USING DATE PALM LEAVES MIDRIBS IN TRUSSES

ABSTRACT

In the field of light covering constructions such as canopies and

sheds, steel is the most dominant and common used material. Nevertheless,
steel is expensive and energy-intensive manufacturing material. Therefore,
if in such construction, steel is substituted by low cost environment-friendly
material, a gain is achieved both environmentally and economically. More
important, in Upper Egypt where Date Palm is a life-supporting plant, the
DPLM are used in roofing in traditional, and perhaps unsafe, methods.
Therefore, utilizing DPLM in roofing using an engineered practice, as in
trusses, will make roofing safer and extend larger spans.
This paper presents the feasibility of using Date Palm Leaves
Midribs (DPLM) in light covering through the investigation of using DPLM
as members in trusses. Five types of trusses have been constructed and
tested; three simulate the commonly used steel trusses and two are a
modification of the traditional work of crates artisans. All trusses have a
span of 3meters and a depth of half meter. The results of the tests have
shown that the DPLM can be used in light construction and that the
serviceability limit state will be the governing criterion. The economical
study has shown that the DPLM trusses can save from quarter to one eighth
that of steel in light covering. Most of the tested trusses failed due to lateral
strain indicating that a better bracing should be provided.

 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

easiness in erection and handling, as well as the short duration of execution.

Yet, steel manufacturing is a high intensive-energy process. If in such

constructions, where live load is minimal (or there is no live load at all),

steel can be substituted by another environment-friendly material. In this

case we have reached a situation where the energy used in manufacturing is

conserved or may be channelized to a more demanding field. More

important, in Upper Egypt where Date Palm is a life-supporting plant, the

Date Palm Leaves Midribs (DPLM) are used in roofing in traditional, and

perhaps unsafe, ways. Therefore, utilizing DPLM in roofing using an

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

was first discussed by Hassan (2001) in a study of using local environment-

friendly materials for low cost roofing, as shown in Fig. 1. He tested a

DPLM space truss to cover an area of 3x3m. The joints, shown in Fig. 2,

were complex, expensive, and sometimes unsafe. The use of agricultural

2

materials, which are environment-friendly materials, in the field of

construction has spread almost allover the world. Bamboo has been used in

light roofing, trusses, columns, and scaffolding (Janssen, 1981) and even in

reinforcing concrete. Obviously, bamboo could substitute steel in many

structures if feasible. In our region, bamboo is not a conventional crop. Yet,

another material that resembles bamboo in mechanical properties, to a

considerable extent, exits; it is the Date Palm Leaves Midrib (DPLM). A

quick review of the DPLM mechanical properties is given in table1. The

aim of this paper is to study the feasibility of using DPLM in trusses.

1.1 DPLM Mechanical Properties

From previous studies (El-Mously, 2003), the mechanical properties

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

DPLM in its natural form, without cutting, to determine its mechanical

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

part in the overall strength of the DPLM.

Table1 DPLM mechanical properties

Mechanical Properties Value (kg/cm2)

(Average for Ballady Species)
Static bending (inner part) 761
Static bending 1150
Compression (inner part) 360
Compression 530
Tension (inner part) 715
Tension (outer layer) 2400
Tension 994
Shear Parallel to fibers 27

2.EXPERIMENTAL TESTING AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF

THE DPLM TRUSSES

2.1 Description of the DPLM trusses

The trusses were chosen to have a span of three meters to resemble a

typical room width and also to be fit in the testing machine, and a depth of

half meter. Fig. 3 shows the elevation of the five trusses.

4

 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

DPLM element constituting Trusses1&2 members are tightened by plastic

wire to make them act together as shown in Fig. 4.

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

chord consists of two lines of DPLM, spaced apart by a distance of about

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

installed within. A spacer which is a piece of DPLM is used to adjust

spacing between members.

Truss4 is a traditional handcraft Vierendeel truss, using the

traditional methods of the crates artisans as shown in Fig. 7. Truss5 is the

same as Truss4 but with additional diagonals as shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 9

5

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.

2.2 Testing Procedure

The DPLM trusses were tested in a universal testing machine with a

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

DPLMs at the midspan of the truss, and deflectometers were installed. In

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-

of-plane deflections of the DPLM trusses and the out-of-plane buckling of

top chord. The action of steel frames corresponds in reality to the effect of

horizontal upper and lower bracing, vertical bracing, and purlins.

During the testing of Truss3, all the members of the top chord

suffered obvious in-plane buckling at total load P of 340kg. Therefore, the

6

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

aforementioned truss members and fastened by plastic wires as shown in

Fig. 12.

2.3 Structural Analysis of Trusses

A structural analysis was performed for trusses to calculate straining

actions and deflections corresponding to maximum loads given from tests.

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

modulus, indicating that the DPLM is an orthotropic material. Therefore, the

DPLM was entered in the analysis program as an orthotropic material with

flexural modulus of elasticity equals 200000kg/cm2 (Abdel-Azim, 1992),

and axial modulus of elasticity equals 8250kg/cm2 deduced from Hassans

work (2001), and own weight of 780kg/m3.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

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

and no buckling was observed in the compression members. It was obvious

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

To exclude the effect of bending of the thin steel plates in Truss1,

another truss was made using steel plate 6mm thick, which withstood a load

of 440kg until failure. Though Truss2 showed higher stiffness in out-of-

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

connections at support, as shown in Fig. 14, due to the out-of-plane bending,

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

small curvatures in the DPLM members which lead to lateral bending. A

structural analysis has been performed to get the deflections and the axial

forces in the middle DPLM Corresponding to the applied load. The

maximum axial force was found to be 450kg in the top chord corresponding

to P of 440kg. The theoretical deflection from analysis was 7.6cm which is

close to 6.5cm obtained from test which also verifies the axial modulus of

elasticity previously calculated from Hassans work (2001).

3.3 Truss3

Truss3 withstood 340kg until the in-plane buckling of all the

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

in Trusses1&2, because each DPLM of the top chord member were

separate, while in Trusses1&2 they were tightened by the plastic wires.

After reinforcing compression members and restarting truss testing, it

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

larger spacing between DPLMs compromising the truss members.

3.4 Truss4

Truss4 withstood 170kg until failure. The actual location of the

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

this truss, it was disqualified to be used as a structural system.

3.5 Truss5

Truss5 withstood 240kg until failure. The failure was in the

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

truss disqualifies it to be used as a structural system.

4. THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF TRUSS2 AND

TRUSS3

In this economical study Trusses4&5 have been excluded, due to

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

present the economic feasibility study of Trusses2&3.

4.1 Truss2

Truss2 as shown previously is made of DPLM members joined by steel

plates and bolts. The construction of this truss took 4 days in manufacturing

and required artisans experienced in working with steel, who are expensive.

Moreover, using steel elements even in such small quantities in DPLM

trusses is considered expensive and odd. A major disadvantage of Truss2 is

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

members is to be increased. The truss cost items are given in table2.

Table 2 Material and labor cost of Truss2

Material Quantities (kg) Cost (L.E.)

DPLM 17 DPLM 9

Steel Plates 6mm 15 65

Bolts M8 GR8.8 100 bolts 50

Labor Fees 100

Total cost 224

Since the deflections exceed the allowable limits, span/150, then the cost

can be calculated according to the serviceability requirement:

Cost/meter square = 113L.E./m2. The estimated cost/meter squared,

excluding labors cost (e.g., self-reliant building), equals 63L.E./m2. As a

comparison, for an area of 1mx1m to be covered with steel (not including

columns) 10kg steel is required. As steel costs 8L.E/kg, the steel structure

will cost 80L.E/m2.

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,

and low deflection. Truss3 took 3 days only in manufacturing.

The cost items of Truss3 are given in table3

Table 3 Material and labor cost of Truss3

Material Quantities (Unit) Cost (L.E.)

DPLM 17 DPLM 9 L.E

Steel rods 8mm 2 meters 4 L.E

Labor Fees 75 L.E

Total cost 88 L.E

Since the deflections exceed the limits, span/150, then the cost can be

calculated according to the serviceability requirement:

13

Cost/meter square (Serviceability limit state) = 35L.E./m2. The estimated the

cost/meter squared, excluding labors cost (e.g., self-reliant building), equals

5.1L.E./m2

5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents the testing of five types of Date Palm Leaves

Midribs (DPLM) trusses and the feasibility of using them in construction.

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

structural analysis was performed to check the matching of the theoretical

deflections to that obtained from tests. The following findings could be

concluded from the experimental, analytical, and feasibility study conducted

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

quarter to one eighth that made of steel.

14

 Due to the low axial elastic modulus, the serviceability limit state

will govern the design in most cases.

Maximum actual tensile and shear stress in the DPLM is 110kg/cm2

and 18.5 kg/cm2 respectively, which are much less than 600 and

27kg/cm2 tensile and shear strength respectively for the DPLM.

Therefore, a better restraining for the DPLM trusses should be

provided to avoid failure by out-of-plane strains and hence utilizing

the DPLM reserved strength.

15

 Fig. 1 DPLM 3x3Space Truss made by Hassan (2001)

Fig. 2 U-shaped bolted connection in DPLM Space Truss (Hassan, 2001)

16


Fig. 3 Elevation of Trusses (1 to 5)

17

 PlasticWire

Fig. 4 Truss2 at support

Fig. 5 Truss3 at support

18


Fig. 6 Truss3 elevation, plan, and sections

19

 Fig. 7 Truss4 between steel frames in the testing machine

Fig.8 Truss5 at midspan between steel frames in the testing machine

20

 Fig. 9 Connection at midspan in Truss 2 and Truss3

Fig. 10 Steel frame used to restrain the DPLM truss in out-of-plane

21


deflectometer Truss1

Trusses2&3

Trusses4&5
Fig. 11 test setup for DPLM trusses
22

Fig. 12 Reinforcement of compression members in Truss3 to resist buckling

Fig. 13 twisting of Truss1 at the support due to plate bending

23

 Fig. 14 failure of bottom chord connection due to twisting of the DPLM

Truss2 at support

Fig. 15 in-plane buckling of the Truss3 top chord

24

 Jointwherefailure
occurred;jointmoved
laterally

Fig.16 joint failure in Truss3

Fig. 17 Truss4 failures showing severe deflection

25

Fig. 18 Diagonal Failure in Truss5

26

 REFERENCES

Abdel-Azim, M. S, (1992): Palm tree Fronds for Concrete Roof

Reinforcement. The ACI Magazine, VOL. 14, NO. 12

El-Mously, H. I, (2003): The Date Palm as a Basis for Environment-

Friendly Industries Beginning from the Rural Areas. The
International Date Palm Conference. Held 16-17 Sep., 2003 in The
King Saud University (El-Quaseem Branch)

Hassan, N. I, (2001): Use of Local Raw Materials in Low Cost Roofing.

Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Environmental Studies & Research, Ain
Shams University

Janssen, J.A. (1981): Bamboo in Building Structures. Ph.D. Thesis,

University of Technology of Eindhoven, The Netherlands

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