Submitted:
02 July 2024
Posted:
03 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Bamboo Species
2.2. Resin Matrices
2.3. Cross-Sectional Configurations
2.4. Labelling Conventions
2.5. Experimental Testing Method
3. Experimental Testing Results
3.1. Cross-Sectional Configuration Choice
3.1.1. Compressive Properties
3.1.2. Failure Modes
3.2. Resin Matrix Choice
3.2.1. Compressive Properties
3.2.2. Failure Modes
3.3. Bamboo Species Choice
Compressive Properties
4. Theoretical Analysis
5. Finite Element Analysis
5.1. Compressive Behaviour

5.2. Resin Content Rate Effect
- The reduction in stiffness observed in columns employing BE2 is less pronounced compared to those utilizing an EPX matrix, attributable to the inherently greater stiffness of EPX.
- The degree of Stress softening, defined as the difference between the maximum stress and the failure stress, exhibits negligible variation across the five cases examined.
- The difference in peak stress levels between sections A1 and A2 is more pronounced in columns using BE2 materials than those using EPX.
6. Conclusions
- Unprecedented LCBC compressive members with bio-based resins were able to reach a massive compressive capacity of 567 kN for a member with 104.1 mm diameter which corresponds to 67 MPa (HAW-BE2-M);
- The maximum compressive strengths (MPa) achieved by two specimens with synthetic epoxy closely followed by a specimen with bio-epoxy namely HAW-EPX-M, RD-EPX-M, and RD-BE2-G specimens with 78 MPa, 75 MPa, and 72 MPa, respectively;
- The most efficient cross-sectional configurations with respect to the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity were the HAW configuration followed by the SCR configuration based on the outputs of tests on two different bio-resins;
- The BRD cross-sectional configuration, with greater bamboo content compared to the rest of the proposed configurations, is the most efficient configuration when used with a resin weaker than bamboo in compression such as PF1;
- In terms of the modulus of elasticity of LCBC with different resin matrices, the stiffest specimens are HAW-BE2-M1, HAW-EPX-M, and HAW-BE2-M2 with 3.89 GPa, 3.08 GPa, and 2.54 GPa;
- The specimen made with furan-based resin was able to contribute significantly to the stiffness of the LCBC with a modulus of elasticity of 2.06 GPa when compared to the HAW-BE1-Mcontrol specimen with a soft matrix;
- When assessing the effect of the stay-in-place choice of bamboo species, the specimen with Guadua bamboo reached an impressive strength of 72 MPa, followed by the Moso specimen with 61 MPa while the specimen with Tali species reached the greatest modulus of elasticity with 4.47 GPa (the greatest among all 17 specimens) but failed prematurely at 36 MPa;
- The theoretical predictions of the specimens in HAW series reached a reasonable accuracy with Mean value equal to 0.88 and CoV equal to 16% for the Pmeasured/Ptheory ratio;
- FEA conducted with ABAQUS effectively simulates the response of the LCBC columns with HAW configuration to axial compression. The numerical model integrates constitutive models for Moso bamboo and epoxy resins. Mesh refinement strategies, with elements of 5 mm, ensure convergence and accuracy.
- The numerical analysis output closely matches experimental results, with only minor differences observed, such as a 2 MPa difference for axial stress at failure in HAW-EPX-M specimens and a 3 MPa difference in HAW-BE2-M2 specimens.
- Resin content profoundly affects composite properties like strength and stiffness, emphasizing the need for precise control during manufacturing. Parametric studies show that adjusting outer column dimensions while keeping wall thickness consistent alters resin content, peak stress, and stiffness. A discernible trend is observed wherein the peak stress (SP) reduces gradually with increasing resin content. Additionally, the initial stiffness of the column decreases with decreasing the resin content, particularly up to a 50% reduction.
- The consistency between experimental data and simulated results bolsters the confidence in the predictive capacity of the model. The stress-strain behavior graphs and observed failure mode during simulation demonstrate the accuracy of the model.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Acknowledgement
References
- Javadian, A.; Wielopolski, M.; Smith, I.F.C.; Hebel, D.E. Bond-behavior study of newly developed bamboo-composite reinforcement in concrete. Construction and Building Materials Journal 2016, 122, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arioğlu Akan, M.Ö.; Dhavale, D.G.; Sarkis, J. Greenhouse gas emissions in the construction industry: An analysis and evaluation of a concrete supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 167, 1195–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, F.; Joekes, I. Cement industry: sustainability, challenges and perspectives. Environmental Chemistry Letters 2010, 9, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Steel Association Steel’s contribution to a low-carbon future and climate resilient societies. World Steel Association. 2020, Report. No. 6.
- Birol, F.; Solheim, E. Global Status Report 2017: Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient buildings and construction sector. United Nations Environment 2017, 48. [Google Scholar]
- Khatib, J.M. Sustainability of construction materials, 2nd edition; Woodhead Publishing, 2016, 742 pages.
- Richardson, C.; Mofidi, A. Non-Linear Numerical Modelling of Sustainable Advanced Composite Columns Made from Bamboo Culms, Construction Materials 2021, 1, 169–187. 1.
- van der Lugt, P. (Design Interventions for Stimulating Bamboo Commercialization: Dutch Design Meets Bamboo as a Replicable Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Shu, B.; Xiao, Z.; Hong, L.; Zhang, S.; Li, C.; Fu, N.; Lu, X. Review on the application of bamboo-based materials in construction engineering, Journal of Renewable Materials 2020, 8, 1215–1242.
- Trujillo, D.J.A.; Malkowska, D. Empirically derived connection design properties for Guadua bamboo, Construction and Building Materials 2018, 163, 9–20.
- Koenigsberger, O.H. World consultation on the use of wood in housing: Wood in housing in developing countries (Section 6) Unasylva Journal of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1971, 25, 101–103.
- Harries, K.A.; Sharma, B.; Richard, M. Structural Use of Full Culm Bamboo: The Path to Standardization. International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 2012, 1, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhagat, D.; Maheshwari, A.; Bhalla, S. Composite bamboo beam elements for structural applications. Proceedings of UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI) Congress on Innovations in Concrete Construction, Jalandhar, India, (05 August 2013). [Google Scholar]
- Nunes, N. Nonwood bio-based materials in: Performance of Bio-based Building Materials, Woodhead Publishing 2017, 97–186.
- Kaminski, S.; Lawrence, A.; Trujillo, D. Structural use of bamboo. Part 1: Introduction to bamboo. The Structural Engineer 2016, 98, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trujillo, D.; López, L.F. Bamboo material characterisation. In Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials, 2nd Woodhead Publishing 2016, 365–392.
- Harries, K.A.; Mofidi, A.; Naylor, J.; Trujillo, D.J.A.; Gutierrez, M.; Sharma, B. Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs for Bamboo in Construction. The 18th International Conference on Non-conventional Materials and Technologies. (07 July 2022).
- Nurdiah, E.A. The Potential of Bamboo as Building Material in Organic Shaped Buildings Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 216, 30–38.
- Mofidi, A.; Abila, J.; Ng, J.T.M. Novel Advanced Composite Bamboo Structural Members with Bio-Based and Synthetic Matrices for Sustainable Construction, Sustainability 2020, 12, 2485.
- Maiti, S.; Islam, R.; Uddin, M.A.; Afroj, S.; Eichhorn, S.J.; Karim, N. Sustainable Fibre-Reinforced Composites: A Review, Advanced Sustainable Systems 2022, 6, 2200258.
- ISO 22157:2019; Bamboo structures - Determination of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Bamboo Culms – Test Methods. International Standards Organization 2019, 25.
- Drury, B.; Padfield, C.; Russo, M.; Swygart, L.; Spalton, O.; Froggatt, S.; Mofidi, A. Assessment of the Compression Properties of Different Giant Bamboo Species for Sustainable Construction. Sustainability 2023, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trujillo, D.J.; López, L.F. Bamboo material characterisation in Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials (Second Edition): Characterisation, Properties and Applications, Woodhead Publishing 2020 Pages 491-520.
- Kenneth, O.I.; Uzodimma, U.O. Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of Bamboo Culms under Node and Internode Conditions. Saudi J Civ Eng 2021, 5, 251–258. [Google Scholar]
- Klose, L.; Meyer-Heydecke, N.; Wongwattanarat, S.; Chow, J.; Pérez García, P.; Carré, C.; Streit, W.; Antranikian, G.; Romero, A.M.; Liese, A. Towards Sustainable Recycling of Epoxy-Based Polymers: Approaches and Challenges of Epoxy Biodegradation. Polymers 2023, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Terry, J.S.; Taylor, A.C. The properties and suitability of commercial bio-based epoxies for use in fiberfibre-reinforced composites. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 2021, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferdosian, F.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Anderson, M.; Xu, C.C. Curing kinetics and mechanical properties of bio-based epoxy composites comprising lignin-based epoxy resins. European Polymer Journal 2016, 82, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoydonckx, H. E, Van Rhijn, Wim Application of novel furan resins in composites. JEC Composites Magazine 2008, 45, 34–35. [Google Scholar]
- ASTM D695 (. Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics. American Society for Testing and Materials, 2015, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, United States.
- ABAQUS. Abaqus Unified FEA-3DEXPERIENCE R2018; Systèmes, D., Ed.; 3DS-SIMULIA: Rue Marcel Dassault, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France, 2018.
















| Configuration | Specimen | DOuter (mm) | Length (mm) |
Mass (g) |
Bamboo Content (%) |
Resin Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hawser (HAW) |
HAW-EPX-M | 96.3 | 96.9 | 649 | 41 | 59 |
| HAW-BE1-M | 98.5 | 93.6 | 586 | 55 | 45 | |
| HAW-BE2-M1 | 88.8 | 94.2 | 521 | 53 | 47 | |
| HAW-BE2-M2 | 104.1 | 93.8 | 682 | 50 | 50 | |
| HAW-BE2-M3 | 90.7 | 92.5 | 480 | 48 | 52 | |
| HAW-PF1-M | 88.5 | 99.7 | 347 | 52 | 48 | |
|
Russian Doll (RD) |
RD-EPX-M | 98.7 | 97.6 | 679 | 43 | 57 |
| RD-BE1-G | 82.9 | 87.0 | 422 | 47 | 53 | |
| RD-BE2-M | 93.2 | 92.8 | 545 | 49 | 51 | |
| RD-BE2-T | 84.7 | 98.3 | 406 | 54 | 42 | |
| RD-BE2-G | 80.6 | 95.2 | 424 | 49 | 44 | |
| RD-PF1-M | 100.9 | 128.5 | 792 | 56 | 41 | |
| RD-PF1-T | 82.7 | 99.6 | 330 | 48 | 52 | |
|
Big Russian Doll (BRD) |
BRD-BE2-M | 119.8 | 93.5 | 819 | 59 | 41 |
| BRD-PF1-M | 125.9 | 99.2 | 850 | 63 | 37 | |
|
Scrimber (SCR) |
SCR-BE2-M | 91.3 | 100.0 | 513 | 56 | 44 |
| SCR-PF1-M | 90.8 | 146.9 | 695 | 54 | 46 |
| Configuration | Specimen |
∆Lc,0 (mm) |
εc,0 |
Fult (kN) |
fc,0 (MPa) |
Ec,0 (GPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hawser (HAW) |
HAW-EPX-M | 4.30 | 0.044 | 568 | 78 | 3.08 |
| HAW-BE1-M | 3.76 | 0.038 | 220 | 36 | 1.32 | |
| HAW-BE2-M1 | 3.37 | 0.035 | 398 | 64 | 3.89 | |
| HAW-BE2-M2 | 4.23 | 0.043 | 567 | 67 | 2.54 | |
| HAW-BE2-M3 | 4.48 | 0.049 | 363 | 56 | 2.01 | |
| HAW-PF1-M | 3.01 | 0.031 | 236 | 38 | 2.06 | |
|
Russian Doll (RD) |
RD-EPX-M | 3.73 | 0.038 | 571 | 75 | 3.07 |
| RD-BE1-G | 2.18 | 0.025 | 166 | 31 | 1.74 | |
| RD-BE2-M | 5.26 | 0.059 | 417 | 61 | 1.50 | |
| RD-BE2-T | 1.54 | 0.016 | 204 | 36 | 4.47 | |
| RD-BE2-G | 3.98 | 0.043 | 366 | 72 | 3.85 | |
| RD-PF1-M | 3.70 | 0.072 | 234 | 30 | 1.08 | |
| RD-PF1-T | 2.69 | 0.027 | 166 | 31 | 1.29 | |
|
Big Russian Doll (BRD) |
BRD-BE2-M | 5.49 | 0.059 | 555 | 49 | 1.10 |
| BRD-PF1-M | 4.28 | 0.043 | 500 | 40 | 1.18 | |
|
Scrimber (SCR) |
SCR-BE2-M | 4.43 | 0.041 | 391 | 60 | 3.87 |
| SCR-PF1-M | 5.54 | 0.038 | 225 | 35 | 1.39 |
| Specimen | Theoretical failure strain of first component |
Predicted bamboo share (kN) |
Predicted resin share (kN) |
Ptheory (kN) |
Pmeasured (kN) |
Pmeasured/ Ptheory |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAW-EPX-M | 0.037 (b)* | 208.5 | 313.0 | 522 | 568 | 1.09 |
| HAW-BE1-M | 0.037 (b) | 292.7 | 0.1 | 293 | 220 | 0.75 |
| HAW-BE2-M1 | 0.037 (b) | 229.3 | 188.3 | 418 | 398 | 0.95 |
| HAW-BE2-M2 | 0.037 (b) | 297.2 | 275.4 | 573 | 567 | 0.99 |
| HAW-BE2-M3 | 0.037 (b) | 216.6 | 217.4 | 434 | 363 | 0.84 |
| HAW-PF1-M | 0.019 (r) | 222.1 | 123.9 | 346 | 236 | 0.68 |
| Property/Specimen name | FEA-A1 | FEA-A2 | FEA-A3 | FEA-A4 | FEA-A5 |
| Radius of section (RS) | 1.2r | 1.1r | r | 0.9r | 0.8r |
| Peak stress (SP), MPa | 83.7 | 82.1 | 80.6 | 78 | 74.96 |
| Stress at failure (SF), MPa | 79.3 | 80.0 | 79.5 | 77.2 | 73.69 |
| Degree of Stress softening (SP - SF), MPa | 4.40 | 2.11 | 1.10 | 0.80 | 0.65 |
| Strain at peak (εP) | 0.040 | 0.050 | 0.043 | 0.033 | 0.043 |
| Strain at failure (εF) | 0.050 | 0.052 | 0.046 | 0.045 | 0.05 |
| Strain gradient at softening (εF - εP) | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Stiffness (E0), GPa | 3.70 | 2.94 | 2.55 | 2.49 | 2.30 |
| Property/Specimen name | FEA-A1 | FEA-A2 | FEA-A3 | FEA-A4 | FEA-A5 |
| Radius of section (RS) | 1.2r | 1.1r | r | 0.9r | 0.8r |
| Peak stress (SP), MPa | 82.95 | 71.93 | 66.90 | 63.05 | 63.15 |
| Stress at failure (SF), MPa | 80.45 | 69.28 | 63.50 | 60.41 | 61.50 |
| Degree of Stress softening (SP - SF), MPa | 2.50 | 2.65 | 3.40 | 2.64 | 1.65 |
| Strain at peak (εP) | 0.048 | 0.044 | 0.04 | 0.042 | 0.044 |
| Strain at failure (εF) | 0.056 | 0.053 | 0.054 | 0.047 | 0.050 |
| Strain gradient at softening (εF - εP) | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.014 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Stiffness (E0), GPa | 2.70 | 2.20 | 1.94 | 1.65 | 1.55 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).