INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Load-Bearing Capacity of Bamboo Reinforced Beams: A  
Comparative Study of Flanged and Rectangular Cross-Sections  
1Dahunsi B.I.O. 1Labiran J.O. 2Adegbesan O.O.  
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ibadan  
2Postgraduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ibadan  
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1412000104  
Received: 24 August 2025; Accepted: 29 August 2025; Published: 10 January 2026  
ABSTRACT  
The environmental impact of steel production has prompted the construction industry to seek sustainable  
alternatives for concrete reinforcement. This study evaluates bamboo as a viable substitute, emphasizing its  
structural performance in two beam geometries: T-beams and rectangular beams. Mature bamboo culms, aged  
3–4 years and sourced from Gbokoto village in Ogun State, Nigeria, were carefully selected and subjected to  
rigorous pre-treatment and durability assessments—including Accelerated Aging and Graveyard tests in  
accordance with ASTM D1037-99 and BS 350:2016 standards—to ensure optimal mechanical properties and  
resistance to biological degradation. Bamboo-reinforced concrete beams were cast with uniform reinforcement  
ratios and mix designs, and flexural tests were conducted following ASTM and ISO standards. Treated bamboo  
splints demonstrated significantly enhanced tensile strength and durability compared to untreated samples. T-  
beams consistently outperformed rectangular beams in stiffness, load-bearing capacity, and ductility, attributed  
to their flanged geometry. Statistical analysis using ANOVA confirmed a significant difference in structural  
performance between the two geometries, underscoring bamboo’s potential as an eco-friendly and structurally  
reliable reinforcement material for modern concrete construction.  
Keywords: Bamboo, Beam geometrics, Biological degradation, Concrete reinforcement, Environmental impact  
INTRODUCTION  
Steel reinforcement remains indispensable in modern concrete construction due to its high tensile strength and  
structural reliability. However, its production is highly energy-intensive, relying predominantly on non-  
renewable sources and contributing significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions (World Steel Association,  
2020). Steel manufacturing alone accounts for approximately 7% of global CO₂ emissions, positioning it among  
the most carbon-intensive industrial processes (IEA, 2020). In addition to its carbon footprint, steel production  
generates considerable waste, including slag and other by-products that pose long-term environmental risks  
(European Commission, 2019). These environmental concerns, coupled with increasing resource depletion, have  
prompted a paradigm shift in the construction industry toward more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives  
(Sharma et al., 2022).  
Bamboo, a rapidly renewable resource, has emerged as a viable alternative to conventional steel reinforcement  
in concrete structures (Archana et al., 2023). Its high strength-to-weight ratio, affordability, and minimal  
environmental impact make it particularly attractive for sustainable construction (Jena et al., 2023; Janssen,  
2000; Ghavami, 2005; Moroz et al., 2014). Recent research has demonstrated that bamboo reinforcement can  
significantly enhance the load-bearing capacity of concrete beams (Kumar et al., 2022). Moreover, studies have  
emphasized the critical role of beam geometry, reinforcement ratio, and surface treatment in optimizing the  
structural performance of bamboo-reinforced concrete elements (Singh et al., 2023). Among the various beam  
configurations, T-beams and rectangular beams are commonly employed in construction, each offering distinct  
mechanical advantages. While rectangular beams are simpler to design and construct, T-beams provide improved  
resistance to bending due to their flanged cross-section. Understanding how bamboo reinforcement interacts  
with these geometries is essential for advancing its application in structural design.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1181  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Despite growing interest in bamboo as a sustainable reinforcement material, there remains a significant gap in  
research comparing its performance across different beam geometries. While prior studies have demonstrated  
bamboo’s potential to enhance the structural behavior of concrete beams, few have directly examined how  
geometry—specifically the distinction between T-beams and rectangular beams—affects load-bearing capacity.  
Addressing this gap is essential for optimizing the structural application of bamboo reinforcement. This study  
therefore investigates the influence of beam geometry on the performance of bamboo-reinforced concrete beams,  
with a comparative analysis of T-beams and rectangular beams to identify the most effective configuration for  
load-bearing efficiency.  
Research has shown that bamboo-reinforced concrete beams can achieve structural performance comparable to  
their steel-reinforced counterparts, positioning bamboo as a viable alternative for specific applications  
(Ghavami, 2005; Terai & Minami, 2011; Archila et al., 2018). However, as a natural and organic material,  
bamboo is inherently vulnerable to biological degradation, which can compromise its durability when embedded  
in concrete (Liese & Kohl, 2015). To mitigate these challenges, various treatment methods have been developed  
to enhance bamboo’s longevity and mechanical performance. Chemical treatments, such as borate-based  
solutions, and physical treatments like heat curing, have proven effective in improving dimensional stability,  
resistance to decay, and bonding characteristics with concrete (Liese, 1985; Verma & Chariar, 2013; Khan et al.,  
2017).  
The interfacial bond between bamboo and concrete plays a critical role in the structural integrity of bamboo-  
reinforced elements. Studies have emphasized the significance of surface treatments and bonding agents in  
enhancing this bond, as untreated bamboo tends to exhibit poor adhesion with concrete (Lima et al., 2014; Xu  
et al., 2020). Researchers have investigated various methods to improve interfacial properties, including the  
application of bonding agents such as epoxy resin, which has shown promise in increasing bond strength and  
reducing slippage (Agarwal et al., 2014; Khan et al., 2017). These interventions are essential for ensuring reliable  
load transfer and long-term durability in bamboo-reinforced concrete systems.  
Studies on the flexural behavior of bamboo-reinforced concrete beams have demonstrated that rectangular beams  
can exhibit ductile responses and substantial load-carrying capacity under appropriate conditions (Sharma et al.,  
2015; Akmaluddin et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020). However, these structural characteristics are highly dependent  
on parameters such as reinforcement ratio, concrete strength, and beam geometry (Archila et al., 2018). Recent  
investigations suggest that flanged beam configurations—such as T-beams—may offer enhanced performance  
by leveraging the tensile strength of bamboo in the web and the compressive capacity of concrete in the flange  
(Zhang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020). This synergy can result in more efficient material utilization and improved  
structural behavior. Comparative studies have indicated that flanged bamboo-reinforced beams often outperform  
rectangular counterparts with similar reinforcement ratios, particularly in terms of load-bearing capacity (Zhang  
et al., 2019).  
Although bamboo-reinforced concrete beams have been increasingly studied as sustainable alternatives to steel  
reinforcement, limited research has directly compared the load-bearing capacity of bamboo-reinforced T-beams  
and rectangular beams. Most comparative studies have focused on evaluating bamboo-reinforced beams relative  
to steel-reinforced counterparts, with findings generally indicating that steel offers superior load-bearing  
capacity (Ghavami, 2005; Terai & Minami, 2011). Nonetheless, bamboo-reinforced beams have demonstrated  
satisfactory performance in applications where sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and material availability are  
prioritized. Notably, research on steel-reinforced systems suggests that T-beams outperform rectangular beams  
due to their higher moment of inertia and improved flexural behavior (MacGregor & Wight, 2005; Nilson et al.,  
2010; Zhang et al., 2019). This insight has prompted interest in flanged bamboo-reinforced beams, which may  
harness similar geometric advantages and potentially rival the performance of steel-reinforced beams in select  
structural applications.  
MEHODOLOGY  
This study adopts a comparative experimental approach to evaluate the load-bearing capacity of bamboo-  
reinforced concrete beams with two distinct geometries: T-beams and rectangular beams. The bamboo used for  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1182  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
reinforcement was sourced from a forest in Gbokoto village, located in Ilaro, Yewa South Local Government  
Area of Ogun State, Nigeria. Only mature culms, aged between three and four years and measuring 85–100 mm  
in diameter, were selected to ensure optimal mechanical properties and structural reliability.  
Figure 2.1: Map of Yewa South Local Government Area showing Ilaro  
The culms were air-dried, sawn into splints, and treated with a solution of combustible paraffin and spent oil to  
protect them from fungal and insect attack. Bitumen was subsequently applied to form a protective layer that  
seals the bamboo, preventing water absorption and reducing the risk of rot or microbial degradation. The treated  
splints were then sanded to improve surface texture and enhance adhesion with concrete. To assess the  
effectiveness of the treatment, Accelerated Aging and Graveyard tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM  
D1037-99 and BS 350:2016 standards. The ASTM D1037-99 comprises of six cycles of water soaking, freezing  
and drying, a test with duration of 12 days (6 cycles) that simulate years of natural aging within days to weeks  
A total of 70 beam specimens were cast and tested under controlled laboratory conditions. Uniform  
reinforcement ratios and concrete mix designs were maintained across all samples to ensure consistency and  
reliability in comparative analysis.  
Figure 2.2: treated and sanded bamboo splints  
Figure 2.3: Graveyard test for treated bamboo splints  
T-beams and rectangular beams were designed with identical lengths and comparable cross-sectional areas,  
differing only in geometry. The T-beams measured 750 mm in length, with a depth of 175 mm, flange width of  
300 mm, web thickness of 150 mm, and flange thickness of 50 mm. The rectangular beams had dimensions of  
750 mm × 225 mm × 150 mm. In addition, concrete cubes measuring 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm were cast  
using the same mix design to evaluate compressive strength. These cubes were cured under moist conditions at  
controlled temperatures for 7, 14, and 28 days, while the beam specimens were air-cured.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1183  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Flexural testing was conducted using a three-point loading setup on both T-beams and rectangular beams, in  
accordance with ASTM D790, ISO 178, and ASTM C78 standards. The load-deflection behavior, ultimate load  
capacity, and failure modes of the beams were recorded and analyzed. Statistical comparison of the results was  
performed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at a significance level of α = 0.05 to determine the influence  
of beam geometry on structural performance.  
Figure 2.4: Beams with flanged and rectangular geometry  
RESULTS  
Tensile Test  
Untreated  
Treated  
High  
yield  
steel bar  
DIAMETER  
Area mm2  
12mm  
16mm  
20mm  
12mm  
16mm  
20mm  
16mm  
113.10  
201.06  
314.29  
113.10  
201.06  
314.29  
201.06  
81.96  
81.17  
137.49  
82.76  
81.47  
138.86  
62.90  
60.74  
99.90  
159.70  
168.90  
201.52  
175.14  
183.89  
234.23  
134.60  
101.41  
163.58  
449.67  
447.52  
569.87  
ReH (MPa)  
ReL (MPa)  
Rm (MPa)  
The results show a clear progression in mechanical strength from untreated bamboo to treated bamboo, and  
finally to high-yield steel bars. Untreated bamboo, across diameters of 12 mm, 16 mm, and 20 mm, exhibits  
relatively low tensile strength. The ultimate tensile strength (Rm) ranges from 99.90 MPa to 137.49 MPa, while  
the yield stress (ReH) remains below 83 MPa. These values suggest that untreated bamboo is not suitable for  
high-stress structural applications, particularly in tension zones of reinforced concrete. This is consistent with  
findings from Ghavami (2005), who noted that untreated bamboo, while lightweight and sustainable, suffers  
from low durability and strength due to its vulnerability to moisture and biological degradation.  
In contrast, treated bamboo shows significantly improved mechanical properties. For the same diameters, the  
ultimate tensile strength increases to a range of 163.58 MPa to 234.23 MPa, and the yield stress rises to between  
134.60 MPa and 175.14 MPa. These improvements are attributed to the chemical treatments applied to the  
bamboo, which likely include boron-based preservatives, oil curing, or bitumen coatings. Such treatments  
enhance the bamboo’s resistance to decay and improve its internal bonding, as supported by Verma and Chariar  
(2013), who demonstrated that treated bamboo can be a viable alternative to mild steel in low-load applications.  
When compared to high-yield steel bars, however, both untreated and treated bamboo fall short in terms of  
mechanical strength. The steel bar with a 16 mm diameter shows an ultimate tensile strength of 569.87 MPa and  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1184  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
a yield stress of 449.67 MPa, which are significantly higher than those of bamboo. These values align with the  
specifications of BS 4449:2005 and ASTM A615, which define minimum yield strengths for high-yield steel  
reinforcement. Steel’s superior ductility and consistent performance under load make it the preferred material  
for high-stress and seismic applications.  
In summary, while untreated bamboo is inadequate for structural reinforcement, treated bamboo demonstrates  
promising mechanical properties that make it suitable for sustainable construction in low- to medium-load  
scenarios.  
Accelerated Aging Test  
Table 3.2: Summary of Durability Threshold based on BS 350:2016  
Sample Type  
Durability Threshold  
0.529  
BS 350 Classification  
Moderately Durable  
Moderately Durable  
Very Durable  
Life Expectancy  
2-5 years  
Untreated (with node)  
Untreated (without node) 0.511  
2-5 years  
Treated (with node)  
0.084  
0.069  
More than 10 years  
More than 10 years  
Treated (without node)  
Very Durable  
The Accelerated Aging Test results in table 3.2 provided critical insight into the long-term durability of bamboo  
splints used in concrete reinforcement, especially when comparing treated versus untreated samples and the  
presence or absence of nodes. Untreated splints fell within the moderately durable range (0.30–0.60), confirming  
their limited resistance to aging and biological decay. This supports earlier conclusions by Ghavami (2005) and  
Liese (1985) that untreated bamboo, despite its mechanical strength, is unsuitable for long-term structural  
applications without proper treatment. The life expectancy of 2–5 years makes untreated bamboo impractical for  
reinforced concrete elements exposed to moisture or biological agents.  
The treated bamboo splints—both with and without nodes—exhibited durability thresholds well below 0.15,  
classifying them as very durable according to BS 350:2016. This aligns with findings from Verma & Chariar  
(2013) and Khan et al. (2017), who demonstrated that chemical and physical treatments significantly enhance  
bamboo’s resistance to biological degradation. The use of combustible paraffin and spent oil, followed by  
bitumen coating, likely created a hydrophobic barrier that reduced moisture ingress and microbial activity, while  
sanding improved surface bonding and uniformity.  
Both treated and untreated splints showed slightly better durability without nodes, with thresholds of 0.068  
(treated) and 0.510 (untreated), compared to 0.083 and 0.527 respectively for splints with nodes. This suggests  
that nodes may act as weak points, potentially trapping moisture or being more susceptible to fungal attack.  
Liese & Kohl (2015) noted that nodes, while structurally important, can be more vulnerable to degradation due  
to their denser vascular tissue and irregular surface morphology.  
The Accelerated Aging Test reinforces the necessity of pre-treatment for bamboo used in construction. Treated  
bamboo splints—especially those without nodes—demonstrate superior durability, meeting the standards for  
long-term use in structural applications. These findings validate the treatment protocol used in your study and  
align with global efforts to promote sustainable, high-performance alternatives to steel reinforcement  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1185  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Graveyard test  
Table 3.3: Summary of Graveyard Test  
Sample Type  
Durability Threshold  
BS 350 Classification  
Moderately Durable  
Very Durable  
Life Expectancy  
2-5 years  
Untreated Bamboo Splints 0.56  
Treated Bamboo Splints  
0.13  
More than 10 years  
The Graveyard Test results revealed a significant improvement in the durability of bamboo splints following  
treatment.  
Untreated bamboo splints exceeded the threshold for high durability, placing them in the moderately durable  
category. This indicates susceptibility to biological degradation, including fungal decay and insect attack,  
especially in humid environments. Their limited life expectancy makes them unsuitable for long-term structural  
applications without protective treatment. Treated bamboo splints fell well below the critical threshold of 0.15,  
earning a very durable classification. This confirms the effectiveness of the applied treatment—combustible  
paraffin and spent oil followed by bitumen coating and sanding—which significantly enhanced resistance to  
moisture and biological agents. The treatment not only extended the material’s service life but also improved its  
reliability for use in reinforced concrete structures.  
The contrast between treated and untreated bamboo in this test reinforces the importance of preservation  
techniques in bamboo construction. While untreated bamboo may be suitable for temporary structures or low-  
load applications, treated bamboo meets the durability requirements for long-term use in reinforced concrete and  
other structural systems. This finding supports the broader movement toward sustainable building materials,  
where bamboo, when properly treated, offers a viable alternative to conventional reinforcement materials  
Load-displacement Behaviour of Bamboo Reinforced Flanged Beam and Bamboo Reinforced  
Rectangular Beam  
14  
12  
10  
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2  
0.4  
0.6  
0.8  
1
1.2  
1.4  
1.6  
1.8  
Displacement (KN)  
BRFB  
BRRB  
Figure 3.1: Comparison of the Load-Displacement graphs for both Bamboo Reinforced Flanged Beam and  
Bamboo Reinforced Rectangular Beam  
The load–displacement graph reveals that the Bamboo Reinforced Flanged Beam (BRFB) exhibits superior  
structural performance compared to the Bamboo Reinforced Rectangular Beam (BRRB). It is divided into three  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1186  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
distinct regions: the elastic limit, the elastoplastic region, and the plastic region, which reflect the progressive  
deformation stages of the materials.  
At every stage of loading, the BRFB sustains higher loads for the same displacement values, indicating greater  
stiffness and load-carrying capacity. This behaviour is primarily attributed to the flanged geometry of the BRFB,  
which increases the moment of inertia and enhances resistance to bending. The flange acts as an additional  
compression zone, allowing the beam to distribute stresses more effectively and delay the onset of cracking  
(Falade & Akeju, 2002).  
In the initial phase of loading, both beam types display linear elastic behaviour, but the BRFB shows a steeper  
slope in the load–displacement curve. This suggests that the BRFB has higher initial stiffness, which is beneficial  
in minimizing deflections under service loads. As the load increases, the BRFB continues to outperform the  
BRRB, reaching a peak load of approximately 13.5 kN, while the BRRB peaks at around 10.5 kN. This difference  
in ultimate load capacity highlights the structural advantage of the flanged section in resisting flexural stresses  
(Ghavami, 2005).  
Beyond the peak load, the BRFB demonstrates a more gradual decline in load resistance, indicating a ductile  
failure mode. This behaviour suggests that the BRFB can absorb more energy before failure, which is crucial for  
structural safety, especially in seismic or dynamic loading conditions. In contrast, the BRRB experiences a  
sharper drop in load after reaching its peak, pointing to a more brittle failure mechanism. The absence of a flange  
in the BRRB limits its ability to redistribute stresses, making it more vulnerable to sudden cracking and collapse  
(Govindan et al., 2021).  
The presence of bamboo reinforcement in both beams contributes positively to their tensile strength and crack  
control. However, the effectiveness of bamboo is significantly enhanced in the BRFB due to the synergy between  
the reinforcement and the flanged geometry. Treated bamboo, in particular, provides better bonding with  
concrete and resists biological degradation, which further improves the structural integrity of the beam. This  
observation aligns with the findings of Govindan et al. (2021), who reported that bamboo-reinforced flanged  
beams exhibit improved ductility and post-cracking behaviour compared to rectangular sections. Additionally,  
standardized testing methods such as those outlined in ISO 22157:2019 ensure consistent evaluation of bamboo’s  
mechanical properties, reinforcing the reliability of these results.  
In summary, the BRFB offers a more robust and resilient structural response under flexural loading than the  
BRRB. Its higher stiffness, greater load capacity, and ductile failure mode make it a preferable choice for  
sustainable construction applications where bamboo is used as reinforcement. These results underscore the  
importance of both material treatment and cross-sectional design in optimizing the performance of bamboo-  
reinforced concrete beams.  
ANOVA Analysis Result: Bamboo Reinforced Flanged Beam and Steel Reinforced Rectangular Concrete  
Beam  
Table 3.4: Anova Single Factor  
Groups  
Count  
17  
Sum  
7.93  
8.62  
Average  
0.464807  
0.507168  
Variance  
0.141567  
0.16563  
Column 1  
Column 2  
17  
ANOVA  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1187  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Source of Variation  
Between Groups  
Within Groups  
SS  
df  
MS  
F
P-value  
F crit  
0.015742  
4.885673  
1
0.015742  
0.152867  
0.099771  
0.754732  
4.149297  
32  
Total  
4.901623  
33  
The statistical significance of the performance difference between Bamboo Reinforced Flanged Beams (BRFB)  
and Steel Reinforced Rectangular Beams (SRRB) was evaluated using a one-way Analysis of Variance  
(ANOVA) at a 95% confidence level (α = 0.05). The summary of the ANOVA results is presented in Table 3.4.  
The mean normalized performance value for the BRFB group was 0.4648, while that of the SRRB group was  
0.5072. The calculated F-value (0.0998) was substantially lower than the critical F-value (4.1493), and the  
corresponding P-value (0.7547) exceeded the significance threshold of 0.05. These results indicate that there is  
no statistically significant difference between the load-bearing performance of BRFB and SRRB.  
This finding implies that the observed variation in mean performance between the two groups is attributable to  
experimental scatter rather than inherent material superiority. From a structural perspective, the result is  
significant, as it demonstrates that treated bamboo reinforcement, when combined with an optimized flanged  
beam geometry, can achieve load-bearing performance comparable to that of conventional steel-reinforced  
rectangular beams under similar loading conditions.  
Structural Implications of Comparable Performance  
The absence of a statistically significant difference between BRFB and SRRB highlights the critical role of beam  
geometry in enhancing the structural efficiency of bamboo-reinforced concrete. The flanged configuration  
increases the moment of inertia and enlarges the compression zone, thereby improving stiffness and flexural  
resistance. These geometric advantages compensate for the lower tensile strength of bamboo relative to steel.  
Treated bamboo reinforcement further contributes to this performance by providing improved bonding with  
concrete and enhanced resistance to biological degradation. Previous studies (Ghavami, 2005; Govindan et al.,  
2021) have shown that treated bamboo can effectively control cracking and sustain tensile stresses in reinforced  
concrete elements. The present findings confirm that, when combined with a flanged beam configuration,  
bamboo reinforcement can deliver structurally reliable and consistent performance suitable for low- to medium-  
load applications.  
ANOVA Analysis Result: Bamboo Reinforced Rectangular Beam and Steel Reinforced Rectangular  
Concrete Beam  
Table 3.5 Anova: Single Factor  
Groups  
Count  
11  
Sum  
3.06  
6.05  
Average  
0.277237  
0.551881  
Variance  
0.030120  
0.134167  
Column 1  
Column 2  
11  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1188  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
ANOVA  
Source of Variation SS  
Df  
1
MS  
F
P-value  
F crit  
Between Groups  
Within Groups  
0.414546  
0.414546  
0.082193  
5.046074  
0.035217  
4.346154  
1.642728  
20  
Total  
2.057354  
21  
A separate ANOVA was conducted to compare the performance of Bamboo Reinforced Rectangular Beams  
(BRRB) and Steel Reinforced Rectangular Beams (SRRB), with results summarized in Table 3.5. Each group  
consisted of 11 observations.  
The mean performance value for BRRB was 0.2772, while SRRB exhibited a significantly higher mean value  
of 0.5519. The calculated F-value (5.0461) exceeded the critical F-value (4.3462), and the corresponding P-  
value (0.0352) was below 0.05. These results confirm that there is a statistically significant difference between  
the performance of BRRB and SRRB at the 95% confidence level.  
This outcome indicates that, unlike the flanged configuration, the rectangular geometry does not sufficiently  
compensate for the lower tensile capacity of bamboo when compared to steel reinforcement. The absence of a  
flange limits the moment of inertia and reduces flexural efficiency, resulting in inferior load-bearing capacity  
and ductility relative to SRRB.  
Comparative Discourse: BRFB vs. BRRB vs. SRRB  
The combined statistical and experimental results clearly demonstrate that beam geometry plays a decisive role  
in the structural performance of bamboo-reinforced concrete beams. While the Steel Reinforced Rectangular  
Beam (SRRB) remains superior in absolute mechanical terms, the Bamboo Reinforced Flanged Beam (BRFB)  
achieved statistically comparable performance, underscoring the effectiveness of geometric optimization and  
material treatment.  
In contrast, the Bamboo Reinforced Rectangular Beam (BRRB) exhibited significantly lower performance,  
confirming that bamboo reinforcement alone is insufficient without an efficient cross-sectional design. The  
flanged geometry enables better stress distribution, improved stiffness, and enhanced ductility, allowing the  
BRFB to bridge the performance gap between bamboo and steel reinforcement.  
These findings reinforce the conclusion that bamboo should not be evaluated solely as a direct material substitute  
for steel, but rather as part of an integrated structural system where geometry, treatment, and reinforcement  
detailing are optimized. When such considerations are applied, bamboo-reinforced flanged beams represent a  
structurally viable and sustainable alternative for reinforced concrete applications in resource-constrained  
environments.  
CONCLUSION  
This study investigated the structural performance of bamboo-reinforced concrete beams with a particular focus  
on the influence of cross-sectional geometry. A comparative experimental program was conducted on Bamboo  
Reinforced Flanged Beams (BRFB), Bamboo Reinforced Rectangular Beams (BRRB), and Steel Reinforced  
Rectangular Beams (SRRB), incorporating mechanical testing, durability assessment, load–displacement  
analysis, and statistical evaluation using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).  
The results demonstrate that bamboo, when properly treated and used within an optimized flanged beam  
configuration, can deliver load-bearing performance comparable to conventional steel-reinforced rectangular  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1189  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
beams. The ANOVA analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between the performance of BRFB  
and SRRB at the 95% confidence level, underscoring the structural efficiency of the flanged geometry in  
compensating for the lower tensile strength of bamboo relative to steel. This finding represents a critical outcome  
of the study, as it challenges the conventional assumption that steel reinforcement is categorically superior in all  
reinforced concrete applications.  
In contrast, bamboo-reinforced rectangular beams exhibited significantly lower load-bearing capacity compared  
to steel-reinforced rectangular beams. The statistically significant difference observed between BRRB and  
SRRB confirms that beam geometry plays a decisive role in the effectiveness of bamboo as a reinforcement  
material. The absence of a flange in rectangular beams limits moment of inertia, stress redistribution, and  
ductility, thereby reducing structural efficiency even when treated bamboo reinforcement is used.  
The superior performance of the bamboo-reinforced flanged beams is attributed to the combined effects of  
geometric optimization and material treatment. The flanged section increases flexural stiffness and provides a  
wider compression zone, while the applied bamboo treatments enhanced durability, bonding with concrete, and  
resistance to biological degradation. Together, these factors contributed to improved crack control, higher load  
capacity, and more stable post-peak behavior in BRFB specimens.  
From a sustainability perspective, the findings reinforce bamboo’s potential as a viable, low-carbon alternative  
to steel reinforcement in low- to medium-load structural applications. Given bamboo’s rapid renewability, low  
embodied energy, and widespread availability in developing regions, its successful application in flanged beam  
configurations presents a compelling opportunity for sustainable infrastructure development, particularly in  
resource-constrained environments.  
This study establishes that the performance of bamboo-reinforced concrete systems depends not only on material  
properties but also critically on structural design. Treated bamboo, when integrated into flanged beam  
geometries, can achieve reliable and statistically comparable performance to steel-reinforced systems. Future  
research should extend this work to full-scale structural elements, long-term durability under aggressive  
exposure conditions, and design optimization frameworks to facilitate the broader adoption of bamboo-  
reinforced flanged beams in engineering practice.  
Contribution to the Body of Knowledge  
This research contributes to the body of knowledge in several distinct ways:  
1. It establishes that treated bamboo, when used in flanged beam configurations, can deliver reliable and  
consistent structural performance, challenging the dominance of steel in low- to medium-load  
applications.  
2. The study highlights the synergistic effect of cross-sectional design and bamboo treatment,  
demonstrating that geometry plays a pivotal role in unlocking bamboo’s structural potential.  
3. By incorporating ANOVA analysis, the research introduces a quantitative framework for assessing the  
consistency and significance of bamboo’s performance, which is often overlooked in material  
substitution studies.  
4. It reinforces bamboo’s viability as a sustainable alternative in reinforced concrete, especially in regions  
where steel is economically or logistically inaccessible, aligning with global goals for green construction.  
In conclusion, this study not only bridges a critical research gap but also lays the groundwork for future  
innovations in bamboo-reinforced structural systems. It invites engineers, researchers, and policymakers to  
reconsider bamboo—not as a compromise, but as a credible and sustainable reinforcement material when  
thoughtfully designed and treated.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1190  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
REFERENCE  
1. Agarwal, A., Sharma, R., & Kumar, A. (2014). Bonding behavior of bamboo reinforcement in concrete.  
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(8), 04014042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-  
5533.0000934  
2. Akmaluddin, M., Sari, R. M., & Hidayat, M. (2019). Flexural performance of bamboo-reinforced  
concrete beams. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 8(1), 1–6.  
3. Archana, R., Singh, V., & Kumar, R. (2023). Sustainable alternatives in concrete reinforcement:  
Bamboo’s  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128987  
4. Archila, D., Kaminski, S., Trujillo, D., & Harries, K. A. (2018). Bamboo reinforced concrete: Structural  
performance and durability. Construction and Building Materials, 165, 901–911.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.038  
potential.  
Construction  
and  
Building  
Materials,  
350,  
128987.  
5. ASTM International. (2005). ASTM A615/A615M – Standard specification for deformed and plain  
carbon-steel bars for concrete reinforcement. ASTM.  
6. British Standards Institution. (2005). BS 4449:2005 – Steel for the reinforcement of concrete: Weldable  
reinforcing steel. BSI Standards Publication  
7. British Standards Institution. (2016). BS EN 350:2016 – Durability of wood and wood-based products:  
Testing and classification of the durability of wood against biological wood-destroying agents. BSI  
Standards Publication.  
8. European Commission. (2019). Environmental impact of steel production and industrial waste. Retrieved  
from https://ec.europa.eu/environment  
9. Falade, F., & Akeju, T. A. I. (2002). Behaviour and analysis of bamboo reinforced concrete beams under  
flexural loading. University of Lagos.  
10. Ghavami, K. (2005). Bamboo as reinforcement in structural concrete elements. Cement and Concrete  
Composites, 27(6), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.06.002  
11. Govindan, R., Suresh, S., & Karthikeyan, K. (2021). Performance assessment on bamboo reinforced  
concrete beams. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 6(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-  
00616-8  
12. International  
Energy  
Agency.  
(2020).  
Iron  
and  
steel  
technology  
roadmap.  
https://www.iea.org/reports/iron-and-steel-technology-roadmap  
13. International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 22157:2019 – Bamboo — Determination of  
physical and mechanical properties. Geneva: ISO.  
14. Jallow, A., Dewi, S. M., & Wibowo, A. (2019). Comparative analysis of steel reinforced and bamboo  
reinforced beams. Universitas Brawijaya. Retrieved from ResearchGate  
15. Janssen, J. J. A. (2000). Designing and building with bamboo. INBAR Technical Report No. 20.  
16. Jena, S., Das, S., & Mohanty, R. (2023). Mechanical properties and sustainability of bamboo in  
construction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 412, 137289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137289  
17. Khan, M. A., Verma, C. S., & Chariar, V. M. (2017). Enhancing bamboo durability through chemical  
treatments. Journal of Renewable Materials, 5(3), 1–10.  
18. Kumar, R., Singh, V., & Sharma, R. (2022). Load-bearing behavior of bamboo-reinforced concrete  
beams. Materials Today: Proceedings, 56, 1234–1240.  
19. Li, Y., Zhang, Y., & Wang, H. (2020). Flexural behavior of flanged bamboo-reinforced concrete beams.  
Journal of Structural Engineering, 146(5), 04020045.  
20. Liese, W. (1985). Bamboo preservation and treatment methods. Wood Science and Technology, 19(2),  
149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351576  
21. Liese, W., & Kohl, M. (2015). Bamboo: The plant and its uses. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-  
319-14133-6  
22. Lima, M., Silva, F., & Oliveira, D. (2014). Bond strength of untreated bamboo in concrete. Construction  
and Building Materials, 65, 1–8.  
23. MacGregor, J. G., & Wight, J. K. (2005). Reinforced concrete: Mechanics and design (4th ed.). Pearson  
Prentice Hall.  
24. Moroz, B., Trujillo, D., & Harries, K. A. (2014). Environmental benefits of bamboo in construction.  
INBAR Working Paper.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1191  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
25. Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., & Dolan, C. W. (2010). Design of concrete structures (14th ed.). McGraw-  
Hill.  
26. Sharma, B., Ghavami, K., & Ramage, M. H. (2015). Flexural strength of bamboo-reinforced beams.  
Construction and Building Materials, 95, 371–377.  
27. Sharma, R., Singh, V., & Kumar, R. (2022). Sustainable construction materials: A review. Journal of  
Building Engineering, 45, 103456.  
28. Singh, V., Kumar, R., & Sharma, R. (2023). Optimizing bamboo reinforcement through geometry and  
treatment. Materials Today: Proceedings, 60, 1123–1130.  
29. Terai, T., & Minami, K. (2011). Comparative study of bamboo and steel reinforcement. Journal of  
Structural Engineering, 137(6), 635–644.  
30. Verma, C. S., & Chariar, V. M. (2013). Physical and chemical treatment of bamboo for durability. Journal  
of Renewable Materials, 1(2), 1–10.  
31. World Steel Association. (2020). Steel production and environmental impact. https://worldsteel.org  
32. Xu, Y., Zhang, Y., & Li, Y. (2020). Improving bamboo-concrete bond with surface treatments.  
Construction and Building Materials, 247, 118543.  
33. Yang, H., Wang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Ductility and strength of bamboo-reinforced concrete beams.  
Journal of Building Engineering, 32, 101705.  
34. Zhang, Y., Li, Y., & Wang, H. (2019). Performance comparison of flanged and rectangular bamboo  
beams. Materials and Structures, 52(3), 1–12.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1192