ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
In the field of light constructions such as, canopies and sheds, steel
is the most common and applicable material, because of its simplicity and
constructions, where live load is minimal (or there is no live load at all),
Date Palm Leaves Midribs (DPLM) are used in roofing in traditional, and
engineered practice, as in trusses, will make roofing safer and extend larger
spans.
The idea of using the Date Palm Leaves Midribs (DPLM) in trusses
DPLM space truss to cover an area of 3x3m. The joints, shown in Fig. 2,
construction has spread almost allover the world. Bamboo has been used in
light roofing, trusses, columns, and scaffolding (Janssen, 1981) and even in
of the DPLMs inner and outer parts were determined separately. Test
results have shown that the mechanical properties of the outer layer are
higher than that of the inner part. The mechanical properties of DPLM as a
whole, in its natural form, were not determined yet. Since the DPLM will be
used in the DPLM trusses in its natural form, tests were performed on the
properties (compression, tension, and bending). The results of the tests have
shown a noticeable increase in the strength of the whole DPLM over that of
3
the inner part only. This indicates that the outer layer contributes with inner
typical room width and also to be fit in the testing machine, and a depth of
Truss1 is an N-truss with its span divided into four equal panels. All
its members consist of two DPLMs connected together by 2mm steel plate
and two 6mm diameter steel bolts, grade 8.8 making the truss width almost
4cm. Truss2 is exactly the same as Truss1 but the steel plates are 6mm. the
Truss3 is also an N-truss with its span divided into four equal panels
and all its members consist of two DPLMs, connected together by steel rods
8mm diameter at the panel points only. Fig. 5 shows Truss3 at support.Each
6cm at the truss ends and a distance of about 9cm at midspan as shown in
Fig. 6. The DPLMs in each line are arranged in staggered manner and
overlapping each other in a distance of 15cm to lengthen the truss span. The
spacing between each line is enough to let the verticals and diagonals be
shows typical connections in the DPLM trusses, while Fig. 10 illustrates the
steel frames used to provide out-of-plane restrains for the tested trusses.
load cell of 1000kg capacity. Test setup, Load location, strain gauges, and
deflectometers are shown in Fig. 11. In Truss1, load was divided equally at
the upper second and fourth panel points, and deflectometers were installed
as shown in Fig. 11. In Trusses2&3 loads was divided equally at the three
upper mid-panel points. Strain gauges were glued at the bottom chord
Trusses4&5 the load was divided equally at 80cm from the truss ends.
Strain gauges were glued at the bottom DPLMs at the midspan of the truss.
Before testing the DPLM trusses, a steel frame was built to prevent the out-
top chord. The action of steel frames corresponds in reality to the effect of
During the testing of Truss3, all the members of the top chord
test stopped and the load released and all the top chord and vertical
members were reinforced. When the load was released, the truss returned to
its initial shape. The reinforcement was two DPLM added to the
Fig. 12.
From the previous studies conducted by El-Mously (2003) it was found that
the flexural modulus of elasticity differs greatly from that of the axial
3.1 Truss1
The truss withstood a load of 250kg until failure due to the bending
of the thin steel plate in the joint at 75cm from the support in the top chord.
7
The bending of the steel plate has led to the twisting of the DPLM truss at
the supports as shown in Fig. 13. No failure occurred in the DPLM units
while moving the truss that the truss was very subtle to twisting and
vibration because of the very thin steel plates. The maximum deflection
measured at mid span was 7.2cm. Structural analysis was made to obtain the
maximum axial force in the members and deflection under the load P. The
deflection computed from the analysis was 3.6cm and the maximum axial
force was 190kg in the top and bottom chords. The actual deflection is twice
that of the theoretical, indicating that the yielding and failure of the joints
due to the bending of the steel plate has changed the mode of failure.
3.2 Truss2
another truss was made using steel plate 6mm thick, which withstood a load
plane than the first one, it was still vibrating laterally which indicates low
out-of-plane stiffness. The truss has failed at the vertical and bottom chord
though it was restrained by the steel frames 30cm from the ends. The lateral
8
strains evolved, causing the failure of the joint, could be contributed to the
structural analysis has been performed to get the deflections and the axial
maximum axial force was found to be 450kg in the top chord corresponding
close to 6.5cm obtained from test which also verifies the axial modulus of
3.3 Truss3
members of the top chord as shown in Fig. 15. The test was stopped and the
load was released to reinforce compression members. When the load was
released the truss returned back to its initial shape indicating that the
deflections and buckling were elastic. Buckling appeared in Truss3 and not
withstood 400kg until failure. The failure occurred at the joint 75cm from
the end of truss at the top chord as shown in Fig. 16. The joint twisted
9
laterally and failed at the location of the bolts. The maximum deflection
measured at mid span was 4.3cm, while that calculated from the analysis
was 6.7cm. Still the difference between the theoretical deflection and that
measured from test are close. Truss3 showed an obvious stiffness out-of-
plane where no vibration were sensed during its mobility. This is due to the
3.4 Truss4
failure could not be located, but the failure was noticed by the sound of
fracture of the DPLM. The maximum deflection measured was 15cm at the
midspan. The deflection from the analysis was 125cm, which is eight times
the actual deflection. The deflections were very severe and obvious as seen
in Fig. 17. Due to the large deflections, and more important the fragility of
3.5 Truss5
connection between the first diagonal and the bottom chord as shown in
Fig. 18. Twisting of the truss was also observed. The maximum deflection
measured was 4.5cm at the midspan. The deflection from analysis was
10
60cm, which is thirteen times the actual deflection. Thus, the fragility of the
TRUSS3
their fragility which made them unsuitable for use as structural element.
Truss1 was also excluded, because of its weak out-of-plane stiffness, which
was aggravated by the thin steel plate joinery. The following paragraphs
4.1 Truss2
plates and bolts. The construction of this truss took 4 days in manufacturing
and required artisans experienced in working with steel, who are expensive.
its low out-of-plane stiffness. To overcome this problem, more than two
11
DPLM units should be used for each member or the spacing between DPLM
DPLM 17 DPLM 9
Since the deflections exceed the allowable limits, span/150, then the cost
columns) 10kg steel is required. As steel costs 8L.E/kg, the steel structure
12
4.2 Truss3
Truss3 as shown previously has all its members joined by 8mm steel
rods only. The construction of this truss did not require a very skilled labor
where no steel handling and fabricating are required. Truss3 was also
superior over all the other trusses by its high out-of-plane stiffness, low cost,
Since the deflections exceed the limits, span/150, then the cost can be
13
5.1L.E./m2
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the testing of five types of Date Palm Leaves
Three trusses were a simulation of commonly used steel trusses, and the
other two were a modification of the traditional work of the crate artisans. A
by the researcher:
The DPLM can be used, in its natural shape, in trusses. This will
maintain the high strength and stiffness of the DPLM and save the
cost of pruning.
Using DPLM as trusses in light covering will reduce the cost from
14
Due to the low axial elastic modulus, the serviceability limit state
and 18.5 kg/cm2 respectively, which are much less than 600 and
15
16
Fig. 3 Elevation of Trusses (1 to 5)
17
PlasticWire
18
Fig. 6 Truss3 elevation, plan, and sections
19
20
21
deflectometer Truss1
Trusses2&3
Trusses4&5
Fig. 11 test setup for DPLM trusses
22
23
24
Jointwherefailure
occurred;jointmoved
laterally
Fig.16 joint failure in Truss3
REFERENCES
Ragaa, T.M. (2009): Use of Date Palm leaves Midrib as structural element.
M.Sc. Thesis, Institute of Environmental Studies & Research, Ain
Shams University, Unpublished
27
) ,(1 ) , (1 ) ,(1
)(2
) (1 (2) ,
.
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
.
28