2020

BIO-BASED
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
FOR CONSTRUCTION
CEG8099
PROJECT INCEPTION REPORT
OLIVER SPALTON - 16032523
 Project Inception Report (PIR) MARK SHEET

Module Details CEG8099 – Investigative Research Project

Student Oliver Spalton

Supervisor Amir Mofidi

Project Title BIO-BASED STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Chapter Mark Mark Awarded

Literature Review* 80

Aim & Objectives 20

Total 100

* presentation quality is not assessed until this section appears in the

Dissertation CEG8099/cw2. Assessment is based on the quality of the
literature view with respect to its synthesis of information from the
primary literature, identifying the research gap, etc.

1. Marked by: _______________________ Supervisor Date___________________

1
Contents
Table of figures......................................................................................................................................3
List of tables..........................................................................................................................................3
2 Aims and objectives.......................................................................................................................4
3 Introduction...................................................................................................................................5
3.1 Conventional construction materials.....................................................................................5
3.1.1 Timber............................................................................................................................5
3.1.2 Steel...............................................................................................................................5
3.1.3 Concrete........................................................................................................................6
3.2 Sustainable construction materials........................................................................................6
4 Bamboo in construction................................................................................................................7
4.1 Bamboo composites..............................................................................................................9
4.1.1 Bamboo scrimber...........................................................................................................9
4.1.2 Laminated bamboo lumber............................................................................................9
4.1.3 Bamboo reinforced concrete.......................................................................................10
4.1.4 Fibre reinforced polymers............................................................................................10
5 Bio-based epoxies........................................................................................................................11
6 Composite confinements.............................................................................................................13
6.1 Basalt fabric.........................................................................................................................14
6.2 Hemp fabric.........................................................................................................................15
7 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................16
References...........................................................................................................................................17

2
Table of figures
Figure 1 - Distribution of bamboo forests across the world (Wei and Zhaohua, 2018).........................5
Figure 2 - Map of the gross national income per capita (The World Bank, 2015)..................................6

List of tables
Table 1 - Strength properties of bamboo, timber and steel (Wei and Zhaohua, 2018).........................7
Table 2 - Mechanical properties of engineered bamboo and timber products (Huang, Ji and Yu, 2019)
...............................................................................................................................................................9
Table 3 - Mechanical properties of Epon epoxy, ESO, EAS and EMS with varying bioresin
concentrations adapted from Zhu et al. (2004)...................................................................................11
Table 4 - Mechanical Properties of R246TX, ESO and EHO of varying concentrations when subject to a
tensile force, adapted from Manthey et al. (2013)..............................................................................11
Table 5 - Comparison of the mechanical properties of basalt, S2 glass, aramid and carbon, adapted
from Basaltex (2018)...........................................................................................................................13
Table 6 - Average peak strength, ultimate axial, and effective strain of GFRP, BRM and mortar jacket,
adapted from Di Ludovico, Prota and Manfredi (2010).......................................................................14
Table 7 - Average test results of the specimens with a varying number of confining layers under
uniaxial compression (Ghalieh et al., 2017).........................................................................................14

3
1 Aims and objectives
Current usage of unsustainable materials in construction has led to environmental problems, most
notably climate change. Moreover, with a growing population in developing countries, risk to
irreversible climate damage is highly probable. There is therefore a growing demand for a more
innovative approach to construction, particularly in developing countries. This can be achieved
through the development and use of sustainable alternatives to steel, concrete and timber. This
project aims to investigate into the effectiveness of bio-based composite structural elements in
compression through experimental research, using natural and sustainable materials where possible.
Bamboo will be consistently used in each specimen (either whole culm or cut into strips), whilst
other parts of the composite such as the confinement and matrix material will be varied.

The objectives of the experimental procedure are as follows:

1. To produce a set of cylindrical bio-based composites (using bamboo as the main structural
element whilst varying the matrix and confinement material) to compete with conventional
construction materials in terms of strength, cost, durability and practicality with a minimal
carbon footprint.
2. Measure the axial stress and strain of each composite under uniaxial compression until
failure, plotting a stress-strain graph with the results.
3. Examine the failure mode of each specimen.
4. Compare the performance of each specimen, considering peak strength and ductility as the
main parameters, but also considering cost and sustainability.
5. Obtain a suitable alternative to synthetic resins using bio-based resins in the composite’s
matrix.
6. Determine whether whole culm bamboo or bamboo strips are more effective as a composite
fibre in compression.
7. Determine the most effective confinement, considering composite strength, ductility, cost,
sustainability and practicality.
8. Test raw bamboo under compression until failure and determine its peak strength and
ductility.
9. Determine the mechanical properties of bio-based epoxy when tested individually in
compression.

4
2 Introduction
Population growth is putting increasing pressure on global resources, it is estimated that by 2030,
global population will rise to 8.5 billion people, and by 2050 it will reach 9.7 billion (Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, 2019). Growth is predominantly occurring in developing countries with
the 47 least developed countries estimated to double in population by 2050 (ibid.) The United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were put in place to ensure that our planet is
protected, however previous approaches to development have put a huge strain on the world’s
resources, in addition to contributing to climate change. The buildings and construction sector
possess a huge responsibility in challenging climate change and sustainable development. The sector
currently accounts for more than 30% of the total global energy usage, 40% of natural resources
extracted in industrialised countries and 45-65% of the waste in landfill sites (Omer and Noguchi,
2020). Moreover, with relation to climate change, the construction industry is a major contributor
through its process of extraction, manufacturing, transportation, construction and maintenance
(ibid.). The buildings and construction sector accounted for ‘39% of energy and process related
carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2018, 11% of which resulted from manufacturing building materials and
products such as steel, cement and glass’ (GlobalABC, IEA and UNEP, 2019). Modern advancements
in developed countries, such as increased efficiency due to the use of Building Information Modelling
(BIM) are making a difference to the reduction of CO 2 emissions, but attention needs to be payed to
construction in developing countries. Selection of ‘green’ building materials is required as continued
usage of traditional materials will not be able to sustain the rapidly growing population without
causing serious harm to the environment and society. This demand for the use of sustainable and
environmentally friendly materials presents an opportunity for manufacturing companies and the
construction industry to adapt and strive towards the achievement of the SDGs, specifically SDG3,
SDG6, SDG7, SDG8, SDG9, SDG11, and SDG12 (Omer and Noguchi, 2020).

2.1 Conventional construction materials

2.1.1 Timber
Timber has been used traditionally as a ‘green’ building material and its widespread use has
benefitted societies across the globe for hundreds of generations due to its ease of use and
accessibility. Projections from the Food and Agriculture Organisation predict that there will be an
annual increase of 1.5% in consumption of sawnwood across the world and a further 3.3% for wood-
based panels, with the majority of usage occurring in developing countries such as Africa, Asia,
Central and South America (FOA, 2009). Moreover, access to quality, structurally sound timber is
becoming less and less available and the average tree size is decreasing (Huang, Ji and Yu, 2019).
This increased usage cannot be sustained alongside the current degradation of forests, alternative
measures must be implemented to ensure simultaneous sustainable growth of said countries in
addition to minimising environmental impact.

2.1.2 Steel
Demand for steel has increased ever since the industrial revolution and can be expected to further
increase with global population growth, particularly within developing countries. Global
consumption of steel in 2019 reached 1775 million tonnes, a 3.9% increase compared to 2018
(World Steel Association, 2019). Moreover, steel contains a very high embodied energy at
2.59GJ/ton (Chaturvedi and Ochsendorf, 2004), contributing significantly to the global greenhouse
gas emissions. Steel does benefit by being recyclable, however in the long term, the embodied
energy is still far greater than that of concrete (ibid.). In addition, steel’s availability in smaller
developing countries may be limited, requiring it to be transported for the use of construction,
contributing a lot to the financial cost of a project, on top of transportation emissions.
5
2.1.3 Concrete
Similarly, concrete is also extremely high in demand. It is the second most consumed substance on
the planet after water (GCCA, 2019). Concrete’s main constituent is cement, and to meet today’s
global demands, its production is 4.1 billion tonnes, split primarily between China (52%) and India
(6.2%). In addition to this, cement’s production is expected to increase 12-23% by 2050 (ibid.). As a
construction material, concrete is extremely advantageous due to its long list of favourable
properties including strength and affordability, however its environmental impact is less than
favourable, contributing between 5-8% of global GHG emissions (ibid.).

With limited global resources, current consumption of these conventional materials cannot be
sustained with our growing population. It is therefore becoming increasingly necessary to develop
new alternative materials which can be easily used in developing countries to contribute towards
economic growth, without exploiting the environment.

This review will explore existing uses of both raw and engineered bamboo in the construction
industry with the aim of uncovering new areas for further research and testing.

2.2 Sustainable construction materials

Due to the reasons mentioned above, it has become increasingly important to research and
implement new construction materials to ensure continued sustainable development around the
world. Among other organic materials such as jute, hemp and sisal, bamboo is a popular building
material to replace conventional timber and steel due to its great versatility and availability. Bamboo
naturally grows in all countries apart from Europe and Antarctica and has proved to benefit societies
across the world by contributing to sustainable development, alleviating poverty and countering
climate change (Wei and Zhaohua, 2018). Countries with particularly high bamboo growth rates are
located within Central and South America and South East Asia. Error: Reference source not found
shows the distribution of bamboo species grown naturally across the world. Error: Reference source
not found shows a map of the distribution of developing countries. It is evident that there are many
similarities between these maps. Areas that are expected to have the most growth in the 21 st
century correlate with the areas of high bamboo growth (Harries and Sharma, 2016). Usage of
bamboo in developing countries is seen as a great contribution to many of the SDGs, such as poverty
eradication (SDG 1), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), industrial innovation (SDG 9),
climate actions (SDG 13) and sustainability (SDG 15) (Wei and Zhaohua, 2018).

Figure 1 - Distribution of bamboo forests across the world (Wei and Zhaohua, 2018)

6
Figure 2 - Map of the gross national income per capita (The World Bank, 2015)

Furthermore, the benefits of bamboo project further than just a construction material. Bamboo
possesses high biomass production characteristics, making it a suitable material for sustainable
energy production (Wei and Zhaohua, 2018). It also serves many ecological functions, its fibrous
routes can help to tackle the effects of deforestation and flooding by providing stability to the
ground (Wei and Zhaohua, 2018; Tardio et al., 2017). Being a naturally occurring plant, it also serves
as a carbon sink and in carbon storage (particularly with tropical woody bamboos), mitigating the
global emissions caused by the production of other conventional construction materials (Naylor,
2019). Its surface is hard and clean and it also performs well against high winds and earthquakes,
making it a naturally robust material (ibid.). Furthermore, bamboo possesses high biomass
production characteristics, making it a suitable material for sustainable energy production (Wei and
Zhaohua, 2018).

3 Bamboo in construction
Bamboo has been used in its raw form for centuries in construction and it is a unique material which
helps to solve many of the problems that come with the use of conventional materials. Previously
being recognised as the ‘poor-man’s timber’, its application in organic architecture has become
increasingly popular with designers favouring it due to its natural form, flexibility and abundance,
particularly within Asia with such buildings as the “Green School” in Indonesia (Nurdiah, 2016). The
most common structural system used is the ‘bahareque encementado’, consisting of load bearing
bamboo walls which are coated in cement for weather protection and structural stability (Zea
Escamilla et al., 2018). This system is particularly labour intensive however and requires a large
amount of cement, increasing the overall carbon footprint of the structure (ibid.).

When compared with timber, bamboo possesses similar environmental qualities, being
biodegradable and serving as a carbon sink, however, its growth rate is far higher, growing up to 1
metre a day and reaching its maximum strength in 3 years (Javadian et al., 2016). Bamboo is unique
as it is a hollow anisotropic material with strength varying across its culm height and section,
moreover, due to the physical form of the bamboo’s nodes, it is stronger in the direction that it grew
and should be used in construction as such (Archila et al., 2018; Naylor, 2019).

7
Bamboo possesses excellent mechanical properties when compared to other conventional materials,
shown in Error: Reference source not found. It can be seen that tensile strengths of bamboo are
significantly greater than that of timber, and compressive strength is marginally better, depending
on the species. There is a common misconception in the industry as bamboo being the ‘green steel’,
referring to its tensile strength comparing to that of steel. Although bamboo’s strength properties
are relatively high, these tests were performed with small, defect free samples which resulted in
tensile strengths of up to 250MPa, comparable to that of mild steel with tensile yield strengths
typically ranging between 400-550 MPa (Archila et al., 2018). Moreover, bamboo’s tensile modulus
is 10% that of steels and it cannot be formed into sections to make it suitable for uses such as
reinforcement for concrete (ibid.).

Table 1 - Strength properties of bamboo, timber and steel (Wei and Zhaohua,
2018)

In its raw form, bamboo comes with its limitations, firstly, it shrinks and expands significantly with a
change in water content and therefore should not be exposed to excessive rain or groundwater,
which could also cause the bamboo to rot (Atanda, 2015). Secondly the highly anisotropic nature of
bamboo results in a significantly weaker specific modulus in the transverse direction, only a tenth
that of the longitudinal direction, comparing to nylon and polystyrene (Archila et al., 2018). Finally,
with relation to its fire resistance properties, bamboo is comparable to timber, in that it chars at a
slow and predictable rate. Due to its thin walls however, the bamboo cannot withstand charring as
long as timber and will loose its structural strength fast, therefore precautions must be taken such as
the addition of a cement coating (Kaminski, Lawrence and Trujillo, 2016).

Because of bamboo’s limitations in relation to fire, compressive strength and size, bamboo
structures rarely exceed two storeys (Ghavami, 2005). For use in larger structures it will be necessary
to address these issues by engineering bamboo into a composite, with the aim of improving its
structural properties as well as mitigating the potential for water absorption and damage due to fire.

8
3.1 Bamboo composites
The ever-growing usage of composites as one of the “New Age” materials is due to their long list of
favourable properties which include strength, toughness, stiffness and cost to name a few.
Traditional composites such as carbon fibre and fibreglass possess these qualities, however there is
increasing resistance to their usage due to their relatively high embodied carbon and non-
biodegradability, thus creating a demand for environmentally friendly composite materials. Several
studies have been conducted into the effectiveness of existing bamboo composites for the use in
construction, however its current usage is still limited. These studies will be reviewed and analysed
in the upcoming section with the aim of uncovering new ground for further research.

3.1.1 Bamboo scrimber

Bamboo scrimber is a composite produced by a simple and low energy process of crushing, gluing
and compressing dried bamboo. It is beneficial as it overcomes the natural anisotropy that occurs
within natural bamboo and increases the reliability of the engineering parameters, along with
allowing the bamboo to be formed into its desired shape, and utilising over 80% of the raw bamboo
(Sharma et al., 2015; Alkbir et al., 2016). The strength and stiffness of bamboo scrimber is superior to
that of other wood/bamboo-based products (shown in Material), with the added benefit of being
resistant to mould and decay, making it an optimal material for the use in construction (Sharma et
al., 2015). Use of bamboo scrimber in construction is limited by a lack of structural standards and
codes, meaning it is mostly used in surface applications (Huang, Ji and Yu, 2019). Its usage may
increase as codes develop, however due to the diverse range of bamboo species with varying
properties, this is a challenge for the industry (ibid.). In addition to this, quality adhesives required in
its production are relatively costly and often have a high carbon footprint (ibid.). Moreover, current
processing methods are limited to using bamboo strips and lack the machinery to remove the inner
and outer skin of the bamboo strips, particularly in China (ibid.).

3.1.2 Laminated bamboo lumber

In comparison to scrimber, laminated bamboo lumber (LBL) is produced through a process of cutting
the bamboo into strips (maintaining the bamboos natural lignin matrix), planing (to form the strips
into rectangular sections), a treatment of either bleaching or caramelising, and finally gluing and
pressing into its desired shape (Sharma et al., 2015). Similar to bamboo scrimber, LBL faces a
number of drawbacks: in addition to the limitations faced by scrimber mentioned above, large
wastage of around 70% of raw material occurs in the production of LBL due to offcuts from the
planing process, (ibid.). Moreover, LBL is significantly weaker (shown in Material), with a tensile
strength around 30% that of bamboo scrimber, meaning its potential use as a structural element is
unlikely.

Both bamboo scrimber and LBL shown in the studies from Sharma et al. (2015) and Huang, Ji and Yu
(2019) perform relatively well in comparison to engineered timber products, however their
limitations currently outweigh their benefits as a structural application, resulting in a need for
further research and usage of alternative materials,

Modulus of Modulus of Tensile Compressive

Density
Material rupture elasticity strength strength
(g/cm3)
(MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Bamboo scrimber 0.72–1.3 178.5–398.0 13.5–32.3 227.6–364.8 70.5–199.3
Wood scrimber 1.01 142.4 19.3 97.3 –
LBL 0.69 77–83 11–13 90 77
LVL 0.51 85.4 14.3 – –

9
Table 1 - Mechanical properties of engineered bamboo and timber products (Huang, Ji and Yu, 2019)

3.1.3 Bamboo reinforced concrete

Bamboo has been widely used in construction as a replacement to steel reinforcement for concrete
slabs, beams and columns (Ghavami, 2005). There has been a lot of research into the use of bamboo
in reinforced concrete to attempt to raise its popularity in construction as a replacement for steel,
namely, Ghavami (2005), Leelatanon, Srivaro and Matan (2010), Terai and Minami (2011) and Archila
et al. (2018).

Leelatanon, Srivaro and Matan (2010) researched into the compressive strength and ductility of
short concrete columns reinforced by bamboo. Specimens consisting of no reinforcement, steel,
treated and untreated bamboo of various reinforcement ratios were tested in uniaxial compression
until failure. Untreated bamboo specimens had a lower strength compared to treated bamboo due
to moisture absorption during the cement curing process, thus causing cracking and debonding
between the reinforcement and concrete after the bamboo dried out (this was also common with
Terai and Minami (2011) and Archila et al. (2018)). Treated bamboo reinforced concrete on the
other hand provided results comparable to that of steel reinforced concrete when tested in uniaxial
compression. It was concluded that a column with 1.6% steel reinforcement can be replaced by
using 3.2% treated bamboo reinforcement, treated with Sikadur-31CFN – a water-repellent
substance (Leelatanon, Srivaro and Matan, 2010).

Similar conclusions were drawn from Terai and Minami (2011) and Ghavami (2005) for the results of
bamboo reinforced concrete in uniaxial compression. Nonetheless, bamboo’s application as a
substitute for steel in reinforced concrete faces a number of shortcomings with reference to
practical usage in its lifetime. First, the ductility of bamboo was subpar in comparison to steel,
exhibiting a much more brittle behaviour which would lower the overall robustness of the building,
particularly within seismically active regions (coinciding with that of areas of high bamboo growth)
(Archila et al., 2018). Second, bamboo’s anisotropy can cause cracking due to a greater expansion in
the transverse direction, differing to steel which exhibits a much smaller and uniform expansion
(ibid.). Thirdly, this process still uses a significant amount of concrete, contributing to a larger carbon
footprint during its production. Finally, bamboo is susceptible to a range of degradational effects:
exposure to highly alkaline conditions (present in concrete), termite attack, and rotting due to
exposure to high moisture levels. It must be ensured therefore that proper treatment is applied to
the bamboo beforehand to avoid these potentially harmful effects (ibid.).

3.1.4 Fibre reinforced polymers

Fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) consist of fibres encased in a polymer matrix, they are beneficial as
they provide excellent engineering properties and limit any defects to a minimum. Traditionally used
with materials such as glass or carbon for their strength and ease of manufacturing, natural fibre-
reinforced polymers (NFRP) are being favoured more where possible due to their biodegradability
and sustainability, two factors which limits the long-term usage of carbon and glass FRPs (Alkbir et
al., 2016). Moreover, NFRPs are advantageous over FRPs due to their superior specific weight,
resulting in a larger specific strength ratio than glass, ideal for construction (ibid.).

Raw bamboo has a limited structural use due to its hollow culm; it is therefore beneficial to extract
the fibres and use them in a composite (Trujillo et al., 2014). Much research has been done into the
structural properties of natural fibres and NFRPs with reference to bamboo fibre reinforced
polymers, authors include Trujillo et al. (2014), Alkbir et al. (2016) and Liu et al. (2019). Studies found
the potential usage of NFRPs promising due to their strength, biodegradability and ease of

10
production in comparison with synthetic FRPs. Liu et al. (2019) compared bamboo fibre composites
with hemp fibre composites, each with varying matrices. Properties of the composite depended
strongly on the individual properties of the natural fibre, matrix and the bond between them. It was
found that both fibres showed impressive strength properties, however the natural-based resins
were significantly weaker than their petroleum-based counterparts, having a strong effect on the
performance of the composite (Liu et al., 2019). The weakness was due not only to the bio-based
epoxy’s strength, but also due to the weak bonding between the contrasting hydrophilic fibres and
the hydrophobic matrices (ibid). The effect of the matrices composition in a composite will be
discussed in more detail in section 4. Bamboo fibres were also found to have a relatively large water
absorption rate when compared with hemp and synthetic fibres, being disadvantageous in practical
uses without treatment (ibid.).

The implementation of NFRP’s production may be a costly investment for companies in developing
countries due to its relative complexity, but it provides a suitable alternative option for conventional
materials nonetheless. Overall, NFRP’s are a promising development in the construction industry but
again, further research must be conducted for structural codes to be developed and implemented.

4 Bio-based epoxies
Increasing popularity has been gained with respect to bio-based epoxies as a replacement for
traditional petroleum-based epoxies in composites due to their comparable strength parameters,
biodegradability and non-toxicity. Although petroleum-based epoxies maintain a high strength,
ductility and affordability, increasing resistance has prevailed due to its poor environmental
qualities, preventing it from being recycled or biodegraded. The most common bio-based resins are
derived from plant-based oils including soybean oil and linseed oil due to their abundance (Ramon,
Sguazzo and Moreira, 2018). Other resins have also been investigated for their use in composites
derived from hemp oil, canola oil, castor oil, karanja oil, grapeseed oil and rapeseed oil (ibid.).

Zhu et al. (2004) investigated the commonly used and readily available epoxidized soybean oil (ESO)
in comparison with epoxidized allyl soyate (EAS) and epoxidized methyl soyate (EMS), with the
intention of popularising their usage in structural applications. The reason for ESO’s limited usage
within structural applications is due to its low crosslinking density and mechanical performance (Zhu
et al., 2004). EAS and EMS are favourable due to their higher reactivity and therefore denser
intermolecular crosslinking, giving them a higher glass transition temperature, strength, and
modulus, whilst maintaining the same environmental and economic benefits of ESO (ibid.). Table 2
shows how the properties ESO, EAS and EMS vary with concentration, where T g is the glass transition
temperature. It can be observed that a higher concentration of soybean oil generally leads to a
lower peak tensile strength but a higher ductility and T g. The research concluded that EAS provides
the greatest potential as a replacement of ESO due to its higher T g, stiffness and strength, however
little research has been done into its compressive strength and bonding characteristics, particularly
with bamboo. Complementary research was conducted by Chandrashekhara et al. (2005),
investigating EAS for the its usage in composites, yielding similar results to that of Zhu et al. (2004).
Testing of EAS was conducted in its application as a pultruded glass-fibre reinforced composite,
differing to the jute-fibre composite researched by Zhu et al. (2004). However similar results were
obtained when bioresin concentrations were varied (Chandrashekhara et al., 2005).

11
Table 2 - Mechanical properties of Epon epoxy, ESO, EAS and EMS with varying bioresin concentrations adapted from Zhu et
al. (2004)

Sample Tg Young’s Peak Strength Flexural Flexural

(ᵒC) Modulus (MPa) Modulus Strength
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Epon epoxy 74.8 3145 59 3021 110
10 wt % ESO 72.3 2807 51 3234 119
20 wt % ESO 67.0 2434 36 3090 111
30 wt % ESO 61.9 3193 60 2910 99
10 wt % EAS 75.1 2972 53 3503 127
20 wt % EAS 69.2 2979 41 3359 123
30 wt % EAS 65.0 2952 54 2979 103
10 wt % EMS 68.0 2890 45 3214 115
20 wt % EMS 63.3 2621 31 3083 110
30 wt % EMS 55.3 3145 59 2841 90

Table 3 - Mechanical Properties of R246TX, ESO and EHO of varying concentrations when subject to a tensile force, adapted
from Manthey et al. (2013)

Sample Tg Young’s Tensile Flexural Flexural

(ᵒC) Modulus Strength Modulus Strength
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
R246TX 107.4 4883 ± 142 42.5 ± 2.1 3129 ± 117 66.3 ± 0.8
10 wt % ESO 93.9 3890 ± 207 43.5 ± 1.8 2769 ± 122 58.3 ± 8.9
20 wt % ESO 90.8 3334 ± 62 30.8 ± 1.5 2358 ± 105 53.4 ± 3.2
30 wt % ESO 87.7 2253 ± 43 20.9 ± 2.7 1781 ± 102 34.0 ± 2.6
40 wt % ESO 79.3 1104 ± 77 10.5 ± 0.4 689 ± 52 12.5 ± 1.5
10 wt % EHO 99.1 3965 ± 38 43.7 ± 3.3 3012 ± 169 63.7 ± 2.5
20 wt % EHO 96.5 3470 ± 273 38.2 ± 4.4 2924 ± 132 58.3 ± 2.7
30 wt % EHO 89.5 3286 ±22 34.2 ± 0.8 2475 ± 166 49.0 ± 3.9
40 wt % EHO 80.1 1284 ± 65 13.7 ± 0.5 864 ± 75 14.5 ± 1.7

Manthey et al. (2013) investigated another plant-derived epoxy, epoxidized hemp oil (EHO) and its
comparison with ESO and synthetic epoxy, R246TX as a control sample. Hemp oil is another readily
available product, formed as a by-product in the production of hemp fibre; it provides good
properties for its use as a bioresin due to its unique fatty acid profile (Manthey et al., 2013). The
epoxies were investigated for their potential use as a matrix in a jute fibre-reinforced bio-composite.
Testing was carried out to compare the mechanical, dynamic mechanical and water-absorption
properties of the products with varying bioresin concentrations (10-40%) mixed with a synthetic
bisphenol (ibid.). Results (shown in Table 3 above) illustrate how increasing concentrations of both
plant-based oils resulted in lower mechanical performance and a lower glass transition temperature,
aligning with the results of Zhu et al. (2004). EHO provided marginally better water absorption
properties and mechanical properties in comparison with ESO, however the synthetic-based product
provided the best all round performance as expected (ibid.). It was also found that fibre-matrix
debonding occurred with higher bioresin concentrations which could be alleviated with chemical
treatment (ibid.). Overall the bioresins studied in this research are best suited for uses as a
plasticiser rather than complete matrices. Nevertheless, sustainability should be the key priority for
further research, aiming to create new materials and composites that are biodegradable and have
comparable mechanical properties to that of synthetic materials.

12
Both research papers from Zhu et al. (2004) and Manthey et al. (2013) provide good exploration into
the most common bioresins to be used as a matrix in a bamboo composite. They found that for each
bio-based epoxy (i.e. ESO, EAS, EMS and EHO), a lower concentration of bioresin leads to a higher
peak tensile strength, but ductility is gained with a higher concentration. It will be important to
explore the results in compression when varying the concentration of bioresin in the epoxy matrix to
ensure that a good balance between strength and ductility is obtained. Despite their lower strength,
it is important that plant-based bioresins are favoured over synthetic resins in this research, as
priority is placed on creating a bio-based composite. Sufficient bonding between the bamboo and
the matrix is also a priority, epoxies generally have good bonding properties however, so selection
between the available products is open. There has been much research into ESO and its application
is prominent as a composite matrix. Limited research on the other hand has been conducted into the
application of EAS and EMS in composite materials, and even though existing research (Zhu et al.,
2004; Chandrashekhara et al., 2005) has proven their properties to be favourable over ESO, there is
not enough research to warrant its usage in this research, moreover accessibility to EAS and EMS
remains limited at this time. Similarly, although EHO provides marginally better mechanical
properties to that of EHO, there are fewer existing studies and its potential usage in biocomposites is
less likely than that of soy-based resin epoxies. In conclusion, ESO is best suited for this research due
to the numerous existing studies, current applications and accessibility, even though its mechanical
properties fall below that of newer bio-based resins, such as EAS and EMS.

5 Composite confinements
Confinements are often used to strengthen concrete columns and can be retrofitted to increase the
capacity of a column. Similarly, they are an essential part of the long-fibre composite in this
research. Commonly made of wire mesh, synthetic or natural fabric as part of an FRP, confinements
have proved to provide an increase in compressive strength, ductility and a mitigation of failure
effects when wrapped around the perimeter of a member (Di Ludovico, Prota and Manfredi, 2010).
Tensile strength is therefore the key property to review, however, bonding properties are also
important to ensure the confinement remains in place when internal stresses are increased.

Synthetic fabrics are commonly made from fibreglass and carbon fibre. They provide excellent
tensile properties and can be produced to emphasise certain properties, making it a suitable choice
for the use in composites. Production costs are high however and require multiple processes;
fibreglass for example is created by independently feeding 50% silica sand with boron oxides,
aluminium, and other minerals, into the furnace and heating to high temperatures (Ross, 2020).
Similarly, carbon fibre production requires an intensive process of crude oil drilling, petrochemical
production, acrylic fibre manufacturing and carbonising (using temperatures between 1000ᵒC and
3000ᵒC) (Toray, 2020). It is estimated that this process emits 20 tonnes of CO 2 per 1 tonne of carbon
fibre, having a large potential impact on global warming. Composites using synthetic fabrics or fibres
are also extremely difficult to recycle, in the UK, the most common waste management approach for
these composites is disposal to landfill, moreover, they don’t break down like organic materials,
making them a physical pollutant (Shuaib and Mativenga, 2017).

Fabrics are produced through grouping fibres and weaving them in a particular pattern, depending
on the desired properties of the fabric. This research will not focus on the effect weave pattern or
orientation has on the confinement but their understanding is important for the application and
selection of the fabric to prevent unwanted deformational effects. The main types of weave used are
plain, twill and satin. Notable works on the research of the effect weave pattern has on a
composite’s strength parameters include Misnon et al. (2014), Jahan (2017) and Corbin et al. (2020).
Jahan (2017) concluded that a plain weave provides the highest tensile strength, however tearing
13
strength is higher in the twill weave. Both properties are important when deciding a confining
material, however tensile strength should be a primary priority, therefore a plain weave will be best
suited for this research. Fibre orientation also has an impact on tensile strength and axial-shear
coupling; therefore, the optimal orientation of the fabric will be parallel with the specimen’s
circumference.

5.1 Basalt fabric

Basalt fibre is a unique material, gaining increasing popularity as an alternative to the more common
fibreglass and carbon fibre. It is produced through heating basalt up to 1450ᵒC and extruding
filaments, fibres can then be weaved to produce fabric (Basaltex, 2018). Basalt fibre is beneficial due
to its low ecological footprint (it contains no additives unlike fibreglass), fire performance,
mechanical properties, chemical resistance and affordability (ibid.) Table 4 displays the mechanical
properties of basalt fibre in comparison with other commonly used synthetic fibres, making basalt a
suitable contender in terms of strength, modulus and density with a far greater environmental
capacity.
Property Basalt S2 glass Aramid Carbon
Relative density 2.67 2.45 1.45 1.74-1.8
Modulus (GPa) 85-89 91 70-140 200-250
Strength (MPa) 2900-3100 3410-3830 2900-3600 2700-3750
Table 4 - Comparison of the mechanical properties of basalt, S2 glass, aramid and carbon, adapted from Basaltex (2018)

Efρf Average of Average of Average of

Specimen Type Label
(GPa) fcc/fco εccu/εcu εfl/εfu
GFRP hand lay-up laminates S2-S9 83.9 2.57 8.62 0.52
GFRP grid with mortar S10-S11-S12 7.9 1.12 1.34 0.22
S3-S13 15.8 1.37 1.58 0.40
BRM preimpregnated with resin S4-S14-S15 10.9 1.43 1.75 0.20
S5-S16-S17 21.8 1.55 2.07 0.31
BRM preimpregnated with latex S6-S18-S19 10.9 1.28 1.08 0.22
S7-S20-S21 21.8 1.48 2.49 0.32
Mortar jacket S22-S23 - 1.05 1.05 -

Di Ludovico, Prota and Manfredi (2010) conducted an experimental study aimed at investigating the
effectiveness of different confinements for a concrete cylinder in compression. The confinements
used were a uniaxial glass-fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP), fiberglass grids bonded with a cement-
based mortar, bidirectional basalt laminates preimpregnated with epoxy resin or latex and then
bonded with a cement-based mortar, and a cement-based mortar jacket (Di Ludovico, Prota and
Manfredi, 2010). Specimens were tested in compression until failure and mechanical parameters
were measured. Results are shown in , where Ef is the FRP Young’s modulus, f cc is the peak strength
on confined specimens, fco is the peak strength on unconfined specimens, εccu is the ultimate strain
on confined specimens, εcu is the ultimate strain on unconfined specimens, εfl is the experimental
laminate average hoop strains at failure and εfu is the ultimate laminate strains provided by flat
coupon tension tests (ibid.) It can be observed that when compared with a control concrete cylinder,
the basalt reinforced mortar (BMR) showed a 49% increase in compressive strength when
preimpregnated with resin and 38% when impregnated with latex, this is significantly higher than
the GFRP laminates which had an increase of 22% (ibid.). Moreover, the ultimate axial strain for the
BMR increased 91% and 78% when impregnated with resin and latex respectively, much greater
than the 44% increase provided by the GFRP laminate (ibid.). This study shows that basalt fabric has

14
great potential for use as a confinement, providing admirable strength and ductility to members in
compression, whilst contributing a more environmentally friendly prospect when compared to GFRP.
Table 5 - Average peak strength, ultimate axial, and effective strain of GFRP, BRM and mortar jacket, adapted from Di
Ludovico, Prota and Manfredi (2010)
5.2 Hemp fabric
The usage of hemp is increasing in popularity in the construction industry recently as it is an
abundant and cost-effective resource which is easily grown and possesses desirable engineering
properties (Jones and Brischke, 2017). Like basalt fibre, hemp fibre is a possible alternative to glass
fibre, providing a high tensile strength and stiffness without the poor environmental qualities (ibid.).
Its fibre can be extracted from the hemp plant with relative ease and weaved into a fabric, making it
a suitable material choice for less developed countries with limited access to materials and modern
production methods. A disadvantage for natural fabrics is that the engineering properties may vary
with weather conditions, climate and region during the plant’s growth, making it difficult to
standardise as a material across the world (Misnon et al., 2014).

Similar tests to Di Ludovico, Prota and Manfredi (2010) were carried out by Ghalieh et al. (2017)
using commercial bidirectional hemp fabric of varying layers around a concrete cylinder. Axial stress-
strain curves, ductility and failure modes were analysed. Table 6 shows how the compressive
strength varies with the number of confining layers (Ghalieh et al., 2017). It can be observed that
there is a 9%, 13% and 22% increase in strength with 1, 2 and 4 confining layers respectively (ibid.).
Ductility was measured by the fracture energy; when compared with an unconfined sample, the
ductility indices were 2.78, 3.95 and 6.98 for 1, 2 and 4 confining layers respectively (ibid.).
Table 6 - Average test results of the specimens with a varying number of confining layers under uniaxial compression
(Ghalieh et al., 2017)

Fracture
Specimen Ductility
f’co f’cc fl f1/f’co f’cc/f’co energy
type index
(Nm)
PC40 18.91 - - - - 486.76 1
1L - PC40 - 20.64 0.33 0.017 1.09 1353.04 2.78
2L - PC40 - 21.43 0.69 0.035 1.13 1923.21 3.95
4L - PC40 - 23.03 1.94 0.102 1.22 3397.86 6.98

The studies from Di Ludovico, Prota and Manfredi (2010) and Ghalieh et al. (2017) demonstrated
natural fabrics (namely basalt and hemp respectively) capability to replace synthetic fabrics. Results
showed that basalt had excellent potential for the use as a confinement, increasing the uniaxial
compressive strength of the cylinder by 49%, greater than that of the GFRP specimen. Basalt does
however require a relatively costly production method when compared with hemp, heating the rock
to temperatures up to 1450ᵒC and creating the fibres by extruding the molten rock. Hemp fabric was
relatively weaker, increasing the compressive strength by 22% with 4 layers of confinement, this can
be expected however due to it being a plant-based fabric. Hemp has the added benefit of being
more sustainable and far easier produced than basalt; it can be extracted from the hemp plant
without complex production processes, making it suitable for use in construction in developing
countries where production of materials is limited to low cost options.

15
6 Conclusion
Environmental concerns have become increasingly prominent in the past few decades; with the
traditional approach towards construction and a fast-growing population, matters will not improve
without adoption of a more sustainable and forward-thinking approach. Conventional construction
materials such as steel and concrete are primary contributors towards climate change. Current
usage of these materials cannot be maintained without significant damage to the environment.
Bamboo is among the most unique natural materials available due to its fast growth rate, low
embodied energy and excellent mechanical properties. Its growth occurs mostly in developing
regions, where population is expected to increase in the upcoming years. Influencing its usage in
these regions is therefore an important part in the transition towards the use of more sustainable
materials.

The use of raw bamboo in construction comes with its limitations however, composites have been
created such as bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo, but their application is rarely structural
due to a lack of official standards. Bamboo reinforced concrete has been experimented with and
used in construction; however, this also comes with its limitations due to bamboo’s anisotropy and
water absorption. NFRP’s potential usage in the construction industry is promising due to their high
strength properties and usage of natural materials. Despite this, the manufacturing of these
composites are relatively complex, and production in developing countries with restricted access to
modern production methods may not be possible. Few research papers have been produced for
using a whole bamboo as a fibre in a long fibre-epoxy composite, opening up a gap for further
research.

Recent advancements have been made in exploring new bio-based epoxies with excellent
mechanical properties. These advancements are encouraging and propose a sustainable future
alternative to the non-biodegradable synthetic epoxies that currently dominate the market. Despite
this, due to the limited research and lack of standards, it is challenging to implement these materials
into current products.

Bamboo may not be the ‘green steel’ in which it is sometimes perceived, however further
advancements in research and technology are promising in enhancing bamboo’s properties through
its usage in a composite.

16
References
1. Alkbir, M.F.M., Sapuan, S.M., Nuraini, A.A. and Ishak, M.R. (2016) ‘Fibre Properties and
Crashworthiness Parameters of Natural fibre-reinforced Composite structure: A Literature
Review’, Composite Structures, 148, pp.59–73.
2. Archila, H., Kaminski, S., Trujillo, D., Zea Escamilla, E. and Harries, K.A. (2018) ‘Bamboo
reinforced concrete: a critical review’, Materials and Structures, 51(4).
3. Atanda, J. (2015) ‘Environmental impacts of bamboo as a substitute constructional material
in Nigeria’, Case Studies in Construction Materials, 3, pp.33–39.
4. Banik, R.L. (2016) Silviculture of South Asian Priority Bamboos. Singapore: Springer Nature.
5. Basaltex (2018) Basalt Basic Properties. Available at:
http://www.basaltex.com/files/cms1/basaltfibersbasicproperties_636669004437905000.pdf
(Accessed 3 Feb. 2020).
6. Chandrashekhara, K., Sundararaman, S., Flanigan, V. and Kapila, S. (2005) ‘Affordable
Composites Using Renewable Materials’, Materials Science and Engineering: A, 412(1–2),
pp.2–6.
7. Chaturvedi, S. and Ochsendorf, J. (2004) ‘Global Environmental Impacts due to Cement and
Steel’, Structural Engineering International, 14(3), pp.198–200.
8. Chung, K.F. and Yu, W.K. (2002) ‘Mechanical Properties of Structural Bamboo for Bamboo
Scaffoldings’, Engineering Structures, 24(4), pp.429–442.
9. Corbin, A.-C., Soulat, D., Ferreira, M., Labanieh, A.-R., Gabrion, X., Malécot, P. and Placet, V.
(2020) ‘Towards Hemp Fabrics for high-performance composites: Influence of Weave
Pattern and Features’, Composites Part B: Engineering, 181, pp.0–10.

10. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2019) ‘World Population Prospects 2019
Highlights’. Available at:
https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf. (Accessed 27
Jan. 2020).
11. Di Ludovico, M., Prota, A. and Manfredi, G. (2010) ‘Structural Upgrade Using Basalt Fibers for
Concrete Confinement’, Journal of Composites for Construction, 14(5), pp.541–552.
12. FOA (2009) ‘State of the World’s Forests 2009’. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i0350e/i0350e.pdf. (Accessed 27 Jan.
2020).
13. GCCA (2019) Key Facts. Available at: https://gccassociation.org/key-facts/ (Accessed 27 Jan.
2020).
14. Ghalieh, L., Awwad, E., Saad, G., Khatib, H. and Mabsout, M. (2017) ‘Concrete Columns
Wrapped with Hemp Fiber Reinforced Polymer – an Experimental Study’, Procedia
Engineering, 200, pp.440–447.

17
15. Ghavami, K. (2005) ‘Bamboo as Reinforcement in Structural Concrete Elements’, Cement
and Concrete Composites, 27(6), pp.637–649.
16. GlobalABC, IEA and UNEP (2019) ‘2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction:
Towards a Zero-emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector’. Available
at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30950/2019GSR.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y. (Accessed 27 Jan. 2020).
17. Harries, K.A. and Sharma, B. (2016) Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials:
Characterisation, Properties and Applications. Woodhead Publishing
18. Huang, Y., Ji, Y. and Yu, W. (2019) ‘Development of Bamboo scrimber: A Literature
Review’, Journal of Wood Science, 65(1).
19. Huang, Z., Sun, Y. and Musso, F. (2017) ‘Assessment of Bamboo Application in Building
Envelope by Comparison with Reference Timber’, Construction and Building Materials, 156,
pp.844–860.
20. Jahan, I. (2017) ‘Effect of Fabric Structure on the Mechanical Properties of Woven
Fabrics’, Advance Research in Textile Engineering, 2(2).
21. Javadian, A., Wielopolski, M., Smith, I.F.C. and Hebel, D.E. (2016) ‘Bond-behaviour Study of
Newly Developed bamboo-composite Reinforcement in Concrete’, Construction and Building
Materials, 122, pp.110–117.
22. Jones, D. and Brischke, C. (2017) Performance of Bio-based Building Materials. Duxford,
United Kingdom Woodhead Publishing.
23. Kaminski, S., Lawrence, A. and Trujillo, D. (2016) ‘Structural Use of Bamboo. Part 1:
Introduction to Bamboo’, The Structural Engineer, 94(8).
24. Leelatanon, S., Srivaro, S. and Matan, N. (2010) ‘Compressive Strength and Ductility of Short
Concrete Columns Reinforced by Bamboo’, Songklanakarin Journal of Science and
Technology, 32(4), pp.419–424.
25. Liu, W., Chen, T., Fei, M., Qiu, R., Yu, D., Fu, T. and Qiu, J. (2019) ‘Properties of Natural Fibre
Reinforced Bio-based Thermoset Biocomposites: Effects of Fibre Type and Resin
Composition’, Composites Part B: Engineering, 171, pp.87–95.
26. Manthey, N.W., Cardona, F., Francucci, G. and Aravinthan, T. (2013) ‘Thermo-mechanical
Properties of Epoxidized Hemp oil-based Bioresins and Biocomposites’, Journal of Reinforced
Plastics and Composites, 32(19), pp.1444–1456.
27. Misnon, M.I., Islam, M.M., Epaarachchi, J.A. and Lau, K.T. (2014) ‘Analyses of woven hemp
fabric characteristics for composite reinforcement’, Materials & Design, 66, pp.82–92.
28. Naylor, J. (2019) ‘Working with Bamboo’, (Lecture), Newcastle University, 3 Dec.
29. Nurdiah, E.A. (2016) ‘The Potential of Bamboo as Building Material in Organic Shaped
Buildings’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216, pp.30–38.
30. Omer, M.A.B. and Noguchi, T. (2020) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the
Contribution of Building Materials in the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs)’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 52.
18
31. Prince Engineering (2010) Basalt Fiber Properties. Available at: https://www.build-on-
prince.com/basalt-fiber.html (Accessed 3 Feb. 2020).
32. Ramon, E., Sguazzo, C. and Moreira, P. (2018) ‘A Review of Recent Research on Bio-Based
Epoxy Systems for Engineering Applications and Potentialities in the Aviation
Sector’, Aerospace, 5(4), p.110.
33. Ross, A. (2020) Basalt Fibers: Alternative to Glass?. Available at:
https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/basalt-fibers-alternative-to-glass (Accessed 5
Feb. 2020).
34. Sharma, B., Gatóo, A., Bock, M. and Ramage, M. (2015) ‘Engineered Bamboo for Structural
Applications’, Construction and Building Materials, 81, pp.66–73.
35. Sharma, B., Gatóo, A. and Ramage, M.H. (2015) ‘Effect of Processing Methods on the
Mechanical Properties of Engineered Bamboo’, Construction and Building Materials, 83,
pp.95–101.
36. Shuaib, N.A. and Mativenga, P.T. (2017) ‘Carbon Footprint Analysis of Fibre Reinforced
Composite Recycling Processes’, Procedia Manufacturing, 7, pp.183–190.
37. Stănescu, M. and Bolcu, D. (2019) ‘A Study of Some Mechanical Properties of a Category of
Composites with a Hybrid Matrix and Natural Reinforcements’, Polymers, 11(3), p.478.
38. Tardio, G., Mickovski, S.B., Stokes, A. and Devkota, S. (2017)’ Bamboo Structures as a
Resilient Erosion Control Measure’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Forensic
Engineering, 170(2), pp.72–83.
39. Terai, M. and Minami, K. (2011) ‘Fracture Behavior and Mechanical Properties of Bamboo
Reinforced Concrete Members’, Procedia Engineering, 10, pp.2967–2972.
40. The World Bank (2015) ‘Map of the Gross National Income per Capita’, ChartsBin. Available
at: http://chartsbin.com/view/25857.
41. Toray (2020) Carbon Fiber and Global Environment. Torayca.com. Available at:
https://www.torayca.com/en/aboutus/abo_003.html (Accessed 5 Feb. 2020).
42. Trujillo, E., Moesen, M., Osorio, L., Van Vuure, A.W., Ivens, J. and Verpoest, I. (2014)
‘Bamboo Fibres for Reinforcement in Composite materials: Strength Weibull
Analysis’, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 61, pp.115–125.
43. Van der Lugt, P. (2008) Design Interventions for Stimulating Bamboo Commercialization.
VSSD / Delft University of Technology.
44. Wei, J. and Zhaohua, Z. (2018) Sustainable Bamboo Development. Wallingford, Oxfordshire:
Cabi
45. World Steel Association (2019) Steel Demand Forecast. Available at:
https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2019/worldsteel-short-range-
outlook-2019.html (Accessed 26 Jan. 2020).
46. Zea Escamilla, E., Habert, G., Correal Daza, J., Archilla, H., Echeverry Fernández, J. and
Trujillo, D. (2018) ‘Industrial or Traditional Bamboo Construction? Comparative Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of Bamboo-Based Buildings’, Sustainability, 10(9), pp.1–14.
19
 47. Zhu, J., Chandrashekhara, K., Flanigan, V. and Kapila, S. (2004) ‘Curing and Mechanical
Characterization of a soy-based Epoxy Resin System’, Journal of Applied Polymer Science,
91(6), pp.3513–3518.

20