(Dextra) Headed Bars - ARUP Design Guide

Dextra Manufacturing
Design Guide
Methodology for Designing with
Headed Reinforcement Anchors to
Eurocode 2
Issue 2 | 21 December 2018
This report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be relied
upon by any third party and no responsibility
is undertaken to any third party.
Job number 263500-00
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

The Arup Campus
Blythe Gate
Blythe Valley Park
Solihull B90 8AE
United Kingdom
www.arup.com
Document Verification
Job title Design Guide Job number

263500-00
Document title Methodology for Designing with Headed File reference
Reinforcement Anchors to Eurocode 2
Document ref
Revision Date Filename
Draft 1 21 Sept Description First draft – submitted for comment

2018
Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name A Gardner I Feltham
Signature
Issue 1 10 Dec Filename Report – i1.docx

2018 Description Formal issue

Name A Gardner I Feltham I Feltham
Signature
Issue 2 21 Dec Filename Report – i2.docx

2018 Description Figure 17 added

Name A Gardner I Feltham I Feltham
Signature
Filename
Description

Name
Signature
Issue Document Verification with Document ✓
| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\ATG\JOBS\260000\263500-00 DEXTRA HEADED BARS\OUTGOING\2018-12-21 ISSUE REPORT\REPORT - I2 20181221.DOCX
Dextra Manufacturing Design Guide
Methodology for Designing with Headed Reinforcement Anchors to Eurocode 2
Contents
Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Technical introduction 1
1.2 Assumptions and limitations 4
1.3 Round heads 5
1.4 Definitions 5
2 Design rules 6
2.1 Fundamental head capacity 6
2.2 Full head capacity 9
2.3 Partial head capacity 15
2.4 Utilising combined bond and head anchorage 19
2.5 Allowing for tolerance 20
2.6 Punching shear concrete cone failure 21
2.7 Detailing confinement reinforcement to the anchor zone 22
2.8 Orthogonal heads 23
2.9 Headed bars of non-circular geometry 25
3 Further explanatory notes, derivations and justification 26

3.1 Derivation of expression (1) 26
3.2 Comparison of results with other codes 26
3.3 Notes on expressions (4) and (5): confinement 28
3.4 Justification for using the cover region 29
3.5 Justification for combining bar bond with head anchorage 29
4 Application 30
4.1 Typical applications 30
4.2 Additional rules 32
5 References and further guidance 33
| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018

1 Introduction
Reinforcement anchor heads (also known as terminator heads or terminators) can
contribute to the tension anchorage of reinforcement bars in concrete, in some
circumstances providing the full anchorage. They provide anchorage via direct
bearing of the head onto the concrete.
This guide sets out design rules for anchor heads that have been derived in
accordance with EN1992-1-1 [1] (hereafter EC2).
This guide is split into three main sections that follow this introduction:
• Section 2 gives design rules. Subsections first present the generic design basis
and subsequently give supplementary guidance for circular heads.
• Section 3 gives background notes and further explanation. This information is
not required to implement the rules given in section 2, but should help
engineers become familiar with them and gain a better understanding of them.
• Section 4 gives practical guidance targeted at designers who have little or no
experience of using headed anchors.
1.1 Technical introduction

Anchor heads are a departure from the traditional means of reinforcement
anchorage, which relies on bond along the length of a bar. They are not covered
explicitly by the rules given in EC2.
As a load path, heads can be very effective. They are particularly advantageous in
situations when it is impractical to provide a traditional anchorage length (Figure
1 and Figure 2). By reducing the length of bars, heads can:
• act to reduce reinforcement congestion
• make bars more easily handled and fixed
• reduce the total steel weight (typically measured in kg/m3 concrete)
• bring net cost savings.
| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 1

Figure 1. Equivalent rebar anchorages provided via a traditional bar with bond (a and b)
and by an anchor head (c).
Anchor heads (for bar anchorages) share many of the advantages of couplers (for
bar splices). Figure 2 shows both being used. Figure 3, meanwhile, shows a corbel
detailed both with and without anchor heads.
Figure 2. Example reinforcement cage, utilising anchor heads and couplers to reduce
congestion.

Figure 3. Example reinforcement cage, comparing solutions detailed both with and
without anchor heads.
Various types of anchor head are commercially available, many being products
carrying certification that declares the strength of the steel head and its fixing to
the reinforcement bar. This guide does not consider these aspects of the design.
Instead, its focus is on the capacity of the concrete to resist the force assumed to
be exerted by the head.
An example product certificate is CARES TA1-B & C 5059 [2], which reports
product conformance against CARES TA1-B and TA1-C test schedules. Note
that, at the time of writing, a Harmonised European Standard (hEN) does not exist
for anchor heads. Within the EU, product CE marking is therefore not compulsory
and awarded only via voluntary application for a European Technical Approval
(ETA). Manufactures wishing to obtain an ETA can do so using European
Assessment Document (EAD) 160012-00-0301 [3] for which the reference
standard is ISO 15698 [4][5].

Figure 4. Types of anchor head.
1.2 Assumptions and limitations

It is intended that this guide is used as a non-contradictory supplement to EC2 and
it is expected that the reader has access to EC2 and the relevant National Annex
for the jurisdiction of their project.
The scope of this guide is the derivation of the concrete resistance for an anchor,
directly equivalent to how EC2 clause 8.4 provides rules for traditional bond
anchorage. These rules consider force transfer and are most commonly associated
with the ultimate limit state. In line with this, the following are assumptions of
this guide:
• The anchor head is strong and stiff enough to withstand the ultimate limit state
(ULS) or otherwise governing design force. The design of the head (its
thickness, steel grade and fixing to the reinforcement bar) is outside the scope
of this guide.
• The connection between the anchor head and the reinforcement bar is strong
enough to withstand the governing design force. The connection may be via
means including welding, threading, swaging. The design of this connection is
outside the scope of this guide.
• The performance of anchor heads under fire conditions is not considered
explicitly. For the concrete checks that are considered in this guide, a fire
condition would influence the concrete strength. In such scenarios, it is
expected that the steel strength and stiffness would also be affected.
• This guide assumes perfect compaction of the concrete behind the anchor head
without reduction factor such as those prescribed in EC2 section 10 or
expression (6.6) of EN1993-1-8 [6].
In line with this assumption, this guide is written assuming cast-in heads are
surrounded by well-compacted concrete. However, where heads are horizontal
with the bearing on their lower face, it may be necessary for the designer to
consider the detrimental impact of air trapped under the head. Post-fixed heads

or heads bearing on a concrete surface should have the quality of the bearing
surface carefully considered.
1.3 Round heads

There is no requirement for anchors to be circular and other shapes are
permissible.
However, at the time of writing, most proprietary anchor heads are circular. In
recognition of this, this guide expands upon general rules to give more
comprehensive guidance and tabulated data for circular heads.
All design rules in this guide that are expressed in terms of head area apply
equally to circular and non-circular heads. Relative to circular heads, non-circular
heads have the added complexity that the head area is defined by at least two
dimensions; the orientation of the head also becomes a factor impacting edge
distances and head spacing. This is discussed in section 2.5.
1.4 Definitions
The following definitions are used to organise the design rules in sections 2.1 to
2.3:
Fundamental head capacity – this is the design resistance of an anchor head. It
is defined by a generalised, governing expression that is a function of
geometric and material parameters, for which a number of conditional
limits apply.
Full head capacity – this is the maximum design resistance that can be withstood
by a given head for a given concrete grade, independent of installed
arrangement. It equals the limiting (upper-bound) fundamental head
capacity.
Partial head capacity – this is the maximum design resistance that can be
withstood by a given head for a given concrete grade, when influenced
by the installed arrangement. It is less than the upper-bound fundamental
head capacity.
Each of these definitions relates to the in situ resistance, i.e. the resistance at a
position within a concrete element of specific geometric form and reinforcement.

2 Design rules
The following rules have been derived in accordance with EC2.
Where provided, calculated values have been evaluated using the default
Nationally Determined Parameters as recommended in EC2 without the bias of a
National Annex.
2.1 Fundamental head capacity

The fundamental head capacity defines the design resistance of an anchor head.
It is given by:
𝑨 .𝝈
𝒙𝐑𝐝 = 𝐦𝐢𝐧{√𝑨𝐜𝟏 ⁄𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 , 𝟑. 𝟎 } ≥ 𝑨 𝐁𝐚𝐫 .𝒇𝐬𝐝 …exp (1)
𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐜𝐝
where:
𝑥𝑅𝑑 is a non-dimensional parameter representing the anchor head
resistance
𝐴Bar is the cross-section area of the anchored reinforcement bar
𝐴Head is the effective bearing area of the head (sometimes referred to as
the net bearing area), concentric to the reinforcement bar
𝐴c1 is the effective bearing area at a perpendicular offset 𝒉 from the
head, both defined in accordance with EC2 Figure 6.29. ℎ is
limited such that: ℎ ≥ 0
𝜎sd is the design stress of the bar at the anchorage, in accordance with
EC2 clause 8.4.3, and ordinarily limited to ≤ 𝑓yd
𝑓cd is the concrete design strength.
Both 𝐴Head and 𝐴c1 are defined by the respective gross effective areas less the
area of the reinforcement bar that is being anchored.
The meaning, in this context, of ‘effective’ is described further in sections 2.1.1,
2.2 and 2.3.
The derivation of expression (1) is given in section 3.1.
Note that, if 𝑥𝑅𝑑 ≤ 1.0, the concentrated bearing stress acting on the head is less
than 𝑓cd and ℎ = 0. When 𝑥𝑅𝑑 > 1.0, the concentrated bearing stress is elevated
above 𝑓cd , ℎ > 0 and the concrete and relies on confinement.

2.1.1 Conditions on use

Expression (1) is valid provided all of the following are met:
• the minimum edge axis distance for the anchored reinforcement bar 𝒂𝐛 and
the minimum centre to centre spacing of neighbouring anchored bars 𝒄𝐛
satisfy:
𝒂𝐛 ≥ 𝒂𝐛,𝐦𝐢𝐧 = 𝟎. 𝟓(𝒉 + 𝒍𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 ) …exp (2)
𝒄𝐛 ≥ 𝒄𝐛,𝐦𝐢𝐧 = (𝒉 + 𝒍𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 ) …exp (3)
where:
𝑙Head is the effective dimension of the head, measured parallel to the
dimension 𝑎b or 𝑐b being considered and used to define 𝐴Head .
Dimensions 𝑎b , 𝑐b and 𝑙Head are shown diagrammatically in Figure 6 for

widely spaced circular heads and Figure 7 and Figure 18 for scenarios when
either multiple heads interact with one another or the concrete envelope is
significant.
• adequate confinement is provided:

𝑭𝟐 − 𝝈𝟐 .𝒉.(𝒉 + 𝒍𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 )
𝑨𝐬𝐭 ≥ …exp (4)
𝒇𝐲𝐝
where:
𝐹2 is the minimum transverse confining force, defined in accordance with
EC2 clause 6.5.3 and EN1992-2 [7] clause J.104.2
𝒍
𝑭𝟐 = 𝑨𝐁𝐚𝐫 . 𝝈𝐬𝐝 . 𝐦𝐚𝐱 { 𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 (𝟏 − 𝒉 +𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 ) , 𝟎. 𝟏𝟖 } …exp (5)
𝒍 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝
𝜎2 is the stress state in the concrete due to the externally applied actions
that acts parallel to the direction of the confining reinforcement 𝐴st
and dimension 𝑙Head , compression taken positive
𝐴st is the area of transverse confinement reinforcement, placed orthogonal
to the anchored bar.
𝐴st is derived in accordance with EC2 paragraph 6.7(4) and expression (6.58).
Further notes on expressions (4) and (5) are given in section 3.3 of this guide.
𝐴st and 𝜎2 are shown diagrammatically in Figure 5.
Transverse confinement reinforcement must be placed to suitably confine the
highly stressed concrete under the head. Further guidance on detailing this
reinforcement is provided in section 2.7.

Figure 5. Definition of 𝐴st , 𝜎2 relative to 𝑙Head and 𝐴Bar (𝐴st and 𝜎2 presented in one
orientation only).-
In accordance with expressions (2), (3) and (4), each of 𝑎b , 𝑐b and/or 𝐴st can
influence ℎ and/or 𝑙Head . For the sake of reporting developed sets of design rules,
this guide considers two conditions, previously introduced in section 1.4. Here
they are redefined in terms of the parameters impacting expression (1):
Full head capacity: when 𝑥𝑅𝑑 = 3.0. This occurs when none of 𝑎b , 𝑐b or 𝐴st is
influential; ℎ is defined only by expression (1) by virtue of 𝐴c1 and 𝑙Head is
defined by the physical dimension of the head. See section 2.2.
Partial head capacity: when either 𝑎b or 𝑐b limits ℎ and/or 𝑙Head , and/or 𝐴st
limits 𝜎sd . See section 2.3.

Further conditions applicable to expression (1) are:

• Within ℎ of the headed anchor bearing, no force is assumed to be resisted by
bond along the reinforcement bar. Further guidance on solutions that share the
anchorage between bond and an anchor head is provided in section 2.4.
• 𝐴Head must be concentric with 𝐴Bar . Section 2.5 discusses the significance of
tolerances.
The requirement that 𝐴Head must be concentric with 𝐴Bar can impact the
partial capacity, as discussed in section 2.3.
• It is assumed that ℎ fits within the concrete envelope, and the surface defined
by 𝐴c1 can resist 𝑓cd as a normal stress. Where 𝑓cd cannot be resisted, a
punching shear (concrete cone) failure may govern. Section 2.6 discusses this
in further detail.
• Expression (4) must be considered in two orthogonal directions (both
orthogonal to the anchored bar). In circumstances where the transverse
reinforcement is critical, the more onerous direction that sets a lower limit on
𝐴Bar . 𝜎sd governs and defines the values to be used in expression (1).
Note that expressions (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) above, plus (13) in section 2.4
are the governing general expressions that apply in all scenarios and are
independent of head shape. All other expressions are derived from these.
2.2 Full head capacity

The full head capacity (not to be confused with the full bar capacity, 𝑓yd 𝐴Bar ) is
the maximum design resistance that can be withstood by a given head for a given
concrete grade and applies when there is adequate confinement, and sufficient
concrete cover and spacing between heads such that expressions (2), (3) and (4)
are satisfied without imposing restriction on the parameters used in expression (1).
In the full capacity condition, the effective area parameters 𝐴Head and 𝐴c1 are:
𝐴Head = 𝐴Head.gross − 𝐴Bar …exp (6)
𝐴c1 = 𝐴c1.gross − 𝐴Bar …exp (7)
𝐴Head.gross and 𝐴c1.gross must each allow for tolerance; see section 2.5.
When a shank (sheath or sleeve) forms part of the anchor head (see Figure 4 and
Figure 10), 𝐴Bar in expression (6) and (7) need only be increased to incorporate
the projected area of the shank if the shank has insufficient strength to contribute
to the bearing load path. Ordinarily, the presence of the shank can be ignored. The
subsequent sections adopt 𝑑Bar assuming this is the case.

2.2.1 Full capacity of round heads

For round anchor heads:
𝑙Head = 𝑑Head
𝐴Head = 𝜋. (𝑑Head 2 − 𝑑Bar 2 )⁄4
𝐴c1 = 𝜋. ((ℎ + 𝑑Head )2 − 𝑑Bar 2 )⁄4

where:
𝑑Head is the effective diameter of the anchor head (allowing for tolerance)
𝑑Bar is the diameter of the anchored bar.
The geometrical requirements for full capacity of a round head are shown in
Figure 6.
In this scenario, expression (1) becomes:
(ℎ+𝑑Head )2 −𝑑Bar 2 𝑑Bar 2 .𝜎sd
𝑥𝑅𝑑 = min {√ 2 2 , 3.0} ≥ …exp (8)
𝑑Head −𝑑Bar (𝑑Head 2 −𝑑Bar 2 ).𝑓cd

Zone 1: idealised region subject to a diverging stress field with resistance ≥ 𝑓cd
Zone 2: idealised region with resistance = 𝑓cd
Figure 6. Arrangement to achieve full capacity, shown with round heads.
2.2.2 Evaluating the minimum round head size to provide the

full capacity
The minimum round head size to provide the full capacity is a variable dependent
on 𝑑Bar , 𝜎sd and 𝑓cd . It can be determined by evaluating either expression (1) or
(8) with 𝑥𝑅𝑑 = 3.0. Expression (8) can be rewritten:
𝜎
𝑑Head.min = √𝑑𝐵𝑎𝑟 2 (1 + 3.0𝑓sd ) …exp (9)
cd

Also from expression (8), this is achieved when:
ℎ ≥ √9𝑑Head.min 2 − 8𝑑Bar 2 − 𝑑Head.min …exp (10)
Table 1 presents 𝑑Head.min and 𝐴Head.min and the corresponding ℎ for 𝜎sd =
435MPa, all derived by solving expressions (9), (10) and (6). The corresponding
𝑎b,min and 𝑐b,min are evaluated using expressions (2) and (3) with 𝑙Head = 𝑑Head .
Table 1. Minimum net head size expressed as both 𝐴Head.min and 𝑑Head.min and the
corresponding dimensions ℎ, 𝑎b,min and 𝑐b,min with 𝜎sd = 435 MPa.
Concrete 𝒇𝐜𝐤 𝒇𝐜𝐝 a 𝝈𝐬𝐝 𝒅𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧

𝒉⁄𝒅𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝒂𝐛,𝐦𝐢𝐧 ⁄𝒅𝐁𝐚𝐫 b 𝒄𝐛,𝐦𝐢𝐧 ⁄𝒅𝐁𝐚𝐫
grade
MPa MPa MPa 𝒅𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝑨𝐁𝐚𝐫
C30/37 30.0 20.0 2.9 7.3 5.3 4.1 8.2

C35/45 35.0 23.3 2.7 6.3 4.9 3.8 7.6
C40/50 40.0 26.7 2.6 5.5 4.6 3.6 7.2
435
C45/55 45.0 30.0 2.5 4.9 4.3 3.4 6.8
C50/60 50.0 33.3 2.4 4.4 4.1 3.3 6.5
C55/67 55.0 36.7 2.3 4.0 3.9 3.1 6.2
a
𝑓cd evaluated with 𝛼cc = 1.00. This NDP may vary to different National Annexes.
For 𝛼cc < 1, 𝑑Head.min , ℎ, 𝑎b,min and 𝑐b,min can be approximated by multiplying the tabulated values by
𝛼cc −0.5 . Exact values can be evaluated using the correct 𝑓cd in the expressions.
b
The minimum axis distance, 𝑎b,min , is listed without consideration for minimum cover to the head.
2.2.3 Evaluating the full capacity of round heads of known

sizes
The values in Table 1 give the minimum net area 𝐴Head derived from a round
head of diameter 𝑑Head necessary to achieve the full head capacity. However, it is
commonplace for proprietary anchor heads to be available in standard sizes. The
following sub-sections set out procedural rules for evaluating the full capacity of
known-size heads, valid when complying with the conditions set out in section
2.1.1 and Figure 6.
2.2.3.1 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 > 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧

Scenarios with head size larger than 𝐴Head.min can be evaluated by considering
the following sequence:
Firstly, 𝑑Head.min must be evaluated using expression (9) to be sure 𝑑Head ≥
𝑑Head.min for the given parameters 𝑑Bar , 𝜎sd and 𝑓cd .

Expression (8) can then be evaluated to obtain 𝑥𝑅𝑑 noting that, for 𝑑Head ≥
𝑑Head.min , 𝑥𝑅𝑑 ≤ 3.0 (the limiting value):
𝑑Bar 2 .𝜎sd
𝑥𝑅𝑑 = (𝑑 2 …exp (11)
Head −𝑑Bar 2 ).𝑓cd
Expression (8) can then be further evaluated to obtain ℎ:
(ℎ + 𝑑Head )2 − 𝑑Bar 2
𝑥𝑅𝑑 = √
𝑑Head 2 − 𝑑Bar 2
This can be rearranged to give:
ℎ = −𝑑Head + √𝑥𝑅𝑑 2 . 𝑑Head 2 + (1 − 𝑥𝑅𝑑 2 )𝑑Bar 2 ≥ 0 …exp (12)
The minimum corresponding edge axis distance 𝑎b,min and bar centre distance
𝑐b,min can be found using expressions (2) and (3) with 𝑙Head = 𝑑Head . Table 2
presents the results for the example scenario when 𝐴Head ⁄𝐴Bar = 8 and 𝜎sd =
435 MPa. Other combinations of head size, concrete grade and steel stress can be
considered in design.
Note that expression (12) is limited to ℎ ≥ 0. The limiting value ℎ = 0 is obtained
when 𝑥𝑅𝑑 = 1.
Table 2. Minimum edge axis distance, 𝑎b,min , bar centre distance, 𝑐b,min and anchorage
zone, ℎ evaluated for the specific condition with 𝐴Head ⁄𝐴Bar = 8 (𝑑Head ⁄𝑑Bar = 3) and
𝜎sd = 435MPa.
Concrete 𝒇𝐜𝐤 𝒇𝐜𝐝 a 𝝈𝐬𝐝 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 ⁄𝑨𝐁𝐚𝐫

grade (𝒅𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 ⁄𝒅𝐁𝐚𝐫 )
MPa MPa MPa
C30/37 30.0 20.0 4.8 3.9 7.8
C35/45 35.0 23.3 3.7 3.4 6.7
C40/50 40.0 26.7 8.0 2.9 3.0 5.9
435
C45/55 45.0 30.0 (3.0) 2.3 2.7 5.3
C50/60 50.0 33.3 1.8 2.4 4.8
C55/67 55.0 36.7 1.4 2.2 4.4
a
For 𝛼cc < 1, 𝑑Head , ℎ, 𝑎b,min and 𝑐b,min can be approximated by multiplying the values given by 𝛼cc −0.5 .
Exact values can be evaluated using the correct 𝑓cd in the expressions.
b
By comparing the results in Table 1 and Table 2, it can be seen that 𝑎b,min and
𝑐b,min decrease when the head size increases, all other input parameters being
equal. This is a consequence of the bearing stress and 𝑥𝑅𝑑 being reduced, leading
to a smaller ℎ.

2.2.3.2 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 < 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧

𝐴Head cannot be less than 𝐴Head.min and still achieve the full head capacity as
defined in section 2.1.1.
However, for a given bar size and concrete strength 𝑓cd , 𝐴Head.min and/or
𝑑Head.min can be evaluated for levels of bar stress 𝜎sd that allow smaller bar heads
to be used than those presented in Table 1.
This can be useful when using the resistance of a modest-sized headed anchor in
combination with conventional bond along a length of deformed bar.
The calculation methodologies presented in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.1 apply,
together with the condition rules in 2.1.1 and guidance on bond in 2.4. Table 3
provides example results for 𝐴Head.min and 𝑑Head.min for a chosen set of scenarios
defined by 𝜎sd and 𝑓cd .
Expression (9) can also be rearranged to make 𝜎sd the subject:
𝑑Head 2 𝐴Head
𝜎sd ≤ 3.0𝑓cd ( 2 − 1) = 3.0𝑓cd ( )
𝑑𝐵𝑎𝑟 𝐴Bar
Table 3. Minimum head size expressed as both 𝐴Head.min and 𝑑Head.min and the
corresponding dimensions ℎ, 𝑎b,min and 𝑐b,min for C40/50 concrete.
Concrete 𝒇𝐜𝐤 𝒇𝐜𝐝 a 𝝈𝐬𝐝 𝒅𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧

grade
MPa MPa MPa 𝒅𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝑨𝐁𝐚𝐫
150 1.7 1.9 2.6 2.2 4.3

200 1.9 2.5 3.0 2.5 4.9
250 2.1 3.2 3.4 2.8 5.5
C40/50 40.0 26.7
300 2.2 3.8 3.8 3.0 6.0
350 2.4 4.4 4.1 3.3 6.5
400 2.5 5.0 4.4 3.5 6.9
a
For 𝛼cc < 1, 𝑑Head.min , ℎmin , 𝑎b,min and 𝑐b,min can be approximated by multiplying the values given by
𝛼cc −0.5 . Exact values can be evaluated using the correct 𝑓cd in the expressions.
b

2.3 Partial head capacity

The partial capacity condition results when one or more of 𝑎b , 𝑐b or 𝐴st , as
defined by expressions (2), (3) and (4) limits the resistance by influencing the
parameters used in (1).
In all cases, each of expressions (2) to (4) must be satisfied. Collectively they are
a series of co-dependent relationships with infinite valid solutions arising from
them being inequalities; deriving the upper-bound design capacity for any set of
conditions relies on an iterative numerical process.
2.3.1 Scenarios when 𝑨𝐬𝐭 governs

If the area of confining steel, 𝐴st does not satisfy expression (4), the force on the
anchor 𝐴Bar . 𝜎sd must be limited below that for the full head capacity.
Solving for 𝜎sd , by working backwards from expression (4) with 𝐴st known, is an
iterative process with ℎ also an unknown, and there are multiple valid solutions.
An optimum solution can be converged on using numerical computational
methods; however, it is often most direct to work forward from expression (1) (or
(8) for round heads) and check the result for validity against expressions (4), (2)
and (3).
As noted in section 2.1.1, 𝐴st must be evaluated in two orthogonal directions and
the smaller limit on 𝜎sd is the value that defines the head capacity.
2.3.2 Scenarios when 𝒂𝐛 and/or 𝒄𝐛 govern

If 𝑎b and/or 𝑐b are less than 𝑎b,min and/or 𝑐b,min as defined by expressions (2) and
(3), parameters ℎ and/or 𝑙Head must be modified to ensure each of expression (1)
to (4) are satisfied.
Expressions (1) to (3) are inequalities and there are infinite solutions for different
combinations of ℎ and 𝑙Head . Figure 7 shows how different valid solutions can be
visualised for a situation with round heads. The solution on the left has smaller
(clipped) dimension 𝑙Head leading to smaller effective bearing area 𝐴Head , but has
larger dimension ℎ giving a larger ratio 𝐴Head ⁄𝐴c1.
It is important to note that, for the solution on the left, 𝑙Head is reduced
symmetrically about the centre of the anchored bar to ensure the effective bearing
area remains concentric.

Figure 7. Determining the capacity when 𝑎b and/or 𝑐b has influence.
The scenario presented on the right of Figure 7 has a circular effective head and
can be solved using expressions (8), (2) and (3). The scenario on the left, with the
clipped 𝑙Head can be solved using expressions (1), (2) and (3), with 𝐴Head and 𝐴c1
defined by expressions (13) and (14) below.
𝑑Head 2 𝑙 𝑙
𝐴Head = 4
[𝜋 − 2 cos−1 (𝑑Head ) + sin (2 cos−1 (𝑑Head ))] − 𝐴Bar …exp (13)
Head Head
(ℎ+𝑑Head )2 ℎ+𝑙 ℎ+𝑙

𝐴c1 = 4
[𝜋 − 2 cos−1 (ℎ+𝑑Head ) + sin (2 cos −1 (ℎ+𝑑Head ))] − 𝐴Bar
Head Head
…exp (14)
Solutions are presented in Figure 8 for two common concrete grades, normalised
by the bar diameter 𝑑Bar . Note that, those parts of the capacity curves that trace
the common initial upward trajectory are the full head capacities as defined in
section 2.2 and are consistent with Table 1 to Table 3. Furthermore, those parts of
the capacity curves that follow the upper plateau are limited by the steel bar
strength, taken as fyd = 435MPa.
The curves have been plotted upholding the physical limit: 𝑑Head ≤
min(𝑎b , 0.5𝑐b ).

Evaluated with 𝑓cd = 21MPa (𝑓ck = 32 and 𝛼cc = 1.00):
Evaluated with 𝑓cd = 26.7MPa (𝑓ck = 40 and 𝛼cc = 1.00):
min(𝑎b , 0.5𝑐b )
⁄𝑑 =
Bar
Figure 8. Optimal capacities (bold) and the corresponding dimension h (faint) for
circular heads when 𝑎b and/or 𝑐b has influence for C32/40 and C40/50 concretes.

Solutions for other shaped heads can also be found by solving expressions (1), (2)
and (3) with suitably defined parameters 𝐴Head and 𝐴c1 .
For groups of anchors governed by spacing 𝑐b , it can be beneficial to consider an
equivalent combined effective head that encompasses multiple adjacent heads.
In this scenario,
𝐴Head = ∑𝑛𝑖=0(𝐴Head,1 − 𝐴Bar,1 ) + (𝐴Head,2 − 𝐴Bar,2 ) + ⋯ + (𝐴Head,i − 𝐴Bar,i )
while 𝐴c1 must satisfy the geometrical requirements set out in EC2 clause 6.7.
Figure 9. Grouped anchors.

This combined head approach can apply for closely spaced and overlapping
(staggered) heads. Where using overlapping heads, 𝐴Head must not exceed the
projected area of the heads, making sure not to double-count overlapping areas.
Dimension ℎ should be defined from the leading head. See Figure 18 in section
4.2.

2.4 Utilising combined bond and head anchorage

The following comments assume ‘normal’ deformed (ribbed) bars. The
sharing of force between anchor heads and bond along either plain (non-
ribbed) or threaded bar is outside the scope of this guide.
It is possible to share the total bar force between bond stress and bearing at the
head:
𝐹Bar = 𝐹Head + 𝐹Bond = 𝐴Bar (𝜎sd_Head + 𝜎sd_Bond ) ≤ 𝐴Bar . 𝑓yd …exp (15)
𝜎sd_Bond can be substituted in for 𝜎sd in EC2 expression (8.3), and all the
requirements of EC2 clauses 8.4.2 to 8.4.4 followed in order to determine the
associated bond length. Both 𝛼1 and 𝛼2 should be evaluated assuming a straight
bar.
Where such a bond anchorage contribution is being adopted,
• 𝑙bd ≥ 𝑙bd,min .
• 𝑙bd must not extend within ℎ of the bearing surface of the anchor head. This
requirement is to avoid the concrete strength being double-counted in the
vicinity of the anchor head.
• 𝑙bd must only be measured along a length of bar that is directly in contact with
the concrete, excluding any shank or sheath that forms part of the anchor head.
These three requirements are shown in Figure 10.
Position ‘A’ = point beyond which (moving away from the head) 𝐹Bar = 𝐹Head + 𝐹Bond .
Figure 10. Combined bond and head anchorage.
𝑙bd , 𝑙bd,min , 𝛼1 and 𝛼2 are as defined in EC2. ℎ is as defined in section 2.1 of this
guide.
𝜎sd_Head can be interchanged with 𝜎sd in all other expressions within this guide.

2.5 Allowing for tolerance

The performance of headed bars is dependent on fabrication and assembly
tolerances. The following are general points for consideration by designers and
specifiers as required.
Partial safety factors are intended to accommodate normal deviations in
reinforcement bar placement, but may not be sufficient when dealing with headed
bars. Tighter specification, including rejection criteria and/or explicit design
allowance for tolerances, may be needed.
Fabrication tolerances
The following fabrication tolerances are generally negligible for proprietary
anchor heads. They may be more significant with bespoke details and/or non-
standard fabrication processes.
• Head concentricity
Where fabrication tolerance may introduce a significant asymmetry about the
reinforcement bar centre, the effective area of the head 𝐴Head should be
reduced to be that area that is concentric with the bar. This is to ensure the
head can generate a pure tension in the reinforcement bar under the head’s
design capacity. The influence of a fabrication tolerance is shown exaggerated
in Figure 11.
Note that other figures in this guide do not show the yellow-shaded area that
represents the non-concentric extents of the physical head.
As defined in previous sections of this guide, 𝑙Head and 𝑑Head are dimensions
that correspond to the effective area 𝐴Head .
Figure 11. Effect on 𝐴Head of fabrication tolerance on head concentricity.

• Head angle relative to the plane that is normal to the axis of the anchored
bar
Heads should be perpendicular to the bar to which they are fixed. A deviation
from perpendicular will cause a component of force transverse to the anchored
reinforcement bar.
It is unusual for heads to be systematically skewed and, hence, it is usually
better to put rejection criteria in the project specification than to penalise an
entire design in order to be overly accommodating of such a rare condition.
• Head orientation, measured about the axis of the anchored bar, relative
to the plane of any bends in the bar
Where fixing non-circular heads to bent bars, the orientation of the head
relative to the plane of the bar bends can be influential, potentially having an
impact on cover or the required area of transverse reinforcement (both affected
by the 𝑙Head dimension).
Note that it is not always possible to control the orientation of heads relative to
the bar (e.g. when fixing with friction welds or threaded connections). It is
also not always possible to bend a bar once a head is fixed.
Note that this type of tolerance need not be considered when there is rotational
symmetry of either the head (i.e. a circular head) or the bar (i.e. a straight bar).
Site tolerances
The following are parameters that can be affected by the quality of the
reinforcement bar fixing, formwork construction and care taken during the
concreting operation.
• Axis distance 𝒂𝐛 and spacing of headed bars 𝒄𝐛
• The orientation of head dimension 𝒍𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 (non-circular heads only)
The predictable tolerances can be influenced by the detailing, e.g. the choice of
straight bars, closed links, u-bars and/or L-bars. Relevant UK guidance is given in
BS8666 [8] and NSCS [9].
2.6 Punching shear concrete cone failure

The expressions in this guide assume that the force exerted by the head onto the
concrete is suitably resisted by the concrete such that concrete crushing occurs in
advance of a punching shear cone failure.
Where this is not the case, the rules in this guide remain valid but the capacity of
the anchorage will be limited by the concrete cone failure propagating from the
anchor head. The resistance for this failure mode can be evaluated using EC2
clause 6.4.
A cone failure is only possible when the surface defined by area 𝐴c1 , as used in
expression (1), cannot resist 𝑓cd . A common scenario when this can occur is when
an anchor head is used at a junction (e.g. between a wall and a slab – Figure 12)

and applies force through the thickness of the element that it is cast within,
towards a free surface.
Figure 12. Scenario prone to punching shear failure, when 𝑓cd cannot be resisted across
𝐴c1 .
In accordance with EC2 clause 6.4.5, punching shear reinforcement can be

provided in the vicinity of an anchor head to enhance the punching shear
resistance VRd,cs, up to the limiting value VRd,max given by paragraph 6.4.5(3).
When the minimum of VRd,cs and VRd,max exceeds the capacity of the anchor head
(or group of anchor heads), punching shear no longer governs.
Note that, to enhance VRd,max, the anchor head must be embedded further into the
concrete (if possible) or made larger, or the concrete strength must be increased.
2.7 Detailing confinement reinforcement to the

anchor zone
𝐴st can be provided by hoops, closed links or by orthogonal straight bars.
Expression (4) assumes the reinforcement contributing to 𝐴st is in the plane
normal to the anchored reinforcement bar; the areas of reinforcement must
increase when provided in other orientations and can be calculated using
expressions given in section 3.1.3.4 of Concrete Centre guide CCIP-057 [10].
Where multiple heads are adjacent to one another, such that the diverging stress
fields associated with the adjacent heads interface with one another, the
confinement reinforcement only needs to resist the unbalanced forces. Thus, an
n×m array of similar heads only needs transverse confinement reinforcement for
forces resulting from m×n anchors. Figure 13 presents this with n = 3 and m = 1.

𝐴st should be distributed over the diverging stress region between 0.4ℎ and ℎ
from the anchor head, measured in the axis of the anchored bar. Bars need not
pass through the highly stressed region but must be suitably placed to confine it.
Figure 13. Transverse confinement reinforcement for an array of 3×1 anchors.
2.8 Orthogonal heads

Orthogonal anchor heads (similar to those shown in Figure 14) may be required at
corner junctions and other intersection points. Their resistance is largely unproven
by practical testing; however, a theoretical model can be derived that is compliant
with EC2. This model assumes the rules presented earlier in this guide, with
modification to recognise of the close proximity of heads and interaction
(confinement) that is likely. It is assumed the heads are relatively symmetrical
about a line at 45 degrees through the joint.
The main features of the model are presented in Figure 14. The following rules
apply:
• On the surface 𝐴c1 for the reinforcement in each axis (defined at ℎ from the
head), the concrete stress limit can be enhanced based on confinement. EC2
expressions (3.24) and (3.25) can be used to determine the stress limit 𝑓ck,c
defining 𝜎2 as:
𝐴Bar.y . 𝜎sd.y 𝐴Bar.x . 𝜎sd.x 𝐹2
𝜎2 = min { , , }
𝐴c1.y 𝐴c1.x 𝑥. 𝑦
• The diverging stress field within h of the respective head has an angle of
divergence defined by a 1:2 slope (in accordance with EC2 Figure 6.29).
Dimensions x and y define the confined region (hatched in Figure 14) for
which 𝑓ck,c applies. This is centred on the anchor head and are defined by:

𝑥 = (𝑙Head.x + ℎx ) and 𝑦 = (𝑙Head.y + ℎy )

where 𝑙Head.x and 𝑙Head.y are the effective head dimensions, potentially less
than the physical dimensions.
Expressions (1) to (4) in this guide each apply and must be upheld. Expression (1)
sets an upper limit on the concrete strength at the head equal to 3𝑓cd . This will
impose an upper limit on 𝜎2 , above which no benefit can be taken.
Each of the parameters 𝐴Bar.x , 𝐴c1.x , 𝜎sd.x , 𝑙Head.x , ℎ𝑥 , 𝑥, 𝐴Bar.y , 𝐴c1.y , 𝜎sd.y ,
𝑙Head.y , ℎ𝑦 and 𝑦 are defined in Figure 14. (Those parameters with subscript ‘x’
correspond to the reinforcement in the x-axis, and those with subscript ‘y’
correspond to the reinforcement in the y-axis as drawn.)
𝐹2 is the force generating a transverse (out-of-plane) stress on the region shown
hatched in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Definition of parameters for orthogonal heads.

2.9 Headed bars of non-circular geometry

At the time of writing, most proprietary anchor heads are circular. However, there
is no requirement for anchors to be circular and other shapes are permissible.
Expression (1) to (4), (6), (7) and (14) in this guide are given in general terms and
apply irrespective of anchor head geometry, provided the effective head area is
centred on the bar (see Figure 11 in section 2.5).
From the general expressions, equivalents of expressions (5) and (8) to (13) can
be derived for any head shape with the following notes:
• The derivation of h and 𝐴c1 must conform with EC2 clause 6.7 and Figure
6.29.
• 𝐴Head and 𝐴c1 must be evaluated as gross areas less 𝐴Bar that intersects them.
It may be necessary to consider and/or specify the orientation of non-circular
heads in order that their extremities do not protrude into the cover zone. However,
designers must also be realistic and mindful of the fabrication and fixing
tolerances that can result in heads being miss orientated. This is discussed further
in section 2.5.

3 Further explanatory notes, derivations and

justification
3.1 Derivation of expression (1)

The fundamental head capacity is a derivative of EC2 [1]clause 6.7 and
expression (6.63):
𝐹Rd = 𝐴Head . 𝑓cd . √𝐴c1 ⁄𝐴Head ≤ 3.0 𝐴Head . 𝑓cd …exp (16)
This resistance can be rewritten as a bearing stress:

𝐹Rd
𝜎Rd = 𝐴 = min{√𝐴c1 ⁄𝐴Head . 𝑓cd , 3.0 . 𝑓cd } …exp (17)
Head
The action, meanwhile, is defined by the force in the reinforcement bar in the
vicinity of the anchor head:
𝐹Ed = 𝐴Bar . 𝜎sd
𝐴Bar .𝜎sd
𝜎Ed = …exp (18)
𝐴Head
Thus, expression (1) is derived from the inequality 𝜎Rd ≥ 𝜎Ed .
3.2 Comparison of results with other codes

It has already been noted that EC2 does not give explicit rules for headed anchors.
Some other international codes do and this section provides comparison on the
rules available.
The formulaic rules given in the codes that have been referenced are for simplified
conditions only and do not match the breadth of conditions covered by the rules in
this guide.
3.2.1 MC2010
The fib Model Code 2010 [11] gives simple rules on headed reinforcement in
clause 6.1.3.6, including a series of parametric limits necessary to anchor the full
yield capacity of a reinforcement bar. These are:
• 𝑑Head ⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 3
• minimum cover to the head ≥ 2 𝑑Bar giving 𝑎b ⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 3.5
• minimum spacing between bar centres, 𝑐b ⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 6
• 𝑓cd ≥ 𝜎sd ⁄24.

Putting the last criterion into expression (9) gives 𝑑Head ⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 3, in agreement
with the first criterion.
Working with this result through expression (10), (2) and (3) gives 𝑎b ⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 4.2
and 𝑐b ⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 8.5. These results suggest EC2 is slightly conservative when
compared to MC2010 but gives confidence that the rules presented in this guide
are safe and protect against side face blowout [12].
3.2.2 AS3600
The Australian Standard AS3600 [13] references headed reinforcement and gives
deemed to comply rules in clause 13.1.4 that allow a head to contribute 60% of a
full anchorage, when combined with a reduced length bond anchorage. Key
criteria are,
• 𝐴Head ⁄𝐴Bar ≥ 4
• minimum cover to the bar ≥ 2 𝑑Bar giving 𝑎b,min⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 2.5
• minimum spacing between bar centres, 𝑐b,min⁄𝑑Bar ≥ 4.
Note that there is no restriction on concrete grade associated with these rules.
Assuming round heads and a reinforcement design strength of 435MPa (to be
consistent with the EC2) giving 𝜎sd_Head = 0.6 × 435 = 261MPa, 𝐴Head ⁄𝐴Bar =
4 satisfies expression (9) provided 𝑓cd ≥ 21.7MPa. For this grade, expressions
(10), (2) and (3) give 𝑎b,min⁄𝑑Bar = 3.0 and 𝑐b,min ⁄𝑑Bar = 6.0, exceeding the
criteria in AS3600. However, beyond 𝑓cd = 32MPa the edge criteria in this guide
give favourable results with 𝑎b,min ⁄𝑑Bar less than 2.5.
3.2.3 ISO 15698

ISO 15698 was introduced in section 1.1 of this guide as the reference standard to
EAD 160012-00-0301. The two parts of the standard set out the head
requirements and test methods respectively; they do not contain design rules.
A number of qualification categories are defined in Part 1 that cater for different
conditions. (Conformance is demonstrated via tests in accordance with Part 2.)
Some of these categories prescribe more onerous criteria than those presented in
this guide; for example, Category B2 requires the head to be able to anchor the
design force in the reinforcement without any force taken in bond. Using the
notation in this guide, this is equivalent to solving expression (1) with 𝜎sd = 𝑓yd .
Unless heads are being used in a manner that is perfectly in conformance with the
test conditions, ISO 15698 does not remove the need to complete design checks
akin those in this guide.

3.3 Notes on expressions (4) and (5): confinement

In the absence of a globally applied stress (𝜎2 = 0), expression (4) simplifies to:
𝐹
𝐴st ≥ 𝑓 2
yd
𝐴st reduces when 𝜎2 is a positive compressive stress, and it increases when 𝜎2 is a

negative tensile stress. Engineers should be mindful of the coincident actions
acting on a structure that cause 𝜎2 to vary.
Separately, engineers will observe that the 0.18 limit in expression (5) will often
govern their designs. The 0.18 limit is taken from the informative Annex J of
EN1992-2, where it is presented in expression (J.102) as a constant 0.15
multiplied by a local partial material factor 𝛾𝑝,𝑢𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑣 ≥ 1.2.
EC2 does not include an equivalent limit associated with clause 6.7. However,
expressions (6.55) and (6.56) indicate that a strut with stress greater than 0.6𝜈𝑓cd
requires confinement. From expression (6.58), the minimum confinement force
needed for a locally loaded strut with peak concrete stress of 𝑓cd (i.e. when ℎ = 0)
gives rise to 𝐹2 ≈ 0.1𝐴Bar 𝜎sd (i.e. 0.18 replaced by 0.1). The 0.1 factor varies,
however, depending on concrete grade and nationally determined parameters for 𝜈
and 𝛼cc .
0.1 appears similar to the 0.11 limit given in CIRIA Guide 1 [14] and both are less
than the 0.18 limit in EN1992-2. However, the CIRIA limit is stated as being
valid for confinement reinforcement strained up to a limit of 0.001, equivalent to a
stress of approximately 200MPa. (A more recent guide quotes the CIRIA limit but
with bars stressed up to 250MPa [15]). Scaling this to allow for 𝑓yd = 435MPa
(as is accepted in EN1992-2 Annex J), the limiting CIRIA factor would become
0.24.
These comparisons highlight a lack of consistency on the topic across published
codes and guidance. Expression (5) adopts 0.18 in order that this guide is non-
contradictory with the Eurocodes. A lesser value may, however, be obtainable
through detailed finite element, or equivalent, analysis.
By comparison, a conventional reinforcement tension lap should have transverse
confinement reinforcement in accordance with EC2 clause 8.7.4.1. This equates to
𝐹2 = 1.0𝐴Bar 𝜎sd for 𝑑Bar ≥ 20mm. The anchorage length as defined in clause
8.4.4 is also dependent on transverse confinement reinforcement.

3.4 Justification for using the cover region

It has been presented in section 2.1.1 that the minimum edge axis distance for the
anchored reinforcement bar, 𝑎b,min is a function of dimension ℎ. This infers that
the concrete cover can contribute to the diverging stress zone (‘Zone 1’ in Figure
6). This is somewhat unsolicited and goes against first principles. However, it is
consistent with existing rules that have been proven reliable in practice:
• EC2 clause 6.5.3 and Figure 6.25(a) show that a partial discontinuity region
can have a stress field extending to the section edge, outside of the confining
reinforcement, and this assumption underpins the derivation of expression
(6.58).
• EN1992-2 clause J.104.2 states how the prisms, “should remain inside the
concrete”. This is consistent with EC2 Figure 6.29 and also with the definition
of the primary prism given in CIRIA Guide 1.
• MC2010 clause 6.1.3.6 gives a condition relating to cover that is only valid if
the cover is contributing to the resistance.
While acknowledging the above, the reinforcement bar fixed to anchor heads must
be contained within the reinforcement necessary to satisfy 𝐴st (see section 2.7).
The cover to the heads must also satisfy durability and fire requirements.
3.5 Justification for combining bar bond with head

anchorage
Section 2.4 advocates that anchorage can be shared between bar bond and head
anchorage without any restriction on the ratio.
Justification of this is given in MC2010 clauses 6.1.3.4 and 6.1.3.6. The latter is
explicit in allowing headed anchors to be designed for circumstances in which the
reinforcement is anchored by a combination of anchorage by the head and bond
along the length of the bar. Expression (6.1-24) in clause 6.1.3.4 defines how the
design bond stress is the total bar stress less the bar stress developed by other
measures, including an anchor head at the end of the bar.

4 Application
This section is targeted at designer’s who may have little or no experience of
using headed anchors.
4.1 Typical applications

Headed anchors are most effective in discontinuity regions when the forces within
a reinforced concrete element can be described using either a discrete or smeared
strut-and-tie model. This is because these regions exhibit uniform (constant peak)
forces in reinforcement up to the point of anchorage. Traditionally, they can also
be areas with high congestion and interlinking bent bars.
Common applications of headed anchors include:
• shear studs and cross ties through the thickness of slabs and walls
• main bars in corbels and nibs
• junctions between elements (e.g. slab to wall junctions)
• anchorages required to meet robustness requirements.
Figure 15. Headed punching shear reinforcement.
Main flexural reinforcement can be anchored using anchor heads. Anchor heads
cannot replicate the curtailment that is achievable via traditional bond anchorages
(see EC2 Figure 9.2), and therefore will unlikely facilitate the most material-
efficient solution. However, where minimum reinforcement or other theoretical or
practical characteristics govern, anchor heads on main flexural bars can lead to a
favourable solution.

Figure 16. Anchor heads replacing traditionally anchored main flexural steel in a simply
supported beam.
Figure 17. Anchor heads replacing traditionally anchored reinforcement at column-beam

junctions. Note that transverse reinforcement, required to constrain the outer beam
reinforcement within the joint region, is omitted for clarity.
Scenarios when anchor heads are less applicable include:

• Laps. Headed anchors provide an anchorage, not a lap.
With careful detailing headed anchors can be used to achieve the equivalent of
a lap [16] [17] and this can be beneficial in certain instances, but this is not
their primary application. Conventional laps or mechanical splices (also
known as couplers) are more effective at providing laps in normal situations.
• Anchorage of compression reinforcement. Anchor heads are not appropriate
for anchoring compression reinforcement if it will result in the concrete
beyond the anchorage being overstressed.
One scenario when anchor heads on compression reinforcement can be
advantageous is in flared columns, where the height of the flare might be
insufficient to provide an anchorage via traditional bond, but the increased
cross-sectional area arising from the flare negates the risk of the concrete
being overstressed.

4.2 Additional rules

• The minimum clear spacing between heads should be sufficient to allow the
concrete to be placed. This will be a function of the workability of the
concrete. The larger of 12mm or the head thickness is recommended.
• Where heads are staggered, the clear distance between the bearing surface of
one head and the reverse face of the staggered head must be sufficient to
achieve a dense concrete matrix. The larger of the head thickness, 20mm or
the aggregate size plus 5mm (in accordance with EC2 clause 8.2(2)) is
recommended.
• The minimum clear spacing between parallel bars away from heads should be
taken from EC2 clause 8.2(1).
• Cover should be provided in accordance with EC2 clause 4.4.1.
Note that anchor heads are often used on bars contained within transverse
reinforcement. Bar layers should be considered when calculating covers and
the axis distance ab
• The use of headed reinforcement does not alter rules given in EC2 section 9
regarding minimum and maximum areas or spacings.
• The rules given in this guide may be overruled by certified product-specific
and/or application-specific testing. Where available, certified product
literature should always be consulted.
Dimension ‘A’ ≥ max (head thickness t, 12mm)

Dimension ‘B’ ≥ max (head thickness t, 20mm, aggregate size + 5mm)
For ab, cb, refer to expression (2) and (3).
With staggered heads, dimension h is measured from the leading head.
Figure 18. Minimum spacings.

5 References and further guidance

[1] BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004.
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1. General rules and
rules for buildings. BSI, 2014.
[2] CARES, CARES Technical Approval Report TA1-B & C 5059, Assessment
of the Dextra Anchors Product and Quality System for Production,
Issue 2, 2017.
[3] EOTA, EAD 160012-00-0301, Headed Reinforcement Steel Bar, EOTA,
November 2017.
[4] INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION,
ISO15698-1:2012, Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Headed
bars – Part 1: requirements, ISO, 2012.
[5] INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION ,
ISO15698-2:2012, Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Headed
bars – Part 2: test methods, ISO, 2012.
[6] BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1993-1-8: 2005.
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-8. Design of joints.
BSI, 2010.
[7] BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1992-2: 2004.
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 2. Concrete bridges –
Design and detailing rules. BSI, 2005.
[8] BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8666: 2005. Scheduling,
dimensioning, bending and cutting of steel reinforcement for
concrete - Specification. BSI, 2005.
[9] CONCRETE CENTRE, National Structural Concrete Specification for
Building Construction. CCIP-050. Fourth Edition, The Concrete
Centre, 2010.
[10] GOODCHILD, CH, MORRISON, J and VOLLUM, RL. Strut-and-tie
Models. CCIP-057. MPA The Concrete Centre, 2014.
[11] INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE.
fib Model Code 2010. Ernst and Sohn, 2012.
[12] BROOKER, O. ‘Use of headed bars as anchorage to reinforcement’. The
Structural Engineer, September 2013 p49-57, IStructE, 2013.
[13] STANDARDS AUSTRALIA, AS 3600—2009. Australian Standard
Concrete Structures. SAI, 2013.
[14] CIRIA. CIRIA Guide 1. A guide to the design of anchor blocks for post-
tensioned prestressed concrete members. CIRIA, 1976.

[15] HENDY, CR and SMITH, DA. Designers’ Guide to EN 1992-2 Eurocode

2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 2 Concrete Bridges. Thomas
Telford, 2007.
[16] VELLA, JP and VOLLUM, RL. Development of novel connection methods
between precast concrete panels, fib Symposium 2016, 2016.
[17] VELLA, JP, VOLLUM, RL and JACKSON, A. ‘Investigation of headed
bar joints between precast concrete panels’, Engineering Structures
138 (2017) 351-366, Elsevier, 2017.


(Dextra) Headed Bars - ARUP Design Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Dextra) Headed Bars - ARUP Design Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Dextra) Headed Bars - ARUP Design Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dextra Manufacturing

Issue 2 | 21 December 2018

This report takes into account the particular

Job number 263500-00

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

Job title Design Guide Job number

Draft 1 21 Sept Description First draft – submitted for comment

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Issue 1 10 Dec Filename Report – i1.docx

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Issue 2 21 Dec Filename Report – i2.docx

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Issue Document Verification with Document ✓

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018

3 Further explanatory notes, derivations and justification 26

5 References and further guidance 33

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018

1.1 Technical introduction

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 1

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 2

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 3

Figure 4. Types of anchor head.

1.2 Assumptions and limitations

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 4

1.3 Round heads

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 5

2.1 Fundamental head capacity

𝑓cd is the concrete design strength.

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 6

2.1.1 Conditions on use

Dimensions 𝑎b , 𝑐b and 𝑙Head are shown diagrammatically in Figure 6 for

• adequate confinement is provided:

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 7

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 8

Further conditions applicable to expression (1) are:

2.2 Full head capacity

𝐴c1 = 𝐴c1.gross − 𝐴Bar …exp (7)

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 9

2.2.1 Full capacity of round heads

𝐴Head = 𝜋. (𝑑Head 2 − 𝑑Bar 2 )⁄4

𝐴c1 = 𝜋. ((ℎ + 𝑑Head )2 − 𝑑Bar 2 )⁄4

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 10

Figure 6. Arrangement to achieve full capacity, shown with round heads.

2.2.2 Evaluating the minimum round head size to provide the

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 11

Also from expression (8), this is achieved when:

ℎ ≥ √9𝑑Head.min 2 − 8𝑑Bar 2 − 𝑑Head.min …exp (10)

Concrete 𝒇𝐜𝐤 𝒇𝐜𝐝 a 𝝈𝐬𝐝 𝒅𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧

C30/37 30.0 20.0 2.9 7.3 5.3 4.1 8.2

2.2.3 Evaluating the full capacity of round heads of known

2.2.3.1 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 > 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝.𝐦𝐢𝐧

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 12

Expression (8) can then be further evaluated to obtain ℎ:

This can be rearranged to give:

ℎ = −𝑑Head + √𝑥𝑅𝑑 2 . 𝑑Head 2 + (1 − 𝑥𝑅𝑑 2 )𝑑Bar 2 ≥ 0 …exp (12)

Concrete 𝒇𝐜𝐤 𝒇𝐜𝐝 a 𝝈𝐬𝐝 𝑨𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐝 ⁄𝑨𝐁𝐚𝐫

| Issue 2 | 21 December 2018 Page 13