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

▶
bamboo as a viable
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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

Mar 06, 2024 481 likes •827 views

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,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Bamboo As a Viable Alternative to Steel Reinforcement in Concrete

TYSON BALDREY, RANDY HOLMBERG, ALLAN JOHNSTON RSR-2265 INSTRUCTOR: LORNE ATWOOD APRIL 5, 2018

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Research Question

Why Bamboo?

 Steel reinforcement bar (rebar)  Limited availability in developing

counties

 Higher expense than bamboo  Large carbon footprint in

manufacturing

 Bamboo  Natural, sustainable, renewable  Low carbon footprint  More readily available than steel in

import-dependent countries

We intended to validate, through experimentation and analysis, the structural suitability

  • f bamboo as a potential alternative to steel rebar as reinforcement in concrete.

National Geographic, 1980 Global natural bamboo habitat

We hypothesized the following:

 that bamboo does not offer as much

strength as that of steel rebar

 that using bamboo in some cases offers a

cost-effective alternative to using steel rebar

 that the injected bamboo is somewhat

stronger than non-injected bamboo

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Tests Conducted

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Apparatuses and Materials

 Bamboo

 in 20” (508mm) lengths @ avg.

10mm dia.

 Elastomeric Polyurethane

 high workability  broad availability  favorable tensile & compressive properties

 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.

 Forney F-450F: Cylinder Compression  Forney Q-400D: Beam Compression  Tinius Olsen UTM: Bamboo Tension  Deflection Apparatus: Bamboo Deflection

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Bamboo Preparation

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Bore Out Center

To allow for injection

  • Prep. for Injection

Clean out debris

Inject Bamboo

Let set for 7 days

Procedure IINJECTING BAMBOO

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Procedure CUTTING BAMBOO TO LENGTH AND COATING EXTERIOR

Measure Diameter

For future tests

Cut to Length

For placing in beam moulds (20” or 508mm)

Coat Bamboo

In polyurethane lacquer and In polyurethane sealant and sand mixture (1 part polyurethane : 3/4 part sand). Let cure for 7 Days.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Data BAMBOO INFORMATION

42 8 57 18 98 17 112 26 386 508 104 508 107 508 100 508 100 508 9 15 18 17 10 15 19 18 11 100 200 300 400 500 Non-Injected, Non-Coated Non-Injected, Non-Coated Non-Injected, Coated Non-Injected, Coated Injected, Non- Coated Injected, Non- Coated Injected, Coated Injected, Coated Rebar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Bamboo Data Samples

Weight (Grams) Length (mm) Diameter (mm)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Bamboo Submersion

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Procedure BAMBOO SUBMERSION

  • Prep. Samples
  • Prep. the 4 different

kinds of samples Collect length, weight, and diameter

Measure Temperature Store Samples

In temperature regulated area For calculating average  21.9°C

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Data BAMBOO SUBMERSION

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

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Data BAMBOO SUBMERSION

9.00 5.00 7.00 4.00

  • 0.22
  • 0.52
  • 0.94

0.30 0.40 0.44 2.04 0.60 2.21 1.21 1.84 0.99

  • 1.50
  • 1.00
  • 0.50

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 Non-Injected (Non-Coating) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Non-Coated) Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.)

Difference in Bamboo Dimensions & Weights

Difference in data Weight (Grams) Difference in data Length (mm) Difference in data Diameter (mm) Difference in data Weight Per Length (g/25.4mm)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Concrete Preparation

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Procedure MIXING CONCRETE

Mix Concrete

Using standard ratio and adding to each batch to suit

Cast Beams & Cylinders

Performing a slump test for each batch of concrete

Let stand

24 hours before removed from moulds

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Procedure REMOVING MOULDS

Remove from Moulds

After 24 hours

Let Cure in Bath

Temperature controlled at 25°C for 28 days.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Cylinder Compression

slide-18
SLIDE 18

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.

ASTM International, 2018

Observed Fracture Modes

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Data CYLINDER COMPRESSION

459.00 295.45 485.90 401.75 442.20 430.00 443.77 56.62 36.44 60.06 49.56 54.55 53.04 54.77 175.00 95.00 170.00 115.00 115.00 130.00 141.00 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average

Concrete Cylinder Test

Load (kN) Compressive Strength (MPa) Slump (cm)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Beam Bending

slide-21
SLIDE 21

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

slide-22
SLIDE 22

38.57 151.85 50.69 16.6 61.53 51.66 33.1 4.9 19.31 6.44 2.11 7.82 6.57 4.21 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Rebar Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Load Resistance & Modulus of Rupture

Loading (kN) Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

Data BEAM BREAK

29.42 54.63 3.74 6.94 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.)

Averages

Loading (kN) Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Bamboo Deflection

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Test BAMBOO DEFLECTION

Place Bamboo

Set distance between pin supports  17 inches

Load Bamboo

Measure deflection

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Data BAMBOO DEFLECTION

18.56 18.56 10.28 10.28 18.34 18.34 9.1 9.1 5 5 4 6 6 5 7 7 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Non-Coated) Injected (Non-Coated) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Non-Injected (Non- Coating) Non-Injected (Non- Coating) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B

Diameter and Deflection from Pin Support

Average Diameter (mm) Change in Height (=Deflection) 61 61 60 60 61 62 60 58 56 56 56 54 55 57 53 51 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Injected (Non-Coated) Injected (Non-Coated) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Non-Injected (Coated with Sand & Poly.) Non-Injected (Non- Coating) Non-Injected (Non- Coating) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B

Deflection Magnitude from Baseline

Height from Baseline (mm) Deflected Height From Baseline (mm)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Finite Element Analysis

10mm Bamboo #3M Carbon Steel Rebar

LOAD = 147 N

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Cost & Weight Analysis

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Data COST & WEIGHTS

398.78 107.36 140.69 398.78 34.93 34.93 47.44 47.44 25.00 25.00

33.33

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00 Steel Rebar Bamboo Coated, Non-Injected Bamboo Coated, Injected Weight (g)

Material Used

Weights of Individual Components of Reinforcement Bars (per 20-inch)

Total Carbon Steel Bamboo Polyurethane Coating Sand Polyurethane Injection

*Costs based on local retail purchase prices

Cost as Compared to Steel Coated, Non-injected Coated, Injected Percent Savings in Cost 56.4% 21.2%

$1.49 $0.65 $1.17 $1.49 $0.45 $0.45 $0.19 $0.19 $0.01 $0.01 $0.52 $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 Steel Rebar Bamboo, Coated, Non-Injected Bamboo, Coated, Injected Material Cost

Material Used

Cost per Unit of Length (20-inch)

Total Carbon Steel Bamboo Polyurethane Coating Sand Polyurethane Injection

Weight as Compared to Steel Coated, Non- Injected Coated, Injected Percent Savings in Weight 73.1% 64.7%

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Summary

 Injected bamboo was indeed stronger than

bamboo by itself. It held 1/3 the load of a standard steel rebar reinforced beam.

 Injected bamboo is 21.2% more cost effective

than steel rebar.

 Injected bamboo is 3 times lighter than steel

rebar.

 Injected bamboo has a lower deflection

magnitude than that of non-injected bamboo.

 Water absorption still occurred within the

bamboo.

Our Hypothesis

√

Bamboo does not offer as much strength as that of steel rebar.

√

In some cases, using bamboo offers a cost-effective alternative to using steel rebar.

√

Injected bamboo is stronger than non- injected bamboo.

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

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Testing Limitations

 Bamboo slippage within concrete beams  Unpredictability of castings process  Human error  Time constraints  Cost & donation constraints  Material availability restrictions  Limitations of testing equipment Tensile test  Small sample groups  Limited experience in field of bamboo research

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Suggestions for Further Research

 Applied structural testing of

natural injectable material (i.e. Chicle and Latex)

 Alternate material combinations  In depth global financial analysis

  • f bamboo vs. steel rebar

 More structural analysis of

bamboo sub-species

 Conduct a long-term use study  Degradation of in-situ bamboo

  • ver time

 Structural application of bamboo

laminates

 Application of genetic

engineering and high yield bamboo production

 Further study of thermal expansion

rates of bamboo

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Thank You for Your Time.

Thank you to all those who contributed their time, materials, & expertise.