Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol.

30, June 1997, pp 313-316

Raffia palm-reinforced concrete beams

C. K. Kankam
Department of Civil Engineering, Universityof Scienceand Technology,Kumasi, Ghana

A B S T R A C T RI~SU MI ~

Fourteen simply-supported, raffia pahn-reinforced
concrete beams were tested to failure under three-point
loading. Stirrups formed from raffia palm were provided.
There were no diagonal cracks in any of the beams and
collapse was mainly due to crushing of the concrete.
Failure loads averaged 117 percent of the theoretically
predicted values.
Des essais ont ~t~ effectu& sur quatorze poutres a appui
simple, renforc&par du palmier raphia, sous flexion a trois-
points jusqu'a l'effondrement. Des &iers en palmier raphia ont
~t~ utilis&. Aucune poutre n'a montr~ defissuration diagonale et
l'effondrement ~tait d~ principalement a l'~crasement du b&on.
Les charges de rupture lors des essais ont ~t~, en moyenne, de
117% des valeurs th&riquespr&ues.

"!ii!ii~i~i;

COPPERW,RE
1. INTRODUCTION
The high cost of steel from expensive and limited raw
material sources has enhanced the need to develop sev-
eral indigenous materials such as bamboo [1], date palm
[2] and palm stalk [3] as main or fibre reinforcement in
concrete.
This paper describes experimental tests carried out on
raffia palm-reinforced concrete beams. Raffia palm, also r

f
known as rattan, is of the Palmae group found in tropical
rain forests. It grows in Southeast Asia, South America,
West and Central Africa. Four species commonly exist in
Ghana [4]. It is a slender woody vine with a sheathed
stem. With the sheath removed, an exposed tough
cutinized back prevents loss of water from the surface and
*---COPPER WIRE
also resists abrasion [5]. In Ghana, it is used in making the
framework for buildings before daubing.

2. DETAILS OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Raffia palm bars of diameters ranging from 10 mm to
20 mm were cut to 2.3 m long. The ends of the bars
were heated and bent to form hooks in order to provide
mechanical anchorage in some of the beams (see Fig. 1).
The percentage of main reinforcement ranged from 2.3
to 7.0 of the gross area of the beam. For shear reinforce-
ment, stirrups, formed by heating and bending to shape
8-mm raffia bars, were used at a spacing of three-quar-
ters of the effective depth of the beam. The concrete was
(b)
Fig. 1 - Reinforcement details: (a) bar hook, (b) raffia stirrup.
made from ordinary Portland cement, natural river sand,
and crushed granite of a 10-mm maximum size. The
mix proportions were 1:2:4 with a water-cement ratio of
0.55 by weight. All the beams were subjected to alter-
nate wetting and drying.

0025-5432/97 9 RILEM 3 13
Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol. 3 0 , June 1997

Pul, - 6Mult 3wL (2)

Fig. 2 - Beam B7 after failure.
During loading, the beams were simply supported at
their ends on a steel beam of a rigid frame. A dial gauge
was arranged to measure the central deflection (Fig. 2).
Loading was applied equally at the two third-span points.
Beams B1 to B11 were subjected to monotonic loading;
B12, B13 and B14 were subjected to 2, 5 and 10 cycles
of loading, respectively.
3. FLEXURAL THEORY
L 4
where Mult is the ultimate moment of resistance of the
beam, L the span of the beam and w the self-weight per
unit length of the beam. The theoretical flexural
strength of the beam with respect to the raffia palm rein-
forcing bars is:
Mu,t = fr"A"tZ (3)
~/II1
where fru is the ultimate tensile strength of rattan, Ym
the partial safety factor for rattan, Art the area of'rattan in
tension and Z the lever arm.
With an average value of fru of 90N/mm 2 (see Table
1), an assumed value of 2.0 for the partial safety factor
and the maximum value o f Z - 0.75d, where d denotes
the effective depth of'the beam, Mult can be expressed as:
mult : 0.37Artfrud (4)
4. THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS

The cracking m o m e n t Mcr of an unreinforced rec-

4.1 Geometrical and material properties of
tangular concrete section, based on the modulus of rup- the beams
ture of'concrete, is given by:
Details of the tensile strength of the raffia palm are
Mcr - ftcbh2 (1) given in Table 1. A description of the beams is given in
6 Table 3.
where ftc denotes the modulus of rupture of the con-
crete, b is the width and h is the overall depth of the
beam. For a simply-supported beam subjected to third- 4.2 Deflections
point loading and self-weight of the beam, the ultimate
flexural load Pult is given by: Typical load-deflection curves for the beams sub-
jected to monotonic and cyclic loadings are given in
Figs. 3a and b.
Table 1 - Tensile Strength of Raffia Palm
Specimen Moisture Diameter Tensilestrength Modulusof elasticity
number content of bar of raffia palm (Initial tangentmodulus)
4.3 First Crack and Failure Loads
(%) (mm) (N/mm 2) (kN/mm 2)
Table 4 displays the cracking loads, the theoretical
A1 42.2 10 113.8 25 failure loads based on the concrete section alone and the
A2 42.2 9.3 91.1 16 experimental failure loads of the beams.
A3 42.2 11.2 75 14.6
A4 42.2 10 90 15.9
4.4 Shear strength
A5 42.2 10.8 95.2 16.5
A6 42.2 10.3 101.4 20.5
Table 2 gives estimates of the shear strength of the
beams, based on the BS 8110 [6] method.
A7 42.2 10 87.5 16
A8 42.2 10 88 16.9
B1 41.7 9.8 88 16 5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
B2 41.7 9.2 100.4 19.5
5.1 Load-deflection curves
B3 41.7 10.9 81.4 15
B4 41.7 10.8 80 12.1 Typical load-deflection curves for beams subjected to
one continuous loading are shown in Fig. 3a. Beams B2 to
B5 41.7 10.5 84 13.3
B5, which were reinforced with raffia palm bars without
C1 53.9 11.1 83 16.2 hooks, exhibited a linear load-deflection response up to a

314
Kankam

Table 2 - Shear strength of beams

Design shear strength (kN)
Beam
No. Without Including IncludingAr 81" $2" $3" $4"
raffia, Psl mffia(Ar),Ps2 and ~irrups,Psa
B1 6.9 18.1 28.6 0.43 0.84i 0.32 0.20
B2 6.9 18.6 29.1 0.29 0.85 0.32 0.20
5 B3 6.9 18.6 29.1 0.36 0.87 0.32 0.21
B4 6.9 18.6 29.1 0.14 0.98 0.37 0.23

e B5 8.5 23.2 33.7 0.59 1.18 0.43 0.30

o 2 4 $ 8 1o 12 14
( O, ) CENTRAL I:HFLECTION (mini B6 8.5 21.1 31.6 0.82 1.53 0.62i 0.41
B7 8.5 23.2 33.7 1.17 1.65 0.60 0.42
20 B8 8.5 23.2 33.7 1.17 2.24 0.82 0.56
B9 9.1 22.7 33.2 0.66 1.98 0.79 0.54
15 El Ist CYCLE BIO 9.1 23.1 33.6 0.66 1.98 0.78 0.54
A 2nd CYCLE
~0
~ 9 3rd CYCLE Bll 8.5 21.7 32.2 0.65 2.12 0.83 0.56
10 x /,~ CYCLE
B12 9.1 23.3 33.8 0.49 2.20 0.86 0.59
o 5th CYCLE
+ 6th CYCLE B13 8.3 22.4 32.8 0.72 2.41 0.89 0.61
B14 8.3 22.6 32.8 0.66 2.41 0.88 0.61

i / i / i (*) S l = Pc,./Ps,; 82 = Pult/Psl; $3 = P uh/Ps2; S4 = Pult/Ps3; values of P cr and P ult

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 are given in Table 4.
(b ) CENTRAL DE~FLECTION (mm)

Fig. 3 - Typical loadeflection curves (a) b e a m s u n d e r monotonic

fully developed in the beams, the load-deflection curves
loading, (b) beam under cyclic loading. show considerable flattening. The sharp increase in the
observed deflections of the beams after cracking was due
load of between 1.0 kN and 4.5 kN. On the other hand, to the relatively low value of the modulus of elasticity of
for beams B6 to B8 which had hooks on the reinforcing raffia palm (12.0 kN/mm 2 to 25.0 kN/mm2).
bars, the linear portion continued up to between 5.0 kN Fig. 3b shows the load-deflection curve for beam B13
and 8.0 kN. Beyond the linear re,me, once cracks have which was subjected to cyclic loading. For each cycle of
loading and unloading, the curves
Table 3 - Description of beams* formed hysteresis loops. It was evi-
dent that for the beam specimen
Beam Span,: Effe~ive Tension Compression 28-day Modulus cyclically loaded below its ultimate
number L Depth, d rein~mement min~rcement Concrete 0f Rupture
Strength (N/mm2) load capacity, incremental deforma-
(mm) ~D (mm) Area,Ar Percentage Area,A'r Percentage
(mm2) lOOAr/bD (mm2) lOOA'r/bD (N/mm2) tions decrease after the first cycle.
B1 1800 12 120 341 2.8 0 0 36.4 2.4
B2 1800 12 120 361 3 0 0 34.6 2.3 5.2 Cracking and mode of
B3 1800 12 120 455 3 0 0 37.7 2.5 failure
B4 1800 12 120 567 3.8 0 0 39.8 2.5 Table 4 shows that the cracking
B5 1800 7.8 160 1060 3.6 530 1.8 21.9 1.5 loads Per averaged 0.29 and 0.38 of
B6 1800 7.8 160 679 2.3 339 1.2 22.8 1.6
Pult (the experimental failure load),
respectively, for beams B1 to B5
B7 1800 7.8 160 905 3.1 339 1.2 24.2 1.7 and beams B6 to Bll. The cracking
B8 1800 7.8 160 2036 7 1018 3.5 20.6 1.4 loads Per also averaged 0.57 and 1.32
B9 1700 7.4 175 679 2.3 339 1.2 24 1.5 P'ult (the theoretical flexural
strength of the concrete section
BIO 1700 7.4 175 713 2.4 339 1.2 23.5 1.4
alone) for beams BI to B5 and
Bll 1700 7.4 160 760 2.5 190 0.7 23.9 1.3 beams B6 to Bll, respectively. The
B12 1700 7.4 175 736 2.5 339 1.2 20.3 1.2 corresponding values for beams B12
B13 1700 7.4 160 774 2.7 190 0.7 25.4 1.6
to B14 were 0.27 Pult and 1.19 P'ult.
Flexural cracks initiated and propa-
B14 1700 7.4 160 802 2.8 190 0.7 21.3 1.3 gated rapidly to within about two-
(*) Bars in Beams B1 to B5 are straight. Bars in B6 to B14 have hooks at their ends. Beams B12 to B I 4
thirds of the depth of the beams
were subjected to cyclic loading, while the rest were subjected to monotonic loading. from the tension side. Thereafter,

315
Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions, Vol. 30, June 199 7

Table 4 - First crack and failure loads

Beam First-crack Experimental Theoretical flexural strength
number load, Pcr failure Based onconcrete Including Pcr/Pult Pcr/P,ult Pult/P,ult Pult/P-ul
(kN) load, Pult sectionalone, P'ult rattan, P'ult
(kN) (kN) (kN)
B1 2 5.8 3.19 3.99 0.34 0.63 1.82 1.44
B2 1 5.9 3.03 4.26 0.17 0.33 1.95 1.37
B3 2.0 6 3.35 5.53 0.33 0.6 1.79 1.08
B4 1 6.8 3.35 7.05 0.15 0.3 2.03 1.01
B5 4.5 10 4.65 18.1 0.45 0.97 2.15 0.56
B6 5.5 13 5.03 11.27 0.42 1.09 2.58 1.17
B7 6.5 14 5.4 15.34 0.46 1.2 2.59 1
B8 8 19 4.28 33.5 0.42 1.87 4.44 0.54
B9 6 18 5.04 13.26 0.33 1.19 3.57 1.36
BIO 6 18 4.6 13.96 0.33 1.3 3.91 1.29
Bll 5.5 18 4.25 13.62 0.3 1.29 4.23 1.32
B12 4.5 20 3.85 14.46 0.23 1.17 5.19 1.38
B13 6 20 5.46 13.87 0.3 1.1 3.66 1.44
B14 5.5 20 4.25 14.4 0.28 1.29 4.7 1.39

the propagation was gradual until failure occurred by
crushing of the concrete. The presence of more closely-
spaced cracks in beams B6 to B14, as compared with B1 to
B5, indicated a fairly good bond between the concrete and
raffia palm in the former beams. The average maximum
crack width at failure was 4.04 mm in beams B1 to B5 and
2.47 mm in beams B6 to B14.
5.3 Failure loads
The experimental failure loads Pult averaged 1.95 P'ult
(the theoretical flexural strength of the concrete section
alone) for beams B1 to B5, 3.55 P'ult for beams B6 to Bll
and 4.52 P'ult for beams B12 to B14. This shows that the
tensile raffia palm reinforcement made a significant contri-
bution to the flexural strength of the concrete beam.
Similarly, the experimental failure load Pult averaged 1.09
P'ult, 1.11 P'ult and 1.40 P'ult (the theoretical flexural
strength of the raffia palm-reinforced concrete beam) for
beams B1 to B5, B6 to Bll and B12 to B14, respectively.
5.4 Effect of improved anchorage bond
Table 4 shows that the first-crack and experimental
failure loads of beams B6 to B14 which had hooks on
their reinforcement were greater as compared with
beams B1 to B5 which had no hooks.
6. CONCLUSION
Laboratory tests were carried out on raffia palm-rein-
forced concrete beams. With the provision of hooks at
the bar ends for anchorage, the experimental failure
loads of the beams increased substantially, and more,
closely-spaced flexural cracks developed, due to
improved anchorage bond strength. The experimental
failure loads averaged 1.99 times the theoretical flexural
strength of the concrete section alone in the beams rein-
forced with bars without hooks. The corresponding
value for beams with hooks was 3.87. No problem was
found to arise from the bond between the concrete and
the reinforcing bars from cycling load tests. Long-term
tests, nevertheless, are required to establish the flexural
strength durability of raffia palm-reinforced concrete
beams.
REFERENCES
[1 ] Kankam, J.A., Ben-George, M. and Perry, S. H., 'Bamboo rein-
forced concrete beams subjected to third-point loading", ACI
StructuralJournal 85 (1988) 61-67.
[2] Youssef Reda, M.A., 'Date-Pahn midribs as a substitute for steel
reinforcement in structural concrete', in 'New Horizons in
Construction Materials' (Envo Publishing Co., Lehigh Valley)
Vol. 1 (1976) 417-430.
[3] Kankarn, C. K., 'The influence of palm stalk fibre reinforcement
on the shrinkage stresses in concrete',Journal of Ferrocement24 (3)
(1994) 249-254.
[4] Irvine, F.1K., 'Woody Plants in Ghana' (Oxford University Press,
196l) 773-785.
[5] Menon, K.D., 'Rattan: A State of the Art Review', Report at
Workshop held in Singapore (IDRC Ottawa, 1979) 11-74.
[6] British Standards Institution, 'Structural Use of Concrete. BS
8110: Part 1: 1985. Code of Practice', London.

316