Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structural Safety
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/strusafe

Load and resistance factor design for bamboo reinforced concrete beam in
ultimate flexural limit state
Bapi Mondal ∗, Damodar Maity, Puneet Kumar Patra
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Building sustainable infrastructure brings back the idea of using environmentally friendly materials, such as
Bamboo reinforced concrete bamboo, for reinforcing concrete structures. However, a design framework for bamboo reinforced concrete
Limit state design (BRC) structures is still in its early stages due to the inherent uncertainties in the properties of bamboo. The
Reliability analysis
present work focuses on developing a load and resistance factor design (LRFD) framework for BRC beams
Load and resistance factor design
subjected to flexure. Before developing the design framework, the major variables affecting the behaviour of
BRC beams are identified — the tensile properties of bamboo, the compressive properties of concrete, the bond
strength between them, and the load. BRC beams, with various reinforcement percentages, are investigated
through real-life experiments and finite element (FE) based numerical experiments. We show that the FE
models provide good agreement with the real-life experiments if the major variables are chosen as per their
descriptive statistics. The FE model is used to generate a synthetic dataset, using which Monte Carlo simulations
are performed. The BRC beam is assumed to be governed by the limit state of collapse in flexure. The partial
safety factors for bamboo with different dead and live load combinations are calibrated to different target
reliability. Designers can make use of the proposed partial safety factors for designing BRC flexural members.

1. Introduction
The focus on building sustainable infrastructure has brought back
the search for environmentally friendly alternatives to steel, the most
popular material used to reinforce concrete. Steel reinforcement de-
grades mainly due to the corrosion effect. Therefore, nowadays,
corrosion-resistant materials such as Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
bars are used where reinforcing bars are prone to corrosion. However,
both steel and FRP bars cannot fulfil the sustainability requirement
due to their high cost, energy-intensive, and high carbon emission
to the environment. A natural material like bamboo is a promising
alternative to steel reinforcement, especially for low-cost housing, due
to its mechanical properties and economic, social, and environmental
benefits. As a plant, bamboo overgrows in a few months, and it reaches
its maximum strength in a few years. Compared to mild steel, bamboo
has roughly half the tensile strength [1], and its modulus is 10% that
of steel. There are two significant characteristics of bamboo that make
it superior. Firstly, bamboo has a high specific strength that is higher
than mild steel [1], and secondly, it has a high specific tensile modulus
that is equivalent to steel [2].
Researchers have been working on bamboo reinforced concrete
(BRC) structures since the mid-19th century. However, the design
approach for most of these bamboo structures is taken similar to the
one used for steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) [3–5], overlooking the
differences between the reinforcing steel and the bamboo, the high
uncertainty in the mechanical properties of bamboo, and the differ-
ence in the bonding characteristics between bamboo and concrete.
Around 1250 bamboo species grow in the world [6], 148 of which
grow in India [7]. The properties of bamboo vary inter- and intra-
species. Bamboo, within the same species, has different mechanical
properties depending on its fibre content, age, and moisture content
[8–12]. Bamboo has a unidirectional fibre direction with varying fibre
density along its length, except in the nodal region [13]. From the
bottom to the top of bamboo culm, tensile strength and tensile modulus
increase because of an increase in fibre volume fraction [14–16]. Due
to the random distribution of fibres at the node, bamboo exhibits brittle
behaviour in longitudinal tension-dominated failure mode [10,17,18].
In addition, the nodal regions provide lower tensile strength and tensile
modulus than the inter-nodal regions [19]. Bamboo typically exhibits
an elastic-brittle behaviour by failing without yielding or ductility
[20–23].
In addition to tensile properties, the bonding characteristics be-
tween bamboo and concrete severely affect the behaviour of BRC
members, especially their behaviour after cracking [24]. The swelling
and shrinkage effects in bamboo create a poor bond between bamboo

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bapimondal@iitkgp.ac.in (B. Mondal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2023.102323
Received 5 July 2022; Received in revised form 17 January 2023; Accepted 22 January 2023
Available online 9 February 2023
0167-4730/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Mondal et al.
and concrete; however, a proper surface treatment of bamboo strips
can reduce this effect [25]. Different types of epoxy agents have been
used for surface treatment, of which Sikadur 32-LP is found to be
an effective one for increasing the bond strength [26,27]. To further
improve the bond strength, a sand coating over Sikadur 32-LP gel is
provided [28]. In addition to chemical treatments, geometrical and
mechanical treatments, such as notching, nailing, hose-clamps around
the bamboo specimens, bamboo corrugation, or winding wires, are also
promising in improving bond characteristics [29,30].
The randomness in the structural response of BRC members may be
attributed to the following variables: longitudinal tensile modulus, ulti-
mate tensile strength, Poisson’s ratio, the presence of nodes in bamboo
strips, ultimate bond strength, and slip at ultimate bond strength. Of
them, the tensile properties of bamboo and the bamboo-concrete bond
strength play the most important role [31,32]. Due to the presence
of these randomnesses, a design framework based on SRC members
is insufficient for BRC members. For example, in an SRC member,
where the design philosophy is based on the perfect bond between
the reinforcing steel and concrete, the steel yields and causes ductile
failures in the flexural SRC members. On the other hand for BRC mem-
bers, which are made of two brittle materials — bamboo and concrete,
a brittle failure is inevitable. Due to the reduced bonding between
bamboo and concrete, a BRC beam shows larger deflection and wider
cracks at the ultimate capacity. Therefore, BRC beams must be designed
by considering bamboo’s tendency to slip inside the concrete. Apart
from BRC flexural members, bamboo-based flexural members such as
an assembled bamboo-lightweight concrete composite (ABLCC) beam,
bamboo-timber I-beam, and bamboo-concrete composite (BCC) beams
with threaded reinforcement connections show excellent structural per-
formance in terms of bending capacity and flexural stiffness [33–35].
Design guidelines are developed based on several years of experience
dealing with traditional materials. Conversely, new materials, with
different sets of concerns, require new methods to create design guide-
lines. Due to the growing interest in sustainable materials like bamboo
in buildings, the development of codified provisions for designing such
structures, adapted to the specific characteristics of bamboo and based
on current reliability measures, is necessary.
Structural members fail when the load they bear exceeds their
capacity to support it. The load and capacity (resistance) of structural
members are generally uncertain. In order to achieve a rational design
procedure, one must consider the different sources of uncertainties
while ensuring simple-enough design principles to be adopted by the
industry. The present work focuses on developing such ‘‘simple equa-
tions’’ for BRC members, to be specific, BRC beams. Reliability frame-
works facilitate deriving engineering decisions by rationally analysing
uncertainty, guiding the acquisition of the additional data that are
crucial for ensuring future acceptable performance, and presenting
information as useful engineering decision aids [36]. We develop LRFD
based equations that account for variability in both load and resistance
terms. Being reliability based, LRFD provides an ideal framework for
these considerations and is in accordance with the existing code devel-
opment trends. Eq. (1) shows the basic design checking equation for
LRFD, where 𝜙 denotes the resistance factor associated with a specific
limit state, 𝑅𝑛 is the nominal resistance, 𝛾𝑖 is the load factor associated
with load 𝑖, and 𝑄𝑖 is the load effect due to load 𝑖 [37]:
∑ fibre orientation at the nodes. To simplify the design equations, an
𝜙𝑅𝑛 ≥ 𝛾𝑖 𝑄𝑖 (1)
𝑖 equivalent tensile modulus (𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑞 ), calculated using the inverse rule
The resistance factor, 𝜙, depends on material, geometry, and limit state
function, and accounts for the variations in capacity. Due to changes
in reliability, quality control in manufacturing, and similar factors, the
resistance factors must allow for adjustments in design strength [38].
Typically, the strength (resistance) and load effects are multiplied by
their corresponding characteristic values to increase the load effects
and reduce the strength. Together, they are also known as the partial
safety factors (PSFs).
2
Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323
Developing an LRFD methodology requires testing thousands of
samples under different loading conditions, a task that is impractical
so far as real-life experiments are concerned. In the present work, the
LRFD methodology is developed by means of ‘‘computational’’ experi-
ments. These computational experiments are performed by developing
a finite element model (FEM) of BRC members with material properties
chosen randomly from the probability distributions obtained during
material characterisation. Different limit states of collapse under dif-
ferent load combinations, where the load themselves are statistical, are
considered to perform the reliability analysis of the BRC member. The
reliability analysis, performed using the computational model, provides
a reliability index, 𝛽. Upon choosing a particular target reliability index,
𝛽𝑡 , the LRFD factors are adjusted such that 𝛽 = 𝛽𝑡 in an iterative
manner.
The manuscript is organised as follows — the following section
reports the uncertainties involved in the material properties of bamboo
and concrete and the service loads. It is followed by developing a finite
element framework for the BRC beam. After that, the reliability-based
load and resistance factor design methodology is discussed. Lastly, we
discuss in brief the conclusions and the future scope of our study.
2. Uncertainty in the materials and loads
The design equations are dependent on the random material and
geometrical properties of bamboo as well as concrete and the random
load distributions. In this section, we describe in brief the different
uncertainties accounted for in our study. Note that we have only
considered the material properties of the bamboo and the concrete,
along with their bond characteristics, as random. Only the dead and
the live loads have been considered random for loads.
2.1. Reinforcing bamboo strips
Locally accessible Bambusa Balcoa (Bhalki) of more than 3-years
old has been chosen for this study. This particular species is one of
the prioritised species in India, especially in structural applications by
the International Bamboo and Rattan Organisation (INBAR) [6] and
National Bamboo Mission (NBM) [39]. If the species changes, natural
properties of bamboo can change as well. However, the present work
can be considered as representative study, and one may use it as a
reference for creating the LRFD factors for other bamboo species-based
flexural members.
The major parameters of bamboo that affect the behaviour of BRC
beams are the longitudinal tensile modulus and the longitudinal tensile
strength. Their statistical characteristics are prerequisites for devel-
oping the LRFD framework. The statistical characterisation of these
properties may be found in [31], where these variables were found to
follow a lognormal distribution. There are two different sections in a
bamboo strip — nodal and inter-nodal, which show different tensile
properties. Nodal sections provide comparatively lower tensile strength
and tensile modulus than the inter-nodal sections due to the random
of mixture as given in Eq. (2) [31], is used for developing the LRFD
framework. In Eq. (2), the volume fraction of nodal region, 𝑉𝑓 , is
considered as 10% of the bamboo strip. For equivalent tensile strength,
we consider only the tensile strength of the nodal samples since the
tensile failure in bamboo strips occurs due to the failure of the nodal
sections. For developing the design equations, Poisson’s ratio is taken as
0.3, which corresponds to the mean value. The descriptive statistics of
the longitudinal tensile strength (𝑓𝑏 ), longitudinal tensile modulus for
B. Mondal et al. Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323

Table 1 Table 2
Statistical distribution of resistance variables used in the reliability analysis. Nominal loads.
Variables Bias Mean COV Distribution Source Category Percentage of Dead load (𝐷𝑛 ) Live load (𝐿𝑛 )
(MPa) reinforcement (kN/m) (kN/m)
𝑓𝑏 – 114 0.102 Lognormal [31] BRCB-1 1.5 5.48 1.35
𝐸𝑏𝑛 – 8953 0.098 Lognormal [31] BRCB-2 2.5 9.84 1.35
𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑛 – 20304 0.168 Lognormal [31] BRCB-3 3.7 11.95 2.7
𝜏𝑏 – 2.41 0.17 Lognormal [32]
𝑓𝑐 1.25 – 0.15 Normal [41]
Table 3
𝑓𝑏 is longitudinal tensile strength of bamboo, 𝐸𝑏𝑛 and 𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑛 are the longitudinal tensile
Statistics of the load components.
modulus of bamboo of nodal and inter-nodal sections, respectively. 𝜏𝑏 is the ultimate
bond stress of bamboo inside concrete. 𝑓𝑐 is the compressive strength of concrete. Load component Mean COV Distribution Arrival
Average rate Duration
Dead load 1.05𝐷𝑛 0.10 Normal – –
Stacking live load 1.0 kPa 0.60 Gamma 1 arrival 1 month
nodal sample (𝐸𝑏𝑛 ), and longitudinal tensile modulus for inter-nodal
Move-in live load 0.19𝐿𝑛 0.66 Gamma 1 arrival 1 week
sample (𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑛 ) are shown in Table 1. Sustained live load 0.3𝐿𝑛 0.60 Gamma 0.125/year 8 years
( ) Extraordinary live load 0.19𝐿𝑛 0.66 Gamma 1/year 1 week
𝑉𝑓 1 − 𝑉𝑓 −1
𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑞 = + (2)
𝐸𝑏𝑛 𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑛

2.2. Bond properties between bamboo and concrete
In addition to the mechanical properties of bamboo, the bond
properties between bamboo and concrete – the ultimate bond stress
and the corresponding slip of bamboo – significantly impact the load–
displacement behaviour of BRC beams. Their statistical characteristics
are required as well to develop the LRFD framework. The statistical
characterisation of the bond properties may be found in [32], where
the ultimate bond stress was found to follow a lognormal distribution
and the bond stress played a dominating role in the bond–slip response.
Therefore, in this study, only the variation of bond stress is accounted
for, and from our previous study [32], the mean value of slip at ultimate
bond stress is taken to be 0.31. The descriptive statistics of the ultimate
bond stress (𝜏𝑏 ) are shown in Table 1.
2.3. Concrete
The compressive strength (𝑓𝑐 ) of concrete plays the most important
role in determining the behaviour of an RC structural member rein-
forced by bamboo. Statistics of 𝑓𝑐 is taken from previous literature (see
Table 1). The present study has considered a characteristic compressive
strength of 20 MPa. The elastic modulus of concrete, which is usually a
random quantity, is dependent on the compressive
√ strength of concrete.
This has been calculated using 𝐸𝑐 = 5000 𝑓𝑐𝑘 as per IS 456 [40].
2.4. Load and load combinations
While designing RC flexural members, the dead and the live loads
are the most dominant ones. Hence, only these are considered in our
LRFD framework. Three different beams having different reinforcement
percentages are considered, and the nominal service load for each beam
is calculated separately. For more details, see Appendix. The details of
the nominal loads are given in Table 2. Both dead and live loads can be
divided into load components, whose statistics can be seen in Table 3.
A major component of the dead load is the self-weight of the building,
which is typically known. Other dead-load components, such as the
weight of permanent equipment, partitions, roofing, floor coverings,
stairs, fixed service equipment, and other immovable fixtures, are asso-
ciated with larger uncertainties. All dead load components have been
taken together as a single dead load, and it is assumed that the resulting
intensity follows a normal distribution, with a mean-to-nominal ratio
of 1.05 and a COV of 0.10 [42]. For live loads, four components
have been considered separately in the present study. The stacking live
load is generally the load obtained from the stacking of formwork and
construction materials. A typical scenario would be stacking of several
pallets of masonry blocks on a single floor panel. The statistics of
stacking load have been taken from [43]. Move-in live load is generated
mainly due to the move-in activities (such as furniture stacking), and its
statistics have been taken from [43]. Extraordinary live load is the load
due to extraordinary events such as crowding, and space for storage
during moving, remodelling, or renovation activities [44]. A sustained
live load is defined as loads that are relatively constant within an
occupancy. The statistics of the sustained live load have been taken
from previously published works [42,44,45].
The following form represents the commonly used load combination
for the design load, 𝐷𝐿 [46,47]:
𝐷𝐿 = 𝛾𝑑 𝐷𝑛 + 𝛾𝑙 𝐿𝑛 (3)
where 𝐷𝑛 and 𝐿𝑛 are the nominal dead and live loads, respectively,
with corresponding load factors given by 𝛾𝑑 and 𝛾𝑙 . In the present study,
we use four load combinations: 𝐷𝐿 = (1.5𝐷𝑛 + 1.5𝐿𝑛 ), (1.35𝐷𝑛 + 1.35𝐿𝑛 ),
(1.5𝐷𝑛 + 1.35𝐿𝑛 ), and (1.35𝐷𝑛 + 1.5𝐿𝑛 ).
3. Finite element framework for BRC beams
3.1. Experimental database
Experiments have been performed on three cases, which comprise
beams having different reinforcement percentages as listed in Table 2.
For each case, three different beams are cast. Thus, we tested nine dif-
ferent beams. The geometrical properties of each beam are as follows:
the cross-section equals 200 mm (𝑏) × 250 mm (𝐷), the clear cover, 𝑑 ′ ,
equals 25 mm, and the effective length (𝐿𝑒𝑓 𝑓 ) equals 2.7 m. The cross-
sections of the three cases can be seen in Fig. 2. Bamboo strips, having
a mean (standard deviation) thickness of 9.59 mm (1.61 mm) and a
mean (standard deviation) width of 22.02 mm (1.13 mm), are used
as longitudinal reinforcements. A Sikadur 32-LP gel coating is applied
over the bamboo strips on which medium sand is sprayed to enhance
the bonding characteristics. In the present study, we have used the
vertical configuration of the bamboo strips as a tensile reinforcement
in the beams. Initially, we tried the horizontal configuration, where
the bamboo strips are placed horizontally. In this configuration, a
maximum of three bamboo strips can be placed in a single layer within
a beam of 200 mm width, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The three bamboo
strips in horizontal configuration correspond to 1.5% reinforcement.
A comparison of horizontal and vertical reinforcement configurations
suggests that the vertical configuration has a higher load-carrying ca-
pacity. Thus, for this study, we used the vertical configuration. Another
advantage of using the vertical configuration is that we can place more
strips at the bottom of the beam without compromising the minimum
space between two adjacent strips.
So, to start with, we use three tensile bamboo strips (1.5%) in the
vertical configuration, as may be seen in Fig. 2(a). Next, we use the
maximum number of bamboo strips that can be accommodated within

3
B. Mondal et al. Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323

Table 4
Concrete mix compositions.
Ingredients Specific gravity Weight per m3
kg/m3 kg/m3
Ordinary Portland Cement 2.9 364.71
Water 1 188.35
Fine aggregate (Zone-III) 2.61 615.26
Coarse aggregatea 2.8 1173.43
a Maximum nominal aggregate size was 20 mm.

Fig. 1. BRC beam cross-section and tensile reinforcement configuration: (a) horizontal
configuration and (b) vertical configuration.
the width of the beam. This case, shown in 2(b), corresponds to five
bamboo strips and implies 2.5% reinforcement. For the third case,
in addition to the five strips, we placed two more strips, as shown
in 2(c). This case with seven bamboo strips implies 3.7% bamboo
reinforcement. The percentage of bamboo can be increased by placing
more strips at the second layer using different stirrup systems.
All beams are prepared using normal strength concrete of grade
M20 (characteristic cube compressive strength). Apart from these nine
BRC beams, we also test two SRC beams for comparison purposes.
This comparison is made to understand the difference in the load–
displacement characteristics and the importance of the bond between
the reinforcing bar and concrete. Our base model comprises SRC beams
with 0.5% reinforcement (2−10𝜙). For BRC, we prepare different beams
with varying reinforcement percentages such that their load-carrying
capacity is similar to the 0.5% SRC beams. The mix design is carried
out in accordance with the Indian Standard code [48], and the mix
compositions are depicted in Table 4. After 28 days of curing, the
beams are tested under four-point loading as shown in Fig. 2(d) using
a computerised compressive testing machine (CTM) of AIMIL. The load
is applied through a displacement control approach, the rate being
1 mm/min. A linear variable differential transducer (LVDT) is placed
at the middle of the beams (as shown in Fig. 2(d)) to capture their
mid-displacement.
The experimental load–displacement response of the beams can be
seen in Fig. 3. From the figure, we can see that BRC beams with 1.5%
reinforcement can achieve a similar load-carrying capacity to the SRC
beams with 0.5% reinforcement. However, the ultimate capacity of BRC
beams with 2.5%–3.7% reinforcement is higher than the SRC beams. At
the ultimate capacity, the displacements are larger for the BRC beams
than for the SRC beams. This is due to the lower tensile modulus of
bamboo and the weaker bond between bamboo and concrete.
3.2. Finite element modelling of BRC beams
It is evident that there is a large variability in the tensile properties
of bamboo and its bond characteristics with concrete. In a single
species, the tensile strength and modulus significantly vary along the
height of bamboo culm [31]. Thus, to develop an LRFD methodology
for BRC beams, one ideally needs to conduct thousands of experimental
tests for capturing the effect of these uncertainties on the response of
the beams. Performing such tests is both time and resource-consuming.
Therefore, in the present study, we have performed numerical ex-
periments to generate synthetic data, which can then be utilised for
developing an LRFD methodology. This approach works if the numeri-
cal experiments are able to capture the essential features of the real-life
experiments. Numerical experiments are performed using ABAQUS-
based [49] finite element modelling of the BRC beams. In the FEM mod-
els, the major variables — tensile modulus of bamboo, bond strength
Table 5
Descriptive statistics of the variables used in our FEM of BRC beams.
Variables Mean Standard Mean Mean
deviation (SD) + 2SD − 2SD
𝐸𝑏𝑛 (MPa) 8953 877 10708 7198
𝐸𝑏𝑖𝑛 (MPa) 20304 3411 27126 13482
𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑞 a (MPa) 18020 – 23521 12401
𝜏𝑏 (MPa) 2.41 0.41 3.23 1.59
𝑓𝑐 (MPa) 25 3.75 32.5 17.5
a
Equivalent tensile modulus, 𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑞 , is calculated using inverse rule of mixture.
of bamboo inside the concrete, and concrete compressive properties are
chosen as per their distribution, and the structural responses of the BRC
beams are found. Post-processing the output data gives the resisting
moments. The flowchart of utilising FEM for generating synthetic data
is shown in Fig. 4. A total of 300 FE models have been analysed in our
study. Each model is run in parallel across 10 cores of a computing node
of the PARAM Shakti supercomputer available at the Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur.
In the FEM, the beams along with the reinforcing bars are discre-
tised with an 8-noded linear brick element with reduced integration
(C3D8R). Subsequent to a mesh convergence study, the size of an
element is chosen as 5 mm. With a mesh size of 5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm,
we have a total of 1.2 million elements. The concrete damage plasticity
(CDP) model is used to simulate the inelastic behaviour of concrete
in tension and compression, as well as its damage characteristics.
The concrete response under uniaxial compression is modelled using
Popovics’ work [50]. Under tension, the stress-crack opening relation
and the tensile damage parameters of [51] are used. While the nominal
compressive strength of concrete (𝑓𝑐𝑘 ) is taken as 20 MPa, its nominal
tensile strength is calculated as per [46]. The reinforcing bamboo strips
are assumed to behave linearly. Following [31], equivalent tensile
properties are assigned to the bamboo strips. To incorporate the slip
of bamboo strip in concrete, a surface-based cohesive interaction, as
described by [32] is used. The boundary conditions used in the models
are similar to the experimental setup (Fig. 2d).
3.2.1. Relative importance of different variables
The major variables that affect the behaviour of BRC beams are
equivalent tensile modulus of bamboo, bond stress of bamboo with
concrete, and compressive strength of concrete. Using the descriptive
statistics – mean, mean ± 2 standard deviation (SD) – for three dif-
ferent variables – equivalent tensile modulus of bamboo, bond stress
of bamboo with concrete, and compressive strength of concrete – we
create different FEMs to understand the relative importance of these
variables. The descriptive statistics of the variables are listed in Table 5.
First, we model three different beams by choosing the equivalent tensile
modulus as per its descriptive statistics, while using the mean values for
the other variables. The same process is repeated for bond stress and
compressive strength of concrete.
The experimental load–displacement curves are compared with the
numerical results. The comparisons can be seen in Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and
Fig. 7 for the variation of the equivalent tensile modulus of bamboo,
the bond stress, and the compressive strength of concrete, respectively.
From the figures, it can be seen that the non-linear part of the load–
displacement response changes when the equivalent tensile modulus of

4
B. Mondal et al.
Fig. 2. Beam cross-sectional details and loading set-up.
Fig. 3. Experimental load–displacement behaviour of the BRC and SRC beams.
bamboo, the bond stress, and the compressive strength of concrete are
chosen as per their descriptive statistics. The variation is significantly
higher for the equivalent tensile modulus of bamboo and the compres-
sive strength of concrete compared to the bond stress. From the results,
it is evident that – (i) the envelope of response, obtained by choosing
the variables as mean ± 2 SD, captures the experimental results, and
hence, one can use numerical results for generating the synthetic data,
and (ii) the variation in tensile modulus plays the dominant role in
determining the non-linear behaviour.
3.2.2. Stress and strain profile along depth of the beam
In order to calculate the resisting moment, which will be used in
the LRFD framework, one needs to know the neutral axis depth, 𝑐, and
the stress block parameter, 𝑘2 . The neutral axis depth can be found by
plotting the stress or the strain profile at the mid-span of the beams. The
stress and strain profiles of three different BRC beams (input variables
𝑓𝑏 , 𝐸𝑏𝑒𝑞 , and 𝑓𝑐 considered as mean) are shown in Fig. 8, Fig. 9, and
Fig. 10, respectively. From the figures, it can be seen that the depth
of the neutral axis is the same from both stress and strain profiles. The
variation of strain is found to be linear for all the beams, and, therefore,
5
Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323
the neutral axis depth can be calculated using the linear strain profile
as follows:
𝜖𝑐
𝑐=𝑑× (4)
𝜖𝑐 + 𝜖𝑏
where, 𝑑 is the effective depth of the beam, 𝜖𝑐 is the strain in extreme
compression fibre, and 𝜖𝑏 is the strain in bamboo at ultimate load of
the beam. Note that both 𝜖𝑏 and 𝜖𝑐 are random quantities.
The stress block parameter, 𝑘2 , is dependent on the compressive
stress profile in concrete along the depth of the beam. 𝑘2 is the ratio
of the distance of the resultant force of the stress block and the depth
of the neutral axis from extreme compression fibre. For designing SRC
beams, parabolic and triangular stress variations, with 𝑘2 = 0.425 and
0.33, respectively, are typically assumed. In case of BRC beams, the
stress variations are triangular within the concrete. These are depicted
in Fig. 8(b), Fig. 9(b), and Fig. 10(b). The centroid of the compression
blocks (where the resultant compressive force, 𝐹𝐶 is acting) are, there-
fore, calculated using linear fit. Due to the triangular stress profile, our
LRFD framework uses 𝑘2 = 0.33 throughout.
On the other hand, a strength reduction factor (developed stress/
ultimate stress), 𝛼𝑏 , for bamboo, which is a random variable, is consid-
ered in the present study. The reason for introducing 𝛼𝑏 is to represent
the reduction in strength due to the imperfect bond between concrete
and bamboo, due to which there is relative slipping between them.
This strength reduction factor can be termed as bias factor in the
modelled resistance. The resisting flexural moment (𝑀𝑟 ) of a BRC beam
is calculated based on structural mechanics:
( )
𝑘 𝜖
𝑀𝑟 = 𝑇 𝑍 = 𝑓𝑑𝑏 𝐴𝑏 (𝑑 − 𝑘2 𝑐) = 𝛼𝑏 𝑓𝑏 𝐴𝑏 𝑑 1 − 2 𝑐 (5)
𝜖𝑐 + 𝜖𝑏
where, 𝑇 = 𝑓𝑑𝑏 𝐴𝑏 is the total tensile force in the bamboo reinforcement,
𝑓𝑑𝑏 = 𝛼𝑏 𝑓𝑏 is the developed stress in bamboo (𝑓𝑑𝑏 = 𝑓𝑏 , and 𝛼𝑏 = 1 when
perfect bond is considered), 𝑓𝑏 = ultimate tensile strength of bamboo,
𝐴𝑏 = area of tensile bamboo reinforcement, and 𝑍 = (𝑑 − 𝑘2 𝑐) is the
lever arm.
3.2.3. Generation of random BRC model
So far, we have demonstrated that – (i) the FEM-based numerical
model of BRC beams can capture the essential details of the real-life
experiments, (ii) the variation of elastic modulus provides the widest
envelope, and (iii) while 𝜖𝑏 , 𝜖𝑐 , and 𝛼𝑏 are random, 𝑘2 for all practical
purposes is 0.33 due to the linearity of the stress profiles. The stage
is now set to generate the synthetic dataset of 𝜖𝑏 , 𝜖𝑐 , and 𝛼𝑏 , which
B. Mondal et al. Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323

Fig. 4. Finite element framework to develop resistance variable.

Fig. 5. Load–displacement response of BRC beam when tensile modulus of bamboo chosen as per descriptive statistics.

Fig. 6. Load–displacement response of BRC beam when bond stress chosen as per descriptive statistics.

determine the resisting moment, using the adopted FEM strategy. For 4. Reliability analysis
this purpose, a total of 100 FE models are created where the properties
are assigned randomly as per their distribution shown in Table 1. The 4.1. Limit state and design equation
resulting stresses and strains in concrete and bamboo are calculated at
the cross-section of the mid-span of the beams at ultimate load.
The present study uses the limit state of collapse in flexure when
The descriptive statistics of the strains at extreme concrete com-
the BRC beams are subjected to a combination of dead and live loads.
pression fibre (𝜖𝑐 ), in the tensile bamboo reinforcement (𝜖𝑏 ), and the
Mathematically, the limit state function in flexure can be written as:
strength reduction factor (𝛼𝑏 ) obtained by postprocessing our numerical
results, are listed in Table 6. The strength reduction factor of bamboo, 𝑔(𝑀𝑟 , 𝑀𝑎 ) = 𝑀𝑟 − 𝑀𝑎 , (6)
𝛼𝑏 , does not follow any distribution type. The histogram and the cum
of the strength reduction factor can be seen in Fig. 11. For using with where 𝑀𝑟 is the resisting flexural moment of the beam, and 𝑀𝑎 is the
Monte Carlo simulations later on, we, therefore, make use of the inverse moment due to dead and live loads. In flexure, under-reinforced beams
transform sampling [52] for generating 𝛼𝑏 . generally collapse either by rupture or due to slippage of the reinforcing

6
B. Mondal et al. Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323

Fig. 7. Load–displacement response of the BRC beams when concrete compressive strength chosen as per descriptive statistics.

Fig. 8. Variation of stress and strain at mid-span of BRCB-1: (a) stress profile, (b) stress along depth, (c) strain profile, and (d) strain along depth.

Table 6 of bamboo, the maximum tensile strength of bamboo is not reached

Descriptive statistics of the variables obtained from numerical models.
at the ultimate load of the beam. Therefore, the strength reduction
Variable BRC beams Mean COV Distribution factor, 𝛼𝑏 , needs to be utilised in the LRFD formulation. This is achieved
BRCB1 0.00205 0.09 Lognormal by incorporating 𝛼𝑏 for calculating the resisting flexural moment, as
Strain in concrete (𝜖𝑐 ) BRCB2 0.00248 0.11 Lognormal
shown in Eq. (5). Assuming the BRC beams to be simply supported, the
BRCB3 0.003 0.13 Lognormal
moment due to the dead and the live loads, 𝑀𝑎 , is calculated based
BRCB1 0.00456 0.05 Lognormal
on them acting uniformly throughout the length of the beam. Thus,
Strain in bamboo (𝜖𝑏 ) BRCB2 0.0047 0.08 Lognormal
BRCB3 0.00445 0.06 Lognormal 𝑀𝑎 = 𝑤𝐿2 ∕8, where 𝑤 is the loading intensity (DL+LL), and 𝐿 is the
BRCB1 0.76 0.11 –
effective length of the beam. The dead and live loads are incorporated
Strength reduction factor 𝛼𝑏 BRCB2 0.79 0.10 – as random variables using their statistical distribution as per Table 3.
BRCB3 0.76 0.09 – The limit state function can also be written in partial safety factor-
based format as follows:

𝑔(𝑀𝑟𝑛 , 𝑀𝑎𝑛 ) = 𝑀𝑟𝑛 − 𝑀𝑎𝑛 , (7)

bars. For BRC beams, the collapse occurs due to the slippage of bamboo. where 𝑀𝑟𝑛is the nominal resisting flexural moment of the beam, and
From the numerical models, we have seen that due to the slippage 𝑀𝑎𝑛 is the nominal moment due to dead and live loads. 𝑀𝑟𝑛 and 𝑀𝑎𝑛 are

7
B. Mondal et al. Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323

Fig. 9. Variation of stress and strain at mid-span of BRCB-2: (a) stress profile, (b) stress along depth, (c) strain profile, and (d) strain along depth.

Fig. 10. Variation of stress and strain at mid-span of BRCB-3: (a) stress profile, (b) stress along depth, (c) strain profile, and (d) strain along depth.

8
B. Mondal et al.
Fig. 11. Normalised frequency and CDF of strength reduction factor.
calculated as follows:
( )
𝛼𝑏,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑏,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑘2 𝜖𝑐,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛
𝑀𝑟𝑛 = 𝜌𝑏 𝑏𝑑 2 1 −
𝛾𝑏 𝜖𝑐,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 + 𝜖𝑏,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛
𝑀𝑎𝑛 = 𝛾𝑑 𝑀𝐷𝑛 + 𝛾𝑙 𝑀𝐿𝑛
where, 𝛼𝑏,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 , 𝑓𝑏,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 , 𝜖𝑐,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 , and 𝜖𝑏,𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 are the mean values of the
stress reduction factor for bamboo, longitudinal ultimate tensile
strength of bamboo, compressive strain of concrete at extreme com-
pression fibre, and tensile strain in bamboo, respectively.
4.2. Monte Carlo simulations
In this study, Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) are performed for the
reliability analysis of the BRC beams. Whether the limit state function
is less than zero or not is continuously monitored, from which the
reliability index is calculated.
The following are needed for analysing the reliability of the BRC
beams using MCS: (i) a mathematical representation of beam resistance
and (ii) statistics for the basic variables. In this study, Eq. (5) is utilised
as the mathematical representation of the beam resistance. The pri-
mary variables – the longitudinal tensile properties of bamboo (tensile
strength and strain in bamboo), the properties of concrete (strain at
extreme concrete fibres), the strength reduction factor, the dead and
the live loads – are all sampled according to their distribution.
The limit state function defines the failure of the beam when 𝑔 <
0 and the probability of failure, 𝑃𝑓 , is calculated accordingly. The
reliability index, 𝛽 is calculated using the following equation:
𝛽 = 𝛷−1 (1 − 𝑃𝑓 )
where 𝛷(…) is the standard normal probability CDF.
4.3. Calibration of partial safety factors
Calibration of partial safety factors is considered in general, in-
cluding classes of structures where no code exists beforehand [53].
Reliability-based partial safety factor (PSF) design ensures that the
structural components within the same category of limit states for a
given load combination are all nearly equally reliable [54]. The safety
checking scheme listed below can be used for design:
( 𝑛 ) (𝑚−𝑘 )
𝑆𝑖 ∑ 𝑞
𝑛
𝑅𝑛 , 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑘 ≥ 𝑙 𝛾𝑖 𝑄𝑖 (11)
𝛾𝑖𝑠 𝑖=1
where, 𝑅𝑛 represents the nominal resistance and is a function of the
strength parameters, the function for the load effect is 𝑙, 𝑆𝑖𝑛 is the nomi-
nal value of 𝑖th strength/material parameter, 𝛾𝑖𝑠 = 𝑖th strength/material
factor, 𝑄𝑖 = the nominal value of the 𝑖th load, and 𝛾𝑖𝑞 = 𝑖th load factor.
The vector of basic variables has been split into 𝑘 resistance–type and
𝑚 − 𝑘 action–type quantities. Note that there is no separate resistance
factor multiplying the nominal resistance (as in LRFD) since material
Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323
partial safety factors have already been incorporated in computing the
strength.
(8) Considering the limit state of collapse in flexure for BRC beam
subjected to a combination of dead and live load, the safety checking
(9) scheme for design can be expressed as follows.
( )
𝛼 𝑓 𝑘 𝜖
𝑀𝑛 = 𝑏 𝑏 𝜌𝑏 𝑏𝑑 2 1 − 2 𝑐 ≥ 𝛾𝑑 𝑀𝐷𝑛 + 𝛾𝑙 𝑀𝐿𝑛 (12)
𝛾𝑏 𝜖𝑐 + 𝜖𝑏
where, 𝑀𝑛 is the design resisting moment, 𝛾𝑏 is the partial safety factor
for bamboo, 𝜌𝑏 is the percentage of tensile bamboo reinforcement =
𝐴𝑏 ∕(𝑏𝑑), 𝑏 is the width of beam, 𝑀𝐷𝑛 is the nominal dead load moment,
and 𝑀𝐿𝑛 is the nominal live load moment.
The reliability problem can be written by normalising the limit state
with the design equation as follows:
[ ]
𝑀𝑟 𝑀𝑎
𝑃 − ≤ 0 = 𝛷(−𝛽𝑇 ), (13)
𝑀𝑟𝑛 (𝛾1𝑠 , … , 𝛾𝑘𝑠 ) 𝑀𝑎𝑛 (𝛾 𝑞 , … , 𝛾 𝑞 )
1 𝑚−𝑘
where, 𝛽𝑇 is the target reliability index, 𝑀𝑟 is the random resisting
moment and 𝑀𝑟𝑛 is its nominal value, and 𝑀𝑎 is the random moment
due to load and 𝑀𝑎𝑛 is its nominal value.
The partial safety factor for bamboo is calibrated using predefined
load factors and considering four different load combinations. Eq. (13)
is utilised to find the partial safety factors for the target reliability.
Three different values of target reliability index have been taken: 2.5,
3.0, and 3.5. The variation of the reliability index corresponding to
partial safety factors for bamboo can be seen in Fig. 12. When a
greater load combination is used, 𝑀𝑎𝑛 is increased as per Eq. (9), and
as a result, the probability of failure gets decreased as per Eq. (13).
(10) Thus, the reliability index also increases. The partial safety factor of
bamboo for different target reliability and different load combination,
are depicted in Table 7. To design a BRC flexural member, designer
can choose a proposed partial safety factor as per their requirement. A
comparison of partial safety factors for different reinforcing materials
in concrete under the limit state of collapse is listed in Table 8. The
reason for different PSFs for the materials is due to their different
tensile properties. Reinforcing steel has a much higher tensile modulus
than CFRP, GFRP, and bamboo, whereas the tensile strength of CFRP
and GFRP is higher than steel and bamboo [55,56]. In comparison to
other materials, bamboo has a low tensile modulus and tensile strength.
5. Conclusions
The present study focuses on the development of the LRFD frame-
work for flexural BRC beam subjected to a combination of dead load
and live load. The primary conclusions of this study are as follows:
• From the experimental investigation, it is observed that due to
an insufficient bond of bamboo in concrete, and lower tensile
modulus of bamboo, the BRC beams show larger deflection and
wider cracks compared to the SRC beams. To prevent the larger
9
B. Mondal et al. Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323

Fig. 12. Partial safety factor of bamboo versus reliability index.

Table 7 of partial safety factors. Designers can choose any of the three,
Calibrated partial safety factor of bamboo.
depending on their requirements.
Target Load Partial Safety factor of bamboo Suggested
reliability combination BRCB-1 BRCB-2 BRCB-3 PSF This study is limited to the LRFD framework for BRC beam under
1.5DL + 1.5LL 1.30 1.20 1.15 limit state of collapse (flexure). However, due to the insufficient bond
1.35DL + 1.35LL 1.45 1.35 1.30 and the lower tensile modulus of bamboo, BRC beam shows larger
2.5 1.45
1.5DL + 1.35LL 1.30 1.25 1.20
deflection, therefore, a serviceability check is required. To develop the
1.35DL + 1.5LL 1.40 1.35 1.25
LRFD framework for BRC beam under limit state of serviceability, one
1.5DL + 1.5LL 1.40 1.35 1.25
1.35DL + 1.35LL 1.55 1.50 1.40
needs to predict the deflection of the BRC beam. One can then perform
3 1.55 a detailed Monte Carlo simulation to obtain the LRFD factors for the
1.5DL + 1.35LL 1.45 1.35 1.30
1.35DL + 1.5LL 1.55 1.50 1.35 limit state of serviceability.
1.5DL + 1.5LL 1.60 1.45 1.35
1.35DL + 1.35LL 1.75 1.65 1.50
3.5 1.75 Data availability
1.5DL + 1.35LL 1.60 1.50 1.40
1.35DL + 1.5LL 1.70 1.60 1.50
The data that has been used is confidential.

Table 8
Partial safety factor of reinforcing material in concrete beam under the limit state of Acknowledgements
collapse.
Reinforcing Load Partial safety Target Source This work used the Supercomputing facility of IIT Kharagpur estab-
material combination factor reliability
lished under National Supercomputing Mission (NSM), Government of
1.35DL + 1.5LL 1.15 4.0 [46] India and supported by Centre for Development of Advanced Comput-
Steel
1.5DL + 1.5LL 1.15 4.0 [40]
ing (CDAC), Pune.
CFRP 1.35DL + 1.5LL 1.15 4.0 [57]
GFRP 1.35DL + 1.5LL 1.30 4.0 [57]
Appendix. Dead load and live load calculation for BRC beams
1.35DL + 1.5LL 1.70 3.5 Present study
Bamboo
1.5DL + 1.5LL 1.60 3.5 Present study
For the calculation of the nominal dead and live loads for the BRC
beams, a single storey dwelling house of 3 m height is considered. The
nominal loads for the beam are calculated based on their location of
deflection and wider crack, one can enhance the bond capacity the house. The BRC beams are assumed to have an effective length of
by applying a proper surface treatment of bamboo strips and an 2.7 m with cross-sectional dimension of 200 mm × 250 mm. In this
end anchorage system. dwelling house, square BRC slabs are considered based on the length
• The numerical load–displacement responses of the beams are in of the beams (2.7 m × 2.7 m) with a thickness of 100 mm. BRC wall
good agreement with the experimental ones. Choosing the longi-
with a thickness of 100 m is considered for both main (3 m) and parapet
tudinal modulus of bamboo, the compressive strength of concrete,
wall (1 m). The following details of unit weight of materials and live
and the bond between them as per descriptive statistics provides
load are considered based on codified provisions:
a good envelope to the experimental results.
• Due to loss of bond, bamboo does not reach its ultimate strength • Unit weight of BRC = 24 kN/m3
at the ultimate load of the beam. Therefore, consideration of a • Load due to floor finish = 0.72 kN/m2
perfect bond between bamboo and concrete is not applicable in • Live load for residential house = 2 kN/m2
the design of BRC beams. Instead, a strength reduction factor
can be utilised in the design equation to consider the slippage
A.1. BRCB-1 (1.5% reinforcement)
of bamboo inside the concrete.
• Unlike SRC members, the ultimate stress and the strain at extreme
compression fibre differ for the BRC members. The variation of • Dead load due to BRC beam = 3.24 kN
stress is almost linear for all the cases of the BRC beam; therefore, • Dead load due to BRC slab = 4.374 kN
a triangular stress profile may be adopted for designing the BRC • Dead load due to floor finish = 1.31 kN
beams with a stress block parameter, 𝑘2 , of 0.33. • Dead load due to BRC parapet wall = 5.88 kN
• Calibrating the reliability indices for three different target re- • Dead load intensity = 5.48 kN/m
liability values: 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5, yields three separate values • Live load intensity = 1.35 kN/m

10
B. Mondal et al.
A.2. BRCB-2 (2.5% reinforcement)
• Dead load due to BRC beam = 3.24 kN
• Dead load due to BRC slab = 4.374 kN
• Dead load due to floor finish = 1.31 kN
• Dead load due to BRC wall = 17.64 kN
• Dead load intensity = 9.84 kN/m
• Live load intensity = 1.35 kN/m
A.3. BRCB-3 (3.7% reinforcement)
• Dead load due to BRC beam = 3.24 kN
• Dead load due to BRC slab = 8.75 kN
• Dead load due to floor finish = 2.62 kN
• Dead load due to BRC wall = 17.64 kN
• Dead load intensity = 11.95 kN/m
• Live load intensity = 2.7 kN/m
References
[1] Lakkad S, Patel J. Mechanical properties of bamboo, a natural composite. Fibre
Sci Technol 1981;14(4):319–22.
[2] Correal J. Bamboo design and construction. In: Nonconventional and vernacular
construction materials. Elsevier; 2016, p. 393–431.
[3] Glenn HE. Bamboo reinforcement in portland cement concrete. Engineering
Experiment Station; 1950.
[4] Brink FE, Rush PJ. Bamboo reinforced concrete construction. 1966, US Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California.
[5] Geymayer HG, Cox FB. Bamboo reinforced concrete. Miscellaneous Paper C-70-2,
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station; 1970.
[6] Rao A, Ramanatha Rao V, Williams JT. Priority species of bamboo and Rat-
tan. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute; International Network for
Bamboo and Rattan; 1998.
[7] Sharma M, Nirmala C. Bamboo diversity of India: an update. In: Proceedings of
the 10th world bamboo congress. 2015, p. 17–22.
[8] Liese W. Anatomy and properties of bamboo. In: Proceedings of the international
bamboo workshop. 1985, p. 196–208.
[9] Lee AW, Bai X, Peralta PN. Selected physical and mechanical properties of giant
timber bamboo grown in South Carolina. Forest Prod J 1994;44(9):40.
[10] Amada S, Ichikawa Y, Munekata T, Nagase Y, Shimizu H. Fiber texture and
mechanical graded structure of bamboo. Composites B 1997;28(1–2):13–20.
[11] Lo TY, Cui H, Leung H. The effect of fiber density on strength capacity of
bamboo. Mater Lett 2004;58(21):2595–8.
[12] Wahab R, Mohamed A, Mustafa M, Hassan A, et al. Physical characteristics and
anatomical properties of cultivated bamboo (Bambusa vulgaris Schrad.) culms. J
Biol Sci 2009;9(7):753–9.
[13] Navin C, Rohatgi PK, et al. Natural fibres and their composites. Periodical Experts
Book Agency; 1994.
[14] Ahmad M, Kamke F. Analysis of calcutta bamboo for structural com-
posite materials: Physical and mechanical properties. Wood Sci Technol
2005;39(6):448–59.
[15] Verma C, Chariar V, Purohit R. Tensile strength analysis of bamboo and layered
laminate bamboo composites. Int J Eng Res Appl (IJERA) 2012;2(2):1253–64.
[16] Korde C, West R, Gupta A, Puttagunta S. Laterally restrained bamboo con-
crete composite arch under uniformly distributed loading. J Struct Eng
2015;141(3):B4014005.
[17] Sakaray H, Togati NVK, Reddy IR. Investigation on properties of bamboo as
reinforcing material in concrete. Int J Eng Res Appl 2012;2:077–83.
[18] Gauss C, Savastano Jr. H, Harries KA. Use of ISO 22157 mechanical test methods
and the characterisation of Brazilian P. Edulis bamboo. Constr Build Mater
2019;228:116728.
[19] Huang X, Li F, De Hoop CF, Jiang Y, Xie J, Qi J. Analysis of Bambusa rigida
bamboo culms between internodes and nodes: Anatomical characteristics and
physical-mechanical properties. For Prod J 2018.
[20] Jain S, Kumar R, Jindal U. Mechanical behaviour of bamboo and bamboo
composite. J Mater Sci 1992;27(17):4598–604.
[21] Shao Z-P, Fang C-H, Huang S-X, Tian G-L. Tensile properties of moso bamboo
(Phyllostachys pubescens) and its components with respect to its fiber-reinforced
composite structure. Wood Sci Technol 2010;44(4):655–66.
[22] Liu H, Jiang Z, Fei B, Hse C, Sun Z. Tensile behaviour and fracture mechanism
of moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens). Holzforschung 2015;69(1):47–52.
[23] Wang D, Lin L, Fu F. Fracture mechanisms of moso bamboo (Phyllostachys
pubescens) under longitudinal tensile loading. Ind Crops Prod 2020;153:112574.
[24] Archila H, Kaminski S, Trujillo D, Escamilla EZ, Harries KA. Bamboo reinforced
concrete: A critical review. Mater Struct 2018;51(4):102.
11
Structural Safety 102 (2023) 102323
[25] Plangsriskul N, Dorsano N. Materials characterization of bamboo and analysis
of bonding strength and internal strength as a structural member in reinforced
concrete. 2011, Materials Engineering Senior Project, California Polytechnic State
University, Sans Luis Obispo.
[26] Ghavami K. Bamboo as reinforcement in structural concrete elements. Cem Concr
Compos 2005;27(6):637–49.
[27] Agarwal A, Nanda B, Maity D. Experimental investigation on chemically
treated bamboo reinforced concrete beams and columns. Constr Build Mater
2014;71:610–7.
[28] Javadian A, Wielopolski M, Smith IF, Hebel DE. Bond-behavior study of newly
developed bamboo-composite reinforcement in concrete. Constr Build Mater
2016;122:110–7.
[29] Azadeh A, Kazemi HH. New approaches to bond between bamboo and concrete.
In: Key engineering materials, vol. 600. Trans Tech Publ; 2014, p. 69–77.
[30] Muhtar M. Reinforcement using adhesives and hose-Clamps. Data Brief
2019;27:104827.
[31] Mondal B, Maity D, Patra PK. Tensile characterisation of bamboo strips for
potential use in reinforced concrete members: Experimental and numerical study.
Mater Struct 2020;53(5):1–15.
[32] Mondal B, Maity D, Patra PK. Bond behavior between bamboo and normal-
strength concrete: Experimental and numerical investigation. Prac Period Struct
Des Construct 2022;27(3):04022037.
[33] Wang Z, Wei Y, Hu Y, Chen S, Zhao K. An investigation of the flexural
performance of bamboo-concrete composite beams with precast light concrete
slabs and dowel connectors. J Build Eng 2021;41:102759.
[34] Chen S, Wei Y, Zhao K, Dong F, Huang L. Experimental investigation on
the flexural behavior of laminated bamboo-timber I-beams. J Build Eng
2022;46:103651.
[35] Wei Y, Chen S, Jiang J, Zhou M, Zhao K. Experimental investigation of bamboo-
concrete composite beams with threaded reinforcement connections. J Sandw
Struct Mater 2022;24(1):601–26.
[36] Ellingwood BR. Reliability-based condition assessment and LRFD for existing
structures. Struct Saf 1996;18(2–3):67–80.
[37] Galambos TV, Ravindra M. Load and resistance factor design. Eng J, AISC
1981;18(3):78–84.
[38] Ellingwood BR. Probability-based LRFD for engineered wood construction. Struct
Saf 1997;19(1):53–65.
[39] National Bamboo Mission. Some commercially important species. 2022, https:
//nbm.nic.in/Bamboo-Species. [Accessed 14 July 2022].
[40] IS:456. Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice. New Delhi, India: Bureau
of Indian Standards; 2000.
[41] Huang X, Sui L, Xing F, Zhou Y, Wu Y. Reliability assessment for flexural
FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams based on importance sampling.
Composites B 2019;156:378–98.
[42] Ellingwood B. Development of a probability based load criterion for American
National Standard A58: Building code requirements for minimum design loads
in buildings and other structures, vol. 577. Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards; 1980.
[43] Rosowsky DV, Stewart MG. Probabilistic construction load model for multistory
reinforced-concrete buildings. J Perform Constr Facilities 2001;15(4):145–52.
[44] Chalk PL, Corotis RB. Probability model for design live loads. J Struct Div
1980;106(10):2017–33.
[45] Corotis RB, Doshi VA. Probability models for live-load survey results. J Struct
Div 1977;103(6):1257–74.
[46] EN1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures–part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization; 2004.
[47] Standard I. IS-456. 2000. 2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete-Code of Practice’’,
Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, 9.
[48] IS:10262. Concrete mix proportioning—guidelines. New Delhi, India: Bureau of
Indian Standards; 2009.
[49] ABAQUS. V. 6.14 Documentation, Vol. 651. Dassault Systemes Simulia
Corporation; 2014.
[50] Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete.
Cem Concr Res 1973;3(5):583–99.
[51] Hordijk DA. Local approach to fatigue of concrete [Ph.D. thesis], 1993.
[52] Vogel CR. Computational methods for inverse problems. SIAM; 2002.
[53] Sørensen JD, Kroon I, Faber MH. Optimal reliability-based code calibration.
Struct Saf 1994;15(3):197–208.
[54] Ellingwood BR. LRFD: Implementing structural reliability in professional practice.
Eng Struct 2000;22(2):106–15.
[55] ACI:4401R-15. Guide for the design and construction of structural concrete
reinforced with-fiber-reinofrced polymer (FRP) bars. American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan; 2015.
[56] Fang H, Sun H, Liu W, Wang L, Bai Y, Hui D. Mechanical performance of
innovative GFRP-bamboo-wood sandwich beams: Experimental and modelling
investigation. Composites B 2015;79:182–96.
[57] Taerwe L, Matthys S, et al. FRP reinforcement in RC structures. Bulletin
(Fédération Internationale Du Béton) 2007;40.