<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJCE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Civil Engineering</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-3164</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojce.2015.52023</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJCE-57234</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Engineering</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Comparative Studies of Steel, Bamboo and Rattan as Reinforcing Bars in Concrete: Tensile and Flexural Characteristics
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>dekunle</surname><given-names>P. Adewuyi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Adegboyega</surname><given-names>A. Otukoya</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Oluwole</surname><given-names>A. Olaniyi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Oladipupo</surname><given-names>S. Olafusi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Civil Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>adewuyiap@funaab.edu.ng(DPA)</email>;<email>apadewuyi@yahoo.co.uk(AAO)</email>;<email>azeezotus@yahoo.com(OAO)</email>;<email>wole.olaniyi@yahoo.com(OSO)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>18</day><month>05</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>228</fpage><lpage>238</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>12</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>13</month>	<year>June</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>18</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  This study comparatively evaluated the flexural performance and deformation characteristics of concrete elements reinforced with bamboo (
  <em>Bambusa vulgaris</em>), rattan (
  <em>Calamuc deerratus</em>) and the twisted steel rebars. The yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and the elongation of 50 specimens of the three materials were determined using a universal testing machine. Three beams of concrete strength 20 N/mm
  <sup>2</sup> at age 28 days were separately reinforced with bamboo, rattan and steel bars of same percentage, while the stirrups were essentially mild steel bars. The beams were subjected to centre-point flexural loading according to BS 1881 to evaluate the flexural behaviour. The YS of bamboo and rattan bars were 13% and 45% of that of steel respectively, while their UTS were 16% and 62% of that of steel in the same order. The elongation of bamboo, rattan and steel were 7.42%, 10% and 14.7% respectively. The natural rebars were less than the 12% minimum requirement of BS 4449. The load-deflection plots of bamboo and steel RC beams were quadratic, while rattan RC beams had curvilinear trend. The stiffness of bamboo RC beams (BB) and rattan RC beams (RB) were 32% and 13.5% of the stiffness of steel RC beams (SB). The post-first crack residual flexural strength was 41% for BB and SB, while RB was 25%. Moreover, the moment capacities of BB and RB corresponded to 51% and 21% respectively of the capacity of steel RC beams. The remarkable gap between the flexural capacities of the natural rebars and that of steel can be traced not only to the tensile strength but also the weak bonding at the bar-concrete interface. It can be concluded that the bamboo bars are suitable rebars for non-load bearing and lightweight RC flexural structures, while more pre-strengthening treatment is required more importantly for rattan for improved interfacial bonding and load-carrying capacity.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Reinforcing Bars</kwd><kwd> Bamboo</kwd><kwd> Rattan</kwd><kwd> Tensile Characteristics</kwd><kwd> Flexural Strength</kwd><kwd> Concrete</kwd><kwd> Load-Carrying Capacity</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The overall sustainable economic growth, productivity, and the well-being of a nation depend heavily on the functionality, reliability, and durability of its constructed facilities. However, aside the environmental and operational condition, the constituent materials accounting for the increasing cases of structural deficiency and functional obsolescence are recorded in the built environment (Adewuyi et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref2">2</xref>] , Adewuyi and Wu [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref3">3</xref>] ).</p><p>Ascendancy of concrete over other construction materials is not unconnected to its flexibility of shape, strength, durability and response to its environment and economy. Its tensile strength is about 10% of its compressive strength (Neville [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref4">4</xref>] , Kosmatka et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref5">5</xref>] , Mehta and Monteiro [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref6">6</xref>] , Mosley et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref7">7</xref>] ). Applicability of natural or waste materials in partial replacement of cement and aggregate are subjects that have received attention in recent years. Previous studies had been carried out by Adewuyi and Ola [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref8">8</xref>] and Adewuyi and Adegoke [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref9">9</xref>] ) on utilization of unwanted materials such as waterworks sludge ash and periwinkle shells as partial replacement for cement and coarse aggregated respectively.</p><p>Reinforced concrete (RC) structures account for majority of the constructed facilities globally and their performance is greatly influenced by the properties of the reinforcing bars. The transfer of stress from concrete to steel is made possible through effective bond between concrete and the reinforcement. Previous studies on the chemical, physical and strength characteristics of steel reinforcing materials revealed the dangers of maximizing profit at the expense of quality, a situation that pose a major challenge to the structural reliability and durability of buildings and civil infrastructure (Basu et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref10">10</xref>] , Olaniyi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref11">11</xref>] , Kolade [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref12">12</xref>] ). Although extensive studies have been carried out on synthetic and natural non-ferrous reinforcing materials in the past decades, natural reinforcement still remains a dynamic field of further investigation.</p><p>The development of synthetic fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) as an emerging technology for concrete structures has been tested and proved successful for vast applications. The pioneer studies on the evolution and behaviour of concrete structures reinforced with different kinds of inorganic and organic FRP bars such as glass, carbon, and aramid fibers were reported by Nawy et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref13">13</xref>] , Nawy and Neuwerth [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref14">14</xref>] , Yamasaki et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref15">15</xref>] , Faza and GangaRao [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref16">16</xref>] , and Bakis et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref17">17</xref>] . However, the non-affordability of these materials is a major drawback to its global acceptance for buildings and public infrastructure.</p><p>Numerous studies have been carried out on natural reinforcing materials such as wood (Andonian et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref18">18</xref>] ), jute (Manzur and Aziz [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref19">19</xref>] ), bamboo (Kankam et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref20">20</xref>] ), raffia palm (Kankam. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref21">21</xref>] ) and palm stalk (Kankam [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref22">22</xref>] ). Attention is gradually been focused on the use of bamboo (Bambusa vulgaris), rattan (Calamus deerratus) and other natural fiber reinforcing materials as alternative reinforcements in concrete especially for low-cost housing for rural communities. In rural communities of Ghana, babadua is used in thatching and its stems are tied into framework of houses before daubing with mud (Schreckenbach and Abenkwa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref23">23</xref>] ).</p><p>Bamboo is a natural perennial grass-like composite and contains ligno-cellulosic-based natural fibers. It occurs in the natural vegetation of many parts of tropical, subtropical and mild temperature regions, with about 1250 species identified throughout the world (McClure [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref24">24</xref>] , Austin and Ueda [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref25">25</xref>] ). There are seven species of bamboo in Nigeria among which bambusa vulgaris constitutes 80% (Falade and Akeju [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref27">27</xref>] ). Bamboo is an extremely strong fiber with twice the compressive strength of concrete and roughly the same strength-to-weight ratio of steel in tension. Many researchers have tried to use bamboo as substitute of steel in reinforced concrete. Chembi and Nimityongskul [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref28">28</xref>] and Winarto [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref29">29</xref>] have reported its use in construction of water tanks. Ghavami [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref30">30</xref>] reported its use as reinforcement for lightweight concrete beams. Venkateshwarlu and Raj [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref31">31</xref>] and Raj [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref32">32</xref>] developed bamboo-based ferrocement slab elements for roofing/flooring purpose in low cost housing. Kankam et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref33">33</xref>] studied its applications in RC slabs. Falade and Akeju [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref27">27</xref>] , found the maximum tensile strength of 133.54 N/mm<sup>2</sup> for bamboo as opposed to 204 - 250 N/mm<sup>2</sup> obtained by Alade et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref34">34</xref>] . Further investigation showed that bamboo RC beams had 134.65% of the load-carrying capacity of the unreinforced beams at 28- day. The load capacity of mild steel RC beams was 1.5 times that of its equivalent bamboo RC beams (Akeju and Falade [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref35">35</xref>] ).</p><p>Rattan is comparatively cheaper than wood and bamboo; and has tremendous a growth potential in rural areas. Whereas the mechanical properties and behaviour of steel have been thoroughly studied and well documented. Mahzuz et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref36">36</xref>] determined ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, Young’s modulus and bond strength (when embedded in concrete) of rattan samples cut from three years and older trees. Baba [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref37">37</xref>] , Ghavami [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref38">38</xref>] , and Mahzuz et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref39">39</xref>] reported comprehensive studies on the behaviour of bamboo, but only very few comprehensive data are available on tensile and flexural properties of rattan (Chowdhury [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref40">40</xref>] . Mahzuz et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref41">41</xref>] determined the yield strength, ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity of a rattan (Calamus guruba) through experimental investigation. The performance of rattan RC beams was evaluated in flexure and shear. The result showed that bond stress was 42% lower position than the corresponding experimental shear stress.</p><p>Lucas and Dahunsi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref42">42</xref>] found that the interfacial bond strengths of rattan-concrete were in the range 0.082 - 0.598 N/mm<sup>2</sup> depending on the species, concrete grade and other natural conditions. The experimental results of 0.34 - 0.38 N/mm<sup>2</sup> obtained by Cox and Gyemayer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref43">43</xref>] fall within the range. Moreover, Youssef [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref44">44</xref>] gave 0.56 - 0.68 N/mm<sup>2</sup> for some bamboo species bonded with concrete. All the findings fall between 3.94 and 28.86% of steel-concrete bond strength of 2.07 N/mm<sup>2</sup> of comparable concrete grade (Neville and Brook [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref45">45</xref>] ). It was found that the moduli of elasticity for three species of Rattan were 3396, 516 and 11,106 N/mm<sup>2</sup> for C. deerratus, E. macrocarpa and L. secundiflorum respectively (Lucas and Dahunsi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref46">46</xref>] ). The use of rattan reinforcement in lieu of conventional steel reinforcements requires better understanding under axial loading and performance conditions. Akinyele and Olutoge [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref47">47</xref>] investigated the flexural behavior of two-way slabs reinforced with rattan and conventional reinforcements under axial loading.</p><p>Although extensive literature abound on natural rebars in reinforced concrete structures, no clear comparative investigations had been done on steel, bamboo and rattan under similar geometric and loading conditions to determine the relative capacities and thereby establishing the limits to the applicability of the natural rebars. Hence, this paper presents the experimental study to comparatively evaluate the flexural behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with steel, bamboo and rattan. The physical and tensile strength properties of steel, bamboo and rattan were first determined and the flexural capacities of concrete beams reinforced with the individual materials bars were evaluated. The limits of usage of bamboo and rattan bars as reinforcement were established with respect to the steel RC beams.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Experimental Investigations</title><p>Structural behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with bamboo, rattan and steel was comparatively evaluated experimentally in two folds. First, the tensile parameters of the reinforcing materials were determined in the laboratory. Second, the load-carrying capacities of RC concrete beams wherein bamboo, rattan and steel were separately employed as the longitudinal bars were investigated. Detailed experimental plan is described as follows.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Tensile Strength Properties of Steel, Bamboo and Rattan Bars</title><p>The physical and tensile strength properties of steel, bamboo and rattan were determined experimentally using a 600 kN capacity Avery-Denison servo-hydraulic universal testing machine (UTM) shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>. This was done in line with ASTM specifications and compared with the requirements of BS 4449 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref48">48</xref>] . Twisted steel bars of sizes between 10 and 12 mm of the same brand were randomly sourced from major construction materials suppliers in Lagos, Nigeria. About 3-year old greenish-brown bamboo (Bambusa vulgaris) of 4.5 - 6.0 m average height of the same species sourced from different parts of Abeokuta, Nigeria were sliced into 10 - 12 mm bars. The average internodes distance was 250 - 400 mm , external diameter of the trunk was 85 - 105 mm , and the thickness was 10 - 15 mm . The 10 mm size specimens were considered for the three investigated reinforcing materials. Likewise, mature West African rattans (Calamuc deerratus) were sourced from Ibadan, Nigeria and cut into several lengths of 10 - 12 mm diameter. Rattan stems cut and air dried for one month prior to cutting to standard lengths.</p><p>Fifty samples each of reinforcing bars of steel, bamboo and rattan bars whose diameters varied between 10 and 12 mm were subjected to tensile test procedure. All the specimens were cut to standard length 600 mm and gauge length 200 mm. The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before failing or breaking, while the yield strength (YS) is the stress value beyond which deformations are completely irrecoverable upon removal of the load. The yield strength (YS), ul-</p><fig-group id="fig1"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Tensile strength test setup (a) Avery UTM and (b) steel specimen at fracture.</title></caption><fig id ="fig1_1"><label> (b)</label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x6.png"/></fig></fig-group><p>timate tensile strength (UTS), elastic modulus (EM), and elongation (E) of the three rebar types were determined experimentally in accordance with ASTM A370 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref49">49</xref>] . The yield stress of the bar samples was determined by offset method. Offset of 0.2% proof strain was applied to steel, while 0.5% offsets applied to timber and rattan bars. The statistical distribution trend was determined and the characteristic yield strength below which not more than 5 percent will fall was determined for the three materials.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Flexural Strength Investigation of RC Beams</title><p>Ordinary Portland cement of grade 32.5 was used. The aggregates which comprises river sand and crushed granite of 15 mm maximum nominal size conforming to BS 882 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref50">50</xref>] were mixed at a water-cement ratio of 0.45 in accordance with BS 1881 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref51">51</xref>] . The mix proportion of concrete of density is summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. The 7th and 28th compressive strength values of 150 mm concrete cube were 13.68 and 20.05 N/mm<sup>2</sup> respectively, and the 28th day density was 2404 kg/m<sup>3</sup>.</p><p>Eighteen 150 &#215; 150 &#215; 900 mm concrete beam specimens were produced and grouped into three. The reinforcement ratio of 0.35 percent of the concrete area was adopted for all the beams corresponding to 4Φ 10 mm bars (two bars each at the tension and compression zones). The stirrups were 10Φ8 mm steel bars spaced at 100 mm centres and the nominal cover was 20 mm . The first group of six beams was reinforced with steel reinforcing bars, the second with bamboo and the last with rattan bars. The geometric and reinforcement details of the RC beams for flexural tests are illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>, while the experimental setup is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>. A hydraulic actuator was used to apply a central concentrated load to the RC beam in 0.1 kN increments. A linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) was used for each specimen to measure the vertical displacements at the mid-span under the applied load. A load cell was used to monitor applied load and a data acquisition system was used to record the experimental measures.</p><p>The study comparatively evaluated the flexural behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with steel, bamboo and rattan at ages 28 and 168 days. However, the experimental investigation revealed no remarkable difference in the flexural behaviour of the each of the three groups at ages 28 and 168 days. The stiffness and flexural capacities of concrete beams reinforced with steel, bamboo and rattan were experimentally determined at first cracking and ultimate failure loads.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Experimental Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Tensile Parameters and Statistical Distributions of Reinforcing Materials</title><p>Yield stress (YS) and ultimate tensile stress (UTS) were extracted from the stress-strain curve with the proof strain taken as offset parallel to the linear part of the stress-strain relation. The elongation was measured in percentage of the original length. The YS of rattan, bamboo and steel were 58.46, 201.14 and 442.73 N/mm<sup>2</sup> respectively, while the UTS were 85.35, 335.23 and 540.13 N/mm<sup>2</sup> in the same order. It is obvious that the results summary in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> that all the three reinforcing bar types met the requirements for the minimum stress ratio of</p><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Flexural test setup of RC beams indicating geometric and reinforcement details</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x7.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Mix proportioning of constituents of concrete</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Cement</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fine aggregates</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Coarse aggregates</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mass (kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >245</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >761</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1288</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ratio</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.26</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> General statistical tensile parameters of rattan, bamboo and steel bars</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Material</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Yield strength (YS)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >UTS (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Stress ratio,<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x8.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Elongation (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >Rattan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean, μ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD, σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >COV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >μ + 1.64σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >μ − 1.64σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46 - 75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 - 14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >Bamboo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean, μ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >201.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >335.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD, σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >COV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >μ + 1.64σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >211.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >μ − 1.64σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >191.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >188 - 218</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 - 10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >Steel</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean, μ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >442.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >540.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD, σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >COV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >μ + 1.64σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >497.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >μ − 1.64σ (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >388.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >354 - 541</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 - 23</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> Experimental setup of concrete beams RB, BB and SB</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x9.png"/></fig><p>1.08 specified by BS 4449 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref48">48</xref>] with bamboo having the highest value of 1.67, followed by rattan (1.46), and finally steel (1.22). Moreover, it is noteworthy that bamboo did not meet the minimum elongation requirement of 12% specification. However, steel fully satisfied the specifications for reinforcing bars, but rattan marginally fulfilled this requirement. The Normal (Gaussian) random variable is almost certainly the most important distribution in structural reliability. For every sample yield strength<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x10.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, mean strength value <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x11.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> and standard deviation<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x12.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, the Normal distribution function <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x13.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> of the yield stress values of the fifty experimental results expressed in Equation (1) was plotted against the individual yield stress.</p><disp-formula id="scirp.57234-formula496"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x14.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Furthermore, further analysis of the tensile strength properties revealed that the tensile properties of rattan, bamboo and steel are normally distributed, that is Gaussian distribution. The normal distribution curves of the yield stress for the three reinforcing materials are presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>.</p><p>Limits state design is based on statistical concepts and on the application of statistical methods to the variations that occur in practice. The characteristic yield strength f<sub>yk</sub>, of the reinforcing materials was determined as the value of the yield stress below which not more than 5% of the test material may be expected to fall (BS 4449 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref48">48</xref>] and BS 8110 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref52">52</xref>] ). Thus, the characteristic strengths of the reinforcing bar types were estimated as the mean strength value, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x15.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>, less 1.64 times the standard deviation,<inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x16.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>.</p><p>Consequently, the characteristic yield strength of rattan, bamboo and steel bars were 49.10, 191.20 and 388.24 N/mm<sup>2</sup> respectively. These were in agreement with the findings of Mahzuz et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref41">41</xref>] , Mahzuz et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref36">36</xref>] , Mahzuz et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref39">39</xref>] , Akinyele and Olutoge [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref47">47</xref>] and Obilade and Olutoge [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref53">53</xref>] . The tensile parameters of bamboo disagree with the findings of Falade and Akeju [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref27">27</xref>] and Alade et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57234-ref34">34</xref>] . In addition, the degree of randomness measured by the coefficient of variation showed that none of the parameters was up to 30% implying that the tensile properties are statistically reliable as indicated by the permissible deviations from the mean values.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Flexural Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Steel, Bamboo and Rattan Bars</title><p>Nine 150 &#215; 150 &#215; 900 mm RC beams symmetrically placed between simple supports spaced at 750 mm effective span. Three replicas of the beam specimens were reinforced with bamboo, rattan and steel longitudinal bars and denoted as bamboo RC beams (BB), rattan RC beams (RB) and steel RC beams (SB). The longitudinal bars of diameter 10 mm were sliced from rattan and bamboo, while reinforcing steel bars were also of 10 mm size. Mild steel of 8 mm diameter were employed as stirrups to resists shear for the three RC beam types.</p><fig id="fig4"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref></label><caption><title> Normal distribution curve for yield strength of rattan, bamboo and steel bars</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x17.png"/></fig><p>For clear comparative evaluation of the flexural behavior of BB, RB and SB, the mean load-deflection (P-δ) curves of beam samples reinforced with each of the reinforcing materials are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>. The curves steel RC beams had the highest stiffness, while rattan RC beams had the least. Although, the three curves are quadratic, the P-δ plots of rattan RC beams can still be regarded as being linear until the beam ruptured. The</p><p>load-deflection curve of the bamboo RC beams (BB) can be expressed as <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x18.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.968), rattan RC beams (RB) is related by <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x19.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.984) and steel RC beams (SB) can be represented by <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x20.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula> (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.997). The average stiffness val-</p><fig id="fig5"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref></label><caption><title> Load-deflection curved for bamboo, rattan and steel RC beams</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x21.png"/></fig><p>ues of BB, RB and SB were 1.97 N/mm (or 1970 kN/m), 0.83 N/mm (or 830 kN/m), and 6.147 N/mm (or 6147 kN/m) respectively. Hence, it can be inferred that the flexural stiffness of bamboo and rattan RC beams were about 32% and 14% respectively of the conventional steel bars RC beams.</p><p>The flexural behavior in terms of the first crack load F<sub>c</sub>, ultimate failure load, F<sub>u</sub> and the flexural strength (otherwise referred to as the modulus of rupture) for BB, RB and SB are summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. The ratios of</p><p>the first cracking loads to the experimental ultimate failure load, <inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x22.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula>were 59, 75 and 59% for bamboo, rattan</p><p>and steel bars RC beams respectively. This implies that the post-first crack residual load carrying capacities of bamboo and steel RC beams were 41 percent of the ultimate values, while rattan RC beams had only 25 percent. It can be inferred that rattan, except if pretreated for strengthening, had exhausted substantial percentage of the load-carrying at first crack. The first cracking loads of bamboo and rattan RC beams were 55% and 30% respectively of the conventional steel RC beams.</p><p>It can be deduced from these findings that SB had the highest resilience after the first crack, while rattan had the least. Relatively, this implies that steel RC beams still possessed 40% residual load-carrying capacity after the first crack. Bamboo RC beams exhibited similar pattern as it also had about 40% of the load-carrying capacity after the first crack, while rattan RC beam had only 25% left after the occurrence of the first crack. It can be inferred that RB had almost exhausted its capacity after the first crack. This is evident in the almost linear load- deflection curve with barely any provision for second stiffness. In addition, the experimental ultimate failure loads of bamboo and rattan RC beams were 55% and 24% respectively of the conventional steel RC beams. This indicates that the carrying capacity of bamboo RC beams is about one-half of the conventional steel RC beams, while rattan RC beams were barely one-quarter of the steel RC beams capacities. The flexural strengths of bamboo, rattan and steel RC beams were 6.22, 2.56 and 12.22 N/mm<sup>2</sup>. The indication of this is that the flexural strengths of bamboo and rattan RC beams were 51% and 21% respectively of the conventional steel RC beams.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> summarizes the failure mode as well as the pattern and width of cracks in the RC beams. The mode of failure for bamboo and steel RC beams was shear, indicated by diagonal cracks, because of the relatively higher tensile strength of steel rebars than the rattan RC beams which failed by flexure (vertical cracks). For BB and SB, the reinforcement was adequate to resist the moment at the midspan. However, shear was at its maximum at the support which coincided with the location of the maximum crack widths. On the other hand for rattan RC beam with low yield strength, the flexural mode of failure preceded the shear mode of failure as indicated by the vertical cracks neat the middle of the span.</p><p>In addition, the experimental maximum crack width for bamboo, rattan and steel RC beams were 9.3, 6.7 and 7.0 mm. The rattan RC beams had the minimum crack widths because of the flexural mode of failure under relatively smaller ultimate failure load. On the contrary, bamboo and steel RC beams failed under a comparatively higher load due to shear. The knife-edge condition informed the pattern and size of crack propagation.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> First crack and failure loads for beams</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Beam No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >First crack load, F<sub>c</sub> (kN)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ultimate failure load, F<sub>u</sub> (kN)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ><inline-formula><inline-graphic xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1880357x23.png" xlink:type="simple"/></inline-formula></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Flexural strength (N/mm<sup>2</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bamboo RC-BB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rattan RC-RB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.56</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Steel RC-SB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.22</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Failure mode and crack characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Beam No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mode of failure</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Type of crack at failure</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Experimental maximum crack width (mm)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bamboo RC-BB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shear</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diagonal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rattan RC-RB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Flexural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vertical</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Steel RC-SB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shear</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diagonal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusions</title><p>The following salient conclusions can be drawn from the study.</p><p>1) The tensile properties of the three reinforcing materials are normally distributed and their stress ratios satisfied the minimum requirement value of 1.08. The strength of rattan and bamboo represented 13 and 45% of that of steel reinforcing bars.</p><p>2) The elongation of bamboo did not meet the ductility requirements of 12%, rattan marginally satisfied this, but steel rebars fully met the requirements.</p><p>3) Bamboo and rattan can only be used for lightweight RC structures. The flexural stiffness of bamboo and rattan RC beams was about 32% and 13.5% respectively of the conventional steel bars RC beams. The first cracking loads of bamboo and rattan RC beams were 55% and 30% respectively of the conventional steel RC beams. The experimental ultimate failure loads of bamboo and rattan RC beams were 51% and 21% respectively of the conventional steel RC beams.</p><p>4) Bamboo and steel RC beams had 40% residual capacity after the first crack, while rattan RC beams had exhausted 75% of its load-carrying capacity after the first crack.</p><p>5) The mode of failure for bamboo and steel RC beams was shear, indicated by diagonal cracks because of the short-span specimen adopted and the relatively higher tensile strength than the rattan RC beams which failed by flexure (vertical cracks).</p><p>6) The flexural and bonding strengths of bamboo and rattan RC beams could be enhanced by bonding galvanized iron or fibre thread spirally round the surface of the bars with epoxy.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.57234-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adewuyi, A.P., Wu, Z.S. and Serker, N.H.M.K. (2009) Assessment of Vibration Based Damage Identification Methods Using Displacement and Distributed Strain Measurements. International Journal of Structural Health Monitoring, 8, 443-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1475921709340964</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adewuyi, A.P., Wu, Z.S. and Raheem, A.A. (2010) Adaptation of Vibration-Based SHM for Condition Assessment and Damage Detection of Civil Infrastructure Systems. LAUTECH Journal of Engineering &amp; Technology, 6, 1-11.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adewuyi, A.P. and Wu, Z.S. (2011) Vibration-Based Damage Localization in Flexural Structures Using Normalized Modal Macrostrain Techniques from Limited Measurements. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 26, 154-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00682.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Neville, A.M. (2004) Properties of Concrete. 4th Edition, Addision Wesley Longman, Edinburgh.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kosmatka, S.H., Kerkhoff, B. and Panarese, W.C. (2003) Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. 14th Edition. Portland Cement Association, Skokie.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mehta, P.K. and Monteiro, P.J.M. (2006) Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials. 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mosley, W.H., Bungey, J.H. and Hulse, R. (1999) Reinforced Concrete Design. 5th Edition, Macmillan Education Limited, Houndmills, Basingstoke.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adewuyi, A.P. and Ola, B.F. (2005) Application of Waterworks Sludge as Partial Replacement for Cement in Concrete Production. Science Focus Journal, 10, 123-130.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adewuyi, A.P. and Adegoke, T. (2008) Exploratory Study of Periwinkle Shells as Coarse Aggregates in Concrete Works. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3, 1-5.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Basu, P.C., Shylamoni P. and Roshan A.D. (2004) Characterization of Steel Reinforcement for RC Structures: An Overview and Related Issues. Indian Concrete Journal, 78, 19-30.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Olaniyi, O.A. (2013) Performance Assessment of Typical Steel Rebars for Practical Reinforced Concrete Structures. An Unpublished Master of Technology Dissertation, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kolade, O.O. (2015) Characterization of Steel Reinforcing Bars in the Nigerian Market and Performance Evaluation in Concrete Structures. An Unpublished Master of Engineering Dissertation, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nawy, E.G., Neuwerth, G.E. and Phillips, C.J. (1971) Behavior of Fiber Glass Reinforced Concrete Beams. Journal of the Structural Division, 97, 2203-2215.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nawy, E.G. and Neuwerth, G.E. (1977) Fiberglass Reinforced Concrete Slabs and Beams. Journal of the Structural Division, 103, 421-440.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Yamasaki, Y., Masuda, Y., Tanano, H. and Shimizu, A. (1993) Fundamental Properties of Continuous Fiber Bars. In: Nanni, A. and Dolan, C.W., Eds., Proceedings of the Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 715-730.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Faza, S.S. and GangaRao, H.V.S. (1991) Bending Response of Beams Reinforced with FRP Rebars for Varying Concrete Strengths. In: Iyer, S. and Sen, R., Eds. Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Advanced Composites in Civil Engineering Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 262-270.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bakis, C.E., Bank, L.C., Brown, V.L., Cosenza, E., Davalos, J.F., Lesko, J.J., Machida, A., Rizkalla, S.H. and Triantafillou, T.C. (2002) Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites for Construction—State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of Composites for Construction, 6, 73-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Andonian, P., Mai, Y.M. and Cotterell, B. (1979) Strength and Fracture Properties of Cellulose Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites. International Journal of Cement Composite Lightweight Concrete, 1, 151-158.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manzur, M.A. and Aziz, M.A. (1982) A Study of Jute Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites. International Journal of Cement Composite Lightweight Concrete, 4, 75-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0262-5075(82)90011-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kankam, J.A., Ben-George, M. and Perry, S.H. (1988) Bamboo-Reinforced Beams Subjected to Third-Point Loading. ACI Structural Journal, 85, 61-67.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kankam, C.K. (1997) Raffia Palm-Reinforced Concrete Beams. Materials and Structures, 30, 313-316. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02486356</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kankam</surname><given-names> C.K. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1994</year>)<article-title>The Influence Of Palm Stalk Fibre Reinforcement on the Shrinkage Stresses in Concrete</article-title><source> Journal of Ferrocement</source><volume> 24</volume>,<fpage> 3</fpage>-<lpage>12</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schreckenbach, H. and Abenkwa, J.G.K. (1982) Construction Technology for a Tropical Developing Country. German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) for the Department of Architecture, University of Science and Technology, Kumasi.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McClure, F.A. (1966) The Bamboos. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674428713</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Austin, R. and Ueda, K. (1972) Bamboo. Weather Hill Publishing, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Falade, F.A. and Akeju, T.A.I. (2002) The Behaviour and Analysis of Bamboo Reinforced Concrete under Flexural Loading. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Structural Engineering Analysis and Modeling, Accra, 26-28 March 2002, 277-288.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Falade, F.A. and Akeju, T.A.I. (2002) Structural Design and Economy of Bamboo Reinforced Concrete Beams. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Structural Engineering Analysis and Modeling, Accra, 26-28 February 2002, 215-228.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chembi, A. and Nimityongskul, P. (1989) A Bamboo Reinforced Cement Water Tank. Journal of Ferrocement, 19, 1-17.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Winarto</surname><given-names> Y.T. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1989</year>)<article-title>Rainwater Collection Tanks Constructed on Self Help Basis</article-title><source> Journal of Ferrocement</source><volume> 19</volume>,<fpage> 247</fpage>-<lpage>254</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghavami, K. (1995) Ultimate Load Behaviour of Bamboo-Reinforced Lightweight Concrete Beams. Cement and Concrete Composite, 17, 281-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(95)00018-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Venkateshwarlu, D. and Raj, V. (1989) Development of Bamboo Based Ferrocement Roofing Elements for Low Cost Housing. Journal of Ferrocement, 19, 331-337.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Raj</surname><given-names> V. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1990</year>)<article-title>Large Span Bamboo Ferrocement Elements for Flooring and Roofing Purposes</article-title><source> Journal of Ferrocement</source><volume> 20</volume>,<fpage> 367</fpage>-<lpage>375</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kankam, J.A., Ben-George, M. and Perry, S.H. (1986) Bamboo-Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Slabs Subjected to Concentrated Loading. Structural Engineering, 64, 85-92.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alade, G.A., Olutoge, F.A. and Alade, A.A. (2004) The Durability and Mechanical Strength Properties of Bamboo in Reinforced Concrete. Journal of Applied Science, Engineering and Technology, 1, 35-40.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Akeju, T.A.I. and Falade, F.A. (2001) Utilization of Bamboo as Reinforcement in Concrete for Low-Cost Housing. Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, Cape Town, 2-4 April 2001, 1463-1470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043948-8/50164-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mahzuz, H.M.A., Ahmed, M., Uddin, M.K., Hossain, M.M. and Saquib, N. (2013) Determination of Tensile Stress and Bond Stress with Concrete of a Rattan (Calamus guruba). Scholars Journal of Engineering and Technology, 1, 39-43.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ghavami, K. (2005) Bamboo as Reinforcement in Structural Concrete Elements. Cement &amp; Concrete Composites, 27, 637-649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.06.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baba, M. (2009) Mini Project Report on Shed Type Structures-Steel vs. Bamboo. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mahzuz, H.M.A., Ahmed, M., Ashrafuzzaman, M., Karim, R. and Ahmed, R. (2011) Performance Evaluation of Bamboo with Mortar and Concrete. Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 3, 342-350.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chowdhury, M.Q. (2004) Assessment of Some Physical and Mechanical Properties of Golla Bet (Daemonorops jenkinsiana) from North-Eastern Region of Bangladesh. Bamboo and Rattan, 3, 195-201. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1569159041765353</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mahzuz, H.M.A., Ahmed, M., Uddin, M.K., Hossain, M.M. and Saquib, N. (2014) Effectiveness Evaluation of Zali Bet as Reinforcement in Concrete Beam. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2, 269-279.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lucas, E.B. and Dahunsi, B.I.O. (2004) Bond Strength in Concrete of Canes from Three Rattans Species. Journal of Applied Science, Engineering and Technology, 4, 1-5.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cox, F.B. and Geymayer, H.G. (1969) Expedient Reinforcement for Concrete for Use in South East Asia: Report 1— Preliminary Test for Bamboo Technical Report No. C-69-3, US Army Corps of Engineers.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Youssef, M.A.R. (1976) Bamboo as a Substitute for Steel Reinforcement in Structural Concrete. In: Fang, H.Y., Ed., New Horizons in Construction Materials, Envo Publishing Co., Leligh Valley, 525-554.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Neville, A.M. and Brook, J.J. (1987) Concrete Technology. Longman Group, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lucas, E.B. and Dahunsi, B.I.O. (2004) Characteristics of Three Western Nigerian Rattan Species in Relation to Their Utilization as Construction Material. Journal of Bamboo and Rattan, 3, 45-56. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156915904772875635</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Akinyele, J.O. and Olutoge, F.A. (2011) Properties of Rattan Cane Reinforced Concrete Fa?ade Subjected to Axial Loading. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 5, 1048-1052. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">BS 4449 (2001) Hot Rolled Steel Bars for Reinforcement of Concrete, Part 2. British Standards Institution, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">ASTM (2003) Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products—ASTM A 370. West Conshohocken.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">BS 882 (1992) Specification for Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete. British Standards Institution, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">BS 1881 (2013) Testing Concrete. Methods for Mixing and Sampling Fresh Concrete in the Laboratory, Part 125. British Standards Institution, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">BS 8110 (2004) Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1. British Standards Institution, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57234-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Obilade, I.O. and Olutoge, F.A. (2014) Flexural Characteristics of Rattan Cane Reinforced Concrete Beams. International Journal of Engineering and Science, 3, 38-42.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>