bamboo as a viable alternative to steel reinforcement in...
TRANSCRIPT
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 3
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 4
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 5
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 6
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,
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 7
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).
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 8
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 9
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 10
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 11
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 12
$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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 13
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)
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 14
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 15
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 16
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 17
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 18
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 19
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 20
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 21
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 22
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 23
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 24
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 25
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 26
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 27
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 28
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 29
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)
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 30
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 31
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 32
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
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958946504001337
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
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1018363916300484
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 33
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 34
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 35
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%
• Fine Aggregate = 19.90 Kg 27.8%
• Course Aggregate = 31.65 Kg 44.3%
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%
• Fine Aggregate = 19.90 Kg 28.1%
• Course Aggregate = 31.65 Kg 44.6%
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%
• Fine Aggregate = 21.90 Kg 28.8%
• Course Aggregate = 31.65 Kg 41.7%
TOTAL = 75.95 Kg
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 36
Batch #5 (For 1 beam)
*Beam 7, Cylinder 6*
• Water = 3.35 Kg 8.6%
• Cement = 8.85 Kg 22.7%
• Fine Aggregate = 10.95 Kg 28.1%
• Course Aggregate = 15.83 Kg 40.6%
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 37
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 AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 38
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 39
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 40
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 AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 41
Bamboo Deflection Test
Completed By: Baldrey A., Holmberg R., Johnston A. Date: Mar. 15, 2018
1 Kg. = 9.80665 N
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 42
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 43
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 44
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
1 Fixed Constraint:1 1 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 45
Results Presentation Images
Displacement
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 46
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 47
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 48
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
2 Fixed Constraint:1 1 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 Fixed Constraint:1 1 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 49
Results Presentation Images
Displacement
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 50
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 51
INJECTED #1B
(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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 52
INJECTED #2A
(no coating)
FORCE & DISTANCES
AVG. DIAMETER (mm) 10.28 SHEAR STRESS
Shear Force (max) 46.5
FORCE A (N) 147 Cross Sectional Area 82.99962127
Shear Stress = 4V/3A 0.74699136
DISTANCE 1 (mm) 3.625 k-value 2.5
DISTANCE 2 (mm) 3.875 Corrected Stress 1.867478401
TOTAL DISTANCE (mm) 7.5
BENDING STRESS
SHEAR Bending Moment 168.5625
Shaft Radius 5.14
Rb 71.05 Moment of Inertia 548.20420
Bending Stress = Mc/l 1.58045351
Ra 75.95 k-value 2.5
Corrected Stress 3.951
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 53
INJECTED #2B
(no coating)
FORCE & DISTANCES
AVG. DIAMETER (mm) 10.28 SHEAR STRESS
Shear Force (max) 46.5
FORCE A (N) 147 Cross Sectional Area 82.99962127
Shear Stress = 4V/3A 0.74699136
DISTANCE 1 (mm) 3.625 k-value 2.5
DISTANCE 2 (mm) 3.875 Corrected Stress 1.867478401
TOTAL DISTANCE (mm) 7.5
BENDING STRESS
SHEAR Bending Moment 168.5625
Shaft Radius 5.14
Rb 71.05 Moment of Inertia 548.20420
Bending Stress = Mc/l 1.58045351
Ra 75.95 k-value 2.5
Corrected Stress 3.951
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 54
NON-INJECTED #3A
(sand & polyurethane coated)
FORCE & DISTANCES
AVG. DIAMETER (mm) 18.34 SHEAR STRESS
Shear Force (max) 46.5
FORCE A (N) 147 Cross Sectional Area 264.1730705
Shear Stress = 4V/3A 0.234694626
DISTANCE 1 (mm) 3.625 k-value 2.5
DISTANCE 2 (mm) 3.875 Corrected Stress 0.586736565
TOTAL DISTANCE (mm) 7.5
BENDING STRESS
SHEAR Bending Moment 168.5625
Shaft Radius 9.17
Rb 71.05 Moment of Inertia 5553.50573
Bending Stress = Mc/l 0.278331958
Ra 75.95 k-value 2.5
Corrected Stress 0.696
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 55
NON-INJECTED #3B
(sand & polyurethane coated)
FORCE & DISTANCES
AVG. DIAMETER (mm) 18.34 SHEAR STRESS
Shear Force (max) 46.5
FORCE A (N) 147 Cross Sectional Area 264.1730705
Shear Stress = 4V/3A 0.234694626
DISTANCE 1 (mm) 3.625 k-value 2.5
DISTANCE 2 (mm) 3.875 Corrected Stress 0.586736565
TOTAL DISTANCE (mm) 7.5
BENDING STRESS
SHEAR Bending Moment 168.5625
Shaft Radius 9.17
Rb 71.05 Moment of Inertia 5553.50573
Bending Stress = Mc/l 0.278331958
Ra 75.95 k-value 2.5
Corrected Stress 0.696
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 56
NON-INJECTED #4A
(no coating)
FORCE & DISTANCES
AVG. DIAMETER (mm) 9.1 SHEAR STRESS
Shear Force (max) 46.5
FORCE A (N) 147 Cross Sectional Area 65.03882191
Shear Stress = 4V/3A 0.9532768
DISTANCE 1 (mm) 3.625 k-value 2.5
DISTANCE 2 (mm) 3.875 Corrected Stress 2.383191999
TOTAL DISTANCE (mm) 7.5
BENDING STRESS
SHEAR Bending Moment 168.5625
Shaft Radius 4.55
Rb 71.05 Moment of Inertia 336.61655
Bending Stress = Mc/l 2.278436307
Ra 75.95 k-value 2.5
Corrected Stress 5.696
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 57
NON-INJECTED #4B
(no coating)
FORCE & DISTANCES
AVG. DIAMETER (mm) 9.1 SHEAR STRESS
Shear Force (max) 46.5
FORCE A (N) 147 Cross Sectional Area 65.03882191
Shear Stress = 4V/3A 0.9532768
DISTANCE 1 (mm) 3.625 k-value 2.5
DISTANCE 2 (mm) 3.875 Corrected Stress 2.383191999
TOTAL DISTANCE (mm) 7.5
BENDING STRESS
SHEAR Bending Moment 168.5625
Shaft Radius 4.55
Rb 71.05 Moment of Inertia 336.61655
Bending Stress = Mc/l 2.278436307
Ra 75.95 k-value 2.5
Corrected Stress 5.696
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.
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 58
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 59
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):
Actual Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = Load x Span = 4.90 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
‘Corrected’ Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = 3 x Load x a = 4.97 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
SAMPLE 4 - Concrete Beam (10mm Non-injected Bamboo reinforced):
Actual Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = Load x Span = 2.11 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
‘Corrected’ Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = 3 x Load x a = 3.05 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 60
SAMPLE 3 - Concrete Beam (10mm Polyurethane-Injected Bamboo reinforced):
Actual Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = Load x Span = 6.44 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
‘Corrected’ Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = 3 x Load x a = 9.82 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
SAMPLE 5 - Concrete Beam (10mm Polyurethane-Injected Bamboo reinforced):
Actual Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = Load x Span = 7.82 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
‘Corrected’ Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = 3 x Load x a = 12.07 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
SAMPLE 6 - Concrete Beam (10mm Polyurethane-Injected Bamboo reinforced):
Actual Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = Load x Span = 6.57 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
‘Corrected’ Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = 3 x Load x a = 10.09 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 61
SAMPLE 7 - Concrete Beam (10mm Non-injected Bamboo reinforced):
Actual Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = Load x Span = 4.21 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
‘Corrected’ Modulus of Rupture [Mpa] = 3 x Load x a = 6.40 MPa
Width x (Depth)²
Sample 2 “a” measurements (mm): Left 420 Right 6 Sample 1 “a” measurements (mm): Left 157 Right 147
Sample 4 “a” measurements (mm): Left 223 Right 210 Sample 3 “a” measurements (mm): Left 19 Right 265
Sample 5 “a” measurements (mm): Left 294 Right 169 Sample 6 “a” measurements (mm): Left 228 Right 185
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 62
APPENDIX B
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 63
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 64
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 65
2018-02-23 • Prepare material for Progress Interview #2
• Record water temperature
2018-02-26 • Record water temperature
2018-03-02 • Modulus of Rupture calculations for beam bending test
• Record water temperature
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 66
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
2017-12-13 • pull samples from forms
2018-01-05 • cured concrete blocks, cylinders
2017-01-11 • 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
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
2018-02-21 • Work on compiling data into excel and create graphs of data,
power point presentation
2018-02-22 • Work on compiling data into excel and create graphs of data,
power point presentation
2018-02-23 • 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,
power point presentation
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
2018-03-30 • Work on my portion of the research paper
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 67
• 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 • Work on my portion of the research paper
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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 68
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
2017-12-13 • pull samples from forms
2018-01-05 • cured concrete blocks, cylinders
2017-01-11 • pour cylinders 4, 5, 6; beams 4, 6, 7
2018-01-25 • submit progress report
2018-02-02 • arrange time with Teresa for testing
• create activity log
• weigh test cylinders
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
2018-03-04 • refine Literature Review
2018-03-05 • 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
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 69
• weigh bamboo sample components
2018-03-18 • work on report
2018-03-21 • work on report
2018-03-23 • work on report, presentation
2018-03-25 • work on report, presentation
2018-03-30 • work on presentation
2018-04-01 • work on presentation
2018-04-03 • work on presentation, report
2018-04-04 • work on presentation
2018-04-05 • present research to a group of peers
2018-04-07 • work on report
2018-04-08 • work on report
2018-04-09 • work on report
2018-04-10 • work on report
2018-04-11 • work on report, final draft edits
2018-04-12 • work on report
2018-04-13 • binding and submission of research paper
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 70
Project Timeline
BAMBOO AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE 71