Memo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016

20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar

Reinforcement
Introduction
A headed bar is a deformed steel bar with a head attached to one, or both ends of the bar.
Headed bars can be used as a replacement for straight or hooked bars in concrete members
and connections. Testing by the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) of slab column
assemblies has shown that headed bar reinforcement is effective in reducing rebar anchorage
length, congestion, and construction time. Further testing is needed for anchorage in other
types of superstructures. At this time, Caltrans approves the use of full size (9Ab) headed bars,
only. The use of headed bars with head size smaller than full-size is not currently approved
until more testing can be done. This memo describes the properties, uses, and detailing
requirements for headed bar reinforcement, especially for seismic applications in bridges.

Properties Of Headed Bar Reinforcement

Headed bar reinforcement is usually formed by friction welding of plates, by forging an upset
bearing surface at the end of a reinforcing bar, or by forging threads into the end of the bar,
which are then used to attach the plate. Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 52-5.02 states
that “Headed bar reinforcement must have full size heads and must be on the Authorized
Materials List.” Headed bar reinforcement must comply with ASTM requirements, which
include tensile tests that confirm that necking occurs at least one diameter away from the
affected zone. Headed bar reinforcement must be A706-Grade 60 steel that meets the stress
and strain requirements in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). Full size heads have a
net bearing area that is at least nine times the area of the bar (Ab). The head shape may be
square, rectangle, round, or oval.

Uses Of Headed Bar Reinforcement

Longitudinal column reinforcement must be fully developed in the joints with adjacent
members to allow plastic hinges to form in the column during earthquakes. Achieving
adequate development is of particular concern for slab bridges, where the depth available
for the development of the column or pile extension reinforcement is limited. Research
(Papadopoulos, 2015) has shown that for column longitudinal reinforcement with full
size heads, an embedment length of 11db into a slab superstructure is adequate to force
plastic hinging in the column. Headed bar reinforcement is also a good choice for reducing

20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement 1

 Memo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016

congestion in column to bent cap connection of box girder bridges. Figure 1 shows the
proper use of headed bars in slab and box girder bridges. Headed bar reinforcement may
also be beneficial in column to footing connections, superstructure in-span hinges, abutment
stem walls, shear keys, etc. Bundling of heated bars in not usually possible because of the
large size of the heads.
MEMO TO DESIGNERS 20-21 ● June 2016

ld

ld

2 20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement

 Memo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016

ld

Figure 1. SlabFigure
and Box Girder
1. Slab Bridges
and Box Girder with Headed
Bridges Column
with Headed Reinforcement.
Column Reinforcement.

Research
Memo to Designer 20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Reinforcement Page 2
Anchorage tests of headed bar reinforcement in locations other than slab bridges is limited.
While recent research has shown that 11db is an adequate development length for column
reinforcement with full size heads in slab bridges, the development length requirements
for headed bars into bent caps of other types of bridge superstructures have not yet been
established by experimental testing.
The enhanced anchorage capacity of headed bar reinforcement is due to the head bearing
against the concrete as well as from the bond between the bar and the surrounding concrete.
Past research (Figure 2) has shown that the anchorage failure of headed rebar can occur
due to a side-faced blowout of the concrete close to the surface (Derives, 1996), breakout
when the reinforcement isn’t sufficiently embedded (Derives, 1996), and a punching failure
through the bridge deck when the head is too close to the surface and not properly blocked
by the top deck reinforcement (Papadopoulos, 2015).

20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement 3

 RESEARCH
Testing of headed reinforcement in locations other than slab bridges is limited. Although recent research
has shown that a development length of 11db can be used for the column reinforcement of slab bridges,
the development length of headed bars into bent caps of box girder and other bridges has not yet been
established by experimental testing.
Memo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016
The enhanced anchorage capacity of headed reinforcement is due to the head bearing against the concrete
as well as from the bond between the bar and the surrounding concrete. Past research has shown (Figure
2) that the anchorage failure of headed rebar can occur due to a side-face blowout of the concrete close to
the surface (Devries, 1996), breakout when the reinforcement isn’t sufficiently embedded (Devries,
1996), and a punching failure through the bridge deck when the head is too close to the surface and not
properly blocked by the top deck reinforcement (Papadopoulos, 2015).

Figure 2. Failure of headed reinforcement based on past research.

Figure 2. Failure of headed reinforcement based on past research.
Previous testing by Caltrans (Stoker, 1974), the University of Texas (Devries, 1996) (Bashady, 1996), the
University of Kansas (Wright, 1997), and the University of California at Berkeley ((Naito, 2001) has
shown the improved performance of headed bars over straight and hooked bars. All of the testing through
Previous testing by Caltrans (Stoker, 1974), the University of Texas (Devries, 1996)
May 2002 is reported in a literature review by the University of Texas (Thompson, 2002), which was also
(Bashady, 1996), the University of Kansas (Wright, 1997), and the University of California
summarized as part of the headed bar research at the University of California at San Diego
at Berkeley (Naito,
(Papadopoulos, 2001)
2015). has results
Testing shownfromthethe
improved
Universityperformance of headed
of Texas were published bars
in the ACIover straight
Structural
and hooked bars. All of the testing through May 2002 is reported in a literature
Journal (Thompson, 2005) (Thompson, 2006) and were used to establish the current ACI development review by the
University of TexasHowever,
length equations. (Thompson, 2002),
it is uncertain which
whether thewas also summarized
reinforcement in the Texas as part
tests wereofpulled
the headed
until
bar research at steel
failure of the UCSD (Papadopoulos, 2015). Testing results from the University of Texas
in tension.
were published in the ACI Structural Journal (Thompson, 2005) (Thompson, 2006) and were
usedIntotheestablish
most recent research performed in 2015 at UCSD, three full-scale slab-column assemblies with full
the current ACI development length equations. However, it is uncertain
size T-headed main column reinforcement developed into the slab were tested. Specimen #1 had an
whether the reinforcement in the Texas tests were pulled until failure of the steel in tension.
embedment of 9.8db, specimen #2 had embedment of 8.7db and specimen #3 had 11db embedment length
In the
intomost recent
the slab. research
The study showed performed in 2015
that slab concrete at UCSD,
with compressive threeof full-scale
strength 4.5 ksi, Gradeslab-column
60 steel,
assemblies with full size T-headed main column reinforcement developed into the slab were
and with main bar development length of 11 db is adequate for headed rebars in slab-column joints
designed
tested. according
The three testtospecimens
Caltrans Memo
hadtoembedment
Designer 20-7.lengths of 9.8db, and 8.7db, and 11.0db into
the slab.
MemoThe study showed
to Designer that for
20-21 Seismic slab concrete
Requirements with compressive
for Headed Reinforcement strength of 4.5 ksi, Pageand
3
Grade 60 steel, main bar development length of 11db is adequate for headed bars in slab-
column joints designed according to Caltrans Memo to Designer 20-7.

Requirements For Headed Reinforcement

Headed bars must be placed as described in Table 1 (without staggering of heads). ACI
318-14 Section 25.4.4.1 (ACI, 2014) requires a minimum clear spacing of 4db between
bars, and a clear cover of 2db.
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) discusses the use of headed bar reinforcement in
footings, and abutments in Sections 7.7.1.7, and 7.8.4.1A, respectively. The development
length of column longitudinal reinforcement is discussed in SDC Section 8.2.1. It states that
straight column bars must be developed into bent caps at least 24 bar diameters (db). It also
states that it is expected that the use of ‘T’ heads or hooked bar termination will reduce the
anchorage requirements for column reinforcement in tension.

4 20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement

 Memo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016

Based on the latest research, bridge designers must provide a minimum of 11db for the
development of headed bars into slabs, 14db for bars in capacity protected locations, and 18db
for longitudinal bars in seismic critical members developed into adjacent capacity protected
members (see Table 1). Note that Caltrans only approves the use of full size heads at this time.
Table 1 shows current Caltrans minimum required development lengths for reinforcement
that is straight, hooked, or headed. If future testing shows that the required development
length for headed bar reinforcement can be smaller than those shown in Table 1, headed
bars would be useful in a greater variety of situations. The required development length for
hooked bars in Table 1 was computed using ASHTO LRFD BDS Equation 5.11.2.4.1-1,
based on f ’c =4 ksi.
Tables 2 and 3 show how headed bar reinforcement can be used instead of hooks for stirrups
and ties. This could be useful in situations where congestion is a problem. Please note in
Table 3 that the headed stirrup takes up more space and may reduce the effective depth of
the member. MEMO TO DESIGNERS 20-21 ● June 2016

Table 1. BarTable 1. Minimum

Development Allowable Bar Development Lengths
Lengths
Development length ld = (table value) x bar diameter (db)
Development length ld = (table value) x bar diameter (db)

C or S Longitudinal/Main Embedded into/ STRAIGHT HOOK HEADED 1 INSTRUCTIONS

bars in: Extended within (Full size)
Columns Bent caps and 24 19 18 2 Extend to bottom of
footings top deck reinf. (avoid
prestress ducts, etc.)
S Walls Bent caps, footings 24 19 18 3 -

Pile Extensions Slab bridge 24 19 11 4 Touch bottom of top

and walls steel in slab
C Bent Caps Bent caps 24 19 14 -
C Footings Footings 24 19 14 -
C In-span hinges In-span hinges 24 19 14 -
C = Capacity Protected
SC= = Capacity
Seismic Protected
Critical
S = Seismic Critical
Table 2. Headed Bar Uses for Stirrups and Ties
HEADED BAR
COMPONENT APPLICATION
(Full size)
In span hinges Stirrups/ties For 135° and 180° hooks
1
Interim development
Walls length based onCross
committee
ties decision using conservative
For 135° andvalues.
180° hooks
2 Bent caps
Extend to top reinforcement in cap. Stirrups For 135° and 180° hooks
3 Joints Stirrups
Extend to bottom reinforcement in footing. For 135° and 180° hooks
Footings Stirrups/ties For 135° and 180° hooks
4
Lower bound value based on tests (Papadopoulis, 2015)
Table 3. Definitions of Stirrups and Ties
Conventional Headed Conventional + headed
Stirrups
Not applicable
20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement 5
 bars in: Extendedlength
Development withinld = (table value) x bar diameter
(Full size)
(db)
Columns Bent caps and 24 19 18 2
Extend to bottom of
footingsinto/ top deck reinf. (avoid
1
C or S Longitudinal/Main Embedded STRAIGHT HOOK HEADED INSTRUCTIONS
prestress ducts, etc.)
bars in: Extended within (Full size)
S Walls Bent caps, footings 24 19 18 3 -
Columns Bent caps and 24 19 18 2 Extend to bottom of
M
footings
emo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016
top deckbottom
reinf. of
(avoid
Pile Extensions Slab bridge 24 19 11 4 Touch top
and walls prestress
steel ducts,
in slab etc.)
3
SC Walls
Bent Caps Bent Bent
caps,caps
footings 24
24 19
19 18
14 --
C Footings Footings 24 19 144 -
C Pile Extensions
In-span hinges Slab bridge
In-span hinges 24
24 19
19 11
14 Touch bottom
- of top
and walls steel in slab
C = Capacity Protected
C Bent Caps
S = Seismic Critical
Bent caps 24 19 14 -
C Footings Footings 24 19 14 -
Table
C 2. Headed Bar UsesIn-span
In-span hinges for Stirrups
hinges and 24Ties 19 14 -
C = Capacity Protected
Table 2. Headed Bar Uses for Stirrups and Ties
S = Seismic Critical HEADED BAR
COMPONENT APPLICATION
(Full size)
In span hinges
Table 2. Headed Stirrups/ties
Bar Uses For 135° and 180° hooks
for Stirrups and Ties
Walls Cross ties For 135° and 180° hooks
HEADED BAR
COMPONENT
Bent caps APPLICATION
Stirrups For 135° andsize)
180° hooks
(Full
Joints Stirrups For 135° and 180° hooks
In span hinges Stirrups/ties For 135° and 180° hooks
Footings Stirrups/ties For 135° and 180° hooks
Walls Cross ties For 135° and 180° hooks
Bent caps Stirrups For 135° and 180° hooks
Joints Table 3. Definitions
Stirrups of Stirrups and
ForTies
135° and 180° hooks
Footings Conventional Stirrups/ties Headed For 135°Conventional + headed
and 180° hooks
Stirrups
Table 3. Definitions of Stirrups and Ties
Not applicable
Table 3. Definitions of Stirrups and Ties
Conventional Headed Conventional + headed
Stirrups
Not applicable

Ties/cross
ties

Ties/cross
ties
1
Interim development length based on committee decision using conservative values.
2
Extend to top reinforcement in cap.
3
Extend to bottom reinforcement in footing.
4
Lower bound value based on tests (Papadopoulis, 2015)
1
Interim development length based on committee decision using conservative values.
2Memo to Designer 20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Reinforcement Page 5
Extend to top reinforcement in cap.
3
Extend to bottom reinforcement in footing.
4
Lower bound value based on tests (Papadopoulis, 2015)

Memo to Designer 20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Reinforcement Page 5

6 20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement

 Memo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016

References
AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2014

ACI, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14). American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014

Bashandy, T. R., “Applications of Headed Bars in Concrete Members,” PhD Dissertation,

University of Texas; Austin, TX, 1996

Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.7, California Department of Transportation,

Sacramento, CA, 2013

DeVries, A. R., “Anchorage of Headed Reinforcement in Concrete (Dissertation)”, University

of Texas; Austin, TX, 1996

Caltrans Memo to Designers (MTD) 20-7, “Seismic Design of Slab Bridges,” California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 2016

Naito, J. N., Moehle, J. P., and K. M. Mosalam, “Experimental and Computational Evaluation
of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Beam-Column Connections for Seismic Performance,”
Caltrans Contract No. 59A131 (PEER 2001/08), University of California; Berkeley, CA,
November 2001

Papadopoulos, V., Murcia-Delso, J, and P.B. Shing, “Development Length for Headed
Bars in Slab-Column Joints of RC Slab Bridges,” Report No. SSRP-15/10 Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of California; San Diego, CA, December 2015

Stoker, J. R., et al, “Anchorage Devices for Large Diameter Reinforcing Bars,” Caltrans
Report CA-DOT-TL6626-1-73-30, September 1974

Thompson, M.K., Jirsa,J. O., Breen, J. J., and R. E. Klingner, “Anchorage Behavior of
Headed Reinforcement: Literature Review, FHWA/TX-0-1855-1, University of Texas;
Austin, TX, May 2002

Thompson, M.K., Ziehl M. J., Jirsa, J. O., and J. E. Breen, “CCT Nodes Anchored by Headed
Bars Parts 1 and 2, ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2005

Thompson, M.K., Ledesma, A., Jirsa, J. O., and J. E. Breen, “Lap Splices Anchored by
Headed Bars,” ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2006

20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement 7

 Memo to Designers 20-21 • December 2016

Wright, J.L. and S.L. McCabe, “The Development Length and Anchorage Behavior of
Headed Reinforcing Bars,” The University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc SM Report
No. 44, Sept. 1997

_____________________________________
Mark Mahan, Chief
Office of Earthquake Engineering, Analysis, and Research
Structure Policy and Innovation
Division of Engineering Services

8 20-21 Seismic Requirements for Headed Bar Reinforcement