Sustainability 15 11137

sustainability
Review
Uses of Bamboo for Sustainable Construction—A Structural
and Durability Perspective—A Review
Sumeera Madhushan 1 , Samith Buddika 1 , Sahan Bandara 1 , Satheeskumar Navaratnam 2, *
and Nandana Abeysuriya 3
1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka;

[email protected] (S.M.); [email protected] (S.B.); [email protected] (S.B.)
2 School of Engineering, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
3 NCD Consultants (Pvt) Ltd., Nugegoda 10250, Sri Lanka
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Bamboo is a natural biodegradable material used as a strength-bearing material that

operates for system works, formwork supporting stands, structural members in low-rise houses,
props, framing, bridges, laminated flooring, facades, walls, roofs, and trusses. Over recent years, there
has been an increased demand for bamboo, considering sustainable construction practices. Exploring
bamboo’s physical and mechanical behaviour is essential to develop innovative construction methods
and design guidelines. Therefore, this paper aims to review the studies on bamboo culms’ material
properties and physical behaviour, considering the load-bearing capacity and structural adequacy.
This study summarises the physical and mechanical properties of a wide array of bamboo species
grown worldwide. Mechanical properties such as compressive, tensile, flexural, shear, and bucking
strengths are explored, highlighting the key findings in previous experimental works. Results have
indicated a significant variability in bamboo’s material and mechanical properties considering the
growth conditions, location along a culm, geometric imperfections and environmental conditions. In
addition to material and mechanical properties, structural bamboo connections, engineered bamboo
products, and preservative treatment of bamboo are also investigated. The construction industry can
utilise the summary of the findings of this study to develop design guidelines for sustainable bamboo
construction. Overall, this paper presents an overview of structural capability and drawbacks for
Citation: Madhushan, S.; Buddika, S.; future research and development using bamboo in modern construction.
Bandara, S.; Navaratnam, S.;
Abeysuriya, N. Uses of Bamboo for Keywords: bamboo; structural performance; treatment; connections; cross-laminated bamboo
Sustainable Construction—A Structural
and Durability Perspective—A Review.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11137.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411137
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Antonio Caggiano Bamboo is a renewable resource and a fast-growing species that can be harvested in
Received: 13 June 2023
3–6 years [1]. Further, bamboo enables similar mechanical properties to those of structural
Revised: 7 July 2023 timber [1]. It can be used as an environmentally friendly and cost-effective sustainable
Accepted: 13 July 2023 construction material. Bamboo is typically a strength-bearing material for system works,
Published: 17 July 2023 formwork supporting stands, structural members in low-rise houses, props, framing,
bridges, laminated flooring, facades, walls, roofs, and trusses. Using bamboo as a construc-
tion material has a wide array of advantages. The benefits include a convenient size and
form for straightforward handling, a high strength-to-weight ratio, diaphragms at nodes
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. to forestall native buckling, and strengthened nodal zones for focused load transfer [2].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Furthermore, robust and laborious tissues square concentrated close to the outer surface,
This article is an open access article and flexibility enables high wind and earthquake resistance [3]. Moreover, a low level of
distributed under the terms and skills is needed for the erection of bamboo structures. Despite these benefits, the typical con-
conditions of the Creative Commons
nections (i.e., mortise–tenon and lashing joints) increase the construction cost and time and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
create structural vulnerability [4]. The culms are typically drilled and curved into curved
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
shapes to provide these connections, which makes the material vulnerable to longitudinal
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411137 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11137 2 of 22
cracks [5]. The culms’ transverse capacity can generally be increased by a mortar injection.
A study by Correal [6] showed that a mortar injection increases bamboo culms’ bending
strength and stiffness by up to 40% and 60%, respectively. However, it is essential to note
that while a mortar injection can increase the strength of bamboo, it also adds weight to
the structure, which can be a disadvantage in some applications. Furthermore, bamboo
linkages are incapable of transmitting moments. This limitation reduces the flexibility of
the construction methods, particularly when it is necessary to be used as frames and panels
with door and window openings [4]. Furthermore, Nurmadina et al. [7] stated that bam-
boo’s structural grading was appropriate for capacity grading rather than strength grading.
Strength parameters are properties of the material, whereas capacity is a property of the
member. Since the bamboo culm shape is not uniform in bamboo construction, the strength
approach may not be feasible. The additional predictor variables, such as eccentricity or
ovality, wall density, culm density, and moisture content in capacity grading, significantly
increase the coefficient of determination for estimating MOE (modulus of elasticity) and
MOR (modulus of rupture). It was demonstrated that in bamboo culm capacity grading,
diameter, linear mass, and combinations were good quality indicators.
Recently, construction industries have sought sustainable alternative construction
materials to reduce environmental impacts. Using bamboo in construction can reduce envi-
ronmental impacts as well as global greenhouse gas emissions [8,9]. However, the absence
of design guidelines for mechanical qualities and structural soundlessness poses a signifi-
cant barrier to advancing structural bamboo as a contemporary construction material [10].
Attempts to investigate the use of bamboo and its components in construction and design
made using them effectively be ascertained by studying relevant previous studies.
This study aims to explore the material and mechanical properties of different bam-
boo species to understand the physical behaviour of bamboo in sustainable construction
practices. This paper is organised as follows. Section 1 provides a brief background and
introduction to bamboo as a construction material. Sections 2 and 3 summarise the studies
about bamboo’s material and mechanical properties. Engineered bamboo products are
explored in Section 4, focusing specifically on cross-laminated bamboo. Bamboo connec-
tions and preservative treatments are investigated in Sections 5 and 6, respectively. Finally,
conclusions and future research directions are described in Section 7. Overall, this paper
provides a comprehensive summary of the previous studies about bamboo, focussing on
the aforementioned areas to improve the current understanding and design practices in
bamboo construction.
2. Materials and Methods

Bamboo is a natural composite material in most tropical nations that grows abundantly.
It comprises of cellulose fibres, which constitutes most living things in nature, embedded
into a lignin matrix. The cellulose fibres are straight. The longitudinal orientation of the
bamboo has the highest tensile strength, flexural strength, and stiffness, similar to structural
timber, where higher strength is observed in the direction parallel to the grain. The density
of bamboo fibres is not uniform and is more prominent on the outer periphery, which
improves the material’s flexural properties [11]. Various factors influence bam-boo struc-
tural performance, including species and harvesting age, exposure time after harvesting,
growth conditions, specific gravity, and exposure period. In addition, strength parameters
vary depending on the position along the culm, node disposition, moisture content, diam-
eter, thickness, curvature, modulus of elasticity, loading duration, seasoning, and other
flaws [12]. Bahtiar et al. [13] developed a culm diameter versus thickness scatterplot of
Indonesia’s Hitam, Andong, and Tali bamboo species. A weak positive correlation was
found between diameter and thickness for each species, with linear regression yielding
a coefficient of determination (R2 ) of 0.14–0.22.
Further, Trujillo and López [14] reviewed the material property variations considering
different species. The material and mechanical properties of bamboo used for construction
vary depending on environmental factors. Thus, experimental tests should be conducted to
assess the material and mechanical properties. Further, Nugroho et al. [15] highlighted that
5–20 cm diameter bamboo can be used for structural purposes. Whilst the large diameter
species can be used to make heavy constructions, the other sized species are appropriate
for medium-sized structures.
2.1. Density
ISO/TR. 22157-1 [16] specifies the methods to calculate the density of bamboo using
physical and mechanical tests. To evaluate the density, oven-dry mass and green (just
harvested) volume are used since both are independent of the weather conditions. When
the density of a test sample is to be measured at a specific moisture content, mass is
taken as the oven-dry mass, and only the volume is measured at the sample’s relevant
moisture content. Bamboo moisture content should be standardised to 12% to adjust the
determination of linear mass and density values [15]. The volume of the vascular bundles’
fraction influences bamboo density. Because of the low fibre density, the lower regions of
bamboo have the most insufficient specific gravity [17]. Table 1 summarises the specific
gravity of bamboo reported in the literature.
Table 1. The specific gravity of bamboo species.
Reference Species Average Specific Gravity

Bambusa pervariabili 0.708
Chung and Yu [1]
Phyllostachya pubescens 0.794
Kamthai and Puthson [18] Dendrocalamus asper 0.725
Moroz et al. [19] Arundinaria amabilis 1.100
Nagarnaik et al. [20] Dendrocalmus strictus 0.799
Phyllostachys edulis 0.765
Fabiani [21]
Phyllostachys viridiglaucescens 0.805
Unnikrishnan and Shastry [22] Not mentioned 0.731
Trujillo et al. [23] Guadua angustifolia 0.669
Parasuram and Baskaran [24] Bambusa vulgaris 0.700
Bahtiar et al. [25] Guadua angustifolia 0.564
Dendrocalamus strictus 0.64
Correal [6] Guadua angustifolia 0.68
Phyllostachys edulis 0.79
Bambusa vulgaris 0.698
Gigantochloa
0.576
Nugroho et al. [15] pseudoarundinaceae
Dendrocalamus asper 0.640
Gigantochloa atroviolacea 0.626
Gigantochloa apus 0.642
Iswanto et al. [26] Gigantochloa pruriens 0.593
2.2. Moisture Content

In structural timber, strength properties greatly rely on moisture content [27,28]. In
codes of practice, strength modification factors are defined to account for different service
classes, depending on the moisture content [29]. Generally, the strength and stiffness of
wood increase with the reduction of moisture content below the fibre saturation point [30].
Moisture content must be considered when using bamboo as a construction material, as it
impacts its long-term performance. Green (just harvested) bamboo is less intense than dry
bamboo, much like wood [31]. The fibre saturation point varies between culms and species,
but is usually between 20% and 30% [32]. Moisture content can affect dimensional stability,
bending strength, and the load duration (creep) effect [6]. According to Bahtiar et al. [13],
the samples obtained from the top sections of the bamboo culm were drier than those
acquired from the bottom parts. This was because the thickness in the samples collected
from the upper parts of the bamboo culm were thinner than in the samples obtained from
the bottom portions. Thinner walls dried faster than thicker walls. Bamboo has better
mechanical properties in dry conditions because the bamboo culms have homogeneously
reached equilibrium status in moisture content. Thus, there is no significant variation in

moisture content between species.
3. Mechanical Properties
Due to the hollow nature of the culms, the mechanical properties can be studied
parallel and perpendicular to the fibre orientations. Testing specifications for determining
mechanical properties can be found in ISO 22157-1:2004 (Bamboo—Determination of
physical and mechanical properties—Part 1: Requirements) [16]. The testing sample must
accurately reflect the final structure’s substance variation. This diversity should cover
factors like place of origin, age, and location on the culm. Samples must be collected
from each culm’s bottom, middle, and top [33]. An overview of the current standard test
procedures, their application, and their usefulness in a field situation can be found in
Harries et al. [34].
3.1. Compressive Strength

According to ISO 22157-1:2004 [16], the ultimate compressive strength of bamboo
specimens from culms is measured parallel to the axis. Different researchers have explored
the compressive strength of bamboo for various species from different countries. When
investigating the results of compression tests, it is paramount to consider the moisture con-
tent, since the ultimate compressive strength significantly affects the specimen’s moisture
content [30]. Due to the hygroscopic nature of bamboo, the Indicating Property (IP) should
be adjusted to a standardised moisture content (12% Mc). If densities are chosen as the IPs,
the moisture content effect on compressive strength and capacity should also be measured
to improve estimation reliability. Density and linear mass were determined to be the best
indicating properties for structural grading of bamboo subjected to an axial compressive
load due to their higher correlation values [25]. If the cross-sectional area is assumed to
be a hollow cylinder, density is reliable for estimating compressive strength. Structural
grading can be done based on strength grading or capacity grading. Bahtiar et al. [25] con-
cluded that capacity grading is more reliable than strength grading due to higher coefficient
of determination values (R2 ).
Chandrakeerthy [12] performed compression tests for untreated Bambusa vulgaris
specimens, the most widely used bamboo species for temporary structures in Sri Lanka.
Different diameters (d) of bamboo were selected to represent small (63 mm < d < 72 mm),
average (72 mm < d < 88 mm), and large sizes (d > 88 mm). For each dimension, 3 test
specimens of 300 mm length having a centrally placed node were cut from each culm
top, middle, and bottom. A total of 108 samples were tested, and a mean compressive
strength of 29.33 MPa resulted in a moisture content of 30%. Chung and Yu [1] explored the
mechanical characteristics of two bamboo species, Bambusa pervariabilis and Phyllostachys
pubescent. These bamboo species are commonly found in Southeast Asia, especially in Hong
Kong and China. The compression test specimens’ height was preserved at least twice
the exterior diameter of the bamboo culm. Specimens were categorised into three groups
according to the moisture content (MC), such as MC < 5%, 5% < MC < 20%, and MC > 20%.
As expected, the compressive strength decreased as the moisture content increased. For
the Bambusa pervariabilis species, the average compressive strengths were recorded as
103, 69, and 48 MPa for the 3 moisture contents. Similarly, for the Phyllostachys pubescens
species, the average compressive strengths were recorded as 134, 75, and 57 MPa for the
3 moisture contents.
Sakaray et al. [35] conducted a similar work to determine the compressive strength of
hollow culms to be used as reinforcing material in concrete. The test used three different
kinds of specimens: specimens with a central node, specimens with an end node, and
specimens without any nodes. Bamboo specimens were subjected to a progressively
increased load until failure, and the load was applied parallel to the axis. The ultimate load
was used to calculate compressive strength. Samples with a central node provided a higher
compressive strength than the other two specimens. The average compressive strength
of all specimen types was 108.2 MPa. Nevertheless, the moisture content of the samples
needed to be clearly stated in this study.
Fabiani [21] explored the compressive strength of two Italian bamboo species, namely
Phyllostachys edulis and Phyllostachys viridiglaucescens. Twelve specimens of each species
were used, cut straight from the culm at a height equal to the exterior diameter. There
were specimens with and without nodes. Each instance was positioned between two steel
plates that applied pressure to both extremities. A hemispherical bearing on the upper
plate distributed the load uniformly over the specimen’s ends. Maximum and minimum
compressive strengths for Phyllostachys edulis and Phyllostachys viridiglaucescens species
were recorded as 59, 51.1, 66.2, and 46.4 MPa, respectively. The average compressive
strength and the average moisture content of the two species were 55.7 MPa, 56.8 MPa,
and 43.7%, 24.9%, respectively. Bhonde et al. [20] investigated the mechanical properties
of Dendrocalamus strictus, the predominant bamboo species discovered in India, covering
about 53% of the total bamboo area in India; 50 mm long bamboo specimens were subjected
to a compression test, and the measured moisture content of the specimens was around 7%.
The average compressive strength of the 6 models examined was 78.03 MPa.
Awalluddin et al. [36] monitored the strength improvement and moisture content of
four bamboo species commonly found in Malaysia. The study period was five months.
Studies species were Bambusa vulgaris, Dendrocalamus asper, Gigantochloa scortechinii, and
Schizostachyum grande. The moisture content dropped with time, and the average moisture
content at the end of five months was less than that of the initial moisture content. The
compressive strength was measured at each culm’s top, middle, and bottom. The top of
all bamboo species was identified to have the maximum compressive strength, which was
succeeded by the middle and bottom. The average compressive strength at the top was
68.05, 76.52, 30.42, and 69.02 MPa for Dendrocalamus asper, Bambusa vulgaris, Schizostachyum
grande, and Gigantochloa scortechinii, respectively. The average moisture content of the tested
specimens from the 4 species varied from 15.3% to 23.4%. Samples collected close to the
base of the culm were slightly older and weaker than those gathered further away from
the bottom. Large vascular bundles in bamboo were determined to be the cause for this
property’s distinction. A second compression test was undertaken five months later. The
findings followed a similar pattern, demonstrating that the compressive strength of the
culm is greater at the top than at the middle and bottom. After five months, the average
compressive strength at the top was found to be 73.65, 78.74, 40.03, and 68.62 MPa for
Dendrocalamus asper, Bambusa vulgaris, Schizostachyum grande, and Gigantochloa scortechinii,
respectively. A summary of the compressive strengths of bamboo found from different
studies is illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of the material and mechanical properties found in the literature.
Compressive Tensile Flexural Youngs

Type of Moisture
Study & Country Species Content % Strength Strength Strength Modulus
Preservation (MPa) (GPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
Chandrakeerthy [12]
Bambusa vulgaris Seasoning 30 29.33 89.91 53.88 18.57
(Sri Lanka)
Bambusa pervariabili 5–20 69 - 82 9.3
Chung and Yu [1] Air drying
(China) Phyllostachya 5–30 75 - 88 9.4
pubescens
Mahzuz et al. [37] Bambusa balcooa - - - 92.84 - 6.26
(Bangladesh)
Sabbir et al. [38] - - - 117.1 - 51.4
(Bangladesh) Untreated
Seasoning and
Sakaray et al. [35] applying
Bambusa vulgaris - 108.2 121.0 - 15.00
(India) a waterproof
coating
Table 2. Cont.
Compressive Tensile Flexural Youngs

Type of Moisture
Study & Country Species Content % Strength Strength Strength Modulus
Preservation (MPa) (GPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
Air seasoning
Parasuram and and applying
Baskaran [24] Bambusa vulgaris 13.3 - 90.0 - 9.92
(Sri Lanka) wood
preservatives
Phyllostachys edulis - 43.7 55.70 126.7 97.3 13.21
Fabiani [21] (Italy) Phyllostachys 24.9 56.8 159.0 - -
viridiglaucescens
Dendrocalmus 6.92 78.03 95.78 - -
Bhonde et al. [20] (India) strictus Untreated
Dendrocalamus asper 15.9–18.4 73.65 232.8 - 20.00

Bambusa vulgaris 14.0–19.2 78.74 231.67 - -
Awalluddin et al. [36] Gigantochloa Boric acid 15.6–18.1 68.62 187.67 - -
(Malayasia) scortechinii treatment
Schizos tachyum 16.9–19.6 40.03 149.20 - -
grande
Nugroho et al. [39]
Gigantochloa apus Air drying 16.9 - - 67.3 17.95
(Indonesia)
Bambusa vulgaris 15.3 - - 40.05 -
Gigantochloa 16.7 - - 63.98 10.46
pseudoarundinaceae Conditioning
Nugroho et al. [15] using a fan in
Dendrocalamus asper 14.4 - - 99.74 18.00
(Indonesia) Gigantochloa an indoor
environment 15.9 - - 91.87 -
atroviolacea
Gigantochloa apus 16.9 - - 76.9 15.68
3.2. Tensile Strength

Similar to compression tests, guidelines for performing tension tests are provided
in ISO 22157-1:2004 [16]. This section summarises the previous studies investigating the
tensile strength of bamboo. Mahzuz et al. [37] explored the tensile strength of a commonly
found bamboo species in Bangladesh—Bambusa balcooa. Fault-free bamboo specimens were
selected for the test after performing a visual inspection. After chopping, the bamboo was
left in the open for two months to dry. Thirty samples were tested, and the average tensile
strength was identified as 92.84 MPa. Further, the mean modulus of elasticity was found
as 6.26 GPa. Sabbir et al. [38] investigated the tensile properties of bamboo to be used as
concrete reinforcement. Three specimens of untreated bamboo were tested initially, and
five models with wire spiral to improve the grips at the ends were also tested. Samples
were inspected to avoid imperfections that may affect the results. The average tensile
strength was identified to be 117.1 MPa. However, the moisture content of the specimens
was not indicated in this study.
Sakaray et al. [35] presented the tensile strengths of the Bambusa vulgaris and Dendro-
calamus species by testing specimens ranging from 4.55 to 5.8 m. Failure mode in the tests
was identified as node failure due to the brittle nature of nodes. Some of the illustrations
showed a splitting failure mode. The average tensile strength was found as 121 MPa.
A similar study was conducted by Bhonde et al. [20] to investigate the tensile strength
of bamboo. Specimens of 70 cm in length were prepared to have 10 cm grips on each
side. Sand and high-strength epoxy glue Araldite were used to fill the curved areas of the
bamboo split at the end. The assessed 10 specimens’ average tensile strength was 95.78 MPa.
Fabiani [21] tested dog-bone shaped specimens to evaluate the tensile strength of 2 bamboo
species found in Italy. The model measured 500 mm long, whereas the reduced portions
measured at 140 mm. The height was 30 mm and the radius was 80 mm. The specimen’s
thickness was identical to the bamboo culm’s wall thickness. In the shortened section, there
was a node on each instance. The average tensile strength was 126.7 and 159 MPa for the
Phyllostachys edulis and Phyllostachys viridiglaucescens species.
Parusaram and Baskaran [24] investigated the feasibility of bamboo being used as
supplementary reinforcement for concrete slabs. Three samples were chosen at random.
The test samples’ failure was caused by breaking fibres when force was applied parallel
to the bamboo fibres. The average moisture content of the 3 specimens was 13.3%, and
the mean tensile strength was 90 MPa. A summary of the tensile strength of bamboo
found in the literature is illustrated in Table 2. Furthermore, Molari and García [40]
studied the transverse mechanical characteristics of five bamboo species through digital
image correlation technology. Experimental results are shown in Table 3. This research
demonstrated variations in the transverse behaviour of bamboo based on both the species
and the location along the culm wall.
Table 3. Radial variation of the transverse mechanical properties of bamboo [40].
Tensile Strains Effective Young’s Modulus (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa)

Species
Inner Outer Modulus (MPa) Inner Outer Inner Outer
30% Lower
Phyllostachys
than 39.9 14.5
edulis
the outer
Phyllostachys
17.6 30.5
bambusoides 1209–2983
Phyllostachys 0.014–0.035 0.008–0.0019 1976–4694
16.9 23.2
iridescens
796–1694
Phyllostachys
24.1 22.6
violascens
Guadua
931–1148 17.6 30.5
angustifolia
3.3. Flexural Strength

The ultimate load, span, and section modulus of a bamboo specimen subjected to
a bending test can be used to compute its maximum flexural strength. ISO 22157-1:2004 [16]
specifies a four-point bending test to determine the flexural strength of bamboo, as illus-
trated in Figure 1. Similar to determining the compressive and tensile strength, researchers
have investigated the flexural strength of different bamboo species worldwide. In addition
to determining flexural strength, bending test results (load-displacement curves) can be
utilised in determining the modulus of elasticity. A summary of the flexural strengths
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
and modulus of elasticity is illustrated in Table 2, considering the conducted review.8 Likeof 23
structural timber, flexural strength is calculated parallel to fibre along the longitudinal axis.
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Bending
Bending test
test saddle
saddle made
made of
of wood
wood (Adopted
(Adopted with
withpermission
permissionfrom
from[14]).
[14]).
Chandrakeerthy [12] performed tests to explore the flexural strength of untreated

Bambusa vulgaris specimens. This study presented a formula to evaluate the design’s
flexural strength using the bending test results. This formula is shown below where the
design flexural strength, 𝑓𝑓, is calculated as;
Chandrakeerthy [12] performed tests to explore the flexural strength of untreated

Bambusa vulgaris specimens. This study presented a formula to evaluate the design’s
flexural strength using the bending test results. This formula is shown below where the
design flexural strength, f , is calculated as;
( Fm − K.S.)
f = (1)
F
where F is a reduction factor similar to the convenience factor of safety that accounts for
minor errors in moisture content, loading duration, sectional properties, design assump-
tions, analysis, and construction tolerances. K is a statistical constant for a 5% exclusion.
Fm is the mean ultimate flexural strength. S is the standard deviation of maximum flexural
strength. The test specimens’ external diameter and thickness ranged from 54.5 to 95.0 mm
and 5.0 to 23.0 mm, respectively. The specimen lengths were approximately 2.2 m, and
each specimen was tested with ends supported and the specimen subjected to a mid-span
load. The resulting design flexural strength was 16.7 MPa by using Fm as 53.88 MPa, K as
1.645, S as 9.61, and F as 2.25.
Li [41] determined that bamboo’s bending strength and stiffness were influenced by
age, height, and specific gravity. Lopez [42] proposed that bamboo nodes be placed away
from the immediate location of an applied flexural force wherever possible to maximise
strength capabilities. Studies discovered that eliminating the nodes reduced bending
stiffness by 6.2% [43]. Additionally, the results were affected by the point at which the
specimen was cut from the culm. The outer layers’ specific gravity and bending properties
were much higher than the inner layers. Along the culm height, specific gravity fluctuated.
The upper parts’ specific gravity was constantly more elevated than the bottom. The outer
layer was more crucial than the inner layer in supporting bamboo. The modulus of rupture
(MOR) and modulus of elasticity (MOE) were measured by removing varying percentages
of the test specimen’s cross-sectional area from the outer and inner surfaces. Extracting
sound wood from the outer shell had a higher MOR reduction than a deduction from the
inner surface. Therefore, leaving the outer surface material on bamboo strips is advised
if using them industrially to create high-strength bamboo composites. MOR and MOE
were evaluated for different age groups of bamboo. Tests were carried out from specimens
aged one, three, and five years. With age, both MOR and MOE showed a significant
increase [42,43].
Further, tests were conducted to investigate the effect of specific gravity on the strength
characteristics. MOR and MOE have a positive trend with specific gravity [43]; it means
bamboo specimens with higher density result in better bending strength. Using statistical
analysis, Sá Ribeiro et al. [44] aimed to determine the bending strength properties of bamboo
culms through non-destructive evaluation (NDE). This research analysed the correlations
between bamboo’s mechanical and physical properties. Linear regression analyses were
conducted to determine which NDE factors could efficiently predict the modulus of rupture
(MOR) and modulus of elasticity (MOE). This study found the coefficients of determination
(R2 ) 83% between MOR and MOE, 66% between MOR and ρ (apparent density), 70%
between MOR and Ed (dynamic modulus of elasticity), 66% between MOE and Ed , 62%
between MOE and ρ, and 77% between Ed and ρ. The corresponding relationships are
illustrated in Figure 2, along with the regression equations.
The bending test of the Phyllostachys edulis bamboo, the classification of the P. edulis
bamboo, and the analysis of the P. edulis bamboo for strength design was investigated
by Liu et al. [45]. MOE was utilised as an index to evaluate mechanical qualities in the
P. edulis bamboo performance evaluation system. MOE was classified into three grades
based on their analysis (Grade I, II, and III). Bending strength was ordered from small
to large, and strength values were divided based on the number of different fitting data
points. The Weibull distribution has the least appropriate degree, while the average and
lognormal distributions have comparable fitting effects. Four load combinations (variable
load to permanent load ratio) were investigated in the dependability analysis. The strength
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 23

analysed the correlations between bamboo’s mechanical and physical properties. Linear
regression analyses were conducted to determine which NDE factors could efficiently
predict
design the of
value modulus
bamboo of rupture (MOR) and
was computed modulus
using of elasticity of
the coefficient (MOE). This study
resistance foundby the
derived
the coefficients of determination (R2) 83% between MOR and MOE, 66% between MOR
initial investigation. The design bending strengths of the P. edulis bamboo were determined
and 𝜌𝜌 (apparent density), 70% between MOR and Ed (dynamic modulus of elasticity), 66%
as 27.40 MPa, 27.69 MPa, and 28.47 MPa for the aforementioned grades I, II, and III,
between MOE and Ed, 62% between MOE and 𝜌𝜌, and 77% between Ed and 𝜌𝜌. The
respectively.
correspondingIn the calculationare
relationships of design bending
illustrated strength,
in Figure uncertainty
2, along with thecoefficients
regression and
conversion
equations.coefficients were introduced to account for the potential variability in geometry
and material properties.
160 140
140
120
120
MOR (MPa)
MOR (MPA)
100
100
80
80
MOR=0.0098 MOE − 7.1701 60 MOR = 0.2481ρ − 72.716
60
R2=0.8338 R2=0.657
40 40
6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 525 625 725
MOE (MPa) Apparent density, ρ (kg/m3 )
(a) (d)
140
14,000
120
MOE (MPa)
12,000
MOR (MPa)
100
10,000
80
8,000 MOE=0.6843 Ed − 2250.7
60 MOR=0.0075 Ed − 41.919
R2=0.6964 R2=0.6569
6,000
40
13,000 15,000 17,000 19,000 21,000 23,000
13,500 15,500 17,500 19,500 21,500
Ed (MPa)
Ed (MPa)
(b) (e)
16,000 23,000
14,000 21,000
MOE (MPa)
Ed (MPa)
12,000 19,000
10,000 17,000
MOE = 22.344ρ − 4796.3 Ed = 22.253ρ − 3031.3
8,000 15,000
R2=0.6174 R2=0.7724
6,000 13,000
525 625 725 450 550 650 750 850
Apparent density, ρ (kg/m3 ) Apparent density, ρ (kg/m3)
(c) (f)
Figure 2. Relationships between MOR, MOE, Ed , and ρ for bamboo culms (a) variation of MOR
with MOE (b) variation of MOR with Ed (c) variation of MOE with apparent density (d) variation of
MOR with apparent density (e) variation of MOE with Ed (f) variation of Ed with apparent density
(Adopted with permission from [44]).
3.4. Buckling
Bamboo members subjected to compression can be subjected to buckling depending
on the slenderness of the member. Slenderness relies on the geometry of the member and
the end conditions. Chandrakeerthy [12] investigated the buckling stresses and slenderness
ratio of the Bambusa vulgaris species. Three specimens with lengths of 1.5 m, 0.9 m, and 0.6 m
were loaded axially, and the central outward deformation was recorded. The specimen’s
vertical deformation was also measured between its two ends. The guidelines in the BS
5268—Structural use of timber [46] was taken into consideration in this study. Experimental
values of ultimate buckling stress were determined for 108 specimens. In exposed bamboo
structures, slenderness ratios were thought to encompass the entire practical range of
slenderness ratios. Slenderness ratios for 1.5 m specimens ranged from 44.16 to 85.30, 0.9 m
specimens from 26.28 to 44.28, and 0.6 m specimens from 17.52 to 28.44. The range of the
overall variation was 17.52 to 85.3. By analysing the obtained results, modification factors
for compressive strength for varying slenderness ratios were proposed to account for the
buckling failure.
Yu et al. [47] established and effectively calibrated a design strategy against column
buckling of structural bamboo based on improved slenderness against test data of both
Kao Jue (Bambusa pervariabilis) and Mao Jue (Phyllostachys pubescens) species. This work
included extensive and systematic experimental testing on the column buckling behaviour
of bamboo culms. The proposed design approach was demonstrated to be structurally
adequate following contemporary structural design philosophy. It could be successfully
implemented to design against structural bamboo column buckling in scaffolds and other
bamboo structures. Yu et al. [48] expanded their study to examine the axial buckling
behaviour of four comprehensive double layered bamboo scaffolds (DLBS) with various
member configurations and lateral restraint systems bamboo pillars. Experimental results
indicated that by considering the deformation and strength, the structural effectiveness of
DLBS was satisfactory. Axial buckling of the bamboo columns only happened instead of
any overall collapse of the bamboo scaffolds. While measuring the bamboo columns’ axial
buckling resistances under axial buckling, various types of failure in DLBS components
were recognised and reported.
Nie et al. [49] summarised that both the slenderness and diameter-thickness ratios
notably impact the failure modes and ultimate bearing capacity of columns. The fail-
ure modes of columns are significantly influenced by two factors: slenderness ratio and
diameter-thickness ratio. Columns with similar diameter-thickness ratio displayed a nega-
tive correlation between ultimate bearing capacity and slenderness ratio, with up to 44.39%
reduction rate. However, when the diameter-thickness percentage increased by 18.75%,
the maximum bearing capacity rose by 82.65%, given the same slenderness ratio. The
eccentricity, taper, and bow are flaws that may contribute to the buckling behaviour of
a bamboo column [50]. These flaws complicate buckling analysis and are thus frequently
overlooked in practical applications. Bahtiar et al. [50] performed an Experimental Investi-
gation of Guadua angustifolia Column buckling resistance. The load-carrying capacity of
long columns was significantly impacted by buckling, making it necessary to include the
buckling reduction factor (ψ- the ratio between the ultimate buckling load and the ultimate
compressive load) in the design and structural analysis of bamboo culms. According to this
study, buckling behaviour could be successfully fitted with Rankine-Gordon and Ylinen’s
formulas over the entire slenderness ratio range, as illustrated in Figure 3. Because of
its superior statistical performance, Ylinen’s formulas were recommended for designing
compressed columns. The essential slenderness ratio was 30.5, and the critical buckling
reduction factor was 0.75, according to the curve fitting of Ylinen’s formula. Long columns
with slenderness ratios more significant than the critical value is well fit by the Euler
buckling reduction factor curve, whereas intermediate columns use the Johnson parabola
formula. Furthermore, based on the results of the conducted study, it was found that
Guadua bamboo columns should not be longer than 67 times their diameter, considering
the effects of buckling.
were recommended for designing compressed columns. The essential slenderness ratio
was 30.5, and the critical buckling reduction factor was 0.75, according to the curve fitting
of Ylinen’s formula. Long columns with slenderness ratios more significant than the
critical value is well fit by the Euler buckling reduction factor curve, whereas intermediate
columns use the Johnson parabola formula. Furthermore, based on the results of the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11137
conducted study, it was found that Guadua bamboo columns should not be longer than 67
11 of 22
times their diameter, considering the effects of buckling.
1.2
λlim = 43.2
λlim = 54.6
Simplified Rankine-Gordon formula
(λlim=43.2)
Buckling Reduction Factor (ψ=Fcr/Fu)
Simplified Ylinen formula

0.8
(λlim=30.5)
Johnson parabola formula - Euler
λlim = 30.5
buckling formula (λlim=54.6)

0.6
0.4
Intermediate column
long column
0.2 Intermediate column long column
Intermediate column long column

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Slenderness Ratio (λ)
Figure3.3.Relationships
Figure Relationships between
between the
the buckling
buckling reduction
reduction factor
factor and
and the
the slenderness
slenderness ratio
ratio (Adopted
(Adopted
with permission from [50]).
with permission from [50]).
3.5. Shear
3.5. Shear Strength
Strength
As evaluated
As evaluated from
from the
the face
face of
of the
the support,
support, the
the depth
depth of
of the
the element
element can
can be
be used
used toto
compute the critical point for shear. Apart from cantilever beams, where the maximum
compute the critical point for shear. Apart from cantilever beams, where the maximum
shear
shear stress
stress should
should be be determined
determined at at the
the face
face of
of the
the support,
support,this
thisdepth
depthfor
forbeams
beamswith
witha
asingle
singleculm
culmshould
shouldbe bethe
the same
same asas the
the culm outside diameter. The depth for
culm outside diameter. The depth for built-upbuilt-up
beams
beamsmademadeof oftwo
twoor ormore
morebamboo
bambooculms
culmsisisthe
thesame
sameasasthe
theelement’s
element’sreal
realdepth
depth[6].
[6].
The optimum shear stress must be less than the maximum permissible
The optimum shear stress must be less than the maximum permissible shear-parallel- shear-parallel-
to-grain
to-grainstrength
strengthafter
afterappropriately
appropriatelyadjusting
adjustingforforaanon-uniform
non-uniformstress
stressdistribution
distributionalong
along
the cross-section [6]. The ISO 22157-1:2004 [16] could be used for estimating the shear
strength of bamboo specimens following the standard testing procedure.
Sakaray et al. [35] conducted shear tests for Moso bamboo samples of 50 mm in
length. In this test, three specimens were used: one with a central node, one with an end
node, and one without any nodes. The testing process used for bamboo is the same as for
steel. The test is known as a double shear test because the shear shackle employed has
a double shear action. Shear restraints were placed in a universal testing machine (UTM)
with a 400 KN capacity, and a load was gradually added until the specimen failed. The
maximum load upon failure was noted. Center node samples yielded higher shear strength
values. An average shear strength of 29.12 MPa resulted from the tested bamboo specimens.
A similar study was carried out by Bhonde et al. [20] by performing single and double
shear tests on several circular bamboo samples with a 10 mm diameter. Bamboo is weak
along its longitudinal fibres, and the ultimate shear is along the grains. A shear test parallel
to the fibres determines the ultimate shear strength. Shear strength was determined to be
85.3 MPa for a single shear and 99.71 MPa for a double shear. A study by Iswanto et al. [26]
indicated that the shear strength ranged from 7.39 to 7.79 MPa for the Gigantochloa pruriens
bamboo species. Parallel to the fibres was the direction of the tests. The upper part of the
bamboo culm resulted in the greatest value, whereas the bottom part resulted in the lowest.
Low lignin content at the bottom was identified as a cause of the low shear strength.
4. Cross-Laminated Bamboo
In the timber industry, readily available solid-sawn wood is limited in size and quality.
Therefore, engineered wood products have been developed to address this issue using
wood adhesives [51]. Typical engineered wood products include glue-laminated timber,
laminated veneer lumber (LVL), oriented strand board (OSB) and parallel strand lumber
(PSL). In bamboo construction, cross-laminated bamboo is getting popular due to its relative
advantages compared with raw bamboo columns [52]. Researchers have investigated
different aspects of cross-laminated bamboo, such as compressive behaviour, bending
behaviour, shear behaviour, bonding, and thermal performance [53,54].
Li et al. [55] investigated the compressive performance of laminated bamboo. The
experimental programme consisted of testing 24 laminated bamboo specimens in com-
pression. Three groups of specimens were produced from different growth portions of
bamboo culm, such as the upper third, middle third, and lower third. It was observed
that the mean compressive strength of samples from higher growth heights was higher. In
contrast, the largest modulus of elasticity resulted in bamboo laminates from the middle
growth section. However, the variation of elastic modulus with growth height was smaller.
The mean compressive strength and the standard deviation for the tested 24 specimens
were 60.9 MPa and 5.2 MPa, respectively. The mean elastic modulus was reported as
9391 MPa with a standard deviation of 719 MPa. Li et al. [56] explored the off-axis com-
pressive behaviour of cross-laminated bamboo and timber (CLBT) wall elements. Two
hundred twenty-four specimens were tested, which were constructed from hem-fir lumber
and bamboo mat-curtain panels. Dominant failure modes observed in the experiments
were delamination between layers and slender failure zones parallel or perpendicular to
the off-axis angles. Mechanical properties of the off-axis tests were predicted with the
use of compressive failure criteria and available prediction models for off-axis apparent
compressive modulus. Results indicated that the off-axis compressive performance of
CLBT specimens varied smoothly with the increase of off-axis angle compared with glue-
laminated timber specimens. Li et al. [57] extended their study to investigate the in-plane
compressive performance of CLBT wall panels. The compressive angle of the specimens
was varied from 0 to 90 degrees. The compressive stress, apparent compressive modulus
and the apparent Poisson’s ratio were calculated from the test results. For the testing,
two types of CLBT specimens were prepared where the position of bamboo and timber
layers were varied. Bamboo panels were either placed as outer layers or the inner layer.
Depending on the position of layers and the compression angle, mechanical properties
showed a significant variation.
Dong et al. [58] investigated the bending properties of CLBT composites. Two types
of CLBT specimens were used for the experiments, where bamboo scrimber was used
as a transverse layer or as both the transverse layer and outermost longitudinal layer.
Dynamic tests and three-point bending tests were carried out to determine the bending
properties. Test results indicated that one group of CLTB specimens had 23.7% and 60.5%
higher apparent bending modulus and peak load than the corresponding spruce–pine–
fir specimens. Flexural strengthening of cross-laminated bamboo slabs was studied by
Lv et al. [59] by incorporating carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) grids. One-way
and two-way slabs with and without CFRP strengthening were subjected to four-point
bending. It was found that the load-carrying capacity of the composite slabs increased
with the number and thickness of layers as well as the application of CFRP grids. Further,
a theoretical method for the calculation of the load-carrying capacity of cross-laminated
bamboo slabs was proposed, and the accuracy was evaluated. Xiao et al. [60] experimentally
investigated the behaviour of cross-laminated bamboo and timber beams. Both flatwise
and sidewise setups to were used to conduct three-point bending tests. Test results showed
an elasto-brittle behaviour of CLBT beams having an adequate load-carrying capacity.
The relative slip assumption model and plane assumption model were used as prediction
models in calculating the bending stiffness and capacity.
The bonding shear strength of cross-laminated bamboo is crucial for the overall
structural performance. Xing et al. [61] explored the bonding shear capacity of differ-
ent cross-laminated bamboo configurations. Three parameters were studied—namely,
grain direction, adhesive type and clamping pressure. Five types of adhesives, three
clamping pressures and specimens glued together with grain in the same direction and
cross-laminated configuration were used for the experiments. Based on the test results,
the most suitable adhesive for glue laminated bamboo was selected as melamine-urea-
formaldehyde. Among the different configurations, end grain specimens showed the
highest bond shear strength. Li et al. [62] conducted a similar study to explore the shear
behaviour of cross-laminated bamboo panels. Shear strength and the shear modulus were
evaluated by conducting two plate planar shear tests and short-span bending tests. It was
concluded from the results that engineered bamboo panels’ shear properties fulfilled the
standards and specifications for cross-laminated timber strength. From all these conducted
studies on the mechanical properties of cross-laminated bamboo, it can be concluded that
cross-laminated bamboo has a huge potential to be used in the industry as a sustainable
construction material.
5. Connections
Connections are a key element in bamboo structures which ensure a smooth load
transfer. Due to the hollow and thin-walled nature of bamboo culms, the joints in raw
bamboo structures have always been a primary difficulty that hinders the potential use of
bamboo for construction purposes [5]. Although researchers have investigated numerous
joint types based on the properties of raw bamboo and conducted several experimental
investigations, the current jointing techniques are only partially suitable. Hong et al. [5]
reviewed connections for original bamboo structures. Bamboo connection joints could be
categorised as traditional and modern connection joints. Mortise–tenon joints and lashing
joints are the most used traditional joints [5]. The mortise–tenon junction is formed by the
continuous transverse penetration of bamboo beams through many columns, which has the
advantages of low material consumption and high integrity. The mortise–tenon junction,
which can be viewed as a type of inheritance and reproduction of the mortise–tenon
connection in timber construction, is placed where the beam and the column intersect [5].
Lashing joints are where bamboo is tightly woven at links, as illustrated in Figure 4. Lashing,
which has the advantages of superior adjustability and low cost, is the most popular
construction
connection could in
strategy beolder
moreresidential
efficient and efficient,
buildings. and human
However, lashingoperation significantly
construction could be
impacts
more the performance
efficient of joints.
and efficient, and humanFurther, thesignificantly
operation durability impacts
of thesethe
connections
performanceis of
in
question.
joints. Further, the durability of these connections is in question.
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Traditional
Traditionalbamboo
bambooconnections (Adoptedwith
connections(Adopted withpermission
permissionfrom
from[63]).
[63]).
Higher expectations apply

Higher applytotothe
theusage
usageofof
raw bamboo
raw bambooin contemporary
in contemporary construction.
construc-
Adopting
tion. an acceptable
Adopting formform
an acceptable of structural stress
of structural and
stress anda amore
moreexact
exact form
form of joint
of joint
construction is essential to effectively utilise raw bamboo’s material attributes. Using
metal connectors to link natural bamboo can successfully address issues with low
durability, elements at the joints that are probably easier to slip off, and other issues, as
opposed to the two traditional joints stated above. Bolted joints, steel member and steel
plate joints, and filler-reinforced joints are the modern bamboo connections widely used
construction is essential to effectively utilise raw bamboo’s material attributes. Using metal
connectors to link natural bamboo can successfully address issues with low durability,
elements at the joints that are probably easier to slip off, and other issues, as opposed to the
two traditional joints stated above. Bolted joints, steel member and steel plate joints, and
filler-reinforced joints are the modern bamboo connections widely used in contemporary
bamboo constructions [5].
Many experimental studies have been carried out to investigate the moment capacity
of different bamboo connection types [64,65]. Camacho and Páez [64] reported the results
of six different bamboo Guadua moment connections, most based on fish-mouth incisions
and mortar injection. The moment strength and stiffness ranges were 0.36–1.49 kNm
and 16.7–284.5 kNm/rad, respectively. Four typical bamboo connectors were tested for
tension, shear, and moment by Davies [65]. The top models, one with a gusset plate and the
other with mortar injection, each obtained the highest moments of 0.6 kNm and 0.45 kNm.
Moreira and Ghavami [66] reported testing a link made of six bamboo culms and bolted
bamboo. The evaluated moment strength and stiffness were 2.5 kNm and 24.2 kNm/rad.
The use of wooden clamps in the connection system has also been investigated, and it
has been observed that a connection capacity increase of up to 40% (in comparison with
a connection system without clamps) can be achieved by employing wooden clamps [67].
Finite element analysis of a simple bamboo pin joint, typically found in plane or space
structures, was carried out by Moreira and Ghavami [68]. The nonlinear local pressure
distributions at the contact area of the circular bamboo hole were investigated. It was
observed that a bamboo diaphragm beneath the pinhole reduces the possibility of splitting
failure. Given the high local stress concentrations, this study recommended employing
local reinforcements to make a bamboo connection safer. Besides the conventional bamboo
connections and infilled joints to enhance the connection capacity, steel clamps and steel
plates have been employed in developing innovative connections [69,70].
Nie et al. [69] tested Moso bamboo connections with steel clamp plates on the exterior
subjected to static tension force on the bolts. In this study, the effect of bolt diameters
and end distances was considered, as well as the connections’ failure modes and bearing
capacities. The connection has three failure modes: bolt shear failure, bolt hole bearing
failure, and punching shear failure. The bearing controls the main failure modes of bamboo
connections with steel clamp plates on the exterior. It was advised to set the safety factor
at 3.0 to guarantee a secure storage of bearing capacity. The calculated values were also
close to the experimental findings, and the average measured results are 0.96 times that.
The strength of bamboo connections increases with larger bolt diameters, but this effect
diminishes when the bolt diameter becomes excessively large. There is no linear relationship
between the bamboo connection end distance and bearing capacity. The gap between the
parts it connects influences the strength of a bolt in shear failure. Small gaps result in
ductile bearing failure, whereas large gaps and small bolt diameters can result in bending
and shear failures. Excessive gaps should be avoided to avoid this. Punching shear damage
to bamboo is more likely when the end distance of the bolt hole is short, which can be
avoided by keeping an end distance-to-bolt diameter ratio of at least 8. Masdar et al. [71]
proposed that the crucial space from the end of the bamboo culms without nodes to the
bolt is 4–5 times the bamboo diameter.
Paraskeva et al. [72] investigated the use of steel connections for bamboo footbridges.
The bridges were made from prefabricated bamboo, and low-cost steel connections could
be assembled quickly on-site. The study focused on designing, constructing, and testing
simple truss bamboo bridges. Full-scale testing showed that safe and reliable connections
are critical for the success of these bridges, with splitting perpendicular to the bamboo
fibres and bolt sliding along the bamboo stems being the two main failure modes. Existing
formulas for estimating the load-carrying capacity of steel-to-timber bolt connections could
not predict bamboo splitting failure. However, dowel-bearing tests accurately predicted
the tensile opening stresses in bamboo. Hose clamps provided efficient radial confinement,
preventing splitting and increasing the load-carrying capacity of the bamboo members.
Three types of connections (Types A, B, and C) between multi-full-culm bamboo and

steel under monotonic axial loading was tested by Paraskeva et al. [70] to understand
their mechanical behaviour. Type A specimens comprise a pair of bamboo culms secured
together using bolts placed on both sides of a steel plate, creating a double-shear connection.
Type B connections are distinct from Type A connections in that they involve the installation
of three stainless steel hose clamps on both sides of the bolts at each culm, and Type C
connections are the same as Type B, but they were filled by infill mortar. Figure 5 illustrates
some common failure modes of connection Types A, B and C. Figure 5a shows the tensile
failure of Type A connection. In Figure 5b, it can be observed that the bolts are being pulled
through the culm wall in a Type B connection. Other failure modes of Type B connections
can be differential movement between culms, culm end crushing, and embedment damage.
Failure by pushout of infill material in a Type C connection is illustrated in Figure 5c.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Common
Figure 5. Commonfailure modes
failure of connections
modes (a) Type
of connections A, (b)
(a) Type A, Type B, and
(b) Type (c) Type
B, and C (Adopted
(c) Type C (Adopted
with permission
with from
permission from[70]).
[70]).
TheTheload-carrying
load-carrying capacities
capacities of of
Type
Type B connections
B connections wereweregreater
greaterthan
thanthat of of
that Type
TypeAA
connections. Type C connections further increased the load-carrying capacity due to thethe
connections. Type C connections further increased the load-carrying capacity due to
presence
presence ofof
infill material.
infill It was
material. It wasrecommended
recommended to to
avoid
avoidplain bolted
plain boltedbamboo
bamboo connections
connections
dueduetotopoor
poormechanical performancecaused
mechanical performance causedbyby thethe brittle
brittle splitting
splitting of bamboo
of bamboo stalks.stalks.
Moran
Moran and García [4] studied the mechanical analysis of three innovative moment-
and García [4] studied the mechanical analysis of three innovative moment-transmitting
transmitting
bamboo beam bamboo
columnbeam column Five
connectors. connectors.
clamps Five
wereclamps
made for were
eachmade
of thefor each
three of the
suggested
beam–column connections illustrated in Figure 6. Five clamps and
three suggested beam–column connections illustrated in Figure 6. Five clamps and three three connections were
made for the SC (Simple-Clamp) connection using a steel angle
connections were made for the SC (Simple-Clamp) connection using a steel angle that is that is 3.2 mm (1/800)
3.2thick
mm and 25.4thick
(1/800) mm and
(100)25.4
wide.mm A(100)
diagonal
wide. brace is one ofbrace
A diagonal the connectors,
is one of the while the other
connectors,
two the
while attach
otherthe
twobeam’s
attachinner clampinner
the beam’s and theclampcolumn’s
and thetop clamps.
column’s topWelded
clamps. nutsWeldedwere
included in three clamps to attach pieces in different planes, as illustrated
nuts were included in three clamps to attach pieces in different planes, as illustrated in in Figure 6a. The
Figure 6a. The TS (Through-Screw) connection uses three clamps with a centre hole and in
TS (Through-Screw) connection uses three clamps with a centre hole and through screws
place of welded nuts, as shown in Figure 6b. The 5 clamps, 3 of which were semi-rings with
through screws in place of welded nuts, as shown in Figure 6b. The 5 clamps, 3 of which
lateral holes, 2 brief platen connectors, and an angle saving as a diagonal, all measuring
were semi-rings with lateral holes, 2 brief platen connectors, and an angle saving as a
25.4 mm broad and 3.2 mm thick, made up the DW (Drywall) connection, as illustrated in
diagonal, all measuring 25.4 mm broad and 3.2 mm thick, made up the DW (Drywall)
Figure 6c.
connection, as illustrated in Figure 6c.
The mechanical behaviour of these connections was characterised using static mono-
tonic and cyclic testing. Compared to conventional bolted and mortar injected connections,
Anglesthe average stiffness and moment strength of the connections proposed in this study were
1 × 1at least 29% and 250% greater, respectively. Steel clamps made it easier to assemble joints
” ”
and provided enough confinement to prevent early splitting failures. As a result, they offer
a practical solution for creating bamboo linkages. Bending strength increased as the joint
moved away from the central load along the bamboo’s longitudinal direction [73].
nuts were included in three clamps to attach pieces in different planes, as illustrated in
Figure 6a. The TS (Through-Screw) connection uses three clamps with a centre hole and
through screws in place of welded nuts, as shown in Figure 6b. The 5 clamps, 3 of which
were semi-rings with lateral holes, 2 brief platen connectors, and an angle saving as a
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11137 diagonal, all measuring 25.4 mm broad and 3.2 mm thick, made up the DW16(Drywall)
of 22
connection, as illustrated in Figure 6c.
Angles
1” × 1”
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. 6.
Figure Moment
Momentconnection models(a)(a)
connection models simple
simple clamp,
clamp, (b) through-screw,
(b) through-screw, (c) drywall
(c) drywall (Adopted
(Adopted with
with permission
permission fromfrom
[4]). [4]).
The
An mechanical
experimental behaviour of these connections
study of bamboo–concrete was characterised
and wood–concrete using
connections was static
monotonic and cyclic testing. Compared to conventional bolted and mortar injected
conducted by Wang et al. [74] to investigate their similarities and differences in mechanical
properties. Bamboo–concrete connections were found to have a 19% higher shear stiffness
than wood–concrete connections. As the concrete strength increased, shear stiffness also
increased, with little change in deflection. Bamboo–concrete specimens had up to 31%
greater ultimate capacity than wood–concrete specimens. The maximum shear capacity
increased as dowel diameter and concrete strength increased. The variation in strength and
modulus of elasticity between the two materials contributed to differences in the mechanical
properties of their composite connections. In addition to the joint functionality, the raw
bamboo reduced the hollow and thin-walled features of the application [52]. Although
considerable study on the advancement of basic materials has been done, it cannot resolve
the issue entirely. Engineered bamboo’s appearance, however, offers a practical solution
to these issues. Laminated bamboo lumber and glue beams are commonly engineered
bamboo used in building structures [5].
6. Preservation
All lignocellulosic biomass, including bamboo, is subjected to biodegradation, which
reduces its durability. The post-harvest preservation of bamboo culms is crucial for ex-
tending the service life. It is challenging to prevent splitting in exposed structures due
to drying shrinkage with time, so full benefits of preservatives and remedies may not be
found structurally for bamboo [12]. It was revealed that green bamboo possessed only 60%
of the tensile and between 30% and 35% of the compressive strength compared to seasoned
bamboo [19]. Therefore, seasoning and preservative treatment are essential to maximising
the mechanical properties of bamboo while preserving its durability.
6.1. Oil-Heated Treatment

Researchers with different types of oils, like flax or sunflower oils, explore the oil-
heated remedy. These treatment techniques are expected to enhance bamboo’s durability
while preserving or enhancing its mechanical properties and sturdiness. Initially, bam-
boo specimens should be treated to reduce their moisture sensitivity and improve their
durability. Then, samples can be treated with flax, sunflower, and without oil at specific
conditions (different temperatures). Various cooling methods and different durations can
also be added for variations. Uniaxial compression tests, water immersion tests, three-point
bending tests, and humidity tests can be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the
treatment. According to Bui et al. [75], the best findings were observed on specimens
tested by heating at 1800 ◦ C for 1 hour or 2 hours without oil, and then cooling in 200 ◦ C
sunflower oil.
6.2. Borax Solution

The mineral deposit known as borax, a significant boron compound, is created by the
repetitive evaporation of seasonal lakes. It typically comes from a white powder of pliable,
colourless crystals that dissolve quickly in water. It has numerous industrial uses and
functions as an insecticide, fire retardant, and antifungal agent. As boric acid and borax
oxide, borax is available as granulated or powder.
The preservation of bamboo is accomplished by employing a pH-neutral 5% borax so-
lution. Borax oxide and boric acid, both in powder form, are combined in equal proportions
to create a pH-neutral solution by dissolving them in warm water [76]. One to two months
are needed for the borax solution to work. Considering the mix proportions, 25 kg of boric
acid and 25 kg of borax oxide are required to make 1000 litres of borax solution. It can
preserve over a hundred or more bamboo culms, depending on their size. The pH of the
5% borax solution is neutral, making it safe to use on the skin. Nevertheless, long-term
contact should be avoided.
Bamboo can be submerged into the solution or poured into bamboo culms for the
borax treatment to function. The diaphragms of the nodes (without the bottom node) must
be punctured [76]. It helps to fill the solution interior of the culm to work on the entire
structure. The borax solution progressively penetrates the inner and exterior tissues of
the culm through the mechanism of osmosis. However, this osmotic diffusion process
is only effective while the culm’s cell walls are still alive and functioning. Although dry
bamboo will absorb water, boron molecules will not be able to penetrate the dried-out cell
tissues and will instead remain on the surface. Therefore, attempting to cure dry culms
is pointless. Borax treatment can be effective only when the bamboo is green. Freshly
cut bamboo absorbs boron more quickly than poles in service for a month or two. The
empirical formula for diffusion calls for employing a pH-neutral 5% borax solution for at
least a week at average tropical temperatures of 20 to 30 ◦ C [76].
6.3. Water Soaking

Comparing this preservation method to other conventional ones, soaking bamboo
culms in water resulted in a considerable reduction in the nutrients present. Singha
and Borah [77] investigated the starch content of several treated and untreated (control)
bamboo samples after water soaking. The control samples had the greatest average starch
concentration (3.64%) compared to the treated samples. In bamboo samples that had
been treated for 3 months, the lowest average starch concentration was (0.50%). As the
soaking time increases, the moderate starch content decreases. Consequently, the treated
and untreated samples differ significantly from one another. Additionally, the length of
soaking is favourably correlated with the reduction in bamboo’s carbohydrate content. The
fewer carbohydrates that are present, the longer the soaking time. After three months of
soaking, the specie’s sugar content is reduced by 50–60%. A durability test revealed that
treated bamboo culms deteriorated far more slowly than untreated ones [57]. Additionally,
during durability testing, bamboo samples that had been treated for a month showed
a minor percentage biomass loss. This means that the soaking bamboo culm in water for
a month is adequate to increase its serviceability. This technique can also reduce the use of
environmentally and human-harmful chemical preservatives.
7. Discussion
Bamboo is a natural material, and its growth characteristics and natural imperfections
affect its material properties. Further, the strength parameters vary depending on the
harvesting age, exposure time after harvesting, position along the culm, moisture content,
node disposition, seasoning and other flaws. Additionally, it is important to note that the
density of bamboo fibres is not uniform and is more prominent on the outer periphery,
improving the materials’ mechanical properties [11]. There is a significant variation in the
average specific gravity of different bamboo species, ranging from 0.564–1.1. The moisture
content of bamboo is crucial when used as a construction material, and the fibre saturation
point varies between culms and species, but is usually between 20% and 30% [32]. Moisture
content varies along a bamboo culm, and samples obtained from the top sections of the
bamboo culm are drier than those acquired from the bottom parts [13]. Therefore, when
determining the mechanical properties, the test samples should be collected from each
culm’s bottom, middle, and top [33]. Types of preservation such as seasoning, air drying
and boric acid treatment also alter the moisture content of bamboo and, subsequently, its
mechanical properties.
Further, due to the hollow nature of the culms, the longitudinal fibre orientation of the
bamboo has the highest tensile strength, flexural strength, and stiffness, similar to structural
timber. The presence of nodes in bamboo culms enhances the buckling resistance, and the
slenderness ratio and the diameter–thickness ratio influenced the buckling failure. Bam-
boo culms with similar diameter–thickness ratios negatively correlated with the ultimate
bearing capacity and slenderness ratio [49]. The engineered bamboo products can reduce
these material properties and strength variations. Cross-laminated bamboo has a huge
potential to be used in the industry as a sustainable construction material as it reduces
natural material variability and environmental impacts.
The connections play a major role in the load transfer of bamboo structures; thus,
the load resistance of the connection should be checked before it applies the modern
construction. The load resistance of conventional mortise–tenon and lashing joints is
lesser than the modern connection. Bolted joints, steel member and steel plate joints, and
filler-reinforced joints are the modern bamboo connections widely used in contemporary
bamboo constructions [5]. In addition, mortar injection at bamboo connections enhanced
the moment capacity while increasing the stiffness [64]. The mechanical behaviour of
these advanced connections was characterised using static monotonic and cyclic testing.
Test results indicated an increased resistance of the connections compared to conventional
connections [73].
Although bamboo construction is identified as a sustainable method of construction
with a huge potential for commercial uptake, the lack of design standards has hindered the
application of bamboo in modern construction [78]. Different countries have developed
their standards and specifications to utilise bamboo as a building and structural element.
The Bureau of Indian Standards has developed a series of Indian standards, and other
countries such as China, USA, and African countries also have developed country-specific
design standards. A few bamboo design standards were developed by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 22156-2021 Bamboo structures- Bamboo culms-
Structural design [79], ISO 22157-1, ISO 22157-2 Bamboo—Determination of Physical
and Mechanical Properties [16] and ISO 19624 Bamboo structures—Grading of Bamboo
Culms—Basic Principles and Procedures [80] are the leading international design standards
for bamboo. ISO standards permit an allowable load-bearing capacity design and an allow-
able stress design approach for the design of bamboo structures. However, there must be
more design standards for modern bamboo connections, types of preservative treatment,
bamboo composites, and engineered bamboo products. The skill shortage and limited
understanding of bamboo construction practices further limit the application of bamboo
construction. Therefore, developing the required design standards to promote bamboo
construction and improve the quality for commercial industry applications is essential.
8. Conclusions
When using bamboo as a construction material, it is essential to carefully study its
physical, mechanical, and chemical properties and their behaviour. Further, the durability
aspects of bamboo are paramount as a biodegradable material, and advancements in
preservative techniques should be explored. Therefore, this paper summarised the previous
studies on the material property characterisation (moisture content and density variation)
and the mechanical property (tensile, compressive, flexural, shear and buckling strength)
investigation of bamboo species commonly found in different countries. When using
bamboo as a construction material, it is crucial to confirm the connections’ stability and
long-term performance by testing, designing calculations, and adhering to appropriate

design guidelines. The review highlighted that advanced high-performance types of
bamboo connections could replace the conventional mortise–tenon joints and lashing joints.
Steel plates, clamps and bolted connections are a few examples of advanced connection
types that can transfer the moment. Furthermore, different preservative techniques were
explored, highlighting each technique’s advantages and disadvantages. It was observed
that an oil-heated treatment, a borax treatment, and water soaking are the common types
of preservative treatments, considering their practical applicability and effectiveness.
From the summary of the mechanical properties of bamboo, it can be noticed that
there is significant variability in the strength parameters relying on the bamboo species
and its moisture content. Further, the age of the plant, growth conditions, and location
along the bamboo culm affect the mechanical properties. Considering this variability, it can
be recommended to perform mechanical testing and determine the mechanical properties
of a particular bamboo plant considering its source and all the factors mentioned above
before employing it as a construction material. Considering the durability aspect, borax
preservation was found to be a feasible and effective option for bamboo among the other
treatment techniques such as heat treatment, oil treatment, and water soaking. However,
more work must be reported on the borax treatment for bamboo and the quantification of
its effects on durability. Therefore, future research can be directed towards enhancing the
durability aspects of bamboo using preservative techniques. In addition, engineered bam-
boo products, such as cross-laminated bamboo, are getting popular due to their enhanced
mechanical properties. Future studies can be focused on engineered bamboo products to
explore their potential and identify their drawbacks.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.M. and S.B. (Samith Buddika); methodology, S.B. (Sahan
Bandara) and S.N.; formal analysis, S.M.; investigation, S.M.; resources, S.B. (Samith Buddika), S.B.
(Sahan Bandara) and N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.; writing—review and editing, S.B.
(Samith Buddika), S.B. (Sahan Bandara), S.N. and N.A.; visualization, S.M.; supervision, S.B. (Samith
Buddika), S.B. (Sahan Bandara) and N.A.; project administration, S.B. (Samith Buddika); funding
acquisition, S.B. (Samith Buddika) and N.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the NCD Consultants (Pvt) Ltd.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the staff of NCD
Consultants (Pvt) Ltd.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1. Chung, K.F.; Yu, W.K. Mechanical Properties of Structural Bamboo for Bamboo Scaffoldings. Eng. Struct. 2002, 24, 429–442.
[CrossRef]
2. Follett, P.; Jayanetti, D. Bamboo in Construction. In Modern Bamboo Structures; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2008; pp. 23–32.
3. Wei, X.; Zhou, H.; Chen, F.; Wang, G. Bending Flexibility of Moso Bamboo (Phyllostachys Edulis) with Functionally Graded
Structure. Materials 2019, 12, 2007. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Moran, R.; García, J.J. Bamboo Joints with Steel Clamps Capable of Transmitting Moment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 216, 249–260.
[CrossRef]
5. Hong, C.; Li, H.; Lorenzo, R.; Wu, G.; Corbi, I.; Corbi, O.; Xiong, Z.; Yang, H.; Zhang, D. Review on Connections for Original
Bamboo Structures. J. Renew. Mater. 2019, 7, 713–730. [CrossRef]
6. Correal, F.F. Bamboo Design and Construction. In Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 521–559.
7. Nugroho, N.; Bahtiar, E.T. Structural Grading of Gigantochloa Apus Bamboo Based on Its Flexural Properties. Constr. Build. Mater.
2017, 157, 1173–1189. [CrossRef]
8. Yu, D.; Tan, H.; Ruan, Y. A Future Bamboo-Structure Residential Building Prototype in China: Life Cycle Assessment of Energy
Use and Carbon Emission. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2638–2646. [CrossRef]
9. Gan, J.; Chen, M.; Semple, K.; Liu, X.; Dai, C.; Tu, Q. Life Cycle Assessment of Bamboo Products: Review and Harmonization. Sci.
Total Environ. 2022, 849, 157937. [CrossRef]
10. Gatóo, A.; Sharma, B.; Bock, M.; Mulligan, H.; Ramage, M.H. Sustainable Structures: Bamboo Standards and Building Codes.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2014, 167, 189–196. [CrossRef]
11. Lakkad, S.C.; Patel, J.M. Mechanical Properties of Bamboo, a Natural Composite. Fibre Sci. Technol. 1981, 14, 319–322. [CrossRef]
12. Chandrakeerthy, S.D.S. Design Recommendations for Bamboo Elements in Exposed Temporary Structures; Institution of Engineers Sri
Lanka: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1995; pp. 101–109.
13. Bahtiar, E.T.; Imanullah, A.P.; Hermawan, D.; Nugroho, N. Abdurachman Structural Grading of Three Sympodial Bamboo Culms
(Hitam, Andong, and Tali) Subjected to Axial Compressive Load. Eng. Struct. 2019, 181, 233–245. [CrossRef]
14. Trujillo, D.J.; López, L.F. Bamboo Material Characterisation. In Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 491–520.
15. Nugroho, N.; Kartini; Bahtiar, E.T. Cross-Species Bamboo Grading Based on Flexural Properties. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.
2021, 891, 012008. [CrossRef]
16. ISO/TR. 22157-1; Bamboo–Determination of Physical and Mechanical Properties—Part 1: Requirement. International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
17. Zakikhani, P.; Zahari, R.; Bin Haji Hameed Sultan, M.T.; Abang Abdul Majid, D.L. Morphological, Mechanical, and Physical
Properties of Four Bamboo Species. Bioresources 2017, 12, 2479–2495. [CrossRef]
18. Kamthai, S.; Puthson, P. The Physical Properties, Fiber Morphology and Chemical Compositions of Sweet Bamboo (Dendrocala-
mus Asper Backer). Agric. Nat. Resour. 2005, 39, 581–587.
19. Moroz, J.G.; Lissel, S.L.; Hagel, M.D. Performance of Bamboo Reinforced Concrete Masonry Shear Walls. Constr. Build. Mater.
2014, 61, 125–137. [CrossRef]
20. Bhonde, D.; Nagarnaik, P.B.; Parbat, D.K.; Waghe, U.P. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Bamboo (Dendrocalmus Strictus).
Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2014, 5, 455–459.
21. Fabiani, M. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Italian Bamboo Culms. In Proceedings of the 10th World Bamboo Congress,
Damyang, Republic of Korea, 17–22 September 2015.
22. Shastry, A.; Unnikrishnan, S. Investigation on Elastic Properties of Bamboo and Behavior of Bamboo Reinforced Concrete Beams.
Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 2017, 10, 304–312. [CrossRef]
23. Trujillo, D.; Jangra, S.; Gibson, J.M. Flexural Properties as a Basis for Bamboo Strength Grading. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Struct. Build.
2017, 170, 284–294. [CrossRef]
24. Parasuram, M.; Baskaran, K. Study on Bamboo and Steel as Hybrid Reinforcement for Concrete Slab. In Proceedings of the
Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 28–30 July 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
25. Bahtiar, E.T.; Trujillo, D.; Nugroho, N. Compression Resistance of Short Members as the Basis for Structural Grading of Guadua
Angustifolia. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 249, 118759. [CrossRef]
26. Iswanto, A.H.; Madyaratri, E.W.; Hutabarat, N.S.; Zunaedi, E.R.; Darwis, A.; Hidayat, W.; Susilowati, A.; Adi, D.S.; Lubis, M.A.R.;
Sucipto, T.; et al. Chemical, Physical, and Mechanical Properties of Belangke Bamboo (Gigantochloa Pruriens) and Its Application
as a Reinforcing Material in Particleboard Manufacturing. Polymers 2022, 14, 3111. [CrossRef]
27. Navaratnam, S.; Christopher, P.B.; Ngo, T.; Le, T.V. Bending and Shear Performance of Australian Radiata Pine Cross-Laminated
Timber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117215. [CrossRef]
28. Bandara, S.; Rajeev, P.; Gad, E. Structural Health Assessment Techniques for In-Service Timber Poles. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2023,
19, 439–459. [CrossRef]
29. Autengruber, M.; Lukacevic, M.; Gröstlinger, C.; Eberhardsteiner, J.; Füssl, J. Numerical Assessment of Wood Moisture Content-
Based Assignments to Service Classes in EC 5 and a Prediction Concept for Moisture-Induced Stresses Solely Using Relative
Humidity Data. Eng. Struct. 2021, 245, 112849. [CrossRef]
30. Almeida, G.; Hernández, R.E. Changes in Physical Properties of Tropical and Temperate Hardwoods below and above the Fiber
Saturation Point. Wood Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 599–613. [CrossRef]
31. Liese, W.; Tang, T.K.H. Preservation and Drying of Bamboo. In Bamboo; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 257–297.
32. Jiang, Z.; Wang, H.; Tian, G.; Liu, X.; Yu, Y. Sensitivity of several selected mechanical properties of moso bamboo to moisture
content change under the fibre saturation point. Bioresources 2012, 7, 5048–5058. [CrossRef]
33. Kaminski, S.; Lawrence, A.; Trujillo, D.; Feltham, I.; Felipe López, L. Structural Use of Bamboo. Part 3: Design Values. Struct. Eng.
2016, 94, 42–45.
34. Harries, K.A.; Sharma, B.; Richard, M. Structural Use of Full Culm Bamboo: The Path to Standardization. Int. J. Archit. Eng.
Constr. 2012, 1, 66–75. [CrossRef]
35. Sakaray, H.; Togati, N.V.V.K.; Reddy, I.R. Investigation on Properties of Bamboo as Reinforcing Material in Concrete. Int. J. Eng.
Res. Appl. 2012, 2, 77–83.
36. Awalluddin, D.; Ariffin, M.A.M.; Osman, M.H.; Hussin, M.W.; Ismail, M.A.; Lee, H.S.; Lim, N.H.A.S. Mechanical Properties
of Different Bamboo Species. In Proceedings of the MATEC web of conferences, Sibiu, Romania, 7–9 June 2017; EDP Sciences:
Les Ulis, France, 2017.
37. Mahzuz, H.M.A.; Ahmed, M.; Dutta, J.; Rose, R.H. Determination of Several Properties of a Bamboo of Bangladesh. J. Civ. Eng.
Res. 2013, 3, 16–21.
38. Sabbir, M.A.; Hoq, S.A.; Fancy, S.F. Determination of Tensile Property of Bamboo for Using as Potential Reinforcement in the
Concrete. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. IJCEE-IJENS 2011, 11, 47–54.
39. Nugroho, N.; Bahtiar, E.T. Grading Development of Indonesian Bamboo Culm: Case Study on Tali Bamboo (Gigantochloa Apus).
In Proceedings of the 2018 World Conference on Timber Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 20–23 August 2018.
40. Molari, L.; García, J.J. On the Radial Variation of the Transverse Mechanical Properties of Bamboo. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 33, 101557.
[CrossRef]
41. Li, X. Physical, Chemical, and Mechanical Properties of Bamboo and Its Utilization Potential for Fiberboard Manufacturing; Louisiana State
University and Agricultural & Mechanical College: Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2004.
42. Lopez, J. Optimizing the Mechanical Characteristics of Bamboo to Improve the Flexural Behavior for Biocomposite Structural Application;
California Polytechnic State University: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA, 2012.
43. Taylor, D.; Kinane, B.; Sweeney, C.; Sweetnam, D.; O’Reilly, P.; Duan, K. The Biomechanics of Bamboo: Investigating the Role of
the Nodes. Wood Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 345–357. [CrossRef]
44. Sá Ribeiro, R.A.; Sá Ribeiro, M.G.; Miranda, I.P.A. Bending Strength and Nondestructive Evaluation of Structural Bamboo. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2017, 146, 38–42. [CrossRef]
45. Liu, P.; Zhou, Q.; Fu, F.; Li, W. Bending Strength Design Method of Phyllostachys Edulis Bamboo Based on Classification. Polymers
2022, 14, 1418. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. British Standard BS 5268-2; Structural Use of Timber Part 2: Code of Practice for Permissible Stress Design, Materials and
Workmanship. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2002.
47. Yu, W.K.; Chung, K.F.; Chan, S.L. Column Buckling of Structural Bamboo. Eng. Struct. 2003, 25, 755–768. [CrossRef]
48. Yu, W.K.; Chung, K.F.; Chan, S.L. Axial Buckling of Bamboo Columns in Bamboo Scaffolds. Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 61–73. [CrossRef]
49. Nie, Y.; Wei, Y.; Huang, L.; Liu, Y.; Dong, F. Influence of Slenderness Ratio and Sectional Geometry on the Axial Compression
Behavior of Original Bamboo Columns. J. Wood Sci. 2021, 67, 36. [CrossRef]
50. Bahtiar, E.T.; Malkowska, D.; Trujillo, D.; Nugroho, N. Experimental Study on Buckling Resistance of Guadua Angustifolia
Bamboo Column. Eng. Struct. 2021, 228, 111548. [CrossRef]
51. Porteous, J.; Kermani, A. (Eds.) Structural Timber Design to Eurocode 5; Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2007; ISBN
9780470697818.
52. Wang, R.; Shi, J.J.; Xia, M.K.; Li, Z. Rolling Shear Performance of Cross-Laminated Bamboo-Balsa Timber Panels. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2021, 299, 123973. [CrossRef]
53. Yang, S.; Li, H.; Fei, B.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X. Bond Quality and Durability of Cross-Laminated Flattened Bamboo and Timber
(CLBT). Forests 2022, 13, 1271. [CrossRef]
54. Lv, Q.; Wang, W.; Liu, Y. Study on Thermal Insulation Performance of Cross-Laminated Bamboo Wall. J. Renew. Mater. 2019, 7,
1231–1250. [CrossRef]
55. Li, H.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, D.; Deeks, A.J. Compressive Performance of Laminated Bamboo. Compos. B Eng. 2013, 54, 319–328.
[CrossRef]
56. Li, H.; Wang, L.; Wei, Y.; Wang, B.J. Off-Axis Compressive Behavior of Cross-Laminated Bamboo and Timber Wall Elements.
Structures 2022, 35, 452–468. [CrossRef]
57. Li, H.; Wang, L.; Wang, B.J.; Wei, Y. Study on In-Plane Compressive Performance of Cross-Laminated Bamboo and Timber (CLBT)
Wall Elements. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2023, 81, 343–355. [CrossRef]
58. Dong, W.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Gong, M. Experimental Study on Bending Properties of Cross-Laminated Timber-Bamboo
Composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 300, 124313. [CrossRef]
59. Lv, Q.; Wang, W.; Liu, Y. Flexural Performance of Cross-Laminated Bamboo (CLB) Slabs and CFRP Grid Composite CLB Slabs.
Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 1–17. [CrossRef]
60. Xiao, Y.; Cai, H.; Dong, S.Y. A Pilot Study on Cross-Laminated Bamboo and Timber Beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 06021002.
[CrossRef]
61. Xing, W.; Hao, J.; Sikora, K.S. Shear Performance of Adhesive Bonding of Cross-Laminated Bamboo. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019,
31, 04019201. [CrossRef]
62. Li, Z.; Xia, M.K.; Shi, J.J.; Wang, R. Shear Properties of Composite Cross-Laminated Bamboo Panels. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2022,
80, 635–646. [CrossRef]
63. Awaludin, A.; Andriani, V. Bolted Bamboo Joints Reinforced with Fibers. Procedia Eng. 2014, 95, 15–21. [CrossRef]
64. Camacho, V.; Páez, I. Estudio de Conexiones En Guadua Solicitadas a Momento Flector; Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá,
Colombia, 2002.
65. Davies, C. Bamboo Connections; The University of Bath: Bath, UK, 2008.
66. Moreira, L.E.; Ghavami, K. Limit State Design of Steel Pin Connections for Bamboo Truss Structures. In Proceedings of the
16th International Conference on Non-conventional Materials and Technologies (16th NOCMAT 2015), Winnipeg, MB, Canada,
10–13 August 2015.
67. Masdar, A.; Suhendro, B.; Siswosukarto, S.; Sulistyo, D. The Study of Wooden Clamps for Strengthening of Connection on
Bamboo Truss Structure. J. Teknol. 2015, 72, 97–103. [CrossRef]
68. Moreira, L.E.; Ghavami, K. Limits States Analysis for Bamboo Pin Connections. Key Eng. Mater. 2012, 517, 3–12. [CrossRef]
69. Nie, S.; Ran, S.; Wu, D.; Chen, J.; Wang, H.; Wei, Q. Mechanical Properties of Moso Bamboo Connections with External Clamp
Steel Plates. J. Renew. Mater. 2022, 10, 487–510. [CrossRef]
70. Paraskeva, T.; Pradhan, N.P.N.; Stoura, C.D.; Dimitrakopoulos, E.G. Monotonic Loading Testing and Characterization of New
Multi-Full-Culm Bamboo to Steel Connections. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 201, 473–483. [CrossRef]
71. Masdar, A.; Suhendro, B.; Siswosukarto, S.; Sulistyo, D. Determinant of Critical Distance of Bolt on Bamboo Connection. J. Teknol.
2014, 69, 3319. [CrossRef]
72. Paraskeva, T.S.; Grigoropoulos, G.; Dimitrakopoulos, E.G. Design and Experimental Verification of Easily Constructible Bamboo
Footbridges for Rural Areas. Eng. Struct. 2017, 143, 540–548. [CrossRef]
73. Lin, Q.; Huang, Y.; Li, X.; Yu, W. Effects of Shape, Location and Quantity of the Joint on Bending Properties of Laminated Bamboo
Lumber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 230, 117023. [CrossRef]
74. Wang, Z.; Wei, Y.; Jiang, J.; Zhao, K.; Zheng, K. Comparative Study on Mechanical Behavior of Bamboo-Concrete Connections
and Wood-Concrete Connections. Front. Mater. 2020, 7, 587580. [CrossRef]
75. Bui, Q.-B.; Grillet, A.-C.; Tran, H.-D. A Bamboo Treatment Procedure: Effects on the Durability and Mechanical Performance.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1444. [CrossRef]
76. Kenya Forestry Research Institute Bamboo Harvesting and Preservation Bamboo Training Manual 1. United Nations Industrial
Development Organization, 2012. Available online: http://lankaboo.lk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1_bamboo_harvesting_
and_prese.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2023).
77. Singha, B.L.; Borah, R.K. Traditional Methods of Post Harvest Bamboo Treatment for Durability Enhancement. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.
2017, 8, 518–522.
78. Amede, E.A.; Hailemariama, E.K.; Hailemariam, L.M.; Nuramo, D.A. A review of codes and standards for bamboo structural
design. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 2021, 4788381. [CrossRef]
79. ISO 22156; Bamboo Structures—Bamboo Culms—Structural Design. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2021.
80. ISO 19624; Bamboo Structures—Grading of Bamboo Culms—Basic Principles and Procedures. International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
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.

Sustainability 15 11137

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 15 11137

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 15 11137

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka;

Abstract: Bamboo is a natural biodegradable material used as a strength-bearing material that

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411137 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

Table 1. The specific gravity of bamboo species.

Reference Species Average Specific Gravity

2.2. Moisture Content

reached equilibrium status in moisture content. Thus, there is no significant variation in

3.1. Compressive Strength

Compressive Tensile Flexural Youngs

Compressive Tensile Flexural Youngs

Dendrocalamus asper 15.9–18.4 73.65 232.8 - 20.00

3.2. Tensile Strength

Table 3. Radial variation of the transverse mechanical properties of bamboo [40].

Tensile Strains Effective Young’s Modulus (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa)

3.3. Flexural Strength

Chandrakeerthy [12] performed tests to explore the ﬂexural strength of untreated

Chandrakeerthy [12] performed tests to explore the flexural strength of untreated

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11137 9 of 22

times their diameter, considering the eﬀects of buckling.

Simplified Ylinen formula

buckling formula (λlim=54.6)

0.2 Intermediate column long column

Intermediate column long column

Higher expectations apply

Three types of connections (Types A, B, and C) between multi-full-culm bamboo and

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

6.1. Oil-Heated Treatment

6.2. Borax Solution

6.3. Water Soaking

long-term performance by testing, designing calculations, and adhering to appropriate

You might also like