Technical

Roundtable

Engineering and Contracting

Perspectives on the Use of Welded Wire
Reinforcement in Tilt-Up Concrete Wall Panels

The economy and versatility of welded wire reinforcement

(WWR) is a natural fit for concrete building construction,
a market in which concrete contractors are always
seeking to streamline the allocation of worker resources
and duration of the placing and concreting operations.
WWR is a structural reinforcement that exists to improve and expedite
the buildability of a concrete structure, and perhaps nowhere is this more
evident than in tilt-up wall panel buildings.

Excellence Set The Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) sat down with professionals from
in Concrete® both sides of the table to get perspectives and insights on WWR as the
For more information on WWR
visit our website. preferred reinforcement solution for tilt-up wall panel projects.
WireReinforcementInstitute.org

• Tech Facts
The Contributing Innovators
• Case Studies
• Producer Plants
• Online Learning
• Videos

July 2023

Page 1
 Philip Kopf, PE, FTCA Travis Tracy

Phil is a practicing structural engineer and the founder Travis is a partner in Reinforcing Concepts, LLC, a
and owner of Kopf Consulting Group, Inc., a firm distributor of custom WWR that specializes in rebar-
specializing in design-build construction. In this to-WWR conversions, WWR design, and shop
capacity, he works closely with owners, architects, drawing services, and he is also the owner of WWR
and contractors through each phase of design and Placement, LLC, a reinforcement installation
construction to achieve overall building economy and company.
constructability.
Travis received his Bachelor of Science degree in
Phil’s vast experience in structural design of industrial Civil / Structural Engineering from the Rochester
and commercial buildings is evidenced by his broad Institute of Technology and has since been in the
portfolio of projects throughout the United States and reinforcement placement business for over twenty-
the Caribbean. With over two decades of experience five years. In addition to his continued success in
serving a wide range of clients, Kopf has special expanding the business through strengthened
expertise in design/build fast-track design and customer relationships, he continues to be heavily
construction techniques. involved in both the installation and material
Kopf has distinguished himself and been recognized as conversion aspects of the work.
an industry expert in tilt-up panel design and Reinforcing Concepts prides itself on turnkey WWR
construction, winning numerous accolades through project solutions, with proficiency in the following
the Tilt-Up Concrete Association (TCA), including the areas:
David L. Kelly Distinguished Engineer Award as well as
• Reinforcement Detailing: Reinforcing Concepts
assorted project-specific recognition in the form
is heavily staffed to prepare submittal drawings
achievement awards. consisting of WWR and rebar details, layouts,
Through his experience, he has gained an exceptional and placement requirements that are used for
understanding of the demands that mechanical, engineer and contractor review and
conveying systems, and other industrial equipment subsequent on-site installation.
can have on a project. With the totality of all project • Reinforcement Conversion: In those instances
costs taken into consideration, Kopf has the unique for which a project’s original structural design
utilizes reinforcing bar (rebar) configurations
ability to blend the different structural components
exclusively, Reinforcing Concepts can collabo-
into an efficient and economized building envelope.
rate with a project’s Engineer-of-Record to
carry out value-added “conversion services”
that derive equivalent, code-compliant WWR
solutions.
• Reinforcement Installation: Reinforcing
Concepts deploys placement crews and
equipment to carry out the turnkey installation
of project reinforcement packages, working
closely with the prime contractor to ensure a
seamless and expedited on-site effort that
maximizes savings related to time and labor
expenditure.

Page 2
 Phil and Travis were kind enough to take the time to provide detailed feedback on a broad range of
WRI questions intended to demystify WWR usage for the engineering and contracting audiences.
The details of this discussion are summarized below.

During the construction document (CD) phase of this project, were you faced with
any design or detailing challenges that were specific to the WWR material usage itself?

Phil Kopf:
From an engineering perspective, the most important aspect of incorporating WWR into a
design project is to think of it as the primary solution. Specifically, as it relates to tilt-up
construction, the stiffness of the wall panel is directly related to the reinforcing steel area. It
follows, then, that WWR with a comparatively higher yield strength can have a lower cross-sectional area of
steel demand. Therefore, if a lower cross-sectional area of steel is utilized in comparison to that which is
originally specified, the result is higher secondary deflections and possibly higher secondary P-delta
moments. With this in mind, the contractor can always convert an 80 ksi WWR design project down to a 60
ksi conventional loose rebar reinforced solution without a need for the Engineer of Record to re-design the
wall panels. In contrast, converting a 60 ksi conventional loose bar solution to an 80 ksi WWR solution
requires an additional design to be carried out, as the corresponding reduction in cross-sectional steel area
does change the panel deflection and secondary moment magnitudes.

Beyond the structural design itself, working with the Architect early in the process can prove valuable in
creating an efficient WWR solution. It is crucial to place openings and panel joints in patterns that produce
as much repetition as possible. Cost efficiencies occur when you minimize the number of different WWR
reinforcement sheets.

It is also important in this architectural coordination to be aware of material-specific attributes when

utilizing WWR solutions for tilt-up construction. For example, the largest size of wire that can be produced is
a D31 (0.310 in2, essentially equivalent to a #5 rebar). Additionally, there is a practical minimum spacing of
2” center to center for the wires. This, in turn, can limit the maximum amount of reinforcement that can be
placed in a wall panel jamb. If you are approaching the spatial limits of the WWR solution, you should, in
turn, investigate the use of a higher-strength concrete, thickening the wall panel, or increasing the panel
jamb dimension.

Page 3
 How involved was your firm in the process of defining the specific WWR mat
geometries utilized in the project’s structural applications?
Is this an attribute you built directly into your structural drawings, or did you
specify the material in general terms and let the WWR fabricator’s detailer
handle the rest based on your prescriptive requirements?

Phil Kopf:
We don’t define specific WWR mat geometries for the WWR fabricator. We want the WWR
fabricator to utilize their skills to produce the most efficient solution possible. We give them
general guidance parameters that they need to adhere to and then let them provide the mat
geometries and sizing that best suits the project requirements. The information that we provide gives the
WWR fabricator the required area of steel for each area of a wall panel. Reinforcement requirements are
provided by typical wall panel reinforcement elevations (Figure 1 and Figure 2), a reinforcement

Page 4
Figure 1: Typical wall panel elevation example

Page 5
 Figure 2: Reference wall panel reinforcement elevation examples

These elevations provide a critical link between the project wall panel elevation geometry
shown in Figure 1 and the corresponding reinforcement requirements shown in Figure 3.

Page 6
 REINF MARK BAR MARK MIN. AREA OF GRADE 80 ksi REBAR REQUIRED REINF LAYER
V1 0.24 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
R1A
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
V1 0.20 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
R1B
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
V1, V2 0.24 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
JVL1, JVR1 1.40 in^2 each face LAYER 1/4
R2A
JVM1 2.80 in^2 each face LAYER 1/4
DCB (2)D20 bars x 5'‐0" ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 1/4
HLS (2) D20 bars ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3
V1, V2 0.20 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
JVL1, JVR1 1.63 in^2 each face LAYER 1/4
R2B
JVM1 3.26 in^2 each face LAYER 1/4
DCB (2)D20 bars x 5'‐0" ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 1/4
HLS (2) D20 bars ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3
V1 thru V4 0.20 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
JVL1 0.78 in^2 LAYER 1/4
R3A JVM1 3.40 in^2 LAYER 1/4
JVR1 2.60 in^2 LAYER 1/4
DCB (2)D20 bars x 5'‐0" ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 1/4
HLS (2) D20 bars ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3
V1 thru V4 0.20 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
JVL1 0.85 in^2 LAYER 1/4
R3B JVM1 2.40 in^2 LAYER 1/4
JVR1 1.63 in^2 LAYER 1/4
DCB (2)D20 bars x 5'‐0" ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 1/4
HLS (2) D20 bars ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3
V1 thru V3 0.20 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
R4A JVL1, JVR1 1.63 in^2 each face LAYER 1/4
DCB (2)D20 bars x 5'‐0" ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3
HLS (2) D20 bars ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3
V1 thru V5 0.20 in^2/ft each face LAYER 1/4
H1 D20 @ 18" c/c each face LAYER 2/3
JVL1, JVR1 1.63 in^2 each face LAYER 1/4
R5A
JVM1 3.26 in^2 each face LAYER 1/4
DCB (2)D20 bars x 5'‐0" ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3
HLS (2) D20 bars ‐ 1/2 each face LAYER 2/3

Figure 3: Reinforcement schedule example

Note how the engineer specifies the required 80 ksi reinforcement in terms of minimum cross-sectional areas
or via direct identification of a quantity or spacing of explicitly-defined wire size.

Page 7
Figure 4: Panel reinforcement general notes example

Page 8
 Are there any notable adjustments that need to be made to staging and sequence of
installation of reinforcement material when utilizing WWR in lieu of reinforcing bars?

Travis Tracy & RCI Team:

Proper equipment and rigging will be needed
prior to the delivery of material, including an
adequately sized construction telehandler
forklift and possibly a spreader beam. (Figures 5 and 6)

For sheets shorter than 20’, a set of 4-way chains adequately

sized for the weight of the bundles can be used to unload and
transport bundles, although a spreader beam will make the task
easier. For tilt-up panel WWR sheets that extend up to 52’ in
length, a larger forklift and an adequately sized spreader beam Figure 5: Telehandler forklift and spreader beam
will be required to unload and transport the material safely. The
spreader beam and rigging must be sized accordingly to the material being unloaded and transported.

We always suggest that tilt-up panel WWR sheets be

unloaded on the slab if possible since unloading and
transporting the material is much safer and easier, and
the installation production will increase compared to
installing the sheets from outside the building. If it is
impossible to unload the WWR inside the building,
then the perimeter of the building where the work is
being performed - including the accessways from the
laydown area - must be flat, stable, and free of
obstructions.

Obviously, additional
planning and staging are
Figure 6: Telehandler forklift and spreader beam
necessary for WWR
material compared to that for rebar due to the fact that a larger laydown area
is needed (Figure 7). It is important for WWR material bundling and staging to
be coordinated such that the sequence of access generally aligns with the
placement sequence. This eliminates the need to constantly move material out
of the way in order to access material that is next in line for placement. If the
site laydown area is limited, the material must be released in sequence order
and coordinated with the supplier and shipping prior to delivery.

Figure 7: WWR material

bundles in lay-down area

Page 9
 Can you give us a sense of installer sentiment related to the handling and
placement of WWR? Is there a noticeable appreciation for some of WWR’s
“built-in” handling and installation attributes?

Travis Tracy & RCI Team:

Once a crew becomes accustomed to the WWR system, they realize how much easier their
job becomes and how much faster they can do their job. The crews always comment that it is
similar to putting a puzzle or kit together. Team morale seems higher on the WWR projects
since they see production at a faster rate as well as the physical layout. Obviously, the tying
and handling operation associated with individual bars is reduced.

We’ve gotten to the point where our crews are disappointed when they have to install a loose conventional
rebar project. The crews appreciate how WWR improves their workdays.

Whether a first-time user of WWR or a continuation of past project experiences with WWR,
can you talk a bit about the learning curve and how quickly your team was able to achieve
installation proficiency? Were there any pitfalls that in hindsight could have been avoided?
Were there any concerns you had at the start about “making the switch to WWR”?

Travis Tracy & RCI Team:

Typically, after the completion of a single project, the install team is able to achieve
proficiency with the WWR system.

Worksite organization of the material is paramount to the success of the project. This is
typically the biggest obstacle to overcome when starting with the WWR system.

Another attribute that requires some focused attention on the part of the placers is the lapping of the WWR
sheets. There may be instances in which the lead installer would contact the WWR detailer to ensure that
their understanding of how the sheets are to be arranged on-site will achieve the engineer’s design intent as it
relates to alignment and lap splices. This coordination helps to avoid placement errors or material shortages.

When we first started in this market, the logistics of unloading the material and moving sheets around the job
site was a concern that we focused on. As mentioned earlier, properly-sized equipment, correct rigging, and
spreader beams negate this concern.

Page 10
 Can you describe the shop drawing review process for WWR mats and how
it might differ from loose reinforcing bar elements?

Phil Kopf:
The shop drawing review process may seem more involved at first. It is not more complicated
than a conventional loose reinforcing steel design with a good quality WWR fabricator, panel
shop drawings (Figures 8–13), and proper design guidance from the engineer of record.

One of the most critical aspects of the review is ensuring that the proper chair heights are utilized (Figure 13).
To make the process in the field as simple as possible, an engineer should design the wall panels to use only
one chair height throughout the project. I don’t believe it is reasonable to expect the tilt-up panel contractor
to utilize different chair heights for panels with varying diameters of WWR. Since in many instances we are
only instructing the WWR fabricator about the area of steel we require in the design, we don’t know what
diameter wire and spacing they will ultimately choose to provide. Therefore, we will utilize the largest
diameter wire that we know they can provide during the design phase. So, we design all the wall panels
assuming an effective depth to the reinforcing steel for a D31 bar. One way that we have found to limit the
chair height range is to limit the diameter of the bar allowed. We require the WWR fabricator to provide
vertical reinforcement in the range of D15 to D31.

There are also times when the fabricated WWR may not provide reinforcement close enough to an opening. In
these cases, we advise that additional loose bars should be provided adjacent to the opening. We have found
that the practical limit is when a bar or wire is located greater than 3-1/2” away from the edge of an opening,
an additional trim bar adjacent to the edge should be provided.

Figure 8: Panel shop drawing excerpt showing individual WWR mats. Color-coding is used to correlate
the mats to their respective positioning within the panel form.
Page 11
Figure 9: Panel shop drawing excerpt showing placement of WWR mats within the panel.

Page 12
Figure 10: Panel shop drawing excerpt showing placement of WWR mats within the panel.

Page 13
Figure 11: Panel shop drawing excerpt showing enlarged views of selected individual WWR mats.

Page 14
 Figure 12: Panel shop drawing excerpt showing enlarged views of selected individual WWR mats.

Figure 13: Example of reinforcement layer definitions and related chair/support requirements, as well as wire size and
spacing prescriptions. The engineer takes care in the design to account for the “worst-case” effective depth dimension
(i.e., an assumption of the largest wire size), in turn simplifying the contractor’s chair selection and placement operation.
Page 15
 Can you talk about your interaction with the project designer
and any unique collaborations that might have occurred related
to taking WWR “from design to job site”?

Travis Tracy & RCI Team:

When we first started converting conventional rebar to WWR, many engineers in the
industry were unfamiliar with the concept. It would take some effort to help educate
the designer on the advantages of the substitution. The concept of Structural WWR
has now become more mainstream thanks to all the hard work and collaborative efforts of
manufacturers, conversion engineers, structural engineers, the Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI),
distributors, and installers. Years ago, the inclusion of WWR in ACI 318 as a structural reinforcement
was necessary and tremendously catapulted the industry. There is obviously still a lot of work to be
done to get more of a market share of reinforcement to be designed using WWR, resulting in the
saving of thousands of unnecessary hard labor man-hours.

Most design engineers we speak to are agreeable to the use of WWR as a structural reinforcement
solution. In those cases where tilt-up wall panels are originally designed assuming 60 ksi
reinforcement, and we propose an 80 ksi conversion, the engineers will run structural calculations to
verify that the use of the higher strength reinforcement and the corresponding lower areas of steel is
adequate to satisfy deflection and strength requirements. As Phil noted earlier, there is a change in
panel deflection and flexural demand associated with a 60 ksi to 80 ksi conversion. As a result, a
straight proportional 25% reduction of the area of steel simply cannot be taken. But a significant
material weight and labor installation saving for the 80 ksi WWR solution can still be achieved and
prove beneficial.

(WRI note to reader: for more information on the impact that a change in cross-sectional reinforcing steel can have on
concrete slender wall design, visit the WRI website and download WRI’s July 2022 Technical Blog on this important topic.
For general information on reinforcement conversion, WRI’s May 2022 Technical Blog provides detailed guidance.)

Can you provide a quantified example of a project’s time and labor

savings that were realized through the implementation of WWR
as the primary solution in lieu of reinforcing bars?

The following tabulations (Figures 14 and 15) are real case scenarios comparing man-hours to tie
conventional reinforcement versus the man-hours to place WWR. Man-hours will of course vary from
one project to the next, but the projects presented below provide a good idea of just how beneficial
the use of WWR is to the bottom line.

Page 16
PROJECT(1)(4) PROJECT A PROJECT B
MATERIAL Grade 60 conventional rebar Grade 80 WWR
ACTUAL MAN-HOURS 1978 723
TOTAL APPROXIMATE TONS 182 95
MAN-HOURS PER TON 10.9 MHT 7.6 MHT
PRICE PER TON(2) $545/ton $380/ton(3)
Footnotes
1. Project A and Project B deployed very similar tilt-wall panel geometries and structural designs, with Project A using rebar and a comparatively smaller
Project B using WWR.
2. Sample cost burden per man-hour with overhead and profit = $50 per man-hour
3. Comparing similar projects that used different reinforcement solutions, on a price-per-ton basis the installed cost of WWR is approximately 30% lower
than that of conventional rebar.
4. Cost information indicated is regionally specific and representative of market conditions at the time of construction, prior to publication of this 2023
WRI document. Both projects were installed by Reinforcing Concepts.

Figure 14: Comparison of two projects utilizing different reinforcement solutions, showing the significant
installed cost advantage on a price-per-ton basis.

PROJECT C(1)
REINFORCEMENT SOLUTION WWR MATERIAL OPTION(2) REBAR MATERIAL OPTION
MATERIAL YIELD STRENGTH 80 KSI 60 KSI
MATERIAL TONNAGE 153 239
MATERIAL $/TON $1,750.00 $1,450.00
MATERIAL COST $267,750.00 $346,550.00
“UNWELDED” TONNAGE 43 Not applicable
“UNWELDED” $/TON $1,450.00 Not applicable
“UNWELDED” MATERIAL COST $62,350.00 Not applicable
TOTAL REINFORCEMENT COST $330,100.00 $346,550.00
MATERIAL INSTALLATION $/TON $395.00 $550.00
MATERIAL INSTALLATION COST $60,435.00 $131,450.00
“UNWELDED” INSTALLATION $/TON $550.00 Not applicable
“UNWELDED” INSTALLATION COST $23,650.00 Not applicable
TOTAL LABOR COST $84,085.00 $131,450.00
TOTAL INSTALLED COST $414,185.00(3) $478,000.00
Footnotes
1. Cost information indicated is regionally specific and representative of market conditions at the time of construction, prior to publication of this 2023 WRI
document. This project was installed by Reinforcing Concepts using the “WWR Material Option”.
2. The “WWR Material Option” includes what is referred to as “unwelded” reinforcement, comprised of individual loose rebar required at select locations
(panel trim bars, panel add bars at wall panel jambs, panel collector bars, etc.)
3. Installed cost of the WWR material option is 14% lower than that of conventional rebar, with a total savings exceeding $63,000.
Figure 15: Comparison of two options considered for implementation on a project, with the WWR option
ultimately selected and providing significant cost advantage.
Page 17
 During the construction administration (CA) phase of the project, when site
observations are carried out for the purpose of assessing the general
conformance of construction with the design intent, can you describe the on-site
visual documentation of WWR and how it might compare to observation of loosely-
placed individual reinforcing bars?

Phil Kopf:
The construction administration phase of the scope of services tends to be much
easier than observing a loosely-placed individual reinforcing bar project. One thing
most will notice is how much cleaner the WWR panels look. The WWR panel is
checked much faster because you only need to ensure the correct sheet style is placed in the panel.
Once that is confirmed, you are confident that the valid number and diameter of reinforcement pieces
are provided. With a conventional loosely-placed individual reinforcing bar project, you need to check
the quantity and diameter of the bars.

One of the most important things I look for on a project site is the proper layering of the WWR sheets.
Our typical reinforcement details (Figure 13) indicate that the long vertical bars in the tilt-up panel are
in layers one and four. Layer one is the bottom-most reinforcement layer and layer 4 is the top-most
reinforcement layer. Sometimes the long vertical layer one and layer four sheets are flipped during
placement, and layer one is inverted to layer 2, and layer 4 is inverted to layer 3.

It is important for panels reinforced with the WWR sheets to be inspected early in the project. This
early inspection affords the installers the time necessary to correct errors before too many panels are
reinforced and before they are cast. Also, any loose reinforcement bars that might be required should
be visually observed to ensure the proper location, spacing, and size of bars, as well as their nested
positioning relative to the WWR sheet itself.

In your experience, what are the biggest barriers to entry for WWR
to be the reinforcement of choice for tilt-up wall panel construction?

Travis Tracy & RCI Team:

The biggest barrier to entry that we face is the general contractor who simply
doesn’t want to try something different or allocate the resources necessary to check
or re-check loads. They typically have a high level of comfort in grade 60 rebar, and
they know what to expect. Because of this it is hard to convince them that they would save money
on labor by switching to WWR. Simply put, they don’t want to risk profit margins for a new and
unfamiliar workflow. So, the WWR provider must be a liaison and manage comfort to mitigate these
feelings and provide the correct metrics to sell the service.

Page 18
 For projects you design, what were the driving factors that lead to WWR
being considered as a structural reinforcement solution?

Phil Kopf:
There are areas of the country where WWR is the go-to solution for tilt-up panel
reinforcement. So from the start of the project, it was determined that WWR would
be the first choice.

It has been my experience that once a tilt-up contractor has installed a WWR tilt-up project, they
never want to go back to the conventionally loosely-place reinforced solution.

Are you seeing any upward trends in WWR usage, not only in tilt-up wall panel
construction, but in other structural applications as well?

Travis Tracy & RCI Team:

Absolutely the trend is upward for WWR usage. Applications like slabs on metal deck,
slabs on ground, foundations, tilt-up wall panels, and tunnel forming all have a heavy
lean towards WWR usage due to the shortage of labor, cost of labor, and efficiency of
labor. As we continue to create good relationships with our clients and provide good
experiences with the WWR system, we are confident that client familiarity and comfort with the
system will be a direct result.

For more information visit our website: WireReinforcementInstitute.org

Page 19