Detailing Corner

Alternating
Bar Sizes

D esigners often use alternating bar sizes for reinforce-

ment in walls and slabs. While at first glance this may
seem to be a simple method to enhance design efficiency
in terms of total steel weight, it usually doesn’t optimize
the overall cost of the project. Before the decision is
made to specify alternating bar sizes, several issues
should be considered.

Issues
Which bar starts a run?
Whether to start a run of bars with the larger or
smaller bar (Fig. 1) may seem like a trivial issue, but this

Fig. 1: Should a run of bars start with the larger or smaller bar?
(Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm)

DETAILING CORNER
Joint ACI-CRSI Committee 315-B,
Details of Concrete Reinforcement—
Constructibility, has developed forums
dealing with constructibility issues for
reinforced concrete. Staff at the Con-
crete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI)
are presenting these topics in a regular
series of articles. CRSI staff will also respond to
requests for information (RFIs) regarding design,
detailing, and construction. If you’d like to suggest
an article topic or submit an RFI for this feature,
please send an e-mail to Neal Anderson, CRSI’s
Vice President of Engineering, at nanderson@crsi.org
Fig. 2: Cover thickness will vary if alternating bar sizes are used in
with the subject line “Detailing Corner.” the outside layer of wall or slab reinforcement, and the effective
depth of the section may be smaller than anticipated

48 July 2009 / Concrete international

Fig. 3: The difference in splice lengths for the different bar sizes causes the location of splices to change relative to one another when
stock length bars are used

simple decision has been the root of countless

disagreements between inspectors and contractors,
especially when there are an odd number of bars.
Designers and inspectors naturally prefer to maximize
the amount of steel and tend to start with the larger
bar, while fabricators and placers prefer to minimize
steel congestion and tend to start with the smaller
bar. Consequently, the size of the starting bar in the
run becomes a matter of debate and needs to be
coordinated in advance.

Concrete cover may vary

The vertical bars in a wall are tied to the horizontal
bars. If the horizontal bars are inside the vertical bars
and the vertical bars alternate in size, the specified cover
must be met on the larger bar and the cover on the Fig. 4: Alternating bar sizes can complicate the distribution of
smaller bars will be larger (Fig. 2). If the bars differ by reinforcing steel around openings
two bar sizes, the smaller bars will have 1/4 in. (6 mm)
greater concrete cover than the larger bars. Designers
must be aware that this situation will result in a smaller
effective depth to the reinforcement and, therefore, a
smaller nominal moment capacity than would occur if
both bar sizes had the same cover.

Lap locations can shift

Alternating bar sizes can create problems with lap
locations, particularly in long runs of horizontal wall bars
or temperature reinforcement in a slab (Fig. 3). If stock
length bars are used, the difference in lap length for the
two bar sizes will cause the lap locations to move apart
relative to each other. This means the final bar in the run
is a different length for each of the bar sizes.

How are trim bars allocated?

Typically, half of the reinforcing bars interrupted by a
slab or wall opening must be placed as trim or framing
bars on each side of the opening. If the bar sizes alternate
and six bars are interrupted by an opening, for example,
Fig. 5: The difference in hook dimensions for vertical wall bars
with different bar sizes affects the location of the outermost slab
or beam reinforcement

Concrete international / July 2009 49

three large bars and three small bars must be distributed
at the sides of the opening. The configuration and layout
could be issues for dispute, so the “field fix” shown in
Fig. 4 could result in the need for even more bars.
Hook dimensions will vary
If the tops of vertical bars with different sizes are
terminated with standard hooks, the bend diameters will
be different for the two bar sizes, as shown in Fig. 5. Very
often, especially along perimeter walls, the designer
requires a continuous bar tied in the corner of the
vertical hook. The continuous bar touches only every
other vertical bar and appears to be too low, causing
concern from some inspectors. Additionally, if the
vertical bars are hooked into a continuous beam at the
top of the wall, the different arcs of the hooks may result
in one or more bars positioned lower in the cross section
than expected. This may become an issue concerning the
effective depth of the member.
Maintaining accurate installation
is more difficult
Slab bars are typically placed on supports known as
slab bolsters. When the bottom bars are tied in place, the
smaller bars are lifted off the slab bolsters and secured
against the layer of bars above, as depicted in Fig. 6.
Later, as workers walk on the reinforcing steel to place
conduits, inserts, and other embedded items or during
concrete placement, the ties holding the small bars could
be stretched or broken so the bars are no longer secured
against the reinforcing steel mat. They must be re-tied
Upcoming
Themes
August—Decorative Concrete
September—Concrete in
Extreme Environments
October—Precast/Prestressed
& Post-Tensioned
For advertising details, contact Jeff Rhodes • Phone
(410) 584-8487 • e-mail: concrete@networkpub.com
50 July 2009 / Concrete international
Fig. 6: Alternating slab bar sizes can lead to broken or loose
tie wires
or they are likely to be displaced by the concrete as
it is placed.
Fabrication expense can increase
It’s more economical to cut a quantity of bars of a
single bar size than it is to cut half the quantity for
each of two different bar sizes. Furthermore, if the
designer used only the larger bar with a wider spacing or
an intermediate bar size with a wider spacing, there
would be fewer total bars required, thus reducing
fabrication costs.
Placing expense can also increase
Sorting and placing bars of alternating sizes requires
extra labor and handling. To avoid getting the alternating
bars out of sequence, ironworkers must start placing the
reinforcing bars at a single point on a slab or wall, rather
than in several locations simultaneously. The previously
mentioned tendency for lap locations to shift will also
increase labor costs.
Total cost is more than a function
of weight
Designers should understand that what they may
perceive as cost efficiency might actually add to the
overall cost of a project. While they may be trying to
save reinforcing steel, they are increasing the potential
difficulties for the placers and the inspectors. Even better
cost efficiencies and reduced potential for placing and
inspection difficulties can often be achieved simply by
adjusting the bar spacing and using a single size.
Thanks to Joint ACI-CRSI Committee 315 member Dick
Birley, President of Condor Rebar Consultants, Inc., in
Vancouver, BC, Canada, for providing the information in
this article.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.