded, slip
on the upper end began, implying the loss of adhesion at the upper
end of the specimen. This slip was followed by a stage at which the
average bond stress increased approximately linearly with respect
to the measured upper slip, reaching a maximum value between 5
and 6 MPa in both tests. This maximum value coincided with the
beginning of the lower end slip (Fig. 6). When the lower slip was
triggered, bond was lost along the entire bond length, and the gen-
eral slip phase began. When this phase began, a slight decrease in
the average bond stress was observed. This after-peak minimum
value ranged between 4 and 5 MPa and was followed by a gradual
recovery of the bond stress to values of up to 6 MPa. This recovery
was attributable to the sum of two effects: the Hoyer effect and
some coercion to the rotation of the strand on its imprint in the
concrete due to the strand anchorage to the testing equipment
[2]. It should be emphasized that once the general slip was pro-
duced, the average bond stress value remained fairly constant be-
tween 4 and 6 MPa, whereas the average bond stress exhibited
nearly plastic behavior with respect to the slip. If this behavior is
extrapolated to the transfer length, linear growth of the pre-ten-
sioning force in this zone is expected, consistent with the experi-
mental results obtained during the investigation. However, by
adopting this hypothesis, the resulting transfer length values are
similar, regardless of the slip recorded at the end; this conclusion
also agrees with the experimental results of the pre-tensioned ele-
ments of pre-tensioned reinforcements manufactured with light-
weight (LC3-1, LC10-1 and LC10-2 mixes) and conventional
concrete (NC), as shown in Table 1 [3].
Fig. 6 shows the average bond stress vs. the lower end slip (the
passive end of the TL test). The average bond stress increases with-
out a recordable slip to a value of between 5 and 6 MPa in both
tests. Having reached that value, the lower end began slipping
(generalized slipping phase) alongside a reduction of the bond
stress to a minimum value between 4 and 4.5 MPa for both tests,
corresponding to a passive end slip whose absolute value was be-
tween 0.5 and 1 mm. From this instant, a recovery was recorded in
the average bond stress, which reached 6 MPa for high slippages on
the order of 3 mm.
 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058 1053

shows that the dispersion between the two nominally equal tests
of each material was not greater than that which occurs in certain
normalized tests, such as the shrinkage test and indirect tensile
test [3].
Figs. 8 and 9 correspond to two nominally equal tests in light-
weight concrete specimens with LC3-1 dosages that were tested
for 2 days. Fig. 8 shows that the loss of bond at the active end
was produced for an average bond stress of 0.5 and 2 MPa, which
are similar values to those experienced by conventional concrete
specimens (Fig. 5). From that point, the average bond stress in-
creased approximately linearly with the upper end slip until a
maximum value between 5 and 5.5 MPa was reached in both tests
at a displacement of approximately 0.5 mm. Next, a gradual de-
crease of the average bond stress was observed, followed by a ser-
ies of jagged peaks corresponding to sudden slips accompanied by
Fig. 6. Average bond stress vs. lower end slip, TL bond test, RC concrete.
losses of bond stress (pull-outs). Afterward, bond recovery oc-
curred due to the interlocking of the prestressing strand, which oc-
curred with decreasing upper end strength of the strand. Despite
Fig. 7 shows the upper slip vs. the lower slip recorded through-
the subsequent pull-outs during the generalized slip phase, the
out the test. Due to the thickness of the transducer clamp holding
average bond stress held between 4 and 7 MPa, as shown in
the cable, there was an uncertainty in the actual length between
Fig. 9. This behavior is typical of lightweight concrete. During the
the attachment and surface regarding from which the apparent slip
experimental phase, this lightweight concrete showed sudden
measurement was taken. The upper transducer leaned on the
bond losses due to pull-outs, as opposed to the gradual bond
upper face of the specimen, and the lower transducer leaned on
behavior typically exhibited by conventional concrete testing [16].
the underside of the supporting plate. In both cases, the actual slip
Table 2 summarizes the results obtained for all of the TL bond
between the cable and concrete is obtained by correcting the
tests carried out in this study. These data show the strengths of
apparent slip recorded by each transducer. For this correction,
each batch obtained by testing specimens within the same batch
the strand shortening at the instrumented zone is subtracted. This
that were maintained under the same environmental conditions
zone is between the clamp grippers and the surface supporting the
and with the following parameters:
transducer [3]. For each test, both upper (Max.) and lower (Min.)
slip bounds were considered, thus taking the maximum (including
 s0.025: bond stress corresponding to a passive slip (slip mea-
the thickness of the clamp) and minimum (minus the thickness of
sured at the passive end of the specimen, contrary to the appli-
measuring clamp) measurement lengths into account. Both upper
cation of the load variation) of 0.025 mm.
slip bounds (active end) initially increased without a lower slip
 s0.25: bond stress for a passive slip of 0.25 mm.
being registered (passive end), which corresponded to the speci-
 s2.5: bond stress for a passive slip of 2.5 mm.
men’s initial bond phase. Once an upper slip between 0.5 and
 smax: maximum testing bond stress.
1.0 mm was reached, a slippage was triggered at the specimen’s
 smin,AS: minimum bond stress after a generalized slip.
lower side (generalized slip phase), after which the upper slip in-
 smin,AS,def: minimum bond stress value after a generalized slip,
creased approximately linearly with respect to the lower slip
after the actual termination of the test itself (delayed test).
through the end of the test.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the performed TL bond test.
The table also contains the maximum and minimum slopes of
This table lists the slopes and R2 values of the regression lines that
the different regression lines applied to the upper vs. lower end
were applied to the linear segment that was produced in each test
slip curves of the generalized slip phase and the minimum R2 value
after the generalized slip (see Fig. 7). As seen in Table 2, the regres-
obtained. Finally, for each test, it specifies if there were pull-outs
sion lines fit well (R2 = 0.99) with a slope between 1.4 and 1.5 for
during the test or during the following days after the actual termi-
RC concrete; i.e., the upper end slip was 40–50% higher than the
nation of the test itself (deferred pull-outs).
lower end slip. This result implies strand interlocking at the upper
The following conclusions can be drawn from TL bond test re-
end of the specimen that is attributable to the Hoyer effect. Table 2
sults listed in Table 2:

 The lightweight concrete specimens exhibited a clear tendency

 The bond stress values obtained for lightweight concretes are
Fig. 7. Upper slip vs. lower slip, TL bond test, RC concrete.
to suffer pull-outs both during the test and at the end of it
(deferred pull-outs), which demonstrates the fragility of these
concrete specimens with respect to bond.
similar or superior to that of conventional concrete tests in all
phases, which implies that this material’s bond capacity is sim-
ilar or better than that of conventional concrete. This result is
attributed to the excellent paste–aggregate interface of light-
weight concrete [22,23]. However, the excellent bond capacity
of the lightweight concrete, together with its lower tensile
strength and lower fracture energy [24] compared to conven-
tional concrete parameters of similar compressive strength,
increases the likelihood of cracking by bursting/splitting of
the prefabricated lightweight pre-tensioned concrete elements
due to the high hoop tensile stresses generated in the concrete
surrounding the cable.
1054 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058

Table 2
TL bond test results.

TL Bond Concrete Testing Av. Indirect s,0.025 s,0.25 s,2.5 smax smin,AS smin,AS,def Min. Slope Max. Slope R2 Min. Sudden Deferred pull-
test type age Compr. tensile upper slip upper slip upper slip pull-out out
stregth strength vs. lower vs. lower vs.lower during
slip slip slip test
days MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
TL1RC-2d RC 2 49 2.9 5.3 4.4 5.6 5.9 4.1 – 1.37 1.41 0.99 No -
TL2RC-2d RC 2 46 3.2 5.7 5.95.1 5.9 6.1 4.4 – 1.45 1.52 0.99 No -
TL1RC-3d RC 3 47 3 6.3 6.0 – 7.6 3.5 – 1.22 1.27 0.99 Yes Yes
TL2RC-3d RC 3 44 2.8 5.5 5.1 5.4 6.0 4.8 – 1.41 1.42 1.00 No -
TL1LC101-2d LC10-1 2 50 2.5 5.4 4.6 – 7.0 4.3 – 1.46 1.49 1.00 Yes -
TL2LC101-2d LC10-1 2 48 3.3 5.0 4.4 5.7 6.2 4.1 – 0.99 1.02 1.00 Yes -
TL1LC31-2d LC3-1 2 56 3.0 7.4 6.9 6.9 7.6 6.4 5.3 1.32 1.35 0.99 No No
TL2LC31-2d LC3-1 2 54 3.4 6.8 6.9 6.7 7.2 6.3 5.9 1.33 1.37 0.99 No No
TL1LC102-3d LC10-2 3 57 3.1 10.3 9.4 4.5 10.3 9.0 4.6 1.08 1.13 1.00 No Yes
TL2LC102-3d LC10-2 3 59 3.4 8.3 4.2 – 8.7 4.2 4.2 1 1.14 0.92 Yes Yes

Fig. 8. Average bond stress vs. upper end slip, TL bond test, LC3–1 concrete. Fig. 10. Average bond stress vs. upper end slip, FB bond test, RC concrete.

Fig. 9. Average bond stress vs. lower end slip, TL bond test, LC3-1 concrete.
 Increasing the test age from 2 to 3 days for conventional con-
crete specimens led to a discrete increase in the maximum bond
stress reached without the difference being significant.
5.2. FB bond test results
Next, the results of the FB bond test are analyzed in a manner
similar to that for the TL tests. In this type of test, the active end
is the lower one (where the strand stress increases), with the pas-
sive end corresponding to the upper end.
Fig. 10 shows the average bond stress vs. the upper end slip in
two nominally equal conventional concrete specimens, FB2RC-2d
and FB1RC-2d, that were tested 2 days after concrete casting. The
average bond stress increased in both tests without an upper end
slip until a value of approximately 2.5 MPa was reached, after
which the slip began (generalized slip phase). From this point,
the bond stress increased linearly with the slip until a slip value
of approximately 0.1 mm was reached. Once this value was
reached, one of the specimens registered a decreased bond stress
until the termination of the test, whereas the other paradoxically
experienced a slightly increased bond stress. This behavior may
be due to a coercion of the strand twist during the test in both an-
chors, which supplies certain mechanical interactions that im-
proves bond [2]. Despite this behavior, in both tests, once the
upper slip started, the average bond stress remained bounded be-
tween 2.5 and 3.5 MPa. If we compare these values with those for
conventional concrete TL tests (see Table 2), we find that the aver-
age bond stress after generalized slippage in the FB test is 50–60%
of the maximum value found in the TL tests. Therefore, by extrap-
olating this proportion to the pre-tensioning force gradient, the
slope of the line in Fig. 1 corresponding to the flexural bond length
will be on the order of 50–60% of that occurring in the transfer
length.
Fig. 11 shows that the loss of bond at the active end (lower end
in the FB test) occurred from nearly the beginning of the test, as op-
posed to the TL bond test (see Fig. 5), in which higher bond was re-
corded. This higher bond in the TL bond tests is attributable to the
Hoyer effect, which generates a normal contact pressure and thus
increases the friction of the strand with the concrete. In contrast, in
the FB bond test, the stress increase at the lower end caused the
opposite effect because the loss of contact by the Poisson effect
in response to the strand diameter contraction destroys the bond
and reduces friction. Furthermore, once general slip occurred with-
out appreciable pull-outs, the loss of bond occurred gradually in
both FB bond tests.
 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058
Fig. 11. Average bond stress vs. lower end slip, FB bond test, RC concrete.
Fig. 12 shows the behavior of the lower end slip (active end) vs.
the upper end slip (passive end) with the same approach shown in
Fig. 7. The lower end slip initially increased without an upper end
slip until the lower end slip reached 0.35–0.60 mm. From that
point, during the generalized slip phase, the increase in the lower
end slip compared to that of the upper end was markedly linear
until the test’s termination. Table 3 shows the regression line slope
values that were applied to the generalized phase slip, with a min-
imum value of R2 = 0.97 for the RC concrete and a slope with an
absolute value of 0.60. This result means that the upper end slip
is approximately 60% of the lower end slip, a very different rela-
tionship from that recorded in the TL tests for the same material
at the same age (which had values between 1.37 and 1.52, accord-
ing to Table 2). This distinction highlights the significant qualita-
tive and quantitative differences in the bond behavior observed
in the TL and FB bond tests.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the results obtained for two nominally
equal specimens of LC10-1 lightweight concrete tested after
2 days. Fig. 13 shows that after the generalized slip, the bond stress
decreased slightly with respect to the upper end slip; the value ob-
tained at the termination of the test was similar to s0.025. The typ-
ical average bond stress recovery that was recorded in the TL tests
as a result of the Hoyer effect was not typically observed in the FB
tests.
Table 3 summarizes the results obtained in the FB tests in a
manner similar to Table 2 with the previously defined parameters,
including s0,025, s0,25, s2,5, smax, smin,AS, and smin,AS,def. The slopes of
the regression lines applied to the after-peak phase of the upper
end slip vs. the lower end slip curves and the minimum R2 value
obtained are also provided. Finally, for each test, the table specifies
whether pull-outs occurred during the test or after the termination
of the test (delayed pull-outs).
Fig. 12. Lower end slip vs. upper end slip, FB bond test, RC concrete.
1055
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results shown
in Table 3:
 The bond stresses obtained in the FB bond tests for the light-
weight concretes are similar to those registered during the test-
ing of conventional concrete at all stages except those obtained
for the LC3-1 lightweight concrete tests, which have slightly
lower values. By extrapolating these results to the bond behav-
ior of the flexural bond length, it can be concluded that the flex-
ural bond length of lightweight concrete pre-tensioned
structures is not necessarily higher than those of conventional
concrete structures, especially if the flexural bond length tensile
hoop stresses are not produced in the concrete that surrounds
the cable, which otherwise can generate splitting/bursting.
 During the FB bond tests, no pull-outs were recorded. Only
delayed pull-outs occurred in the tests performed on the spec-
imens of LC10-2 during the days following the termination of
the test.
 Increasing the test age from 2 to 3 days for the conventional
concrete specimens did not generate a significant variation in
the bond stress achieved.
 By comparing the slopes of the regression lines applied to the
branch after the general slip of the curves {superior slip vs.
lower slip}, it is possible to see that the relationship between
these slips was substantially different depending on the type
of test:
– The slope varied between 1.22 and 1.52 for the TL bond tests
on conventional concrete and between 1.0 and 1.49 for the
TL bond tests on lightweight concrete (see Tables 2 and 3).
The tests in which pull-outs occurred were those with values
close to unity. In all tests, the upper end slip (active end slip)
was greater than or equal to the lower end slip due to the
bond capacity. A slope value of 1.0 means that the lower
end slip was exactly equal to the upper end slip, i.e., the
cable simply ‘‘slided’’ through the interior of the specimen.
This was due to degradation of the contact surface between
the strand and surrounding concrete produced by the pull-
outs in the lightweight concrete specimens.
– The slope varied between 0.55 and 0.8 for the FB bond tests
(Table 3); i.e., the upper end slip was equal to or smaller than
the lower end slip (active slip end) due to the bond effect.
– A comparison of the values obtained in both studies shows
the different bond behavior recorded through the different
tests on the same material.
5.3. Critical analysis of TL and FB bond tests
 TL and FB tests, based on the tests by Abrishami and Mitchell,
are simple, systematic, and repeatable and allow the bond
stress vs. slip behavior on concrete specimens to be obtained.
 Once generalized slipping has occurred, the maximum and min-
imum bond stress values for each test can be established.
 The bond stress values obtained in the TL test were 1.3–2.7
times higher than those obtained in the FB test (compare anal-
ogous results for each material in Tables 2 and 3). According to
the authors, this is due to the wedging of the strand that
occurred in the interior of the specimen in the TL test (Hoyer
effect), an effect that was not produced in the FB tests.
 The TL test showed results that are qualitatively and quantita-
tively different from the results of the FB tests for the same
material and age. According to the authors, TL tests simulate
the bond behavior more accurately than do pull-out tests for
different types of concrete in the transfer length, which is
strongly governed by the Hoyer effect and the hoop tensile
stresses that are induced in the concrete. These effects can pro-
duce splitting caused by cracking/bursting [22].
1056 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058

Table 3
FB bond test results.

FB Bond Concrete Testing Av. Indirect s,0.025 s,0.25 s,2.5 smax smin,AS Min. Slope Max. Slope R2 Min. Sudden Deferred
test type age Compr. tensile upper slip upper slip upper slip pull-out pull-out
stregth strength vs. lower vs. lower vs.lower during
slip slip slip test
days MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
FB1RC-2d RC 2 49 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.3 0.56 0.57 0.97 No -
FB2RC-2d RC 2 52 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.9 0.55 0.57 0.99 No -
FB1RC-3d Rc 3 48 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.2 0.72 0.73 0.92 No -
FB2RC-3d RC 3 49 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.7 2.4 0.79 0.81 0.96 No -
FB1LC101-2d LC10-1 2 48 2.0 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.0 2.6 0.61 0.62 0.99 No No
FB2LC101-2d LC10-1 2 49 2.2 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.1 2.6 0.72 0.73 1 No No
FB1LC31-2d LC3-1 2 56 3.3 2.4 2.3 2.6 1.8 1.6 0.73 0.74 0.97 No No
FB2LC31-2d LC3-1 2 54 3.2 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.1 1.6 0.76 0.77 1 No No
FB1LC102-3d LC10-2 3 59 3.6 2.3 2.1 2.3 1.7 1.2 0.81 0.83 0.99 No yes
FB2LC102-3d LC10-2 3 59 3.3 3.0 2.8 3.7 1.8 2.8 - - - No yes

Fig. 13. Average bond stress vs. upper end slip, FB bond test, LC10-2.
Fig. 14. Average bond stress vs. lower end slip, FB bond test, LC10-2.

 In FB tests, the specimen concrete is compressed in the longitu-

dinal direction of the specimen. Although the compressive
stresses are moderate (less than 5 MPa) in pre-tensioned struc-
tures, the bending zone concrete that houses the prestressing is
typically under tension, which is more unfavorable for bond
than is the pull-out test. However, in prestressed concrete
structures, there is transverse reinforcement that confines the
concrete, which does not occur in the test specimens for the
TL and FB bond tests [16].
It was found that all of the prisms and lightweight concrete
beams tested during the experiments experienced bursting/split-
ting cracking; however, no conventional pre-tensioned concrete
element presented this problem [3].
6. Delimiting the transfer length
Knowledge of the average bond stress that occurs in the transfer
length is crucial for the following reasons [2]:
 The higher the bond stress is, the smaller the length is at which
the pre-tensioning force is transferred (transfer length), which
causes high hoop tensile stresses on the concrete surrounding
the cable and thus increases the risk of concrete splitting.
 The lower the average bond stress is, the greater the transfer
length and therefore the zone in which the bearing capacity of
the structure is diminished compared to the nominal value.
Next, a method is proposed for delimiting the transfer length
starting from the results of the performed TL bond tests and in-
spired by the procedure developed by den Uijl to formulate the
model code currently in use [2,5]. Then, the boundaries obtained
by the proposed method are compared to the transfer length val-
ues measured in the to-scale pre-tensioned prisms and beams that
were fabricated with the same types of concrete [3].
Assuming that the bond stress is constant along the transfer
length, which agrees with the results of this study, we propose
delimiting the transfer length using Eqs. (1) and (2) [2].
lt;max ðtÞ ¼ p1  p2  fpe  db =ð4  smin;TL Þ ð1Þ
lt;min ðtÞ ¼ fpe  db =ð4  smax;TL Þ ð2Þ
where
 lt,max(t) the upper bound for the transfer length at a generic age
t.
 p1 a coefficient that takes the bond conditions into account,
adopting the values of p1 = 1 for favorable conditions (concrete
with cables between 45° and 90° with respect to the horizontal)
and p1 = 1.43 for unfavorable conditions (the remaining cases).
 p2 a coefficient that accounts for whether the transfer is gradual
(p2 = 1) or sudden (p2 = 1.25). This coefficient corresponds to
the a8 coefficient of the Model Code 2010 [5].
 smin,TL the minimum value of the average bond stress that is
expected for the transfer length at a generic age t. For each
material, the minimum value smin,AS from Table 2 is applied,
which is obtained for two identical tests performed for the same
transfer age of the pre-tensioned element.
 lt,min(j) the lower bound for the transfer length at a transfer age
j.
 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058 1057

Table 4
TL bond test predictions and comparison with obtained experimental results.
0
Element Confining reinf. Unit End fct fc fpi fpe(j) Lt,exp(j) Lt,exp(j) smax,TL smin,TL p1 p2 lt,min(j) lt,max(j) lt,min (j) lt,max (j)
weight (MPa) (MPa) MPa (mm) (mm)
(kN/m3)
P = prism/ stirrups@distance LE = live end 10 cm East West TL bond TL bond Safety Safety
B = beam (mm) DE = dead end cubes (mm) (mm) test test factor factor
(–) (MPa) (Mpa) (Mpa) P1 P1
P1L10-1 – 18.20 LE 2.2 46 1324 1197 834 957 7 4.1 1.43 1 650 1586 1.3 1.7
P1L10-1 – 18.20 DE 2.2 46 1324 1197 780 728 7 4.1 1.43 1 650 1586 1.1 2.0
P2L10-1 – 18.35 LE 2.2 49 1317 1162 917 867 7 4.1 1.43 1 631 1540 1.4 1.7
P2L10-1 – 18.35 DE 2.2 49 1317 1162 1012 1011 7 4.1 1.43 1 631 1540 1.6 1.5
P3L10-1 – 18.28 LE 2.4 52 1324 1190 955 936 7 4.1 1.43 1 646 1577 1.4 1.7
P3L10-1 – 18.28 DE 2.4 52 1324 1190 895 854 7 4.1 1.43 1 646 1577 1.3 1.8
P1L3-1 – 18.08 LE 2.6 49 1324 1155 867 767 7.6 6.3 1.43 1 577 996 1.3 1.1
P1L3-1 – 18.08 DE 2.6 49 1324 1155 874 863 7.6 6.3 1.43 1 577 996 1.5 1.1
P2L3-1 – 18.19 LE 2.0 51 1331 1211 971 872 7.6 6.3 1.43 1 605 1044 1.4 1.1
P2L3-1 – 18.19 DE 2.0 51 1331 1211 890 1008 7.6 6.3 1.43 1 605 1044 1.5 1.0
P3L3-1 – 17.91 LE 3.0 52 1338 1183 808 796 7.6 6.3 1.43 1 591 1020 1.3 1.3
P3L3-1 – 17.91 DE 3.0 52 1338 1183 743 856 7.6 6.3 1.43 1 591 1020 1.3 1.2
P3C – 23.54 LE 3.5 52 1352 1239 793 808 6.1 4.1 1.43 1 772 1642 1.0 2.0
P3C – 23.54 DE 3.5 52 1352 1239 725 734 6.1 4.1 1.43 1 772 1642 0.9 2.2
P4C – 23.55 LE 3.6 53 1359 1232 906 894 6.1 4.1 1.43 1 768 1633 1.2 1.8
P4C – 23.55 DE 3.6 53 1359 1232 1032 855 6.1 4.1 1.43 1 768 1633 1.1 1.6
B1L10-1 s6@150 18.29 LE 2.1 53 1422 1254 – 647 7 4.1 1 1.25 681 1453 1.0 2.2
B1L10-1 s6@150 18.29 DE 2.1 53 1422 1254 – 749 7 4.1 1 1.25 681 1453 1.1 1.9
B2L10-1 s8@200 18.39 LE 2.1 53 1359 1223 – 869 7 4.1 1 1.25 664 1417 1.3 1.6
B2L10-1 s8@200 18.39 DE 2.1 53 1359 1223 – 672 7 4.1 1 1.25 664 1417 1.0 2.1
B3L10-1 s8@150 22.74 LE 2.1 50 1359 1219 – 669 7 4.1 1 1.25 662 1412 1.0 2.1
B3L10-1 s8@150 22.74 DE 2.1 50 1359 1219 – 928 7 4.1 1 1.25 662 1412 1.4 1.5
B4L10-1 s6@100 18.49 LE 2.3 46 1359 1238 – 764 7 4.1 1 1.25 672 1434 1.1 1.9
B4L10-1 s6@100 18.49 DE 2.3 46 1359 1238 – 887 7 4.1 1 1.25 672 1434 1.3 1.6
B5L10-1 s6@150 18.62 LE 2.3 47 1359 1200 – 725 7 4.1 1 1.25 651 1390 1.1 1.9
B5L10-1 s6@150 18.62 DE 2.3 47 1359 1200 – 1000 7 4.1 1 1.25 651 1390 1.5 1.4
B7L10-1 S8@150 18.62 LE 2.3 47 1359 1200 – 1201 7 4.1 1.43 1.25 651 1988 1.8 1.7
B7L10-1 S8@150 18.62 LE upper 2.3 47 1359 1200 – 1495 7 4.1 1.43 1.25 675 2059 2.2 1.4
B2L10-2 s8@150 18.62 LE 2.8 62 1366 1204 – 593 10.3 4.2 1 1.25 444 1362 1.3 2.3
B2L10-2 s8@150 22.44 DE 2.8 62 1373 1253 – 995 10.3 4.2 1 1.25 462 1417 2.2 1.4
B5C s8@150 20.36 LE 3.6 49 1366 1239 – 526 10.3 4.2 1 1.25 457 1401 1.2 2.7

 smax,TL the maximum value of the average bond stress that is side of its application scope, conventional concrete) yields decreas-
expected for the transfer length immediately after the transfer ing values for higher densities. The variability of the experimental
(age j). For each material, the maximum value smax is adopted results of the transfer lengths of the prisms and beams is high due
from Table 2. to the splitting/bursting type of cracking experienced by the
prisms that were fabricated without confinement reinforcement.
If we use the most unfavorable values from Table 2 for estab- In pre-tensioned beams made with eccentric prestressing and a
lishing the upper and lower bounds of the transfer length of the different amount of confinement reinforcement, this effect did
pre-tensioned prisms and beams for each type of concrete, the val- not occur; instead, the transfer length remained mostly uniform.
ues shown in Table 4 are obtained. This table also includes the The predictions of Eqs. (1) and (2), when applying the experimental
mechanical properties and transfer length values obtained experi-
mentally immediately after the transfer has occurred at the ends of
the pre-tensioned prisms and beams. The values of the safety coef-
ficients for the predictions of Eqs. (1) and (2) for each structural
element are shown in the two last columns; if the value is greater
than one, the corresponding upper or lower bound includes the
experimental results obtained from the transfer length. The predic-
tions of Eqs. (1) and (2) delimit conservatively for all the transfer
length values except one (whose value of 0.9, which is less than
one, is marked in italics). Accordingly, Eqs. (1) and (2), to which
the TL bond test results are applied, appropriately bound the trans-
fer lengths obtained experimentally for the tested concretes [3].
Fig. 15 shows the experimental results for the transfer lengths
obtained in lightweight concrete beams and prisms as well as
the formulations that bounded these values more accurately: Eq.
(1) (upper bound) and Eq. (2) (lower bound). Observe how the low-
er bound of the transfer length remains practically constant with
respect to the density of the lightweight concrete; however, the
upper bound obtained by applying the MC2010 formulation (out- Fig. 15. Transfer length vs. density, lightweight concrete elements.
1058 C. Vázquez-Herrero et al. / Engineering Structures 49 (2013) 1048–1058
results of the TL and FB tests, delimit conservatively for practically
all of the transfer length measurement values for the prisms and
beams [3].
7. Conclusions and recommendations
Based on the investigation performed here, the following con-
clusions can be drawn:
1. An experimental research, has been performed to study the via-
bility of producing prestressed lightweight concrete girders
with lightweight concrete.
2. During the experimental research, bond tests based on the
works of Abrishami and Mitchell were performed [16]. The
implemented push-in (TL bond test) and pull-out (FB bond test)
tests are easy to implement, safe, systematic, and representa-
tive. The studied variables included the concrete type, testing
age, and deferred bond effects.
3. The results obtained from the two types of bond testing in spec-
imens were substantially different; the bond capacity in speci-
mens for the same material was far superior in the TL test than
in the FB test, between 1.4 and 2.7 times higher, which is in
agreement with previous investigations [2,16] and the formula-
tions of the development length for several regulations [5,6].
4. The TL test allowed the bond behavior in the transfer length to
be characterized for different types of concrete, governed by the
Hoyer effect. The corresponding equations have been calibrated,
establishing upper and lower bounds for the transfer length
based on the results of this test. The predictions of the transfer
length obtained were compared with the experimental results
of prisms and beams tested during the investigation. In this
manner, the formulated equations restricted the experimental
transfer length values to a safe value based on the experimental
procedure [3].
5. During the experimental procedure, the high bond capacity for
lightweight concrete was corroborated, as was the tendency of
this material to experience pull-outs. This result, together with
the reduced values of the tensile strength and the fracture
energy of these types of concrete with respect to conventional
types of concrete, implies a greater risk in prestressed light-
weight concrete structures to experience cracking by burst-
ing/splitting and slips of the prestressing strand with respect
to the concrete, compromising its structural security and dura-
bility. [22–24]. Consequently, the results obtained from the
experimental procedure discourage the use of the studied light-
weight concrete for the production of pre-tensioned elements
in pre-tensioned reinforcement [3].
6. Further experimental research is recommended so as to statis-
tically validate the developed equations for the lower and upper
bounds of the transfer length, with results of the production of
both normal weight and special concretes prestressed concrete
members.
Acknowledgements
This research project was sponsored by the precast company
Pacadar and the Ministry of Science and Technology of Spain’s pro-
jects CICYT MAT2001-0765 and PGIDIT02PXIC11801PN. The par-
ticipation of Professor Dr. Manuel Casteleiro and precast experts
Mr. Humberto Vázquez, Mr. Arturo Martínez and Mr. Marcos
Fernández, as well as the contribution of the laboratory staff Mrs.
María José Recarey Buño and Mr. Gonzalo Álvarez Iglesias, is
acknowledged.
References
[1] Janney JR. Nature of bond in pre-tensioned prestressed concrete. J Am Concr
Inst 1954;25(9):717–36.
[2] Den Uijl JA. Background of the CEB-FIP Model Code 90 clauses on anchorage
and transverse tensile actions in the anchorage zone of prestressed concrete
members. In: Viena 28th CEB plenary session; 1991.
[3] Vázquez-Herrero C. Comparative study of bond properties of pretensioning
strands in precast pretensioned concrete elements made of high performance
concrete mixes. Ph.D. thesis. Madrid: Ache; 2002 [in Spanish].
[4] Hoyer E, Friederich E. Beitrag zur Frage der Haftspannung in Eisenbeton-
Bauteilen. Beton Eisen 1939;50(9):717–36.
[5] FIB Model Code 2010. First complete draft, vol. 1. Lausanne: FIB; 2010.
[6] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-11). Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2011.
[7] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 2: design of concrete
structures. Part 1–4: general rules-lightweight aggregate concrete with closed
structure. Madrid: Aenor; 1996 [in Spanish].
[8] UNE 7-436-82. Método de ensayo para la determinación de las características
de adherencia de las armaduras de pretensado. Madrid: Iranor; 1982.
[9] Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées. Détermination de la Longueur
Conventionnelle de Scéllement des Armatures de Précontrainte par
Adhérence. Projet de Méthode d’Essais L PC No. XX. Rév 1. 3e projet. Paris:
Ministére de l’Amenagement du Territoire de l’Equipement et des Transports;
1997.
[10] FHWA. An analysis of transfer and development lengths for pretensioned
concrete structures. RD-94-049. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of
Transportation; 1994.
[11] Rose DR, Russell BW. Investigation of standardized tests to measure the bond
performance of prestressing strand. PCI J 1997;42(4):56–80.
[12] Russell BW, Burns NH. Measurement of transfer lengths on pretensioned
concrete elements. J Struct Eng 1997;123(5):541–9.
[13] Chong Key C. Development length of prestressing strand. Ph.D. thesis.
University Microfilms International; 1991.
[14] Cousins TE, Johnston DW, Zia P. Bond of epoxy coated prestressing strand.
Final report. Research project. North Carolina: Center for Transportation
Engineering Studies, North Carolina States University; 1986.
[15] Ramirez J, Russell BW. Transfer, development, and splice length for strand/
reinforcement in high-strength concrete. Final report. West Lafayette (IN):
Purdue University; 2007.
[16] Abrishami HH, Mitchell D. Bond characteristics of pretensioned strand. ACI
Mater J 1993;90(3):228–35.
[17] Benítez JM, Gálvez JC. Bond modeling of prestressed concrete during the
prestressing force release. Mater Struct 2011;44:263–78.
[18] Mahmoud ZI, Rizkalla SH, Zaghloul ER. Transfer and development lengths of
carbon fiber reinforced polimers prestressing reinforcement. ACI Struct J
1999;96:594–602.
[19] Marti-Vargas JR, Arbelaez CA, Serna-Ros P, Castro-Bugallo C. Reliability of
transfer length estimation from strand end slip. ACI Struct J
2007;104(4):487–94.
[20] Logan DR. Acceptance criteria for bond quality of strand for pretensioned
prestressed concrete applications. PCI J 1997;42(2):52–90.
[21] PTI. Recommendations for prestressed rock and soil anchors (revised 1996).
Phoenix: Post-tensioning Institute; 1996.
[22] Weigler-Karl. Hormigones ligeros armados: fabricación, propiedades,
aplicaciones. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili; 1974.
[23] CUR Report 173. Structural behavior of concrete with coarse lightweight
aggregates. Gouda (Netherlands): Centre for Civil Engineering Research and
Codes CUR; 1995.
[24] Fouré B. Résistance potentielle a long terme du béton soumis a une contrainte
soutenue. Béton 1985;431:47–63.