Longitudinal Bar Spacing
and Intermediate Ties
A review of the development of ACI 318 provisions for column reinforcement
by Ben DeGagné, Ece Erdogmus, and John Savage
A
CI 318-141 Building Code Sections 9.7.6.4.4,
23.6.3.3, and 25.7.2.3 require that alternate
longitudinal bars in a column have lateral support
provided by crossties or a corner of a tie. Also, no
unsupported longitudinal column bar is allowed to be farther
than 6 in. (152 mm) clear on each side along the tie from a
laterally supported bar. Similar provisions were included in
the previous edition of the Code2 (Fig. 1). In fact, although
column tie requirements related to seismic confinement or
shear capacity have been refined through the years, the basic
requirements regarding lateral support of longitudinal bars
have been essentially unchanged since originally required by
Section 806(b) in ACI 318-63.3
Interestingly, the commentary to ACI 318 did change
during the most recent code cycle. Commentary Section
R7.10.5 of ACI 318-11 states that:
“The 1956 Code required ‘lateral support equivalent to that
provided by a 90-degree corner of a tie,’ for every vertical bar.
Tie requirements were liberalized in 1963 by increasing the
permissible included angle from 90 to 135 degrees and
Fig. 1: ACI 318 requirements for lateral support of longitudinal bars
(Fig. R7.10.5 in ACI 318-112)
exempting bars that are located within 6 in. clear on each side
along the tie from adequately tied bars (see Fig. R7.10.5).
Limited tests7.15[Ref. 5 in this article] on full-size, axially loaded, tied
columns containing full-length bars (without splices) showed
no appreciable difference between ultimate strengths of
columns with full tie requirements and no ties at all.”
Commentary Section R25.7.2.3 of ACI 318-14 does not
mention the earlier Codes, but does state that:
“Limited tests (Pfister 1964 [Ref. 5 in this article]) on
full-size, axially loaded, tied columns containing full-length
bars (without splices) showed that ties on alternate
longitudinal bars within 6 in. clear of a laterally supported
bar are adequate in columns subjected to axial force.”
[emphasis added]
In this article, we review the developmental research
behind these provisions. Our assessment reveals that the
requirements for lateral support of longitudinal bars are not
based on experimental data but were instead based on the
engineering experience of the ACI committee members
writing the original provision for ACI 318-63. Since then, no
research has been done for the specific purpose of determining
if the 6 in. limit is optimum, could be increased, or should be
decreased. While an increase in the allowed spacing would
reduce reinforcement congestion, lower material and labor
costs, and ease concrete placement, there is a natural
reluctance to modify a practice backed by decades of use.
Before that step can be taken, we propose that additional
studies are needed.
Research Results
The research that was used to justify relaxation of the
longitudinal column bar lateral support requirements in
the 1956 Code4 was conducted at the Portland Cement
Association’s (PCA) Structural Laboratory under the
direction of Eivind Hognestad and Alan H. Mattock. The
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MAY 2016 43
 Table 1:
Component loads of Pfister’s testing4

Column Pcalc, Ptest, Pcalc

ID Type* kip kip Ptest
1A Full ties† 701 684 0.98
2A Perimeter ties only 704 695 0.99
3A Single perimeter tie 704 700 0.99
4A No ties 707 650 0.92
1B Full ties† 762 762 1.00
2B Perimeter ties only 767 774 1.01
3B No ties 767 751 0.98
1C Full ties† 655 654 1.00
2C Perimeter ties only 663 646 0.98
3C Single perimeter tie 673 624 0.93
4C No ties 664 622 0.94
(a)
*
Refer to Fig. 2 for illustrations of each column type
†Perimeter ties and intermediate ties at each longitudinal bar
(per ACI 318-56)
Note: 1 kip = 4.4 kN

work, authored by J.F. Pfister, was published in the 1964 ACI

(b)
(c)
Fig. 2: Concrete column reinforcing arrangements tested to aid
development of the 1963 ACI Building Code (refer to Reference 5):
(a) Series A—12 x 12 in. (305 x 305 mm) columns with 12 No. 6
longitudinal bars; (b) Series B—8 x 18 in. (203 x 457 mm) columns with
12 No. 6 longitudinal bars; and Series C—10 x 12 in. (254 x 305 mm)
columns with six No. 8 longitudinal bars
Journal Proceedings.5 Three series were tested: A, B, and C
(Fig. 2). All columns were 72 in. (1829 mm) long and
included bearing plates and groups of three closely spaced ties
at each end to guard against end splitting. Each series included
a column with:
•• Perimeter and intermediate ties at a longitudinal spacing
equal to the minimum section dimension;
•• Perimeter ties only (no intermediate ties) at a longitudinal
spacing equal to the minimum section dimension; and
•• No ties between the closely spaced ties at each end.
Series A and C also included one column with a midheight
perimeter tie.
Based on examination of the strains in the ties and in the
longitudinal bars, Pfister concluded that “it appears that the
strains developed in the ties of a tied column are primarily due
to lateral expansion of the concrete when subjected to
longitudinal compression.” He went on to say that the primary
function of ties is to provide column concrete the lateral
restraint required to develop its full compressive strength. The
developed compressive strength then allows the column to fail
in a more gradual manner than if ties were omitted. Pfister
only briefly mentioned ties traditionally being provided to
reduce local buckling of longitudinal reinforcement. However,
the results of the tests (Table 1) show that the number of ties
had little influence on column capacity.
After Pfister’s research, Burdette and Hilsdorf6 performed
testing on small-scale concrete column specimens in 1971.
They concluded that lateral confinement had little measurable
effect on the behavior of specimens at loads less than 80% of
the concrete unconfined strength. The authors also noticed that
as the unconfined strength of the concrete was reached, large
lateral strains and cracking had to develop before the lateral
reinforcement became effective.

44 MAY 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

 Burdette and Hilsdorf also referenced previous study
findings, indicating that the confining force provided by a
typical rectangular tie is concentrated near the column corners.
A large portion of the column face is therefore left unrestrained.
According to the authors, this explains the “relative
ineffectiveness” of rectangular ties as lateral confinement.
In 1975, Bunni7 also studied rectangular ties in reinforced
concrete columns. Through theoretical analysis and experimental
testing, Bunni concluded that longitudinal reinforcing bars can
buckle between ties before yielding. This buckling can only
be prevented by lateral support provided by ties.
Bunni also discovered that greater increases in ultimate
axial capacity were achieved by adding steel area in lateral
reinforcement versus adding the same area in longitudinal
bars. This is because ties restrain the concrete core and
prevent buckling of the longitudinal steel before yielding.
The research conducted by Burdette and Hilsdorf and by
Bunni apparently did not result in revisions to the ACI
requirements for intermediate column ties.
These previous studies, and the current ACI 318 provisions,
have shown no agreement on the purpose of tie reinforcement
in concrete columns.
The 6 in. limit on clear spacing from a laterally supported
ACI University is a global, online learning resource, providing
on-demand access to a wide range of topics on concrete materials,
design, and construction, appealing to everyone from testing
technicians to practicing engineers.
• Over 100 online
courses
• Purchase through
ACI Store
• Available 24/7
• Certificate programs
• Live Webinars
www.ACIUniversity.com
bar, as required by ACI 318-14, implies that ties are needed to
assist in restraining longitudinal bar buckling. However, the
Code has an apparent inconsistency in that it requires only
perimeter ties in circular columns. For large-diameter circular
columns, a circular tie will have very little curvature between
adjacent bars. While the tie shape could then be locally
approximated as a straight tie, no intermediate ties are required
for this condition, as they would be for a rectangular column.
With intermediate tie spacing based only on longitudinal
bar spacing, ACI 318-14 Sections 9.7.6.4.4, 23.6.3.3, and
25.7.2.3 do not appear to address the issue of concrete core
confinement by perimeter tie reinforcement alone. According
to the current ACI 318 Code, for example, a column could be
designed with four No. 18 longitudinal bars to meet the ACI
1% minimum longitudinal steel requirement in a 40 x 40 in.
(1016 x 1016 mm) column and only one perimeter No. 5 tie
would be required. The longitudinal bars of this reinforcing
arrangement would be spaced approximately 34 in. (864 mm)
apart with no intermediate ties, and the column would still
meet the requirements of the ACI 318 Code. It seems unlikely
that a single tie around the perimeter of a 40 in. column would
provide much confinement to the concrete core (or prevent a
longitudinal bar from buckling).
Certificate Programs
Certificate programs provide an in-depth course of
study and the ability to earn a credential illustrating
your commitment to expanding your knowledge.
Anchorage Design: Covers the basic design principles
for anchorage to concrete, example design problems
for single anchor applications, and an understanding
of post-installed anchor qualification.
Concrete Fundamentals: Covers the basic knowledge
of the materials used to produce concrete. The
importance of proper curing and protection of concrete,
batching and mixing, and more.
Concrete Repair Application Procedures: This
program covers procedures for basic concrete repair
techniques. The program includes the purpose of the
repair, applications for which each method is appro-
priate, surface preparation, safety considerations,
and the repair procedure.
www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | MAY 2016 45
Conclusions
The current ACI 318 provision for minimum lateral
support of longitudinal column bars originated with the
publication of the 1963 Code. The provision was apparently
based on experience and thereafter deemed by the Code writers
as good engineering practice. However, there apparently has
never been any testing done specifically to determine if the
6 in. maximum lateral support requirement of ACI 318-14,
Sections 9.7.6.4.4, 23.6.3.3, and 25.7.2.3, is necessary.
To date, researchers have not agreed whether ties are
provided for concrete confinement or prevention of
longitudinal bar buckling in concrete columns. Therefore, a
larger maximum allowable spacing for lateral support may be
realizable through analytical and experimental research.
Full-scale experimental testing should be conducted to
evaluate the lateral support spacing requirement in ACI 318-14,
Sections 9.7.6.4.4, 23.6.3.3, and 25.7.2.3. If the research shows
that unsupported longitudinal column bars can be farther than
6 in. from bars supported by crossties or a corner of a tie,
significant cost savings in material and labor may be realized.
References
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
3. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-63),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1963, 144 pp.
4. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-56),” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 52, No. 9, May 1956,
pp. 913-986.
5. Pfister, J.F., “Influence of Ties on the Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Columns,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 61, No. 5, May 1964,
pp. 521-537.
Errata for
ACI Publications
Available Online
Under the menu for “Publications” at
www.concrete.org, document errata can be
searched by document number or keywords.
Call ACI Member Services at
+1.248.848.3700 for more information.
46 MAY 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com
6. Burdette, E.G., and Hilsdorf, H.K., “Behavior of Laterally Reinforced
Concrete Columns,” Journal of the Structural Division, V. 97, No. 2,
Feb. 1971, pp. 587-602.
7. Bunni, N.G., “Rectangular Ties in Reinforced Concrete Columns.
Reinforced Concrete Columns,” Reinforced Concrete Columns, SP-50,
M.W. Huggins, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1975, pp. 193-210.
Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Ben DeGagné is an Assistant Engineer
at Olsson Associates, Omaha, NE. He
received his BS and MAE from the
Durham School of Architectural
Engineering and Construction at the
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln,
NE. This article is based on DeGagné’s
graduate program project, “An Analysis
of ACI 318-11 Maximum Longitudinal Bar
Spacing for Concrete Columns.”
Ece Erdogmus is an Associate Professor
of Architectural Engineering at the
University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Her
research interests include rehabilitation
and nondestructive assessment of
existing masonry and concrete structures,
and development and optimization of
fiber-reinforced cementitious mixtures.
She has published more than 40 technical
articles and serves on the committees of
ASCE’s Architectural Engineering Institute and on The Masonry
Society (TMS) 402/602 Committee for the 2016 Masonry Code
and Specifications. Erdogmus received her bachelor’s degree
from the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, and
her MS and PhD from the Architectural Engineering Department
at Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. She is a
licensed professional engineer in Nebraska.
John Savage is a Senior Structural
Engineer with HDR Architecture, Omaha,
NE. He has more than 20 years of
experience in the design of structural
systems as Project Engineer for a variety
of project types, including academic,
research, health care, civic, and sports
and recreation projects. Savage has
extensive experience in the delivery of
fast-track projects where early structural
packages are a critical factor in meeting tight schedules. His
experience has given him working knowledge in all types of
construction, including structural steel, reinforced concrete,
reinforced masonry, and post-tensioned concrete structures.