Bamboo As a Viable Alternative to Steel Reinforcement in Concrete - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Bamboo As a Viable Alternative to Steel Reinforcement in Concrete TYSON BALDREY, RANDY HOLMBERG, ALLAN JOHNSTON RSR-2265 INSTRUCTOR: LORNE ATWOOD APRIL 5, 2018

Research Question We intended to validate, through experimentation and analysis, the structural suitability of bamboo as a potential alternative to steel rebar as reinforcement in concrete. We hypothesized the following:  Why Bamboo?  that bamboo does not offer as much  Steel reinforcement bar (rebar) strength as that of steel rebar  Limited availability in developing  that using bamboo in some cases offers a counties cost-effective alternative to using steel rebar  Higher expense than bamboo  that the injected bamboo is somewhat  Large carbon footprint in stronger than non-injected bamboo manufacturing  Bamboo  Natural, sustainable, renewable  Low carbon footprint  More readily available than steel in import-dependent countries National Geographic, 1980 Global natural bamboo habitat

Literature Review  Karthik, Ram Mohan Rao, and Awoyera (2016) – found a growing trend toward finding suitable alternatives to high-embodied energy materials like steel for both developing and developed countries  Xiao, Inoue, & Paudel (2007) – states builders are developing, testing, & using bamboo as low-cost, low-carbon alternative  Rahman, M.; Rashid, M.; et alai. (2011) – studied cost & availability  Vanasupa (2011) – found that cellular structure absorbs water, causing swelling, expansion; voids, loss of adhesion  Agarwala et alai, (2014) – tests to improved cohesion  Agarwala, Nandab, & Maitya, 2014 – more testing is needed  Varma & Paduvil (2007) – skilled labour is needed  Agarwala, A.; Nandab, B.; & Maitya, D., 2014 – more training must be done

Tests Conducted  Bamboo Water Absorption  Concrete Cylinder Compression  Bamboo Reinforcement Beam Bending  Steel Rebar Reinforcement Beam Bending  Bamboo Tension Test  Bamboo Deflection Test

Apparatuses  Bamboo and Materials  in 20” (508mm) lengths @ avg. 10mm dia.  Elastomeric Polyurethane  Forney F-450F: Cylinder Compression  high workability  Forney Q-400D: Beam Compression  broad availability  Tinius Olsen UTM: Bamboo Tension  favorable tensile & compressive properties  Deflection Apparatus: Bamboo Deflection  Coarse Sand & Elastomeric Polyurethane mixture  waterproofing and binding agent  ratio [3/4] sand : [1] polyurethane  Concrete  8.93% water  19.37% cement  28.35% fine aggregate  43.37% course aggregate  Carbon Steel Rebar  in 20” (508mm) lengths @ 10mm dia.

Bamboo Preparation

Procedure IINJECTING BAMBOO Bore Out Center Prep. for Injection Inject Bamboo To allow for injection Clean out debris Let set for 7 days

Procedure CUTTING BAMBOO TO LENGTH AND COATING EXTERIOR Measure Diameter Cut to Length Coat Bamboo For future tests For placing in beam In polyurethane lacquer and moulds In polyurethane sealant and sand (20” or 508mm) mixture (1 part polyurethane : 3/4 part sand). Let cure for 7 Days.

Data BAMBOO INFORMATION Bamboo Data Samples 500 508 508 508 508 508 386 400 300 200 112 107 104 100 100 98 100 57 42 26 18 19 18 17 17 18 15 15 11 9 10 8 0 Non-Injected, Non-Injected, Non-Injected, Non-Injected, Injected, Non- Injected, Non- Injected, Injected, Rebar Non-Coated Non-Coated Coated Coated Coated Coated Coated Coated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weight (Grams) Length (mm) Diameter (mm)

Bamboo Submersion

Procedure BAMBOO SUBMERSION Prep. Samples Store Samples Measure Temperature In temperature For calculating Prep. the 4 different regulated area average  21.9°C kinds of samples Collect length, weight, and diameter

Data BAMBOO SUBMERSION 120 110 100 107 106.48 104 100 90 103.78 100.30 100 99.06 80 70 60 50 40 30 18.60 26 18.00 17.68 17.25 17.29 30 24 15.69 15.29 15.25 23 18 17 17 20 7.60 6.60 6.15 5.49 4.27 4.32 4.16 1.95 8 10 0 Weight (Grams) Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Weight Per Weight (Grams) Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Weight Per Length Length (g/25.4mm) (g/25.4mm) Origonal data After Soak Original Data Non-Injected (Non-Coating) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Non-Coated) Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.)

Data BAMBOO SUBMERSION Difference in Bamboo Dimensions & Weights 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 9.00 7.50 7.00 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.21 2.50 2.04 1.84 2.00 1.21 1.50 0.99 0.60 1.00 0.44 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.00 -0.50 -0.22 -1.00 -0.52 -0.94 -1.50 Non-Injected (Non-Coating) Non-Injected (Coated with Injected (Non-Coated) Injected (Coated with Sand & Sand & Poly.) Poly.) Difference in data Weight (Grams) Difference in data Length (mm) Difference in data Diameter (mm) Difference in data Weight Per Length (g/25.4mm)

Concrete Preparation

Procedure MIXING CONCRETE Cast Beams & Mix Concrete Let stand Cylinders Performing a slump 24 hours before Using standard ratio test for each batch of removed from moulds and adding to each concrete batch to suit

Procedure REMOVING MOULDS Remove from Moulds Let Cure in Bath After 24 hours Temperature controlled at 25°C for 28 days.

Cylinder Compression

Test CYLINDER COMPRESSION  To evaluate the standardization of our concrete mixture  Cylinders are loaded into the compression machine and put under increasing load until failure. Observed Fracture Modes ASTM International, 2018

Data CYLINDER COMPRESSION Concrete Cylinder Test 500 450 485.90 459.00 442.20 443.77 400 430.00 401.75 350 300 295.45 250 200 175.00 170.00 141.00 150 130.00 115.00 115.00 95.00 100 60.06 56.62 54.55 54.77 53.04 49.56 36.44 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average Load (kN) Compressive Strength (MPa) Slump (cm)

Beam Bending

Test BEAM BREAK  Beams are loaded into the machine and incrementally loaded until failure.  Majority of the beams failed due to flexure cracks rather than catastrophic separation

Data BEAM BREAK Load Resistance & Modulus of Rupture Averages 160 60.00 54.63 151.85 140 50.00 120 100 40.00 80 29.42 61.53 30.00 60 51.66 50.69 38.57 33.1 40 20.00 19.31 16.6 20 7.82 6.44 6.57 4.9 4.21 10.00 2.11 6.94 3.74 0 Non-Injected Rebar Injected Non-Injected Injected Injected Non-Injected 0.00 (Coated with (Coated with (Coated with (Coated with (Coated with (Coated with Non-Injected Injected (Coated Sand & Poly.) Sand & Poly.) Sand & Poly.) Sand & Poly.) Sand & Poly.) Sand & Poly.) (Coated with with Sand & Poly.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sand & Poly.) Loading (kN) Loading (kN) Modulus of Rupture (MPa) Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

Bamboo Deflection

Test BAMBOO DEFLECTION Place Bamboo Load Bamboo Set distance between Measure deflection pin supports  17 inches

10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 Data BAMBOO DEFLECTION 18.56 Injected (Coated with 1A Sand & Poly.) Average Diameter (mm) Diameter and Deflection from Pin 5 18.56 Injected (Coated with 1B Sand & Poly.) 5 10.28 2A Injected (Non-Coated) 4 Support 10.28 Injected (Non-Coated) 2B 6 Change in Height (=Deflection) 18.34 Non-Injected (Coated 3A with Sand & Poly.) 6 18.34 Non-Injected (Coated 3B with Sand & Poly.) 5 9.1 Non-Injected (Non- 4A Coating) 7 9.1 Non-Injected (Non- 4B Coating) 7 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 Injected (Coated with 61 1A Sand & Poly.) 56 Deflection Magnitude from Injected (Coated with 61 1B Sand & Poly.) Deflected Height From Baseline (mm) Height from Baseline (mm) 56 60 2A Injected (Non-Coated) 56 Baseline 60 Injected (Non-Coated) 2B 54 Non-Injected (Coated 61 3A with Sand & Poly.) 55 Non-Injected (Coated 62 3B with Sand & Poly.) 57 Non-Injected (Non- 60 4A Coating) 53 Non-Injected (Non- 58 4B Coating) 51

Finite Element Analysis 10mm Bamboo #3M Carbon Steel Rebar LOAD = 147 N

Cost & Weight Analysis

Data COST & WEIGHTS Cost per Unit of Length Weights of Individual Components of (20-inch) Reinforcement Bars (per 20-inch) $1.60 450.00 $1.17 $1.40 400.00 $1.49 $1.49 $1.20 350.00 398.78 398.78 Material Cost 300.00 $1.00 Weight (g) $0.65 250.00 $0.80 140.69 $0.52 $0.45 $0.45 107.36 200.00 $0.60 150.00 $0.19 $0.19 47.44 33.33 47.44 $0.40 34.93 34.93 100.00 25.00 25.00 $0.01 $0.01 $0.20 50.00 0.00 $0.00 Steel Rebar Bamboo Coated, Bamboo Coated, Steel Rebar Bamboo, Coated, Bamboo, Coated, Non-Injected Injected Non-Injected Injected Total Carbon Steel Total Carbon Steel Material Used Bamboo Polyurethane Coating Material Used Bamboo Polyurethane Coating Sand Polyurethane Injection Sand Polyurethane Injection Coated, Coated, Coated, Non- Coated, Cost as Compared to Steel Non-injected Injected Weight as Compared to Steel Injected Injected Percent Savings in Cost 56.4% 21.2% Percent Savings in Weight 73.1% 64.7% *Costs based on local retail purchase prices