Bamboo as a Viable Alternative to Steel Reinforcement in ...allansplace.net/portfolio/research/Bamboo Research Paper - Baldrey... · fiber used to reinforced concrete can “save

Bamboo as a Viable Alternative to Steel Reinforcement in Concrete

Applied Research Project

A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements of RSR-2265

by:

T. Baldrey, R. Holmberg, & A. Johnston

Lorne Atwood

Lethbridge College

April 13, 2018

BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 4

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 5

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 5

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 8

Preliminary Data ........................................................................................................................................... ..8

Weights per Unit of Measure ........................................................................................................................ 8

Average Thickness ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Cost per Unit ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Concrete Mixture ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Reinforcement Configuration ..................................................................................................................... 15

Post-testing Data ........................................................................................................................................ ...15

Cylinder Compression Test ......................................................................................................................... 16

Bamboo Deflection Test .............................................................................................................................. 17

Water Absorption Test ................................................................................................................................ 11

Beam Bending Test ..................................................................................................................................... 21

FAILURES, DISCREPANCIES & INCOMPLETE TESTS ......................................................................... 23

Failed Concrete Beam................................................................................................................................... 23

Failed Tensile Tests ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Concrete Voids and Water Absorption ....................................................................................................... 25

Discrepancy in Concrete Mixture ................................................................................................................ 26

Human Error in Reading/Recording Information..................................................................................... 26

Testing Machine Calibration ....................................................................................................................... 27

Reuse of Material .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Cost Constraints ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Time Constraints ........................................................................................................................................... 28

Small Sample Group ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Inconsistency of Naturally Grown Material ............................................................................................... 28

Unknown Species of Bamboo ....................................................................................................................... 29

CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................ 29


REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................................................... 35

Pour Day Datasheet ...................................................................................................................................... 35

Bamboo Water Absorption Test .................................................................................................................. 38

Cylinder Compression Test .......................................................................................................................... 39

Bamboo Deflection Test ................................................................................................................................ 41

Design Analysis – Bamboo Deflection Analysis .......................................................................................... 42

Design Analysis – Carbon Steel Deflection Analysis .................................................................................. 46

Bamboo Stress Analysis Calculations ......................................................................................................... 50

Beam Bending Test ....................................................................................................................................... 58

APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................................................... 62

APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................................................... 64

Activity Logs .................................................................................................................................................. 64

Tyson Baldrey .............................................................................................................................................. 64

Randy Holmberg .......................................................................................................................................... 66

Allan Johnston ............................................................................................................................................. 68

Project Timeline ......................................................................................................................................... ...70


INTRODUCTION

We intended to validate, through experimentation, the structural suitability of natural

bamboo and polyurethane-injected bamboo as more eco-friendly and potentially cost effective

alternatives to steel rebar as an embedded reinforcement in concrete.

Many countries around the world rely on costly imported steel to produce and/or acquire

reinforcement bar used in their construction industry. Alternatively, many of these regions have

access to abundant and readily renewable resources such as bamboo. A sizable pool of well-

established prior research and basic material properties dictate that steel is stronger in

compressive and tensile strength than bamboo. However, our goal is to establish to what extent

steel rebar trumps bamboo rebar in these physical properties, the cost effectiveness of bamboo &

the tested variants, and the significance of weight differential between the reinforcements with

consideration for natural fiber water absorption. To further balance the difference in material

properties that influence the structural integrity of both bamboo and steel, we will investigate

how a hybrid such as polyurethane-injected bamboo performs.

Aside from our social and environmental obligations, eco-friendly building materials such

as bamboo can positively impact construction economics via significant cost savings or returns

through programs such as LEEDS, elevated material efficiencies, a reduction in overall carbon

footprint, a reduced dependence on imported steel, and a reduced strain on local finite resources.

Some preliminary research by Ghavami (2005) states the properties of bamboo as well as

some of the ratios (such as thickness of bamboo wall to length between nodules). It states that

bamboo is a grass and that there are long fibers that travel the length of the bamboo that are

encased in a ligneous (wood-like) matrix. The energy used to process bamboo in comparison to


steel is 50 times less. Per unit weight, bamboo is stronger than steel. However, bamboo must be

treated to prevent the absorption of moisture from the concrete and must be coated in a rough

material to allow for better adhesion to the concrete (Ghavami, 2005).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our experimentation was to test the theory that bamboo injected with an

elastomeric polyurethane is stronger, such as in tension, compression, and bending deflection,

than bamboo on its own so as to be used as a viable substitute for steel rebar. We compared these

values to that of steel. The controlled variables for this experimentation were the concrete

mixture ratios, casting form sizes, and location of the material reinforcement in situ. The

independent variable was the reinforcement material used. The dependent variable was the

flexural and compressive forces that the concrete and reinforced beams can withstand before

failure. We predicted the following: that bamboo would not offer as much strength as that of

steel rebar; that using bamboo would some cases offer a cost-effective alternative to using steel

rebar – that is, cost per unit of length relative to their material strength; and that injected bamboo

would be somewhat stronger in flexural strength than non-injected bamboo.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In today’s world there is a growing trend toward finding suitable alternatives to high-

embodied energy materials like steel. Karthik, Ram Mohan Rao, and Awoyera (2016) found this

to be true in both developing and developed countries. Standard construction processes are


responsible for “depletion of large amounts of non-renewable resources” (Torgal, 2011) as well

as 30% of carbon dioxide emissions. To counter this, builders have been developing, testing, and

using bamboo as a low-cost, low-carbon, natural alternative to steel reinforcement bars for

concrete (Xiao, Inoue, & Paudel, 2007).

Research into characteristics of steel and bamboo have been ongoing for several decades.

Our research, as with that done by Rahman, M.; Rashid, M.; et alai. (2011), for example,

compared bamboo to steel as a reinforcement for concrete. The cost, environmental impact, and

availability of steel in developing countries as compared to that of bamboo have been cited as

being a driving force in the quest to find alternatives to steel. Xiao, Inoue, & Paudel (2007) have

done extensive viability research to this effect. It has been discovered that bamboo’s inherent

tensile strength-to-weight ratio, as evidenced by Leelatanon, Srivaro, & Matan (2010) and by

Agarwala, Nandab, & Maitya (2014), increases its viability against steel.

Unfortunately, because of bamboo’s inherent cellular structure and composition, as noted

by Das and Chakrabarty (2008), bamboo in its natural state readily absorbs moisture from its

environment and, thus, is susceptible to swelling and expansion causing, as Vanasupa (2011)

notes, voids, loss of adhesion to concrete and, due to eventual shrinkage, loss of effectiveness as

a concrete reinforcement. Although our research into bamboo’s water absorption shows minimal

effect on polyurethane-coated bamboo, Sakaray et ali (2012) show that water absorption can be

as high as 50% by weight. Methods and treatments to mitigate absorption have been tried, such

as the use of Negrolin (Ghavami, 1994), which, according to the research, limits absorption to

4%.

Textured adhesives and water absorption mitigation treatments were used in this study.

Others’ studies of adhesives and treatments such as Tapecrete P-151, Sikadur 32 Gel, Araldite,


and Anti Corr RC have also been tested to improve the cohesion of interface between the bamboo

and concrete with varying results (Agarwala et alai, 2014).

Although our research accounted for variances in diameter, other researches have tested

specific bamboo features and characteristics, such as colour and age, diameter, species, and

harvesting (Arjun, 2016).

In the search for more viable alternatives to steel rebar in concrete, materials other than

bamboo have also been tested. According to Mahzuz, et al (2011, Nov), “natural fibers from

coconut husk, sisal, sugarcane bagasse, bamboo, jute, wood, akwara, plantain, and musamba”

have been used to reinforce concrete. More examples are sisal and coir (Sen & Reddy, 2011).

Basalt-reinforced concrete beams have been successfully used to “significantly increase the

economic viability of construction of buildings and bridges” (Urbanski, et alai). Use of vegetable

fiber used to reinforced concrete can “save energy, conserve scarce resources, and protect (the)

environment” while at the same time relieve strain on housing and a country’s infrastructure

(Swamy, 1990).

Bamboo composite laminate members have been developed and tested for use as

reinforcement in concrete, but bamboo products, such as composite beams, typically require

processing (Agarwala, Nandab, & Maitya, 2014).

Skilled labour is needed in modern construction practices combined with traditional

knowledge of bamboo in areas with substantial bamboo growth and economy, according to

Varma & Paduvil (2007). Methods of treating and utilizing readily available resources, material,

labour, and processing – need further research and development (Agarwala, A.; Nandab, B.; &

Maitya, D., 2014). There still exists a lack of and a need for standardization in testing of bamboo

for construction purposes (Harries, Sharma, & Richard, 2012).


MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

We used the concrete lab at Lethbridge College to test and compare loading and modulus

of rupture properties of scaled concrete samples reinforced with bamboo, samples reinforced with

bamboo injected with an elastomeric polyurethane, and samples reinforced with steel rebar. Our

experimentation employed material properties and principles of statics to evaluate and contrast

results. Conclusions are illustrated in our presentation through the application of Autodesk

Simulation Mechanical 2017 deflection magnitude simulations, mathematical evaluations, and

picture & video recordings of physical tests such as cylinder compression, beam deflection,

bamboo water absorption, and bamboo deflection carried out in the concrete lab.

Preliminary Data

The quantitative methods required to answer the research question are dependent upon

several sets of background data that must be attained before conducting the primary tests. These

data sets serve to add scalability and a standardized framework for further experimentation.

Weights per Unit of Measure

Typically, as is true for this project, reinforcement bars are used in specific lengths. Thus,

discussion of reinforcement bar use are in terms of 20” (508mm) lengths rather than per inch (or

mm). Although this is an imperial length, all other data is in SI (Metric).

Weights of each sample of bamboo vary but are overall considerably less than that of

steel rebar. Weight of a material must be considered in any project for transportation, handling

during construction, inclusion of self-weight in overall load on building members, and other

considerations.


Replacement of steel reinforcement bars with bamboo would offer considerable

transportation cost savings because of differences in weight of each material. In areas of the

world where transportation corridors are limited or lacking entirely, reduction in building

material weight would be of strong benefit.

Combined with other ecological considerations, the “green” implications of this reduction

in weight and transportation would also be considerable. Less fuel would be consumed in

transportation of bamboo over that of steel rebar.

Material weight, and thus overall building weight, may be factored into its load-bearing

capacity. Bamboo being lighter than steel (see Table 1) can result in less overall self-weight that

the building must support, reducing overall use of material, such as concrete.

Table 1 – Rebar weights


The following chart, Figure 1, shows the component weights per length of various

samples of rebar used in this project.

Reduction in labour and its cost and difficulty in handling are considerations in

construction due to less material weight. Fewer labour hours would be required in handling

bamboo over that of steel rebar.

In areas of the world where bamboo is or can be commonly grown, the benefits of a

lightweight material would be considerable. However, because of its reduced load capacity as

shown in the Beam Bending Test data sheets, benefits may be lost due to bamboo’s reduced

weight-to-load capacity.

Average Thickness

Overall variances in bamboo thickness (thickness of the stem wall and diameter of the

cavity within) are to be expected as bamboo is a natural product. Furthermore, because bamboo

grows vertically, variances in stem wall thickness within each individual length of bamboo are

expected. Thus, careful consideration of thicknesses of each bamboo length is required for

Figure 1 – Weight of Rebar per Length


consistent performance. The following are diameter measurements from end cuts used to

illustrate the variation of wall thicknesses in the test group.

Although specimens were selected with similar stem wall

thicknesses, due to the limited scope of this research, variances in stem

wall thicknesses occurred. The following data shown in Table 2 are

taken from a sampling of bamboo material used in the Water

Absorption Tests, as seen in Figure 3.

Cost per Unit

Bamboo was purchased at retail price in a local building supply store for $1.34 (incl. tax)

per 60-inch length. Seven lengths were purchased resulting in a cost per inch of 2.2400¢. Each

concrete beam contains four 20-inch lengths. The cost of bamboo for all concrete beams was

Figure 2 – Bamboo Sample Outer & Inner Diameters

Table 2 – Bamboo Thicknesses

Figure 3 – Bamboo Component Weight

Water Absorption Samples


$12.54 while the cost per concrete beam was $1.79.

At the time of this research, the retail cost of steel reinforcement bars was $1.79 (incl. tax)

per 2-foot length (#3, 3/8”). Steel reinforcement bar was provided by Lethbridge College –

School of Engineering Design and Drafting, the cost of which would have been 7.4375¢ per inch.

The cost of steel rebar per concrete block would have been $5.95. Only one beam contained steel

rebar.

Roughly one and one-half tubes of Sikaflex elastomeric polyurethane were used in this

research. Each 300mℓ (10.1 US Fl. Oz.) tube retailed at $7.85 (incl. tax). The cost per unit (mℓ)

was 2.6180¢. The cost of elastomeric polyurethane purchased for this project was $11.78.

Considering this, the cost per concrete beam was $1.68. However, as not all of the purchased

product was used, the cost of elastomeric polyurethane was determined through weighing

portions used during the bamboo polyurethane injection and coating process. It was determined

that elastomeric polyurethane used in bamboo injection and coating totaled $0.52 and $0.19,

respectively.

A ratio of 3 parts sand to 4 parts polyurethane per volume was used (i.e. 75 grams of sand,

100 grams of polyurethane), totaling 338g of sand. A 25kg bag of sand cost $8.25. The cost per

unit (g) of sand was 0.0330¢, obviously negligible. Sand content for all beams cost 77.93¢. Each

beam used 11¢ of sand.

The cost of lacquer for this research was negligible and incalculable because it was

supplied by a research team member, and it is believed that it had minimal effect on the product.

Additional material testing increases the overall cost of the project and, naturally, the cost

per concrete beam. Three lengths of bamboo, one-half tube of elastomeric polyurethane, and 98g

of sand were used to create deflection test material. The total cost of this, $11.54, was dispersed


over the entire cost of the project. Future projects may not require re-testing and could thus avoid

similar expense added to the project.

The combined cost per unit of each concrete member used in this project was determined

without including cost of concrete as this would not change, be the concrete beam reinforced with

steel or bamboo reinforcement, and cost of concrete (including aggregate and admixture material)

is not within the scope of this research.

Use of bamboo over steel rebar in various parts of the world where bamboo is

commonplace would reduce overall costs of construction. Bamboo could be harvested closer to

its point of use, further reducing transportation costs. Bamboo, being harvested rather than

machined, reduces its cost. Power to run steel production plans would not be required, producing

savings. Further savings in cost of labour of would be a consideration across a wide spectrum of

labour sectors. And, finally, savings in import costs would also be a factor in overall

construction.

The adjacent, in Figure 4, shows the

breakdown of cost per component used in 20-

inch-length of reinforcement bar.

Concrete Mixture

Adjustments to the concrete mixture were made as needed. Slump tests were performed

on each batch of concrete as per ASTM C143/C143M-15 (ASTM, 2015). The ratios of aggregate

Figure 4 – Cost per Unit of Length (20-inch)


within the mixture were adjusted as shown in Pour Day Datasheet (see Appendix) for both

concrete pour days. Figure 5 shows an illustration of standard slump test results. The ideal result

would be True Slump; all else would be considered a failed slump test and would require

reworking of aggregate, water, admixture, and cement binding agent ratios.

Every use of concrete, for floor slabs, beams, or footings, for example, and every size (i.e.

thickness) requires a unique ratio resulting in specific slump test results for each. Figure 6 shows

concrete slump test results recommended for various concrete applications.

The following chart, Figure 7, shows slump test heights for each batch of concrete made

for this research. Accounting for increased or decreased slumping is crucial in determining what

the load properties of each member will be for the mix ratio of each beam.

Figure 5 – True Slump ASTM (2015)

Figure 6 – Recommended Slump Test Values Civil Read. (n.d.)

Figure 7 – Concrete Batch Slump Test Heights

175

95

170

115130

020406080

100120140160180200

1 2 3 4 5

Slum

p H

eigh

t [m

m]

Batch

Concrete Batch Slump Test Heights

Slump Results


Reinforcement Configuration

Configuration of both steel and bamboo reinforcement bars were uniform throughout all

concrete beams. This configuration is commonly considered ideal because of intended load

placement on the beam. Since concrete is quite strong in compression but weak in tension, and

steel reinforcement bar is strong in tension and horizontally strong in compression, the two

materials work well in counteracting both types of forces.

If the beam is to be supported on each end (pin support) and have load forces applied to

the middle, the lowermost reinforcement bars will counteract tension, allowing the concrete

within the uppermost portion of the beam to resist compression.

Should the beam be used in a cantilever application, where the overhanging portion of the

beam would not be supported on one end, the uppermost portion of the beam will experience

tension and the lowermost compression, the opposite of the preceding scenario.

In both cases, the four-reinforcement-bar-configuration will be of the most benefit all

around. The following diagram in Figure 8 shows this configuration.

Post-testing Data

In order for bamboo to serve as a suitable replacement for steel rebar, objective data must

be collected to illustrate to what extent, if any, bamboo reinforcement varies in structural

Figure 8 – Four-Reinforcement-Bar

Configuration


integrity and carrying capacity against steel rebar. The research testing program was formulated

to study the reaction of basic steel reinforced concrete material properties to varying loads and

then compare those results with duplicate tests having replaced steel rebar with the different

bamboo reinforcement analogs. Furthermore, a separate concrete compression test was

established to evaluate the structural integrity of the chosen concrete mixture. Creating a baseline

resistance reading served to eliminate variation in concrete mixture compressibility from the

beam bending test results. In doing so, only the reinforcement bars are left independent to affect

the test results.

Cylinder Compression Test

Standardization in concrete was used in an attempt to eliminate test deviations brought

about by varying concrete mixtures. As such, each cylinder was cast from the same concrete

batch as its corresponding beam in order to trace and correlate results across the entire test

program.

Composition of the test samples. Each sample consisted of a basic concrete mixture that

included: water, Portland cement, fine aggregate (<4.75mm), and course aggregate (<20mm,

>4.75mm) as per CAN/CSA-A23.2-2A-14 (CSA, 2014). The test cylinders were cast in forms

consisting of a 101.6mm dia. x 203.2mm long section of HDPE pipe sealed on one end. The

entire test program followed a curing process in accordance with CAN/CSA-A23.2-3C-14, based

around a 28-day period in a water bath of a constant 21.4°C (CSA, 2014).

Figure 9 – Curing in Water Bath Table 3 – Concrete Mixture


Loading and measuring of test samples. All specimens were tested according to ASTM

C39/C39M-18 (2018) with a Forney F-450F compression machine. Each specimen was loaded

in the compression machine, as shown in Figure 10, and put under an

incrementally increasing load of 35 psi/sec until catastrophic failure

occurred. The peak load was recorded for comparison. The gathered

test results showed a maximum deviation in resistance to loading of

12% and a maximum compressive strength deviation of 17% across

all seven tested cylinders. Cylinder #2 yielded poor results in comparison with the other samples

in the test group and was, therefore, concluded to be a faulty mixture. Upon further examination

it was determined that there was significant honeycombing in the #2 test sample.

Bamboo Deflection Test

In order to evaluate and eliminate inherent variances in the bamboo samples attributable

to differentiation in growth patterns, a deflection test was selected. Much the same as the

concrete mixture, a baseline needed to be established across the test pool of bamboo samples.

Achieving similar deflection values in samples of the same construct would further narrow

Figure 11 – Cylinder Compression Test Results

Figure 10 – Forney F-450F


possible variables that could skew results in the beam bending tests.

Composition of the test samples. The test pool consisted of 2 samples from each 20-inch-

long bamboo analog: injected with no coating, injected with sand and polyurethane coating, non-

injected with no coating, and non-injected with sand and polyurethane coating. The base

diameter for all samples was 10mm, but as-tested varied due to the inconsistency in diameter

following the addition of the coating material and application method as is evidenced in Figures

12 & 13. Each injected sample contained approximately 33 grams of elastomeric polyurethane.

The coated pieces consisted of an additional 47 grams of elastomeric polyurethane and 25 grams

of sand in the coating mixture. Carbon steel #3 reinforcement bar was not physically utilized in

this test but was, rather, simulated using the finite element analysis capabilities of Autodesk

Simulation Mechanical software as shown in Appendix A. The deflection magnitude results

were then compared to those derived in third party testing.

Loading and measuring of test samples. Test procedures were formulated to closely

mimic those addressed in ASTM E290-14 (2014). The test

samples were placed across two pin supports with a center-to-

center distance of 17 inches and then a constant point load of

147 N or 15 kg was placed at the center of the 20-inch test

length. Measurements were taken from the bottom of the pin

support, as well was from the floor baseline to the underside

Figure – 14 Deflection Test Apparatus

Figure – 12 Soaked Bamboo

Figure – 13 Soaked Injected and Coated Bamboo


of the test sample prior to and following application of the 147 N load. Deflection magnitudes as

well as changes in height from the floor baseline were recorded and compared.

Conducting a finite element analysis. Autodesk Simulation 2017 was utilized to verify

our deflection results and to validate the deflection values found in third-party testing, such as

those formulated by Gottron (2014). The various material property values of bamboo: Poisson’s

ratio, Young’s Modulus, Mass Density and Thermal Coefficient of Expansion were gathered

from Janssen’s (1991) Mechanical Properties of Bamboo. Meanwhile, the material properties

implemented in the analysis of carbon steel were those pre-loaded in the simulation software.

Limitations in the software capabilities only allowed for a single material selection for the

simulation model. Processing of an isotropic material within an orthotropic material proved to be

beyond the software’s capabilities. Therefore, 10mm bamboo in its raw form with no coating or

injection was the analog chosen to represent the bamboo test pool in the simulation model.

Figure – 15 Deflection Values

Figure – 16 Deflection Values


Water Absorption

Bamboo is a plant, and, as such, its natural internal composition lends itself to the

absorption of water as part of the photosynthesis cycle. Our test samples have been harvested,

dried, treated for contaminants, and shipped across great distances. While photosynthesis no

longer plays a role, the cell structure still promotes water absorption. The expansion and

contraction of the in-situ bamboo reinforcements raised concern over voids forming between the

outer bamboo skin and the concrete along the 20-inch reinforcement length. The presence of

significant voids compromises the reinforcement bond and degrades the compressive and tensile

attributes of bamboo (Salua & Adegbite, 2012).

Composition of the test samples. One test piece of approximately 3 inches was prepared

from each bamboo configuration. All coated samples were thoroughly inspected to insure no

lapse of coverage of the polyurethane coating were present. While, non-coated samples were

inspected for any cracking that could speed up water infiltration.

Immersing and measuring of test samples. Each of the 4 samples was measured for

length, diameter, and weight before submersion. The locations at which measurements were

taken were marked as a baseline point for post-testing data collection. A water bottle containing

500ml of tap water was then assigned to each of the 4 samples in the test pool. The water bottles

Figure – 17 Testing Apparatus

Figure – 18 Marking Measurements


were sealed with the test samples inside and allowed to sit in a temperature-monitored area for 28

days. This method was chosen to mimic the environment and timeframe in which the concrete

test beams were subjected to while in the curing bath. The environmental temperature was

monitored and recorded at a rate of one reading for every 48 hours, resulting in an average

temperature of 21.9°C.

Beam Bending Test

With standardization of other variables established in the preceding tests, we sought to

culminate the experimentation program with an evaluation of the difference in load capacities

between concrete beams reinforced with the bamboo analogs as well as those reinforced with

carbon steel rebar.

Figure – 19 Change in Dimensions and Weight


Composition of the test samples. Concrete beams were cast at 152.4mm x 152.4mm x

508mm with each containing 4 pieces of reinforcement stacked with 2 bars side-by-side along the

bottom chord and 2 along the top. The test pool was setup as to be three beams containing

injected bamboo with sand and polyurethane coating, three non-injected with sand and

polyurethane coating and one beam containing carbon steel rebar in the same configuration

pattern.

Loading and measuring of test samples. Following the filling of the moulds with

concrete and their respective reinforcements, they were covered with a thin plastic film and

allowed to sit in a temperature-monitored environment for 24 hrs. This time period allowed

sufficient time for the beams to firm up and become workable. At this time, each beam was

removed from its mould and placed in a temperature-controlled water bath of 25°C for 28 days.

On the 28th day all beam samples were removed from the bath and allowed an additional

24 hrs to acclimatize. On this 30th day and in accordance with ASTM C78 / C78M – 18 (2018),

beams were loaded into the Forney Q-400D with pin supports set at 17 inches, center-to-center.

An incrementally increasing loaded of 25 kN/minute was applied until the point of noticeable

fracture in the beam as seen in Figure 20. Our experimentation sought to mark this point as beam

failure rather than the point at which catastrophic separation occurred. This approach was

implemented to mimic a real-world scenario. Measurements were then taken from the pin support

Figure – 20 Beam Bending Test


centers to the point at which cracking had traversed along the side of the beam and met with the

bottom chord.

FAILURES, DISCREPANCIES & INCOMPLETE TESTS

Because the bamboo material is of a natural composition, it was expected that certain tests

may not be achievable, discrepancies in data would be found. and that failures in methods,

materials, measurements, and data collection would occur. As the research program progressed

and we built upon our knowledge base, it was recognized that supplementary testing would be

necessary.

Failed Concrete Beam

The first beam poured from our initial batch was deemed to be faulty. Significant

Figure – 21 Beam Failure Loads


honeycombing was observed and portions of the reinforcement bamboo was exposed as shown in

Figure 22 and 23. We suspect that this was due to both the concrete mixture ratios and the

pouring process. During concrete placement into the mould we neglected to vibrate the mixture

to ensure the release of air pockets and increase settlement into void areas. Unfortunately, the

moulds were opaque, leaving uncertainty as to if we had successfully removed all of the air

pockets. Ultimately, this resulted in creation of a faulty beam and one cylinder. This faulty beam

was used as a sacrificial beam in order to calibrate the Forney Q-400D beam compression

apparatus.

For all subsequent batch mixtures, we were more stringent when adding course aggregate

to mitigate large gaps and voids. Furthermore, increased tamping and vibration was applied

successively to moulds as the test program progressed.

Failed Tensile Tests

The tensile tests on lengths of bamboo could not be completed with any degree of

accuracy due to inadequate clamping mechanisms in the tensile testing apparatus. The

mechanism relied on significant lateral clamping force to secure the test piece. The apparatus

clamps that were available to us were designed to clamp onto solid metal rods of various sizes

and gauges. Bamboo, being both hollow and organic, would fracture and split parallel to the

Figure – 22 Fault Beam Figure – 23 Exposed Bamboo


grains as the clamping force was increased. Several attempts were made with hollow, injected,

and coated bamboo; all types failed to reach an adequate clamping force to run the tensile

operation before cracking under pressure. An alternate approach was taken where the clamps

were placed on nodes in the bamboo as this is an area of built-up strength, but even this was not

sufficient. We suspect that the inherently smooth surface of bamboo was also a factor that

inhibited clamping. As seen in Figure 24, the clamp grips would bite into the polyurethane

coating and the coating would then peel away from the bamboo as tensile force was applied.

Clamps that are designed to accommodate this material and configuration do exist, but due to the

high purchase cost we elected to remove this analysis from our test program.

Concrete Voids and Water Absorption

Due to bamboo’s inherent proficiency for water absorption, we needed to coat the test

samples with a water repellent material. Our chosen method of mitigation began with a

polyurethane lacquer and evolved to a thicker polyurethane and sand mixture. This coating was

intended to limit water absorption and increase adhesion of the bamboo to the concrete with a

similar effect as that of the transverse ribs found on steel rebar. After conducting our load testing

on the beams, it was discovered that water infiltration was still occurring. The results of the water

absorption test showed that we could expect to find and increase in diameter and shortening in

length for the bamboo cast in concrete. As the curing process progressed and the in-situ bamboo

Figure – 24 Crush Effect of Tinius Olsen UTM Clamping Grips


dried, there was evidence of shrinkage in diameter as seen in Figure 19 and 25. These gaps

between the bamboo coating surface and the concrete are likely contributing factors to an

increase in pull-out as evidenced in Figure 26. The amount of bamboo expansion was less with

the coated bamboo than with the uncoated, but water infiltration did still occur.

Discrepancy in Concrete Mixture

Limitations in the capacity of the mixing equipment forced us to create several batches of

concrete. This factor made it difficult to ensure a 100% identical mixture across the test group

and likely diminished the accuracy of compression and beams tests. This variance can be seen in

Figure 11. As each batch was mixed, water, aggregate, and cement were added in small

proportions to obtain the consistency needed for the slump test. It was this adjustment to each

batch that would account for the difference in load resistance found in the cylinder compression

tests.

Human Error in Reading/Recording Information

To limit human error, one person was assigned to conduct a task during testing; tasks

were not reassigned or juggled amongst team members during testing. For efficiency in

calculation, digits were limited to four decimal places. Of course, a compounding error can be

Figure – 26 Pull-out due to slippage

Figure – 25 Bamboo Shrinkage


expected in taking this approach with lengthy calculation groups. To mitigate the likelihood of

calculation error, Microsoft Excel was heavily utilized in the amalgamation of our test results.

Testing Machine Calibration

Each piece of test equipment was accompanied by a detailed set of operation instructions.

Our testing rigidly followed these guidelines or operational control was given to an accredited lab

technician. This process limits the occurrence of improper calibration and operation errors.

However, unmeasurable and/or unnoticeable calibration errors may still have occurred.

Reuse of Material

Due to limited time and funding, some bamboo samples from the failed tension test were

reused in the water absorption test. The condition of the test material was verified to be adequate,

although this may have resulted in some prior stressed materials being included in an additional

test group.

Cost Constraints

This project was personally funded by members of the research group. As such, some

materials and tests were out of our budgetary range. As stated, we were unable to conduct a

passable tensile test due to the expense associated with the type of clamps needed to grip the

bamboo. Other products may have also been changed with a higher budget including the type of

water repellant utilized, the internal elastomeric compound used, or the species of bamboo used.


Time Constraints

Research, design and testing was given an eight-month timeframe. Many research papers

have at least twelve months of study and hundreds of samples to utilize. Due to our time

constraints, some of the tests could not be developed and refined so as to obtain the most

optimum and error free-results.

Small Sample Group

Our sample group was relatively small. For cylinder testing, there was only enough

material to create one cylinder per concrete batch although we ensured that there was a minimum

of three beam samples for each bamboo type to provide more accurate results. Our water

absorption samples only contained one sample per type of bamboo. Finally, our bamboo

deflection test was limited to two samples per each type of bamboo.

Inconsistency of Naturally Grown Material

Bamboo is a naturally grown material. As a result, there can be unforeseen flaws in the

external and internal structure. For instance, the diameter and thickness of the material was

found to vary throughout the length as seen in Figure 27. Each piece of bamboo was visually

inspected, measured, and weighed before being

tested to establish more consistent diameter and

thickness averages to be used in calculations.

Figure – 27 Variation in Internal Structure


Unknown Species of Bamboo

Bamboo is not a species native to Canada and does not grow naturally in this climate

without human intervention. The type of bamboo we were able to acquire was intended to be

used as garden lath and was purchased at a home improvement store. The product had no species

labelling associated with it nor were there any distinguishing features of a particular species

notable. Should various bamboo family groups be available to us, tests may have been conducted

with more than one species of bamboo. The numerous bamboo subgroups have different

densities and can, therefore, possess a range of structural strength. It should be noted that the

tests conducted gave us relatively consistent readings.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Injected bamboo was indeed stronger than bamboo by itself with a loading resistance of

approximately 1/3 that of a standard steel rebar reinforced concrete beam. Furthermore, injected

bamboo lends itself favorably to weight savings at 3 times lighter per unit of length than steel

rebar. Bamboo is an orthotropic material that displayed favorable deflection values especially

when paired with the elastomeric polyurethane injection. While moisture infiltration was present,

secondary research in coatings may yield a more suitable deterrent. Additionally, the 21.2% cost

Figure – 28 Global Natural Bamboo Habitat (National Geographic, 1980)


advantage over steel reinforcement bar makes our injected format attractive. We do recognize

that further research will be needed to evaluate the global financial sustainability of bamboo

structural reinforcement. This economic impact could prove to be a fruitful exchange and about-

face of position for many steel import reliant regions whom also command considerable natural

bamboo growth areas.

Therefore, within the confines of our testing parameters, bamboo is a viable alternative to

steel reinforcement in concrete.


REFERENCES

Agarwala, A.; Nandab, B.; & Maitya, D. (2014, September). Experimental investigation on

chemically treated bamboo reinforced concrete beams and columns. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061814010265

Arjun, N. (2016, December 11). Bamboo Reinforced Concrete - Mix Proportion, Design and

Construction. Retrieved November 19, 2017 from https://theconstructor.org/structural-

engg/bamboo-reinforced-concrete-mix-design-construction/15054/

ASTM E290-14. (2014). Standard Test Methods for Bend Testing of Material for Ductility,

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2014, www.astm.org

ASTM C143 / C143M-15a. (2015). Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement

Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Retrieved from www.astm.org

ASTM C39 / C39M-18. (2018). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical

Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Retrieved from

www.astm.org

ASTM C78 / C78M-18. (2018) Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using

Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Retrieved from www.astm.org

Civil Read. (n.d.). Concrete slump test procedure. Retrieved March 20, 2018 from

https://civilread.com/concrete-slump-test-procedure/

Concrete Slump Test Procedure [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2017, from

https://theconstructor.org/concrete/concrete-slump-test/1558/

DeFlander, K.; Rovers, R. (2008, January) One laminated bamboo-frame house per hectare per

year. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095006180800010X

CAN/CSA-A23.2-2A-14. (2014). Precast Concrete - Materials and Construction., CSA Group,

Rexdale, ON. Retrieved from http://www.roadauthority.com/Standards/?id=d9701959-

4f00-4e13-bed3-530ba641c7ab

CAN/CSA-A23.2-3C-14. (2014).Test Methods and Standard Practise for Concrete., CSA Group,

Rexdale, ON. Retrieved from http://www.roadauthority.com/Standards/?id=d9701959-

4f00-4e13-bed3-530ba641c7ab


https://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/bamboo-reinforced-concrete-mix-design-construction/15054/

https://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/bamboo-reinforced-concrete-mix-design-construction/15054/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095006180800010X


Das, M; Chakrabarty, D. (2008). Thermogravimetric analysis and weathering study by water

immersion of alkali-treated bamboo strips. Retrieved from

http://ojs.cnr.ncsu.edu/index.php/BioRes/article/download/BioRes_03_4_1051_Das_C_T

hermograv_Weathering_Alk_Treat_Bamboo/258

Ghavami, K. (1994, September). Ultimate Load Behaviour of Bamboo-Reinforced Lightweight

Concrete Beams. Cement & Concrete Composites, 17(1995), 281-288. doi: 0958-

9465(95)00018-6

Ghavami, K. (2005, July). Bamboo as reinforcement in structural concrete elements. Cement and

Concrete Composites – Bamboo as reinforcement in structural concrete elements, 27(6),

637-649. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from


Gottron, J. M. (2013). Structural Performance of Bamboo: Capacity under Sustained Loads and

Monotonic Bending (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh.

Retrieved from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/21627/4/gottronj_etd2014.pdf

Harries, K.A.; Sharma, B., & Richard, M. (2012, June) Structural use of full culm bamboo: the

path to standardization. International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and

Construction. Retrieved from

http://www.iasdm.org/journals/download/ijaecvol1no2.pdf#page=6

Janssen, Jules J. A. (1991) Mechanical Properties of Bamboo. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Karthik, S.; Ram Mohan Rao, P.; Awoyera, P.O. (2016, December). Strength properties of

bamboo and steel reinforced concrete containing manufactured sand and mineral

admixtures. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences Retrieved from


Leelatanon, S.; Srivaro, S.; Matan, N. (2010, July). Compressive strength and ductility of short

concrete columns reinforced by bamboo. Retrieved from

http://www.thaiscience.info/journals/Article/SONG/10610600.pdf

Mahzuz, H.M.A.; Ahmed M.; Ashrafuzzaman, M.; Karim, R.; & Ahmed, R. (2011 November).

Performance evaluation of bamboo with morter and concrete. Journal of Engineering and

Technology Research, 3(12), 342-350. Retrieved from

http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JETR/article-full-text-pdf/7F178C312837

Rahman, M.; Rashid, M.; et alai. (2011). Performance Evaluation of Bamboo Reinforced

Concrete Beam. International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS,

11(04). Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Akhtar_Hossain2/publication/275336673_Perfo

rmance_Evaluation_of_Bamboo_Reinforced_Concrete_Beam/links/5580d74e08ae47061e

5f3946.pdf

http://ojs.cnr.ncsu.edu/index.php/BioRes/article/download/BioRes_03_4_1051_Das_C_Thermograv_Weathering_Alk_Treat_Bamboo/258

http://ojs.cnr.ncsu.edu/index.php/BioRes/article/download/BioRes_03_4_1051_Das_C_Thermograv_Weathering_Alk_Treat_Bamboo/258

http://www.iasdm.org/journals/download/ijaecvol1no2.pdf


http://www.thaiscience.info/journals/Article/SONG/10610600.pdf

http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JETR/article-full-text-pdf/7F178C312837

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Akhtar_Hossain2/publication/275336673_Performance_Evaluation_of_Bamboo_Reinforced_Concrete_Beam/links/5580d74e08ae47061e5f3946.pdf




Sakaray, H.; Togati, N.V.V.K.; Reddy, I.V.R.. (2012 February). Investigation on properties of

bamboo as reinforcing material in concrete. International Journal of Engineering

Research and Applicatinos (IJERA), 2(1), 77-83. Retrieved from

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/28318644/O21077083.pdf?AWSAcc

essKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1519076730&Signature=Pl6v98i4H

hV831rCIedeRJ2UJlM%3D&response-content-

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DIJERA_wwww.ijera.com.pdf

Salau, M. A., & Adegbite, I. (2012). Characteristic Strength of Concrete Column Reinforced with

Bamboo Strips. Journal of Sustainable Development, 05(01), 134.

doi:10.5539/jsd.v5n1p133

Sen, T.; Reddy, H.N.J. (2011, June). Application of Sisal, Bamboo, Coir, and Jute Natural

Composites in Structural Upgradation. International Journal of Innovation, Management

and Technology, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.ijimt.org/papers/129-M533.pdf

Swamy, R.N. (1990). Vegetable fiber reinforced cement composites – A false dream or a

potential reality? Vegetable plants and their fibers as building materials – Proceedings of

the second international RILEM symposium. London, England, UK: Chapman & Hall.

Torgal, F.P.; Jalali, S. (2011). Natural fiber reinforced concrete. Fibrous and composite

materials for civil engineering applications, 154-166. Sawston, Cambridge, UK:

Woodhead Publishing Ltd.

Urbanski, M; Lapkob, A; & Garbaczc, A. (2013). Investigation on Concrete Beams Reinforced

with Basalt Rebars as an Effective Alternative of Conventional R/C Structures. Procedia

Engineering, 57(2013), 1183-1191. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813008825

Vanasupa, L. (2011, June). Material characterization of bamboo and analysis of bonding

strength and internal strength as a structural member in reinforced concrete. Retrieved

from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/matesp/1/

Varma, V.R.; Paduvil, R. (2007, December). Developing a safer (biological) preservative against

bamboo border based on traditional knowledge. Retrieved from

http://www.docs.kfri.res.in/KFRI-RR/KFRI-RR407.pdf

Xiao, Y.; Inoue, M; Paudel, S.K. (2007, October). Modern Bamboo Structures. Retrieved from

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v3riDLVenTQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=b

amboo+reinforced+concrete+slab+-

laminate&ots=MlEB7GOJJ5&sig=AwmAT6lQbN5OjhGG-

VhfhVu6H1c#v=onepage&q=bamboo%20reinforced%20concrete%20slab%20-

laminate&f=false

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/28318644/O21077083.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1519076730&Signature=Pl6v98i4HhV831rCIedeRJ2UJlM%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DIJERA_wwww.ijera.com.pdf




http://www.ijimt.org/papers/129-M533.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813008825

http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/matesp/1/

http://www.docs.kfri.res.in/KFRI-RR/KFRI-RR407.pdf

https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v3riDLVenTQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=bamboo+reinforced+concrete+slab+-laminate&ots=MlEB7GOJJ5&sig=AwmAT6lQbN5OjhGG-VhfhVu6H1c







APPENDIX A

Pour Day Datasheet

Weights:

· 20” Non-injected (non-coated) bamboo = 42.2g

· 20” Non-injected (coated with polyurethane and sand) bamboo = 57.4 g

· 20” Injected (non-coated) bamboo = 98.4g

· 20” Injected (coated with polyurethane and sand) bamboo = 111.9 g

· 20” Steel rebar = 385.5 g

Average thickness over 20” (measured at 3 locations along length):

· 20” Non-injected (non-coated) bamboo = 9.10 mm

· 20” Non-injected (coated with polyurethane and sand) bamboo = 18.34 mm

· 20” Injected (non-coated) bamboo = 10.28 mm

· 20” Injected (coated with polyurethane and sand) bamboo = 18.56 mm

· 20” Steel rebar = 11.03 mm

Batch #1 (For 1 beam & 1 cylinder)

*Beam 1, Cylinder 1*

• Water = 3.35 Kg 9.7%

• Cement = 5.55 Kg 15.9%

• Fine Aggregate = 9.95 Kg 28.7%

• Course Aggregate = 15.85 Kg 45.7%

TOTAL = 34.70 Kg

Batch #2 (For 2 beams & 1 cylinder)

*Beams 2 & 3, Cylinder 2*

• Water = 5.90 Kg 8.2%

• Cement = 14.05 Kg 19.7%



TOTAL = 71.50 Kg

Batch #3 (For 2 beams & 1 cylinder)

*Beams demo & 5, Cylinder 3*

• Water = 6.70 Kg 9.4%

• Cement = 12.70 Kg 17.9%



TOTAL = 70.95 Kg

Batch #4 (For 2 beams & 2 cylinders)

*Beams 4 & 6, Cylinder 4 & 5*

• Water = 6.70 Kg 8.8%

• Cement = 15.70 Kg 20.7%



TOTAL = 75.95 Kg


Batch #5 (For 1 beam)

*Beam 7, Cylinder 6*

• Water = 3.35 Kg 8.6%

• Cement = 8.85 Kg 22.7%



TOTAL = 38.98 Kg

Slump Test x5:

Avg. slump distance: = 147 mm

Test #1 (Cylinder 1, Beam 1) = 175 mm

Test #2 (Cylinder 2, Beam 2 & 3) = 95 mm

Test #3 (Cylinder 3, Beam demo & 5) = 170 mm

Test #4 (Cylinder 4 & 5, Beam 4, 6) = 115 mm

Test #5 (Cylinder 6, Beam 7) = 130 mm

Cylinders to pour:

• 3x straight concrete without reinforcement (1 for each concrete batch mix)

Beams to pour:

• 1x Steel rebar reinforced (Beam 2)

• 2x Non-injected bamboo reinforced (Beam 1 & demo)

• 2x Injected-bamboo reinforced (Beams 3 & 5)

• 2x Non-injected bamboo reinforced (Beam 4 & 7)

• 1x Injected-bamboo reinforced (Beam 6)

Volume of Cylinder:

Cylinder Diameter: 4” (101.6 mm)

Cylinder Length: 8” (203.2 mm)

Cylinder Volume: .001647 m³


Concrete Density:

Mass of concrete: #1 3.6667 kg #2 3.6758 kg #3 3.9001 kg #4 3.9401 kg #5

3.9437

#6 3.9265 kg

Avg. = 3.842 kg

Volume of cylinder: .001647 m³

Density of Concrete (average mass/volume) 2,332.73 kg / m³


Bamboo Water Absorption Test *Samples submerged for 28 days Dated: Feb. 22, 2018

Sample Description

Original

Length

(mm)

Post-Test

Length

(mm)

Original

Diameter

(mm)

Post-Test

Diameter

(mm)

Increase

in

Diameter

(%)

Average

Increase

in

Diameter

(%)

Original

Weight

(g)

Post-Test

Weight

(g)

Increase

in

Weight

(%)

1

Injected

(sand &

polyurethane

coated)

100.13 100.30

A) 19.05 19.48 2.3

3.53 26 30 15.4 B) 16.28 17.49 7.4

C) 18.66 18.82 0.9

2 Injected

(no coating) 100.02 99.06

A) 14.63 19.94 9.0

4.83 17 24 41.2 B) 14.41 15.14 5.1

C) 16.72 16.79 0.4

3

Non-Injected

(sand &

polyurethane

coated)

107.49 106.48

A) 16.04 16.44 2.5

2.50 18 23 27.8 B) 17.81 18.57 4.2

C) 17.89 18.04 0.8

4 Non-Injected

(no coating) 103.71 103.78

A) 15.49 16.00 3.3

2.62 8 17 112.5 B) 15.01 15.69 4.5

C) 15.36 15.37 0.07

Water Temperatures (°C):

Feb. 11 Feb. 16 Feb. 19 Feb. 23 Feb. 26 Mar. 2 Mar. 6 Mar. 11 Average

22.5 21.7 22.3 21.3 21.5 21.2 22.7 22.3 21.94


Cylinder Compression Test Date: Feb. 09, 2018

Strength = (Load / Cross-sectional Area) / 1,000

Mpa = N/m² x 106

Theoretical Modulus of Rupture = 0.012 (Average Density x Average Compressive Strength)1/2

= 4.17 MPa

Cylinder Days Cured Density

[ kg/m3 ]

Load [ kN ]

Cross-Sectional

Area [ m² ]

Compressive

Strength [ Mpa ]

#1 28

2,226.89

459.00

0.008107

56.62

#2 28

2,231.82

295.45

0.008107

36.44

#3 28

2,368.00

486.90

0.008107

60.06

#4 28

2,392.29

401.75

0.008107

49.56

#5 28

2,394.47

442.20

0.008107

54.55

#6 28

2,384.03

430.00

0.008107

53.04

Average:

2,332.92

Average:

51.71


Mass of concrete: #1 3.6677 kg #2 3.6758 kg #3 3.9001 kg #4 3.9401 kg #5 3.9437 kg #6 3.9265 kg

Volume of cylinder: .001647 m³

Density of Concrete (mass/volume) #1 2,226.89 kg / m³

#2 2,231.82 kg / m³

#3 2,368.00 kg / m³

#4 2,392.29 kg / m³

#5 2,394.47 kg / m³

#6 2,384.03 kg / m³


Bamboo Deflection Test

Completed By: Baldrey A., Holmberg R., Johnston A. Date: Mar. 15, 2018

1 Kg. = 9.80665 N


Design Analysis – Bamboo Deflection Analysis (Non-Coated, Non-Injected)

Created by

Author: Baldrey T., Holmberg R., Johnston A.

Course: RSR-2265

Created Date: Mar. 18, 2018

Summary

Model Information

Analysis Type - Static Stress with Linear Material Models

Units - Custom - (N, mm, s, °C, K, V, ohm, A, J)

Model location - C:\Users\s0251362\Desktop\COLLEGE\Winter18\RSR-2265-

C02\Research Project\Bamboo\Parts\bamboo_Bamboo Static Analysis_1.fem

Design scenario description - Bamboo Static Analysis:1

Analysis Parameters Information

Processor Information

Type of Solver Automatic

Disable Calculation and Output of Strains No

Calculate Reaction Forces Yes

Invoke Banded Solver Yes

Avoid Bandwidth Minimization No

Stop After Stiffness Calculations No

Displacement Data in Output File No

Stress Data in Output File No

Equation Numbers Data in Output File No


Element Input Data in Output File No

Nodal Input Data in Output File No

Centrifugal Load Data in Output File No

Part Information

Part ID Part Name Element Type Material Name

1 Bamboo (No coating or Injection) Brick [Customer Defined] (Bamboo)

Element Information

Element Properties used for:

• Part 1

Element Type Bricked Tetrahedron

Compatibility Not Enforced

Integration Order 2nd Order

Stress Free Reference Temperature 0 °C

Material Information

[Customer Defined] (Bamboo) –Brick & Tetrahedron Mesh Type

Material Model Standard

Material Source Not Applicable

Material Source File

Date Last Updated 2018/03/18-14:49:14

Material Description Customer defined material properties

Mass Density 3.04351624250567e-10 N·s²/mm/mm³

Modulus of Elasticity 15000 N/mm²

Poisson's Ratio 0.27

Thermal Coefficient of Expansion 1e-07 1/°C

Yield Strength 186.158446915546 N/mm²


Ultimate Strength 31.5435146162453 N/mm²

Loads

FEA Object Group 1: Surface Forces

Surface Force

ID Description Part

Number

Surface

Number Magnitude (N) Vx Vy Vz

1 Force:1 1 1 -147 0 1 0

Constraints

FEA Object Group 2: Edge General Constraints

Edge General Constraint

ID Description Part

Number

Edge

Number Tx Ty Tz Rx Ry Rz

2 Fixed Constraint:1 1 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes



Results Presentation Images

Displacement


Design Analysis – Carbon Steel Deflection Analysis (10M Rebar)

Created by

Author: Baldrey T., Holmberg R., Johnston A.

Course: RSR-2265

Created Date: Mar. 18, 2018

Summary

Model Information

Analysis Type - Static Stress with Linear Material Models

Units - Custom - (N, mm, s, °C, K, V, ohm, A, J)

Design scenario description – Carbon Steel Rebar 10M Static Analysis

Analysis Parameters Information

Processor Information

Type of Solver Automatic

Disable Calculation and Output of Strains No

Calculate Reaction Forces Yes

Invoke Banded Solver Yes

Avoid Bandwidth Minimization No

Stop After Stiffness Calculations No

Displacement Data in Output File No

Stress Data in Output File No

Equation Numbers Data in Output File No

Element Input Data in Output File No


Nodal Input Data in Output File No

Centrifugal Load Data in Output File No

Part Information

Part ID Part Name Element Type Material Name

1 Part 1 Brick & Tetrahedron steel, carbon

Element Information

Element Properties used for:

• Steel, carbon - Rebar

Element Type Brick

Compatibility Not Enforced

Integration Order 2nd Order

Stress Free Reference Temperature 0 °C

Material Information

Steel, carbon – Brick & Tetrahedron Mesh Type

Material Model Standard

Material Source Not Applicable

Material Source File Not Applicable

Date Last Updated 2018-03-18-21:36:41

Material Description 10M Carbon Steel Rebar

Mass Density 7.85e-09 N·s²/mm/mm³

Modulus of Elasticity 200000 N/mm²

Poisson's Ratio 0.29

Thermal Coefficient of Expansion 1.2e-05 1/°C

Yield Strength 350 N/mm²

Ultimate Strength 420 N/mm²


Loads

FEA Object Group 1: Surface Forces

Surface Force

ID Description Part

Number

Surface

Number Magnitude (N) Vx Vy Vz

1 Force:1 1 1 147 0 -1 0

Constraints

FEA Object Group 2: Surface General Constraints

Surface General Constraint

ID Description Part

Number

Surface

Number Tx Ty Tz Rx Ry Rz




Results Presentation Images

Displacement


Bamboo Stress Analysis Calculations

INJECTED #1A

(Sand & Polyurethane Coated)

FORCE & DISTANCES

AVG. DIAMETER (mm) 18.56 SHEAR STRESS

Shear Force (max) 46.5

FORCE A (N) 147 Cross Sectional Area 270.5489328

Shear Stress = 4V/3A 0.22916372

DISTANCE 1 (mm) 3.625 k-value 2.5

DISTANCE 2 (mm) 3.875 Corrected Stress 0.572909301

TOTAL DISTANCE (mm) 7.5

BENDING STRESS

SHEAR Bending Moment 168.5625

Shaft Radius 9.28

Rb 71.05 Moment of Inertia 5824.81030

Bending Stress = Mc/l 0.268551235

Ra 75.95 k-value 2.5

Corrected Stress 0.671

SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625

Note: 1. These values are for comparative purposes only in hypothesizing load bearing capabilities of bamboo samples.

2. The formulas used do not account for the hollow state of bamboo.


INJECTED #1B

(Sand & Polyurethane Coated)

FORCE & DISTANCES








BENDING STRESS


Shaft Radius 9.28





SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625




INJECTED #2A

(no coating)

FORCE & DISTANCES








BENDING STRESS


Shaft Radius 5.14





SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625




INJECTED #2B

(no coating)

FORCE & DISTANCES








BENDING STRESS


Shaft Radius 5.14





SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625




NON-INJECTED #3A

(sand & polyurethane coated)

FORCE & DISTANCES








BENDING STRESS


Shaft Radius 9.17





SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625




NON-INJECTED #3B

(sand & polyurethane coated)

FORCE & DISTANCES








BENDING STRESS


Shaft Radius 9.17





SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625




NON-INJECTED #4A

(no coating)

FORCE & DISTANCES








BENDING STRESS


Shaft Radius 4.55





SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625




NON-INJECTED #4B

(no coating)

FORCE & DISTANCES








BENDING STRESS


Shaft Radius 4.55





SHEAR FORCE 46.5

(M) MOMENT 168.5625




Beam Bending Test

Beam

Reinforcement Days Cured L – span

[mm] b – width

[mm] d – depth

[mm] a – distance

[avg. mm] Load [N]

2

(Baseline) #3 Rebar Reinforced 28 450 152.4 152.4 213 151.85

1 Non-Injected

(Sand & Poly.

Coated) 28 450 152.4 152.4 152 38.57

4 Non-Injected

(Sand & Poly.

Coated) 28 450 152.4 152.4 216.5 16.60

3 Injected

(Sand & Poly.

Coated) 28 450 152.4 152.4 228.5 50.69

5 Injected

(Sand & Poly.

Coated) 28 450 152.4 152.4 231.5 61.53

6 Injected

(Sand & Poly.

Coated) 28 450 152.4 152.4 230.5 51.66

7 Non-Injected

(Sand & Poly.

Coated) 28 450 152.4 152.4 228 33.10

Average Loads: Bamboo Reinforced: 29.4 N Injected Bamboo Reinforced: 54.2 N


SAMPLE 2 - Concrete Beam (#3 Steel Rebar reinforced):

Actual Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = Load x Span = 19.31 MPa

Width x (Depth)²

‘Corrected’ Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = 3 x Load x a = 27.41 MPa

Width x (Depth)²

SAMPLE 1 - Concrete Beam (10mm Non-injected Bamboo reinforced):


Width x (Depth)²


Width x (Depth)²



Width x (Depth)²


Width x (Depth)²


SAMPLE 3 - Concrete Beam (10mm Polyurethane-Injected Bamboo reinforced):


Width x (Depth)²


Width x (Depth)²



Width x (Depth)²


Width x (Depth)²



Width x (Depth)²


Width x (Depth)²




Width x (Depth)²


Width x (Depth)²

Sample 2 “a” measurements (mm): Left 420 Right 6 Sample 1 “a” measurements (mm): Left 157 Right 147



Sample 7 “a” measurements (mm): Left 128 Right 328

**Practise Beam failed @ 35.45**

Mark on the beam at the positions in

which it contacts the beam supports Mark on the beam at the positions in

which it contacts the beam supports


APPENDIX B



APPENDIX C

Activity Logs

Tyson Baldrey

date activity

2017-09-13 • group discussion on potential research topics

2017-09-20 • selection of research topic – “Bamboo as a Viable Alternative to

Steel Rebar in Concrete Reinforcement”

2017-10-14 • search for and acquire academic references

• begin formulating Literature Review

2017-10-22 • bamboo injecting & cutting

2017-11-16 • begin creating data sheets for the various experiments

• compiling research paper

2017-12-03 • sand coating, measurements

2017-12-08 • calculate batch mixture ingredient weights for pour day #1

• create “pour day” datasheet

2017-12-11 • Beam, cylinder pour day. Calculate cylinder volume, record

slump results and label all poured samples

2017-12-13 • pull samples from forms

2018-01-05 • cured concrete blocks, cylinders

2018-01-09 • calculate batch mixture ingredients weights for pour day #2

2018-01-11 • pour cylinders 4, 5, 6; beams 4, 6, 7

2018-01-25 • submit progress report

2018-02-02 • arrange time with Teresa for testing

• weigh test cylinders

• modify formatting concrete compression, beam deflection,

tensile and compression test datasheets

2018-02-08 • Attempt tensile test with bamboo. Clamping force is too great to

achieve a valid test without compromising bamboo integrity

2018-02-09 • Create datasheet for water absorption test. This test will serve as

replacement for bamboo tension & compression test.

• Input data from cylinder compression test into digital form

2018-02-11 • Put bamboo samples in water for absorption test

• Record water temperature

2018-02-15 • Beam deflection testing

2018-02-16 • Record water temperature

2018-02-19 • Update water absorption datasheet to include water temperatures

• Update beam deflection datasheet to include load averages

• Create a “Master – To Do” list

• Group brainstorming on presentation formatting

• Modulus of Rupture calculations for beam testing

2018-02-21

• Begin converting “Preliminary Data” and “Post-Testing Data”

bullet listed data to paragraph form

• Inquire with Teresa about deflection testing bamboo


2018-02-23 • Prepare material for Progress Interview #2


2018-02-26 • Record water temperature

2018-03-02 • Modulus of Rupture calculations for beam bending test


2018-03-04 • Formulating bamboo deflection test procedure

2018-03-11 • Pull water absorption test samples and take

measurements/weights

• Excel calculations for Inventor F.E.A.

2018-03-14 • Create bamboo deflection test datasheet

2018-03-15 • Conduct bamboo deflection test

• Digitize data and upload to OneDrive

2018-03-16 • Conduct Bamboo finite element analysis w/ Autodesk Inventor

and Simulation Mechanical

2018-03-18 • Conduct Bamboo finite element analysis w/ Autodesk Inventor

and Simulation Mechanical

2018-03-23 • Cut and prepare concrete beam cross-section slice

2018-03-25 • Put together presentation poster board

2018-03-30 • Work on my portion of the research paper

2018-03-31 • Continued work on my portion of research paper

2018-04-01 • Practice group presentation

• Formulating speaking notes

2018-04-03 • Refine group presentation

• Finalize speaking notes

2018-04-04 • Practice presentation

2018-04-05 • Present our research to a group of peers

2018-04-08 • Finish touches on my part of research paper

2018-04-10 • Peer editing of research paper

2018-04-11 • Finalize peer editing

2018-04-12 • Prepare and print report

2018-04-13 • Binding and submission of final paper


Randy Holmberg

activity

2017-10-15 • Created Shared file system on one drive

2017-10-22 • bamboo injecting & cutting

2017-12-03 • sand coating, measurements

2017-12-11 • beam, cylinder pour day







2018-02-03 • Start Power Point / Scan Receipts

2018-02-08 • Attempted tension test

2018-02-09 • Cylinder Compression test

2018-02-06 • Power Point

2018-02-11 • Put bamboo samples in water for soak test

2018-02-15 • Beam deflection Test

2018-02-19 • Work on compiling data into excel and create graphs of data,

power point presentation







• Work on compiling data into excel and create graphs of data,


2018-03-01 • Update and refine my portion of the paper

2018-03-05 • Work on PowerPoint Presentation (PPP)

2018-03-11 • Work on PPP

• Work on my Portion of the Paper

2018-03-14 • Work On PPP

2018-03-15 • Conduct bamboo deflection test

2018-03-17 • Work on Paper

2018-03-20 • Work on PPP

2018-03-23 • Cut Concrete beams for presentation

2018-03-25 • Put together presentation poster board


2018-03-31 • Divide up Presentation parts for each member to do Refinement

2018-04-01 • Practice group presentation

• Do minor presentation edits

• Work on speaking notes

2018-04-02 • Do minor presentation edits


• Formulating speaking notes

2018-04-03 • Refine group presentation

• Finalize speaking notes

2018-04-04 • Practice presentation

2018-04-05 • Present our research to a group of peers


2018-04-10 • Peer editing of research paper

2018-04-11 • Finalize peer editing

2018-04-12 • Prepare and print report

• Read through entire report for check 2018-04-13 • Binding and submission of final paper


Allan Johnston

date activity

2017-09-06 • discuss research topics

2017-09-13 • compare research topics – concrete w/ bamboo, human

movement characteristics, traffic distribution

2017-09-20 • research bamboo characteristics

• review concrete notes from previous semesters

2017-09-25 • discuss research parameters

• discuss bamboo characteristics

• review concrete notes from previous semesters

2017-10-02 • create research documents in APA format

2017-10-04 • create research documents

2017-10-14 • review research procedure, documentation, etc.

2017-10-22 • bamboo injecting & cutting 2017-11-05 • coat bamboo with polyurethane

2017-11-27 • research, discuss details of bamboo characteristics

2017-11-29 • research, discuss details of bamboo characteristics

2017-12-03 • sand coating, measurements 2017-12-11 • beam, cylinder pour day






• create activity log


2018-02-08 • conduct concrete cylinder tests

2018-02-11 • put bamboo samples in water for soak test 2018-02-15 • bream deflection testing

2018-02-19 • compile results

• contribute to Research Proposal report

• Literature Review research

2018-02-21 • edit automated Table of Contents in report as per APA heading

formats • begin Preliminary Data & Post Testing sections

2018-02-23 • assist in preparing material for Progress Interview #2

2018-03-03 • refine Literature Review



2018-03-15 • bamboo deflection test & photographs

2018-03-16 • cost analysis sheets

• cost analysis in report

2018-03-17 • cut, prepare, photograph bamboo samples for Presentation

board


• weigh bamboo sample components

2018-03-18 • work on report


2018-03-23 • work on report, presentation

2018-03-25 • work on report, presentation

2018-03-30 • work on presentation


2018-04-03 • work on presentation, report


2018-04-05 • present research to a group of peers





2018-04-11 • work on report, final draft edits


2018-04-13 • binding and submission of research paper


Project Timeline


Documents

Bamboo as a Viable Alternative to Steel Reinforcement in ...allansplace.net/portfolio/research/Bamboo Research Paper - Baldrey... · fiber used to reinforced concrete can “save