Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128

https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-01563-z (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Tensile characterisation of bamboo strips for potential use

in reinforced concrete members: experimental
and numerical study
Bapi Mondal . Damodar Maity . Puneet Kumar Patra

Received: 25 May 2020 / Accepted: 29 September 2020

Ó RILEM 2020

Abstract The usage of bamboo as a replacement for
steel reinforcement in concrete is in the early stages of
development as bamboo reinforced concrete (BRC)
members involve a lot more uncertainties than steel-
reinforced concrete members. The properties of bam-
boo vary inter- and intra-species. A prerequisite to
developing a rational design of BRC members,
therefore, requires two stages—(i) a statistical char-
acterisation of the mechanical properties of bamboo,
and (ii) identifying the variables contributing signif-
icantly towards the stress-strain/load-displacement
behaviour. This paper first experimentally character-
izes the longitudinal tensile properties of Bambusa
balcoa, a commonly found bamboo species in India.
Statistical analysis of the experimental results sug-
gests that most of the mechanical properties follow a
lognormal distribution. The elastic modulus is found
to have a dominant contribution towards the stress-
strain behaviour. A high fidelity finite element model,
the results of which are validated with experiments,
indicates that only the variation of elastic modulus can
capture 92% of the variability in the experimental
B. Mondal (&)  D. Maity  P. K. Patra
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
e-mail: bapimondal@iitkgp.ac.in
D. Maity
e-mail: dmaity@civil.iitkgp.ac.in
P. K. Patra
e-mail: puneet.patra@civil.iitkgp.ac.in
results. We also create a low-fidelity finite element
model using equivalent tensile modulus, which can
capture 82% of the variability in the experimental
results. Lastly, a finite element model of a BRC beam
is created using the low-fidelity finite element model
of bamboo. A comparison with the experimental
results suggests a good agreement between them.
Keywords Bamboo  Longitudinal tensile
properties  Experimental characterisation  Finite
element modelling
1 Introduction
Concrete has become one of the most extensively used
construction materials in the world. However, due to
its low tensile strength and brittle nature, concrete
requires tensile reinforcement, which is traditionally a
steel rebar. Even though steel is the most compatible
material in concrete, it has many disadvantages such
as high cost, susceptibility to corrosion, heavy weight,
and environmentally unfriendly. In order to provide a
sustainable alternative to steel reinforcement, many
researchers are working towards unconventional solu-
tions. One promising such solution is bamboo. Bam-
boo is an optimized composite that exploits the
concept of Functionally Graded Material (FGM). It
has a unique structure which resembles that of a
 128 Page 2 of 15
unidirectional fibre-reinforced composite with many
nodes along its length.
Since 1950s, several researches on bamboo as a
reinforcing material in concrete have been reported.
Glen [1] conducted a study on BRC, financed by the
US War Production Board, for rapid construction in
Southeast Asia following the Second World War. The
author found large deflection, low ductility and early
brittle failure when concrete beams are reinforced with
bamboo. Further, it was advised that a bamboo
reinforcement of 3–4% be used so that the deflection
of the beam remains below l/360 of the span.
Later, Brink and Rush [2] used an allowable stress
approach to prepare a report for assisting the field
personnel in designing and constructing BRC. Their
approach bears similarity to the procedure given
in ACI: 318 [3] for steel reinforced concrete. Subse-
quently, Geymayer and Cox [4] recommended one of
the simplest approaches for BRC—a BRC flexural
element is to design as an unreinforced concrete
pffiffiffiffi
member with a maximum tensile stress of 0:67 fc0 (in
MPa). With 3–4% bamboo reinforcement, an overall
safety factor of 2 to 2.5 can be achieved. The
feasibility of using bamboo in the form of woven
mesh as reinforcement for cement mortar was exper-
imentally investigated by Mansur and Aziz [5] where
the inclusion of bamboo mesh imparts considerable
ductility and toughness to the mortar along with
increase in tensile, flexural and impact strengths.
However, such improvements, particularly in tension,
are associated with wide cracking. Several researchers
have observed a significant increase in the load
carrying capacity of BRC beams when compared to
plain concrete beams under four-point bending test
using 2–3% bamboo reinforcement [6–8]. The perfor-
mance of BRC beams with different percentage of
reinforcement was evaluated by Khare [9], where the
ultimate load carrying capacity of the BRC beams,
upon averaging, was about 35% of the equivalent
reinforced steel concrete beams. Khare also added that
a BRC beam with 4% reinforcement produced an
over-reinforced failure mode. Puri et al. [10] pre-
sented an alternative sustainable infrastructure com-
ponent using prefabricated bamboo reinforced walls—
the walls are 56% lighter in weight, 40% cheaper and
have good strength as compared to partition brick
walls. Mali and Datta [11] investigated the flexural
performance of BRC slab panels under concentrated
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128
loading. They observed that the contribution of
bamboo strips with respect to PCC in each of the
BRC slab was around 1.5–2 times higher in increasing
flexural strength at limited deflections and it was
similar to those of conventional RCC slabs. As is
evident from the literature, most of the researchers
followed a similar kind of design approach, without
any detailed characterisation of bamboo, for BRC as
that of steel reinforced concrete. However, one needs
to accede to the fact that the properties of bamboo and
the reinforcing steel are different, and therefore, BRC
member needs to be designed using different paradigm
considering various uncertainties involved in bamboo.
The longitudinal ultimate tensile strength of bam-
boo is reported to be 50% that of mild steel and its
specific tensile strength is far better than those of
structural steel, aluminum alloy, cast iron, timber, and
concrete [12, 13]. The combination of light weight,
high tensile strength, and renewability makes bamboo
a viable alternative to steel reinforcement especially in
areas with easy access to locally-sourced bamboo
[4, 6, 14, 15]. A quick comparison with steel suggests
that—(i) the tensile strength in bamboo is direc-
tional—split bamboo possesses excellent tensile
strength in parallel to the fibre direction [16–18], (ii)
the tensile strength increases from bottom to the top of
bamboo culm due to an increase in volume fraction of
fibre [19–22], (iii) in longitudinal tension-dominated
failure modes, bamboo typically exhibits a brittle
behaviour and failure generally ensued at nodes only
due to chaotic fibre distribution at nodes [23–25], and
(iv) although the longitudinal tensile modulus of
bamboo is reported to be of the order of 20 GPa, i.e.
about 10% of that of steel, their specific modulus are
comparable [26]. As a result of these, bamboo has
been used as a common construction material for
scaffolding, low-cost houses and bridges, especially in
India and Southeast Asia [27]. However, bamboo is
much weaker in the transverse direction compared to
the longitudinal direction. The tensile modulus in the
transverse direction is  1/8 of that measured in the
longitudinal direction [28]. Mitch et al. [29] proposed
a split pin test method to assess the tensile behaviour of
a full culm bamboo specimen perpendicular to the
culm. They observed that the bamboo specimens fail
due to culm splitting which may govern the limit state
design in structural applications. Further, a simple test
protocol has been proposed to determine the circum-
ferential Young’s modulus and the circumferential-
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128
axial shear modulus of bamboo using ring specimens,
where the modulii are found to be very low compared
to longitudinal direction [30].
Low cost Bamboo Reinforced Concrete (BRC)
structures can be implemented where the service load
on the structure is low. A structural member fails when
the load to which it is subjected exceeds its capacity of
bearing that load. In general, both the loads and the
capacities (resistances) of a structural member are
uncertain. In order to obtain a rational design proce-
dure, therefore, one needs to take into account the
various sources of uncertainties, while keeping the
design principles simple enough to be adopted by the
industry. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
is a reliability-based design methodology that pro-
vides an ideal framework for these considerations and
is compatible with existing trends in civil engineering
design codes. The basic design checking equation in
LRFD is shown in Eq. 1, where / is the resistance
factor, usually specific to a particular limit state, Rn is
the nominal resistance, ci is the load factor specific to
load i, and Qi is the load effect due to load i [31].
X where a bond strength of 3.65 MPa was observed [44],
/Rn  ci Q i ð1Þ
i
The variations in capacity caused by material vari-
ability, geometric uncertainty, and modelling error are
accounted for by the resistance factor /. Resistance
factors generally depend on the material being used
and the limit state being checked. In this approach,
load effects are increased, and strength is reduced by
multiplying the corresponding characteristic values
with factors, which are called strength (resistance) and
load factors, respectively, or partial safety factors
(PSF’s).
However, due to the large uncertainties involved in
the mechanical properties, a rational design frame-
work for bamboo reinforced concrete structures is still
in its infancy. These uncertainties are mainly associ-
ated with bamboo as the properties of bamboo vary
inter-species as well as intra-species and are similar to
those of wood, having a coefficient of variation
between 10 and 30% [32, 33]. The mechanical
properties of bamboo vary depending on—(i) the fibre
content—the fibre distribution in the cross-section of
the bamboo’s culm is denser in the outer region than in
the inner region [23] and fibre volume fraction
increases from the bottom to the top of the culm
[34, 35] as well, (ii) the age— the bamboo with age of
Page 3 of 15 128
2-years or older can satisfy the specification require-
ments for structural applications [19, 34, 36], (iii) the
moisture content—the strength of bamboo increases
from green to air-dry condition, where the less
moisture content improves the bending strength and
stiffness of bamboo [37, 38], and (iv) the species of
bamboo. Because of all these randomness, the
mechanical properties vary within a single bamboo
culm [21, 34], including a significant difference of
elastic modulus between the nodes and the inter-nodes
[39]. Apart from the mechanical properties of bamboo,
uncertainties are involved in the bond strength
between the reinforcing bamboo and concrete. The
major hurdle of using bamboo as a reinforcement is
due to concerns about its durability and its weak bond
strength with the concrete [40–42]. To resolve these
issues, researchers have applied different surface
treatments on bamboo, such as, coating by Sikadur
32-Gel where a bond strength of 2.75 MPa was
observed [41], binding wire over reinforcing bamboo
where a bond strength of 1.25 MPa was observed [43],
coating by water-based epoxy with sand particles
etc.
In order to develop LRFD based design equations it
is essential to account the important variabilities in
bamboo and the bond between bamboo and concrete.
Note that the scope in the present work is limited to the
former. We understand that for bamboo, material
properties such as the longitudinal ultimate tensile
strength, longitudinal tensile modulus and Poisson’s
ratio are the important variables that can affect the
design methodology of flexural BRC member. In order
to understand the statistical behaviour of these vari-
ables, material characterisation is necessary. The
present manuscript first focuses on statistical charac-
terisation of the above mentioned tensile parameters of
Bambusa balcoa (Bhalki), an important locally avail-
able bamboo in India. The variation of tensile
properties along the height of the bamboo culm are
captured by taking specimens from each node and
inter-node sections along 7.5 m long culm. The effect
of multi nodes in the load-displacement behaviour are
also performed.
Using the experimental results as benchmark, we
prepare a finite element method based computational
framework to check which variables can be omitted
while still providing numerical results that are in
agreement with the experimental results. Initially two
 128 Page 4 of 15
different types of finite element models of bamboo
specimen, high fidelity model and low fidelity equiv-
alent model, are developed using ABAQUS. In high
fidelity models two different elastic modulus at the
nodes and inter-nodes are considered, where a volume
fraction for node is assigned. In the low fidelity
equivalent models, the equivalent elastic modulus is
obtained from the inverse rule of mixtures that takes
volume fraction of nodes along with the elastic
modulus of nodal and inter-nodal samples as the
input, all of which are obtained from experiments.
Lastly, a finite element model of a BRC beam is
created using the mechanical properties of bamboo
obtained using the equivalent properties, and the
results are compared with those of an experimentally
tested BRC beam.
2 Statistical characterisation of Bambusa balcoa
2.1 Specimen preparation and experimental
procedure
Locally available Bambusa Balcoa (Bhalki) of age
3-years old, which is generally used by villagers in
various structural applications, has been chosen for
this study. The fresh bamboo is split into 6 equal parts
and then immersed in a solution having 5% concen-
tration of Borax and Boric acid (1:1.5) for 2 weeks to
prevent it from attack by insect and fungi by following
IS:9096 2006 [45]. After natural drying to a moisture
content level of 9-13%, specimens for tensile test in
direction parallel to bamboo fibres are prepared. These
specimens are prepared as per ISO 22157-1: 2004
[46], where the thickness of the specimens are kept as
culm thickness. The test specimen may be seen in
Fig. 1b. Samples with a node at the middle (nodal
samples) as well as those without any node (inter-
nodal samples) are prepared to capture the variation of
tensile properties in presence of a node. These samples
are taken from different locations along the height of
the bamboo (base, middle and top) to capture the
variation of longitudinal tensile properties along the
height of the bamboo. For each case, like nodal-
bottom, inter-nodal-top, etc., we create a minimum of
three samples.
The specimens are tested on a computerised
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) of Tinius Olsen
(1–50 kN capacity). A uniaxial tensile load is applied
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128
through a displacement control rate of 0.01 mm/s. The
longitudinal tensile modulus and the Poisson’s ratio
are captured through two separate extensometers,
which are mounted as per Fig. 1e.
In addition, to study the effect of multiple nodes,
typical 2-noded tensile samples are prepared. The
samples may be seen in Fig. 1d. The samples are
tested in the UTM, where a uniaxial tensile load is
applied through a displacement control rate of 0.01
mm/s.
2.2 Longitudinal tensile properties (parallel
to fibre)
Linear stress-strain behaviour under uniaxial tension is
observed for all the samples as shown in Fig. 2a and b,
where the behaviour of nodal samples and inter-nodal
samples are different. Keeping in mind the safety of
the extensometers mounted on the samples, we do not
capture the complete stress-strain curves up to failure
stress. In the elastic region, nodal samples (Fig. 2a)
are showing larger strain compared to inter-nodal
samples (Fig. 2b), indicating different tensile modulus
for the two cases. The data is more scattered for inter-
nodal samples due to the dominant effect of grip
pressure in the failure mechanism of few specimens
under uniaxial tension.
The variation of longitudinal tensile modulus
(E) along the height of the culm for both nodal and
inter-nodal samples is shown in Fig. 3a. In case of
nodal samples, the variation is very less compared to
the inter-nodal samples due to the random fibre
orientation at the nodes whereas in the inter-node the
fibres are oriented in a single direction and the volume
fraction of fibres consistently increase towards the top
of the bamboo culm. A similar kind of variation of
tensile modulus for Dendrocalamus strictus was also
observed by previous studies [20, 21].
The variation of Poisson’s ratio (m) along the height
of the bamboo culm for both nodal and inter-nodal
samples are presented in Fig. 3b, where the variation
for nodal samples are less compared to inter-nodal
samples. Due to the random orientation of the fibres at
the nodes, the nodal sections behave differently than
the inter-nodal sections. This is the first such charac-
terisation of bamboo for Poisson’s ratio.
Generally, the samples failed in one of the two
failure modes, as shown in Fig. 2c. Nodal samples
break at an interface between node and inter-node, and
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128 Page 5 of 15 128

Fig. 1 Test sample (a) (b) (c)

geometry and test set-up:
(a) whole culm, (b) one
noded sample, (c) typical
nodal section, (d) two noded
sample, (e) loading set-up
for tensile test and
(f) loading set-up for beam (d) (e)

(f)

Fig. 2 (a, b) Stress-strain

behaviour of bamboo strip
under uniaxial tension, and
(c) failed bamboo specimens
under uniaxial tension

(a) (b)

(c)

the governing mechanism towards failure is fibre pull- different layers and fails. This is followed by fibre
out. In inter-nodal samples, the governing mechanism pull-out and breakage.
towards failure is continuous delignification of the From the experiment it is observed that nodal
parenchyma matrix, which gets isolated from the samples are weak compared to inter-nodal samples.
 128 Page 6 of 15 Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128

Fig. 3 Variation of
(a) Longitudinal tensile
modulus, (b) Poisson’s ratio,
(c) longitudinal ultimate
tensile strength and (d) culm
thickness along the height of
bamboo culm

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Therefore longitudinal ultimate tensile strength (r) of rnodal ¼ 95:658 þ 5x ð2Þ

nodal samples are only accounted as failure strength.
The longitudinal ultimate tensile strength are calcu-
lated as ultimate tensile load divided by the average c/s
area of the samples. The variation of ultimate tensile
strength of nodal samples across the height of bamboo
culm, from bottom to top is presented in Fig. 3c. It is
observed that the longitudinal ultimate tensile strength
of nodal samples increases from bottom to the top of
the bamboo culm which is in the range of 97–140
MPa. In a previous study similar observation was
reported for the species Dendrocalamus strictus [20].
The reason for the increased ultimate tensile strength
at the top is primarily due to the enhanced volume
fraction of the randomly oriented fibres present at the
node.
Regression analysis has been performed to calcu-
late the longitudinal tensile parameters as a dependent
variable, where the height from bottom of the bamboo
culm denoted by x (in meter) is considered as
independent variable. From the analysis the following
equations are developed using curve fitting:
Enodal ¼ 9206:872 þ 431:6x ð3Þ
Einternodal ¼ 11546:98 þ 1542x ð4Þ
minternodal ¼ 0:262 þ 2:3  102 x ð5Þ
mnodal ¼ 0:264 þ 5:175  102 x  1:453  105 x2
þ 1:04  109 x3
ð6Þ
2.3 Non-uniform geometry of bamboo
There is a randomness involved in the geometry of the
bamboo. The thickness of bamboo culm at the nodal
section are generally higher than inter-node sec-
tion. This phenomena is mainly due to chaotic fibre
distribution at the nodes and the formation of
diaphragm inside the culm. The nodal sections of the
entire culm have the mean thickness of 14.91 mm with
a standard deviation (SD) of 1.049, whereas for inter-
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128 Page 7 of 15 128

nodal the mean thickness is found as 10.82 mm with a
standard deviation (SD) of 2.61. The culm thickness
for both nodal section and inter-nodal section vary
along the height of the bamboo culm as shown in
Fig. 3d. A similar kind of variation for culm thickness
was observed by Amada and Untao [47].
2.4 Statistical characterisation of longitudinal
tensile properties
The experimental characterisation suggests that the
tensile modulus, Poisson’s ratio and ultimate tensile
strength in the longitudinal direction of bamboo are
random variables. As a consequence, each of them
may serve as an input in Eq. 1. We now statistically
analyse these random variables so that appropriate
probability distributions may be assigned to them.
A complete statistical analysis of the random
variables has been performed. Descriptive statistics,
performed using SPSS [48], yields results as per
Table 1.
Tests for log-normality is conducted using the
MATLAB software, where Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
is performed (Table 1). The lognormal probability
density function (pdf) estimated from Eq. 7 is plotted
for all the parameters for which the p-value is larger
than 0.10: longitudinal tensile modulus for nodal and
inter-nodal, Poisson’s ratio for nodal and inter-nodal
and longitudinal ultimate tensile strength for nodal, as
shown in the Fig. 4. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that
except for nodal Poisson’s ratio, all other variables are
distributed lognormally.
! 3.1 High fidelity modeling of tensile samples
1 1 ðln x  lÞ2
pdf ¼ : pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  ð7Þ
x ðSDÞ 2p 2ðSDÞ2
3 Finite element modelling
Information related to nominal resistance, Rn , is
important for the development of LRFD factors for
BRC members. Rn depends on the mechanical prop-
erties of both bamboo as well as concrete. As observed
in the previous section, there are several random
variables involved for bamboo itself. So, in this
section, we perform numerical modeling to identify if
one can come up with an equivalent model that takes
care of the randomness due to the presence of nodes
and height of the bamboo culm without complicating
the model itself. For this purpose, a 3-dimensional
finite element (FE) model of bamboo tensile samples
of length 300 mm is created. For simplicity, the
curvature of the nodes is ignored and bamboo is
considered as an isotropic homogeneous material,
except for nodal samples where separate material
properties are assigned to the nodes and inter-nodes.
The variation of Poisson’s ratios is not incorporated in
the numerical model, and kept as 0.3 for all the
models. The tensile samples are fixed in one end and a
prescribed displacement is provided on the other end.
From experiments, it is evident that the uniaxial stress-
strain behaviour of the bamboo tensile samples may be
assumed to be linear. The bamboo FE models are
discretized using 8-noded linear brick elements with
reduced integration (C3D8R). The element size is
taken as 2.5 mm following a mesh convergence study,
which is detailed later. Implicit finite element simu-
lations are performed using ABAQUS/standard [49].
As can be seen from the experimental results, the
tensile modulus of nodal and inter-nodal samples
differ from each other. Appropriate assignment of the

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of longitudinal tensile properties

Parameter N Mean(l) Range Standard deviation (SD) Cov p-value for log-normality

rnodal 57 114 MPa 97–140 MPa 11.59 MPa 0.101 0.29

Enodal 54 8953 MPa 7234–11330 MPa 882.5 MPa 0.098 0.5
Einternodal 32 20304 MPa 14965–27121 MPa 3408 MPa 0.168 0.5
mnodal 21 0.3 0.14–0.43 0.017 0.057 0.0032
minternodal 21 0.346 0.27–0.44 0.049 0.141 0.5
 128 Page 8 of 15 Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128

Fig. 4 Frequency
distribution and pdf for
(a) longitudinal tensile
modulus (nodal),
(b) longitudinal tensile
modulus (inter-nodal),
(c) Poisson’s ratio (nodal),
(d) Poisson’s ratio (inter-
nodal) and (e) longitudinal
ultimate tensile strength
(nodal)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

tensile modulii in FE models is a prerequisite for
obtaining numerical results in agreement with exper-
imental ones. In this section, we model the nodal
tensile samples as composites—different geometric
and material properties are assigned to the elements
for representing nodal and inter-nodal regions, and
inter-nodal samples as homogeneous with the same
material property throughout. For both nodal and
inter-nodal samples, the total length of the sample is
300 mm, and consequently, in the FE analysis, the
total length is taken as 300 mm. In nodal samples, the
average length of the nodes was found to be 30 mm
from experiments (see Fig. 1c), and thus for the FE
analysis of the nodal samples, the length of the nodal
region is taken as 30 mm. This implies a volume
fraction, Vf , of a node  10% in nodal models.
Further, an hit and trial approach indicates that with
this volume fraction a good agreement between the
experimental and numerical results is obtained.
Following mesh convergence study, shown in
Table 2, the element size is taken as 2.5 mm. Using
a mesh size of 2.5 mm  2.5 mm  2.5 mm, we have
6480 elements for the samples considered as base and
middle, and for top we have 5400 elements. Based on
the volume fraction, in nodal samples the middle 10%
of the elements are assigned a tensile modulus
corresponding to that obtained experimentally in
nodal samples, and the remaining 90% of the elements
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128 Page 9 of 15 128

Table 2 Convergence of numerical results with decreasing
mesh size
Element size (mm) Maximum displacement (mm)
High fidelity model Low fidelity model
5 2.184 2.113
4 2.176 2.104
3 2.162 2.095
2.5 2.162 2.095
have a tensile modulus corresponding to that obtained
in inter-nodal samples from the same height of
bamboo culm. In other words, if X MPa is the
experimentally obtained tensile modulus of the nodal
sample chosen from the base of the bamboo culm and
Y MPa is the experimentally obtained tensile modulus
of an inter-nodal sample, also chosen from the base of
the bamboo culm, the middle 10% of the elements of
the FE model have a tensile modulus of X MPa while
the remaining 90% have a tensile modulus of Y MPa.
For inter-nodal samples, all elements have the same
tensile modulus.
One nodal sample and one inter-nodal sample are
chosen randomly, such that they come from the
common location of the bamboo culm, from the set of
experiments. Using the methodology highlighted
before, the numerical stress-strain behaviour is cap-
tured at 150 mm distance away from the fixed end for
both the nodal and inter-nodal samples. The results are
compared with the experimental results. The compar-
ison is shown in Fig. 5. From the comparison, it can be
seen that numerical and experimental stress- strain
curves are in good agreement.
We now test if Vf = 10% can suitably capture the
load-displacement behaviour for a nodal sample
chosen from any position of the bamboo culm. For
this purpose, three different nodal samples—one each
from the base, middle and top—are selected. Like
before, the middle 10% elements of the FE model are
assigned a tensile modulus corresponding to that
obtained experimentally from the nodal samples. The
remaining 90% elements have a tensile modulus that
correspond with an inter-nodal sample taken from the
same bamboo culm location. The behaviour of load-
displacement curve from the numerical results are
compared with experimental results as shown in
Fig. 6. It is evident that Vf = 10% provides a
reasonably good agreement with experimental results.
The tensile properties of nodal and inter-nodal
sections assigned in the above models are taken from
the experimental set of data as indicated in Table 3.
So far, we have seen that our FE models are good
enough to capture the behaviour of both nodal and
inter-nodal samples when the material properties are
chosen as per the experiments. However, from Fig. 2a
it is evident that the stress-strain curve of nodal
samples differ for any two samples. We now deter-
mine how much variation can be captured if the
material properties (only tensile modulus) are chosen
as per the descriptive statistics obtained previously.
For this purpose, we create three different FE models
of nodal samples by assigning three different values of
tensile modulus for both nodal section and inter-nodal
section, formulated as ‘‘mean’’, ‘‘mean ? 2SD’’ and
‘‘mean - 2SD’’. The mean and SD values are taken
from Table 4. Note that ‘‘mean ± 2SD’’ indicates the
tensile modulus of both nodes and inter-nodes are
chosen as ‘‘mean ± 2SD’’. The width and the thickness
of the samples are taken as 20 mm and 12 mm

Fig. 5 Experimental versus

numerical stress-strain
curve of (a) a nodal sample
(having w ¼ 21:26 mm,
tc ¼ 12:84 mm, E ¼ 9245
MPa and ru ¼ 112:9 MPa),
and (b) an inter-nodal
sample (having w ¼ 20:86
mm, tc ¼ 11:41 mm, E ¼
20219 MPa and ru ¼ 151:6
MPa)

(a) (b)
 128 Page 10 of 15 Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128

Fig. 7 Stress-strain curve of nodal samples

Fig. 6 Experimental versus numerical load- displacement
curve of tensile samples considering Vf = 10%
respectively. The stress-strain behaviour of the models
are compared with the experimental set of data as
shown in the Fig. 7. From the figures it can be stated
that the provided range of elastic modulii covered
almost 92% experimental set of data. Thus, the
randomness in tensile modulus only is sufficient to
capture 92% of the experimental data, and other
random parameters such as Poisson’s ratio, width and
thickness, do not contribute predominantly.
3.2 Low fidelity equivalent models
In general, a BRC structure would necessarily have at
least one node. We now attempt to simplify the
modeling by assigning an equivalent tensile modulus
for all elements of the nodal FE models. The
equivalent tensile modulus is calculated using the
inverse rule of mixture considering the appropriate
volume fraction of node in the samples:
 
Vf 1  Vf 1
Eeq ¼ þ ð8Þ
En Ein

Table 3 Longitudinal Position Avg. width (mm) htc i (mm) Section E (MPa) ru (MPa) m
tensile properties of
bamboo strips obtained Base 21.27 14.35 Node 8470 103
from different height of
Inter-node 13,000 120 0.3
bamboo culm: htc i denotes
average culm thickness, E Equivalent 12,340 103
denotes the tensile modulus, Middle 20.26 12.84 Node 9250 115
ru denotes the ultimate Inter-node 16,000 140 0.3
tensile strength and m
denotes the Poisson’s ratio Equivalent 14,912 115
Top 20.96 10.2 Node 11,250 127
Inter-node 21,000 160 0.3
Equivalent 18,750 127

Table 4 Equivalent tensile Model Nodal section Inter-nodal section Equivalent section
modulus (in MPa)
Mean 8953 20,304 18,020
Mean ? 2SD 10,718 27,120 23,521
Mean - 2SD 7188 13,488 12,401
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128 Page 11 of 15 128

Here Vf is the volume fraction of node and En and Ein

are tensile modulus of nodal and inter-nodal samples
respectively. Based on the individual properties of
nodes and inter-nodes listed in Table 3, equivalent
tensile modulus for each case is found and listed in
Table 3. In this low fidelity model, the length is taken
as 300 mm and the c/s dimensions of the samples are
kept same as high fidelity models as listed in Table 3.
Following mesh convergence study, shown in Table 2,
the element size is taken as 2.5 mm. Using mesh size
of 2.5 mm  2.5 mm  2.5 mm, we have 6480
elements for the samples considered as base and
middle, and for top we have 5400 elements.
The load versus displacement curve obtained from Fig. 9 Load versus displacement curve of nodal samples
the low-fidelity equivalent models are compared with
those obtained from high-fidelity models, as shown in Thus far we have studied the tensile behaviour of
Fig. 8. It can be stated from Fig. 8 that the equivalent single noded samples. To study the effect of multiple
models agree well with the high-fidelity models. nodes under uniaxial tension on the behaviour of load
Like before, we now check if our low-fidelity displacement curve, 2-noded tensile sample is mod-
equivalent tensile modulus model can capture the elled in ABAQUS considering equivalent tensile
randomness in the experimental load-displacement modulus. The volume fraction of nodes is maintained
characteristics when the material properties are ‘‘ex- as 10% for the model. The load-displacement
treme’’. The equivalent tensile modulus for these cases behaviour of the model up to the elastic limit is
are obtained when the tensile modulus of nodal and compared with the experimental result (Fig. 10). The
inter-nodal sections are chosen as ‘‘mean ± 2SD’’, non-linearity in the experimental load-displacement
individually. Table 4 lists the different values used in behaviour is mainly due to : (i) dissimilar slipping of
this analysis. Figure 9 shows the comparison of FE the two surfaces (inner and outer) of the sample at the
load-displacement curve with those obtained from grip, and (ii) the curved geometry at the nodal section
experiments. From the figure it can be stated that along the longitudinal direction of bamboo culm.
almost 81% experimental data are covered by the
provided range of elastic modulus.

Fig. 8 Load- displacement curve—high fidelity models versus Fig. 10 Load versus displacement curve of the 2-noded sample
low fidelity models under uniaxial tension
 128 Page 12 of 15
3.3 Finite element modelling of BRC beam
In order to check the robustness of the obtained
mechanical properties, we now develop a finite
element model of a 2.6 m long simply supported
BRC beam with a cross-section of 300mm  230mm
and subjected to three-point bending test. The beam
consists of four continuous longitudinal reinforce-
ments (22 mm  10.5 mm) at the bottom and two
longitudinal reinforcements (22 mm  10.5 mm) at
the top with a cover of 25 mm. The results of the finite
element model are compared with those obtained from
experiments. The BRC beam used for experiment
comprises M20 grade concrete with the reinforcing
bamboo strips taken from the middle part of a bamboo
culm. The surface of the reinforced bamboo strips are
coated by Sikadur 32 gel with sand particles to
enhance the bond between the bamboo and the
concrete, and to protect the bamboo from environ-
mental degradation. After 28 days of curing, the beam
is tested under three-point bending using a comput-
erised Compressive Testing Machine (CTM) of
AIMIL as shown in Fig. 1f, where the load is applied
through a displacement control rate of 1 mm/m.
The concrete beam is discretized with an 8-noded
linear brick element with reduced integration
(C3D8R). Concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model
is used for describing the inelastic behaviour of
concrete in both tension and compression including
the damage characteristics. The behaviour of concrete
under uniaxial compression is modelled based on the
work by Popovics [50], while in tension, the stress-
crack opening relation and the tensile damage param-
eters given by Hordijk [51] are adopted. The reinforc-
ing bamboo strips are assumed to behave linearly.
From experiments, it has been observed that the
average inter-nodal length is  300 mm and the
average nodal length is  30 mm which gives a
volume fraction of nodes  10%. Therefore, as an
input, the equivalent tensile modulii (Mean, Mean ?
2SD, and Mean - 2SD), as listed in Table 4 and an
average ultimate tensile strength (rnodal ), as listed in
Table 1, are considered for the reinforcing bamboo
strips. Two different types of interaction between the
bamboo and the concrete are considered— (i) the
reinforcing bamboo strips are modelled as embedded
region within the concrete, where 2-noded linear 3-D
truss elements are used to represent the reinforcing
bamboo, and (ii) a cohesive-based surface interaction
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128
model between the bamboo and the concrete is
considered, where the bamboo strips are discretized
with 8-noded linear brick elements with reduced
integration. The cohesive behaviour approach is based
on traction-separation behaviour that allows the bond
between two surfaces to be expressed as a linear elastic
relationship between traction (t)/bond stress and
separation/slip (d). Bond strength of bamboo treated
with Sikadur 32-Gel, 2.75 MPa, as observed by Gha-
vami [41] is considered in the interface model.
Experimentally obtained load versus displacement
curve is compared with the numerically obtained
results as presented in Fig. 11. It can be seen from the
figure that the load-displacement behaviour of the
numerical model with cohesive interactions gives
results that are in close agreement with the experi-
mental one. However, when perfect bond between
bamboo and concrete is considered (embedded
model), the load-displacement curve differs signifi-
cantly from experimental one. It is also observed that
when the tensile properties of bamboo chosen as per
descriptive statistics in the BRC models, the nonlinear
part of the load-displacement curve changes
accordingly.
4 Discussions and consideration on LRFD design
methodology
The mechanical properties of bamboo vary inter- as
well as intra-species. These variations are mainly due
to non-uniform fibre distribution, age, and moisture
Fig. 11 Load-displacement response of BRC beam under
3-point loading
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128
content of the bamboo culm. In order to develop
LRFD based design equations for flexural BRC
members, it is essential to take into account the
randomness in important variables such as the longi-
tudinal ultimate tensile strength, longitudinal tensile
modulus and Poisson’s ratio. However, large varia-
tions, of the order of  30%, in these properties make
an LRFD based design procedure difficult. Further, if
all random variables are taken into account in design
equations, the design itself would be complicated.
Through this study, we take the first step towards
creating an LRFD based methodology for locally
available species of bamboo—Bambusa balcoa—by
identifying the principal mechanical properties that
determine the stress-strain/load-displacement charac-
teristics. This is achieved by experimental character-
isation which is followed by a statistical
characterisation of the data.
Along the height of the bamboo culm, a significant
variation of ultimate tensile strength, tensile modulus
and Poisson’s ratio in the longitudinal direction are
observed. These variations are mainly due to the
different volume fraction of the fibres at the different
locations along the height of the bamboo culm. Using
linear regression analysis, the equation governing the
height dependence is obtained, which may be used
when bamboo strips are used as a tensile reinforce-
ment in flexural BRC members. Apart from the height
dependence, these variables also depend on the
presence of nodes in the samples. Overall, the nodal
samples have smaller tensile strength as well as tensile
modulus and Poisson’s ratio than inter-nodal samples.
The reason behind this fact is the random fibre
orientation at the nodes, whereas in the inter-nodal
region the fibres are oriented in a single direction.
Interestingly, except for nodal Poisson’s ratio, all
other variables are distributed lognormally. In the
nodal region, the samples are generally curved in
nature and the fibre distribution are random, therefore,
nodal sample shows a wide variation of Poisson’s ratio
(0.14–0.43). In nodal samples, failures invariably
occur at the node inter-node interface because of the
change in stiffness between nodes and inter-nodes. As
in any BRC structure, one must have at least one node
(due to length of reinforcement), failure tensile
strength of the reinforcement is governed by the
ultimate tensile strength at the nodes.
Using the experimental results as benchmark, we
create finite element models using ABAQUS to check
Page 13 of 15 128
which of the aforementioned variables can be omitted
while still providing numerical results that are in
agreement with the experimental ones. From high
fidelity finite element modelling, it is found that
experimental and finite element results are in very
good agreement if different tensile modulii are
assigned to the elements that represent nodes and
inter-nodes. Furthermore, when the tensile modulii are
chosen as per the descriptive statistics, it is seen that
the randomness in tensile modulus alone captures 92%
of the experimental stress-strain data. Other random
parameters such as Poisson’s ratio, width and thick-
ness, do not contribute predominantly. In a bid to
further simplify the modeling, we next create low
fidelity finite element models, where the tensile
modulus of nodes and inter-nodes are represented
using equivalent modulus calculated from the inverse
rule of mixture. It is seen that the load-displacement
results are in good agreement with those from high
fidelity models. Further, it is also observed that
equivalent modulus calculated from the descriptive
statistics can capture almost 81% of the experimental
data in the load displacement characteristics. In
essence, low fidelity models that omit uncertainties
associated with the presence of nodes are sufficient to
capture the behaviour of bamboo strips.
The low-fidelity model may also be used in a BRC
beam, as exemplified in Sect. 3.3—the numerical
results are in good agreement with the experimental
ones. The surface based cohesive interaction between
the bamboo strips and concrete is found to be very
effective in capturing the slip between bamboo and
concrete. The load-displacement behaviour obtained
by choosing the equivalent tensile modulus of bamboo
as per the descriptive statistics (± 2 standard devia-
tion) envelops the experimental load-displacement
behaviour. Thus, the low-fidelity equivalent-property
based model not only simplifies the analysis but
minimizes the variables required for developing
LRFD based design for BRC members.
5 Conclusions
The primary conclusions of this study are as follows:
– There is a significant variation in the mechanical
properties along the height of the bamboo culm.
 128 Page 14 of 15
Statistically, these variations, except that of nodal
Poisson’s ratio, follow lognormal distribution.
– The elastic modulus plays a dominating role in
determining the response of bamboo strips—a
high-fidelity finite element model that assigns
different elastic modulii to the nodal and the inter-
nodal regions captures 92% of the experimental
response, and a low-fidelity finite element model
that assigns equivalent elastic modulus to the entire
bamboo strip capture 81% of the experimental
response.
– The numerical implementation of a BRC beam
with low-fidelity equivalent-property based finite
element model provides a good agreement with the
experimental results. Choosing the equivalent
property as per the descriptive statistics provides
a good envelope to the experimental results.
Bamboo has relatively low modulus of elasticity and
linear stress-strain diagram up to failure with no
discernible yield point. These properties result in large
deflection and wide crack when bamboo is used as a
reinforcement in concrete structures. One may suit-
ably modify the ACI committee’s guidelines for the
design and construction of structural concrete rein-
forced with Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars [52]
to come up with an LRFD based design for BRC
members. According to these guidelines, the brittle
behaviour of both FRP reinforcement and concrete
allows for consideration to be given to either com-
pression-controlled or tension-controlled modes of
flexure failure, provided that strength and serviceabil-
ity criteria are satisfied. We believe that our results
will serve as a starting point in developing LRFD
based design framework for BRC structures in
general. However, a statistical characterisation of the
bond strength needs to be performed before proceed-
ing ahead with LRFD design.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge
Prof. Arghya Deb for his valuable advice in this research work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no
conflict of interest.
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128
References
1. Glenn HE (1950) Bamboo reinforcement in portland cement
concrete. Engineering Experiment Station
2. Brink FE, Rush PJ (1966) Bamboo reinforced concrete
construction. US Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port
Hueneme, California
3. ACI:318 (1956) Building Code Requirements for Rein-
forced Concrete (ACI 318-56). American Concrete Institute
4. Geymayer HG, Cox FB (1970) Bamboo reinforced con-
crete. Miscellaneous Paper C-70-2, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station
5. Mansur M, Aziz M (1983) Study of bamboo-mesh rein-
forced cement composites. Int J Cem Compos Lightweight
Concr 5(3):165–171
6. Ghavami K (1995) Ultimate load behaviour of bamboo-
reinforced lightweight concrete beams. Cem Concr Compos
17(4):281–288
7. Akeju T, Falade F (2001) Utilization of bamboo as rein-
forcement in concrete for low-cost housing. Mechanics and
computation. Structural engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp 1463–1470
8. Agarwal A, Nanda B, Maity D (2014) Experimental
investigation on chemically treated bamboo reinforced
concrete beams and columns. Constr Build Mater
71:610–617
9. Khare L (2007) Performance evaluation of bamboo rein-
forced concrete beams. Master’s thesis, The University of
Texas at Arlington
10. Puri V, Chakrabortty P, Anand S, Majumdar S (2017)
Bamboo reinforced prefabricated wall panels for low cost
housing. J Build Eng 9:52–59
11. Mali PR, Datta D (2018) Experimental evaluation of bam-
boo reinforced concrete slab panels. Constr Build Mater
188:1092–1100
12. Ghavami K, Hombeek R (1981) Mechanical properties and
water-repellent treatment of bamboo. In: Latin American
Symposium Rational Organization of Building Applied to
Low Cost Housing, Sa o Paulo October 1981
13. Lakkad S, Patel J (1981) Mechanical properties of bamboo,
a natural composite. Fibre Sci Technol 14(4):319–322
14. Leelatanon S, Srivaro S, Matan N et al (2010) Compressive
strength and ductility of short concrete columns reinforced
by bamboo. Sonklanakarin J Sci Technol 32(4):419
15. Wang H, Zhao W, Bu G (2012) Application technology of
bamboo reinforced concrete in building structures. Archit
Technol 43(7):605–607
16. Zhou F (1981) Studies on physical and mechanical prop-
erties of bamboo woods. J Nanjing Technol College For
Prod 2(32):6
17. Navin C, Rohatgi PK (1994) Natural fibres and their com-
posites. Periodical Experts Book Agency
18. Javadian A, Smith IF, Saeidi N, Hebel DE (2019)
Mechanical properties of bamboo through measurement of
culm physical properties for composite fabrication of
structural concrete reinforcement. Front Mater 6:15
19. Mohmod AL, Amin AH, Kasim J, Jusuh MZ (1993) Effects
of anatomical characteristics on the physical and mechani-
cal properties of bambusa blumeana. J Trop For Sci
pp 159–170
Materials and Structures (2020) 53:128
20. Ahmad M, Kamke F (2005) Analysis of calcutta bamboo for
structural composite materials: physical and mechanical
properties. Wood Sci Technol 39(6):448–459
21. Verma C, Chariar V, Purohit R (2012) Tensile strength
analysis of bamboo and layered laminate bamboo com-
posites. Int J Eng Res Appl 2(2):1253–1264
22. Korde C, West R, Gupta A, Puttagunta S (2015) Laterally
restrained bamboo concrete composite arch under uni-
formly distributed loading. J Struct Eng 141(3):B4014005
23. Amada S, Ichikawa Y, Munekata T, Nagase Y, Shimizu H
(1997) Fiber texture and mechanical graded structure of
bamboo. Compos Part B Eng 28(1–2):13–20
24. Sakaray H, Togati NVK, Reddy IR (2012) Investigation on
properties of bamboo as reinforcing material in concrete. Int
J Eng Res Appl 2:077–083
25. Gauss C, Savastano Jr H, Harries KA (2019) Use of iso
22157 mechanical test methods and the characterisation of
brazilian p. edulis bamboo. Constr Build Mater 228:116728
26. Correal J (2016) Bamboo design and construction. In:
Nonconventional and vernacular construction materials,
Elsevier, pp 393–431
27. Schneider N, Pang W, Gu M (2014) Application of bamboo
for flexural and shear reinforcement in concrete beams.
Struct Congress 2014:1025–1035
28. Arce-Villalobos OA (1993) Fundamentals of the design of
bamboo structures. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven Eindhoven, the Netherlands
29. Mitch D, Harries KA, Sharma B (2010) Characterization of
splitting behavior of bamboo culms. J Mater Civ Eng
22(11):1195–1199
30. Garcı́a JJ, Rangel C, Ghavami K (2012) Experiments with
rings to determine the anisotropic elastic constants of
bamboo. Constr Build Mater 31:52–57
31. Galambos TV, Ravindra M (1981) Load and resistance
factor design. Eng J AISC 18(3):78–84
32. Bodig J, Jayne BA (1982) Mechanics of wood and wood
composites, vol 712. Van Nostrand Reinhold New York
33. Ross RJ (2010) Wood handbook: wood as an engineering
material. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Labora-
tory, General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190, 2010: 509
p 1 v 190
34. Liese W (1985) Anatomy and properties of bamboo. In:
Proceedings of the International Bamboo Workshop,
pp 196–208
35. Lo TY, Cui H, Leung H (2004) The effect of fiber density on
strength capacity of bamboo. Mater Lett 58(21):2595–2598
36. Ye F, Fu W (2018) Physical and mechanical characteriza-
tion of fresh bamboo for infrastructure projects. J Mater Civ
Eng 30(2):05017004
Page 15 of 15 128
37. Lee AW, Bai X, Peralta PN (1994) Selected physical and
mechanical properties of giant timber bamboo grown in
south carolina. For Prod J 44(9):40
38. Zou Z, Wu J, Zhang X (2019) Influence of moisture content
on mechanical properties of bamboo scrimber. J Mater Civ
Eng 31(7):06019004
39. Huang X, Li F, De Hoop CF, Jiang Y, Xie J, Qi J (2018)
Analysis of bambusa rigida bamboo culms between
internodes and nodes: Anatomical characteristics and
physical-mechanical properties. Forest Products Journal
40. Kankan G (1988) Perry. bamboo-reinforced concrete beams
subjected to third-point loading. ACI, Structural Journal,
enero-feb, Detroit, USA
41. Ghavami K (2005) Bamboo as reinforcement in structural
concrete elements. Cem Concr Compos 27(6):637–649
42. Archila H, Kaminski S, Trujillo D, Escamilla EZ, Harries
KA (2018) Bamboo reinforced concrete: a critical review.
Mater Struct 51(4):102
43. Kute S, Wakchaure M (2013) Performance evaluation for
enhancement of some of the engineering properties of
bamboo as reinforcement in concrete. J Inst Eng India Ser A
94(4):235–242
44. Javadian A, Wielopolski M, Smith IF, Hebel DE (2016)
Bond-behavior study of newly developed bamboo-com-
posite reinforcement in concrete. Constr Build Mater
122:110–117
45. IS:9096, (2006) Preservation of bamboo for structural pur-
poses-code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi
46. ISO:22157–1, (2004) Bamboo: Determination of Physical
and Mechanical Properties- Part 1: Requirements. Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization, Geneva
47. Amada S, Untao S (2001) Fracture properties of bamboo.
Compos Part B Eng 32(5):451–459
48. SPSS (2013) Ibm spss statistics 22. IBM Corp, New York
49. Abaqus V (2014) 6.14 documentation. Dassault Systemes
Simulia Corporation 651
50. Popovics S (1973) A numerical approach to the complete
stress-strain curve of concrete. Cem Concr Res
3(5):583–599
51. Hordijk DA (1993) Local approach to fatigue of concrete.
PhD Thesis
52. ACI:440 (2015) Guide for the design and construction of
structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars (ACI 440.1
R-15). American Concrete Institute
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.