Case Study

Physical and Mechanical Characterization of Fresh

Bamboo for Infrastructure Projects
Fei Ye 1 and Wenxi Fu, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: This study tests the physical and mechanical properties of fresh bamboo to explore its suitability for reinforcing the embankment
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of a highway. A series of experiments is performed using a bamboo species (Sinocalamus affinis) and soil specimens with bamboo grids that
are similar to geogrids. The testing indexes include the natural density, water content, wall thickness, and the outer perimeter of bamboo culm.
The mechanical property tests include a uniaxial compression test on bamboo culm, tensile and flexural tests on bamboo strips, a friction test
on the bamboo–soil interface, a pullout test on a single bamboo strip in a soil specimen, and a triaxial compression test on a soil specimen with
a bamboo grid. The results show that the density and water content of fresh bamboo become relatively stable after growing for 2 years and the
bamboo strips can satisfy the specification requirement for a traditional geogrid because of their excellent mechanical properties. Based on
the physical and mechanical test results, appropriate cutting age of fresh bamboo is 2 years and more. In addition, the compressive strength
for bamboo grid–reinforced soil is significantly greater than that of prime soil, and could effectively prevent filling embankments from
settling. In addition, its increased shear resistance could suppress a slip shear failure in the filling embankment. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0002132. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Fresh bamboo; Mechanical properties; Reinforcement material; Embankment.

Introduction
Geosynthetics are a type of building material that has been widely
used to solve civil engineering problems (Palmeira 2009). The most
commonly used raw building materials are macromolecule poly-
mers such as plastics, chemical fibers, and synthetic rubbers (Rowe
and Mylleville 1996; Jensen 2008; Benmebarek et al. 2015).
The major product types include geotextiles, geogrids, geonets,
geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners, geofoam, geocells, and
geocomposites. These artificial products have a wide range of ap-
plications and are currently used in retaining walls (Tatsuoka et al.
1995; Xing et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2015), embankment slopes (Yoo
2001; Alamshahi and Hataf 2009; Yang et al. 2012), and soft soil
foundations (Mattox 1987; Alawaji 2001; Kuity and Roy 2013;
Chen et al. 2014) to improve their bearing capacity and overall
stability. This paper discusses only geogrids.
Geogrids are commonly made of polymers formed into an open
and gridlike configuration, and can be stretched in one, two, or
three directions depending on the demand of the application (Wang
et al. 2014b). These products are characterized by a relatively high
tensile strength and a uniformly distributed array of large apertures.
Geogrids laid in soils provide reinforcement by resisting de-
formation and soil slippage and by dispersing load (Kwan 2006;
Wang et al. 2014b). Fast production, good durability, excellent
1
Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic and Mountain
River Engineering, Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, Sichuan Univ.,
No. 24 South Section 1, Yihuan Rd., Chengdu 610065, P.R. China. E-mail:
yefei16scu@163.com
2
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic and Mountain River En-
gineering, Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, Sichuan Univ., No. 24 South
Section 1, Yihuan Rd., Chengdu 610065, P.R. China (corresponding
author). E-mail: wxf_lee@scu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 5, 2017; approved on
July 10, 2017; published online on November 24, 2017. Discussion period
open until April 24, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
mechanical behavior, and easy laying operation are typical advan-
tages of geogrids. In addition to increasing cost in engineering proj-
ects, heavy consumption of polymers does not comply with current
environmental protection standards and sustainable development
practices.
Therefore in recent years some research (Liu et al. 2012) has
considered natural green building materials as an alternative to
macromolecule polymers. Natural green building materials are
advantageous with respect to energy conservation, improved occu-
pant health, low cost, and renewable use. The use of green building
materials or products aims to promote the conservation of dwin-
dling nonrenewable resources, and reduces environmental impacts
associated with modern industrial activities. Sivakumar Babu and
Vasudevan (2008) studied the strength and stiffness of soil rein-
forced with coir fibers. Li et al. (2010) presented the reinforcement
arrangement and shear strength model of wheat-straw-reinforced
soil. Several researchers (Wong et al. 2010; Abdul Khalil et al.
2012; Hebel et al. 2014) extracted bamboo fiber to synthesize geo-
synthetics. This study analyzes only geogrids knitted directly from
fresh bamboo strips, which are used to reinforce the embankment
of a highway.
Bamboo is one of the most versatile and sustainable build-
ing materials available. When farmers constructed houses in the
past, they sometimes used fresh bamboo strips to strengthen the
rammed-soil walls. Archaeological findings show that bamboo
culms were rammed into the foundation of the Great Wall con-
structed in the Qin and Han dynasties of China (Yue and Zhong
2001). This plant grows remarkably fast and in a wide range of
climates (Van der Lugt et al. 2003, 2006). In addition to traditional
handicrafts and products, bamboo culms are currently applied to
pulp paper and laminated plate (Li et al. 2002; Sulastiningsih
and Nurwati 2009; Mahdavi et al. 2011; Terai and Minami 2011;
Ramirez et al. 2012; Li et al. 2013; Agarwal et al. 2014). Moreover,
Terai and Minami (2011), Agarwal et al. (2014) and many others
investigated the mechanical properties of bamboo-reinforced con-
crete and concluded that the mechanical properties declined more
slowly when the bamboo was isolated from moisture in the air.

© ASCE 05017004-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004

 Table 1. Physical Properties of Bamboo Culm
Physical index Part Position 1-year-old 2-year-old 3-year-old 4-year-old 5-year-old 6-year-old
Perimeter (mm) Top Upper 165 110 100 112 120 120
Lower 176 120 110 127 127 130
Middle Upper 195 127 139 150 158 155
Lower 195 145 159 160 167 160
Bottom Upper 200 150 165 165 172 155
Lower 185 145 130 150 155 150
Thickness (mm) Top Upper 3.89 2.71 3.25 2.52 2.85 2.83
Lower 4.00 2.81 3.47 3.16 3.16 3.25
Middle Upper 3.72 2.92 3.10 3.57 3.30 3.53
Lower 3.75 3.11 3.14 3.60 3.74 4.53
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bottom Upper 4.58 3.30 3.16 4.74 5.30 6.06

Lower 4.85 3.63 3.57 5.21 5.76 6.84

Hegde and Sitharam (2014, 2015) discussed the ultimate bearing Table 2. Density of Bamboo
capacity of clay bed that is reinforced with bamboo cell and grid Age Position Nature density Dry density Water content
and determined that the ultimate bearing capacity of the clay bed (years) along height (g=cm3 ) (g=cm3 ) (%)
reinforced with bamboo cell and grid was 1.3 times greater than
1 Top 0.974 0.544 44.15
that of a clay bed reinforced with a geocell and geogrid. In summary,
Middle 0.965 0.551 42.90
the use of bamboo as a natural green building material has many Bottom 0.957 0.590 38.35
advantages, such as excellent mechanical properties, low weight,
low cost, and strong asexual reproduction with rapid growth. 2 Top 0.955 0.616 35.50
Bamboo is also particularly beneficial to the environment (Ghavami Middle 0.938 0.638 31.98
Bottom 0.935 0.668 28.56
1988; Low et al. 2006; Mitch et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2012; Sharma
et al. 2015; Mukhopadhyay and Dutta 2015). 3 Top 0.949 0.621 34.56
Actively responding to the call of the Chinese government Middle 0.945 0.643 31.96
for low-carbon emissions, energy conservation, and sustainable Bottom 0.935 0.652 30.27
development, the owners of the BN expressway, which connects 4 Top 0.957 0.648 32.29
Bazhong and Nanchong (two cities of the province of Sichuan, Middle 0.946 0.650 31.29
China), proposed using a bamboo geogrid rather than a polymer Bottom 0.944 0.648 31.36
geogrid to enhance the embankment. This study conducted a series
5 Top 0.947 0.643 32.10
of physical and mechanical experiments for fresh bamboo and soil Middle 0.941 0.640 31.99
specimens with a bamboo grid. The physical indexes of the testing Bottom 0.940 0.644 31.49
included the natural density, water content, wall thickness, and the
outer perimeter of bamboo culm. The mechanical property tests 6 Top 0.949 0.654 31.09
included a uniaxial compression test on bamboo culm, tensile and Middle 0.942 0.639 32.16
Bottom 0.944 0.659 30.19
bending tests on bamboo strips, a friction test on the bamboo–soil
interface, a pullout test on a single bamboo strip in a soil specimen, Mean — 0.948 0.630 33.46
and a triaxial compression test on a soil specimen with a bamboo
grid. The test results are helpful to the reinforcement design of the
embankment section in the BN expressway.
bottom section. The thickness also successively increased from top
to bottom. Table 2 shows that the natural density exhibited a de-
Primary Physical Indices of Bamboo and Soil creasing trend from top to bottom, but the dry density had an inverse
Specimens trend. In addition, the density and water content were relatively sta-
ble after the bamboo plant was 2 years old. The natural density of
the plant was approximately 0.93–0.98 g=cm3 and its dry density
Bamboo was approximately 0.54–0.67 g=cm3 based on test statistics.
Fresh bamboo specimens were sampled from local bamboo plants
(Sinocalamus affinis) in the county of Yilong, which is located ap-
Soil
proximately in the middle of the BN expressway. The Sinocalamus
affinis bamboo species is abundantly distributed in the area through The soil used in this study was cretaceous red mudstone that was
which the road line of the BN expressway passes. The bamboo has locally collected from the embankment project area. Large blocks
a 6-year lifecycle. Tables 1 and 2 list the primary physical indexes retrieved from the field were crushed in the laboratory, and the
of bamboo for the top, middle, and bottom sections of the plant at maximum particle size was limited to 60 mm. All tests were con-
every age. The sizing and testing methods applied to these speci- ducted at a compaction degree of 95%, and the corresponding
mens were obtained from CS 15780:1995 (BCS 1995). This study maximum dry density was 2.02 g=cm3 . The optimum water con-
tested six samples at different sections at each age. tent was 14.7% and the value of the soil density was 2.32 g=cm3 .
Table 1 shows that perimeter gradually increased from the top Fig. 1 shows the soil and Fig. 2 shows its particle-size distribution
section down to the bottom section in bamboo plants of the same curve. According to the results, the soil was classified as well-
age. However, the perimeter was slightly reduced at the end of the graded gravel (GW) per the Unified Soil Classification System.

© ASCE 05017004-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Cretaceous red mudstone

Fig. 3. Instron tensile test machine

Fig. 2. Soil particle-size distribution curve

Polymeric Strip
The polymeric strips used in this study were cut from a unidirec-
tional polypropylene geogrid produced by the Jiu Di Corporation
(Chongqin City, China). The tests on the polymeric and bamboo
strips were conducted under the same testing conditions to ensure
comparability. The results of the polymeric strip test were also
compared with the values of TGDG120 cited in CS 17689:1999
(BCS 1999).
Mechanical Property Tests
The mechanical properties of bamboo are one of the important bases
for the processing and use of bamboo. The scope of applications
available for bamboo is dependent upon its varying mechanical
properties. The mechanical properties of bamboo were determined
by conducting the following tests.
Tensile Test for Bamboo Strip, Parallel to Grain
Tensile strength is often a necessary index when evaluating the
mechanical properties of bamboo. Figs. 3 and 4 show the testing
Fig. 4. Bamboo pieces for tensile test
equipment and the bamboo strips used in the tensile test. The ex-
periment was conducted in accordance with CS 15780:1995 (BCS
1995) and IS 8242:1976 (BIS 1977). The distance between the
two chucks was adjusted to be consistent with the length of the
bamboo strips. Loading was not initiated until the bamboo strip was
chucked, and a load rate of 0.5 mm=min was used. The computer
in Fig. 3 collected the force and stretched length during the tension-
ing process. The peak stresses and strains of every specimen were
obtained according to a corresponding peak force and maximum
tensile length. The elastic modulus calculation was based on the
stress–strain relationship. Nine different specimens representing
different ages of bamboo were prepared in the tensile test. There
were 54 specimens in total.

© ASCE 05017004-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. MTS instrument and flexural test process

displacement were automatically collected by a computer during

the bending process. Fig. 5 shows the equipment and test process;
the number of specimens was same as that of the tensile test.

Uniaxial Compression Test of Bamboo Culm

This test was also performed with the MTS815, and only the
2-year-old bamboo culms were chosen (including top, middle, and
bottom specimens). The test method was determined in accordance
with the procedure defined by ISO (2004) (Fig. 6). The correspond-
ing ultimate compressive strength (σuc ) was calculated as the ulti-
mate compressive load divided by the loading area. The elastic
modulus was determined as the slope of the straight line located on
the stress–strain curve. The ultimate uniaxial compressive strength
was calculated as 36.62–48.45 MPa, which matches the results
obtained by Wang et al. (2014a) and Mukhopadhyay and Dutta
(2015). Table 3 lists the results.

Friction Test of Bamboo–Soil Interface

Fig. 6. MTS instrument and specimen for uniaxial compression test
Flexural Test for Bamboo Strip
The goal of the flexural test for the bamboo strips was to determine
the bending ability of bamboo. This test was performed with a
MTS815 (MTS Systems, Eden Prairie, Minnesota) programmable
servocontrolling mechanics test system in the laboratory. The
specimen preparation and the test itself were performed in accor-
dance with ISO 3133:1975 (BCS 1975). The force and bending
Scholars have compared the interface friction characteristics of the
soil interface against several composite geogrids by using a direct
shear test (O’Kelly and Naughton 2008; Liu et al. 2009). The length,
width, and thickness of the large-scale direct shear test instrument
used in this study were 500, 500, and 250 mm, respectively (Fig. 7).
The movement of the lower shear box was controlled by the groove
on the base plate. The soil was uniformly compacted in two layers
for the upper and lower shear boxes, respectively. The top of the first
soil layer was lightly scarified before filling the second layer so to
give the soil in the shear boxes good integrity. Bamboo strips were
closely packed on top of the soil in the lower shear box and were

Table 3. Test Results of Uniaxial Compressive Experiment

Elastic modulus Poison’s rate
Sample Part εa (%) εl (%) σuc (MPa) E (GPa) μ
This paper, 2-year-old specimen Top 0.233 0.081 48.45 25.24 0.15
Middle 0.217 0.102 42.45 16.42 0.18
Bottom 0.244 0.093 36.62 22.08 0.18
Mean 0.231 0.092 42.51 21.25 0.17
SD 0.011 0.007 4.83 3.65 0.01
Wang et al. (2014a) — 24.04–137.81 —
Mukhopadhyay and Dutta (2015) 38.40–91.37
Note: εa = axial strain under σuc ; εl = lateral strain under σuc.

© ASCE 05017004-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Friction test equipment

Fig. 8. Two arrangements of bamboo strips: (a) orientation of green (yellow) bamboo surfaces are identical (Arrangement A); (b) orientation of green
and yellow bamboo surfaces alternate (Arrangement B)

made level with the shear gap. The flatness of the soil interface
against the lower plane of the bamboo strips was ensured. First, the
normal force was loaded to a preset value by the vertical jack after
soil filling, and it was transferred to the soil through a bearing plate,
which was placed on top of the soil in the upper shear box. The
normal force was held at a relatively stable value during the test.
Fig. 8 shows the two arrangements for the bamboo strips in
the grid. Because a bamboo strip is cut from a bamboo culm, it has
two different surfaces. The outer-diameter surface is green and the
inner-diameter surface is yellow. Fig. 8(a) shows Arrangement A,
which kept the orientations of all green (yellow) bamboo surface-
sidentical. Fig. 8(b) shows Arrangement B, in which the orientations
of the green and yellow bamboo surfaces alternated. The direction of
the bamboo strips was identical to the shear direction. These tests
were conducted using normal stresses (σv ) of 100, 200, 400, 600,
and 800 kPa. In accordance with ASTM D5321-02 (ASTM 2002), a
shear rate of 1 mm=min was used in the direct shear test. The shear
displacement and corresponding horizontal force were recorded
every 10 s for every normal stress. The test was stopped when the
shear displacement reached approximately 20% of the shear length.
The maximum shear strength during the shear process was recorded
as the peak shear strength. The failure shear stress (τ f ) was calcu-
lated as the maximum horizontal force divided by the area of the
shear plane. The interface friction coefficient (f) and the interface
friction angle (φsg ) in the direct shear test were individually calcu-
lated as
f ¼ τ f =σv ð1Þ
φsg ¼ tan−1 ðfÞ ð2Þ
Pullout Test of Single Bamboo Strip in Soil Specimen
The pullout test has been widely used to investigate the mechanical
properties of geogrids and can determine the corresponding pullout
failure (bonding) stress. Abdi and Arjomand (2011) studied an in-
terface pullout test between a composite geogrid and different soils,
and compared the results of an interface pullout test with those of a
direct shear test. In this study, the equipment used for pullout test
was modified from the preceding large direct shear apparatus. Two
sets of comparative pullout tests were available to study the pullout
failure (bonding) stress of a single bamboo and polymeric strip,

© ASCE 05017004-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Arrangement of the bamboo grid in samples for triaxial com-
pression test
using normal stresses of 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 kPa. The test
soil was the same as that used in the direct shear test. The width (b)
and effective embedment length (l) of the strip were 15 and
450 mm, respectively. When collecting the maximum pullout
(bonding) force (T f ) under different normal stresses, the corre-
sponding maximum pullout (bonding) stress (τ f ) and the interface
friction coefficient (f ) between the strip and the soil were calcu-
lated as
τ f ¼ T f =ð2blÞ ð3Þ
f  ¼ τ f =σv ð4Þ
Fig. 10. Variations of (a) average peak tensile stress; (b) average elastic modules with different ages
© ASCE 05017004-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004
Triaxial Compression Test of Soil Specimen with
Bamboo Grid
The test materials included the aforementioned soil and the 2-year-
old bamboo. A GSZ501 (Nanjing highway Instrument Factory,
Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, China) large triaxial apparatus
in the laboratory was used to perform the triaxial compressive test.
The strength and deformation characteristics tests on prime and
bamboo-reinforced soil were conducted at confining pressures of
100, 200, 300, 400, and 600 kPa. The diameter and height of the
soil specimen were 30 and 60 cm, respectively. Fig. 9 shows the
arrangement of the bamboo grid in the soil specimen. There
were three layers of bamboo grid in the longitudinal direction,
and the distance between every layer was 20 cm. Fig. 9 shows
the plane arrangement for the bamboo grid; the distance between
every bamboo strip was 10 cm.
When preparing nonreinforced soil samples, soil was uniformly
compacted in 12-cm-thick layers to achieve the desired height of the
circular cylinder. For the reinforced soil samples, the bamboo grid
was placed at different heights (Fig. 9) and the soil was uniformly
compacted in four thick layers (10, 20, 20, and 10 cm). When the
soil was compacted to the designated height, the bamboo strips were
placed on the surface after the top of soil layer was lightly scarified.
This operation was repeated until the desired height was achieved.
Tests were conducted at five different confining pressures (100, 200,
300, 400, and 600 kPa) for two types of samples. Five specimens
were prepared for each type, making a total of 10 specimens. The
loads were applied in steps with equal load increments in each
step using the axial strain–controlled method. If there was no maxi-
mum load in the tests, the tests were stopped when the axial strain
reached 15.6%.
Results and Discussions
Bamboo and Polymeric Strip Mechanical
Characteristics
Fig. 10 plots the mean peak tensile stress and elastic modulus of the
bamboo strips in the tensile test. Fig. 10(a) shows that the tensile
strength exhibited an increasing trend from the bottom of the plant
to top at the same age. The variation in tensile strength was small
when the age of the plant was greater than 2 years. The tensile
strength of 2-year-old bamboo was the highest for each section. The
average tensile strength of the three parts for 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and
6-year-old bamboo was 271.67, 239.13, 236.37, 243.47, and
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 4. Behavior Indexes of Polymeric (P) Strip and Bamboo (B) Strip
P B
Behavior Mean Standard Mean Standard
index force deviation force deviation TGDG120
T 2 (kN=m) 42.4 2.3 57.6 6.9 ≥36.0
T 5 (kN=m) 88.1 3.1 102.7 8.3 ≥72.0
T f (kN=m) 110.5 6.8 131.1 10.2 ≥120.0
δ (%) 9.3 0.2 7.5 0.2 ≤10.0
Note: T 2 = tensile force when the ratio of elongation is 2%; T 5 = tensile
force when the ratio of elongation is 5%; T f = last-ditch tensile force per
meter; δ = fracture elongation ratio.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 5. Interface Friction Coefficient for the Direct Shear Test

σv (kPa)
Arrangement φsg
scheme 100 200 400 600 800 Average (degrees)
A 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 12.5
B 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 18.0
Fig. 11. Variation of average peak bending stress with age

Table 6. Interface Friction Coefficient for the Pullout Test

σv (kPa)
Reinforced φsg
material 100 200 400 600 800 Average (degrees)
Bamboo strip 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.35 19.3
Polymeric strip 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.38 20.8

of the bamboo strip were higher, except fracture elongation ratio,

which was slightly smaller. Therefore bamboo that is at least 2 years
old can be used to reinforce the filling embankment of the BN ex-
pressway. The bending strength of the bamboo strip was higher than
that of the polymeric strip. The stress–strain curves trended toward
a strain-softening pattern, but the bending stress decreased slowly
after the ultimate bending stress was achieved. This indicates that
bamboo possesses excellent bending behavior and the bamboo grid
can be used to wrap the area in the vicinity of the embankment
slope. This function is similar to that of the bamboo cells.

Fig. 12. Variation of average peak bending strain with age

232.36 MPa, respectively. Fig. 10(b) shows that the elastic modulus
gradually decreased from the top of the plant to the bottom. Its
variation between the top and middle sections was minor when
the age was older than 2 years. The difference between the three
parts of two-year-old bamboo was very small, and the mean value
was 11.38 GPa. In summary, the reasonable cutting age for bamboo
plants is 2 years old.
Figs. 11 and 12 represent the variations in peak bending strength
and peak bending strain with age, respectively. In Fig. 11, the bend-
ing strength first decreased and then increased with the addition of
age, whereas Fig. 12 shows that the peak bending strain for the
upper section of 3-year-old bamboo was the largest (1.03%). The
peak bending strain exhibited an increasing trend for the middle
and bottom sections of the bamboo strip with increasing age.
This study selected the mechanical property indexes for the bot-
tom section of 2-year-old bamboo plants to compare with those of a
polymeric strip cut from a unidirectional polypropylene geogrid
(Table 4). Table 4 shows that all of the mechanical behavior indexes
Bamboo–Soil and Geogrid–Soil Interface
Characteristics
The direct shear test in this study was performed only to determine
a better arrangement for bamboo strips in a grid. Therefore there
is no comparison between bamboo–soil and geogrid–soil interface
characteristics. Table 5 lists the test results for the two arrange-
ments: Arrangement A, which kept the orientation of green (yel-
low) bamboo surfaces identical, and Arrangement B, in which the
orientation of green and yellow bamboo surfaces alternated. The
table shows that the interface friction coefficient slightly decreased
as the normal stress increased. In Table 5, the average interface fric-
tion coefficient was 0.22 when the orientations of the green (yellow)
bamboo surfaces were identical, and the value was 0.32 for the other
arrangement. The main reason is because the node on the yellow
bamboo surface can enhance shear resistance.
Table 6 lists the results of the pullout test for a single strip in
soil. The friction coefficient also slightly decreased as the normal
stress increased, and the bamboo–soil interface friction coefficient
was only slightly smaller than that of the geogrid–soil interface.
The two coefficients will be approximately the same in practical
engineering, considering the influence of soil in apertures.

© ASCE 05017004-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004

 Table 7. Failure Deviatoric Stress and Standard Deviation of Soils
ðσ1 − σ3 Þf (kPa)
Increment Increase in
Sample σ3 (kPa) Prime soil SD Reinforced soil SD (kPa) strength (%)
This paper (mudstone with bamboo) 100 378 16 552 18 174 46.0
200 642 22 830 25 188 29.3
300 944 30 1,174 33 230 24.1
400 1,252 35 1,502 36 250 20.0
600 1,780 41 2,018 47 238 13.4
Singh (2013) sand with CE-121 100 — 55.5–133.3
150 6.9–34.8
Shah et al. (2013) sand with strata geogrid 150 37.7–62.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(SG-150) 250 20.0–44.3

350 5.42–49.7
500 18.8–44.8

Soil and Reinforced Soil

Table 7 lists the mean value of the failure deviatoric stress and its
standard deviation in the two soil structures. The failure deviatoric
stress of the bamboo grid soil was significantly increased at the
same confining pressure, which indicates that the deformation can
be inhibited well with the bamboo grid reinforcement. The growth
rate of the failure deviatoric stress in the reinforced soil was 46.0,
29.3, 24.1, 20.0, and 13.4% at the corresponding confining pres-
sures of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 600 kPa, respectively, compared
with the prime soil. According to these data, the smaller the con-
fining pressure is, the more obvious is the growth rate of failure
deviatoric stress.
The internal cohesion (c) of prime and bamboo grid soil was
25.0 and 64.6 kPa, respectively, and rate of increase was 158.4%.
The internal friction angle (φ) of prime and bamboo grid soil was
35.7° and 36.5°, respectively. Therefore the compressive strength
and shear resistance of the soil were increased by the addition
Fig. 13. Practical bamboo grid in the expressway (image by Wenxi Fu)
of the Mohr–Coulomb strength parameters, c and φ, which is con-
sistent with several traditional geogrid-reinforced soil test results
(Akbulut et al. 2007; Singh 2013; Shah et al. 2013).
Subsequently, another theoretical demonstration was conducted old to reinforce the filling embankment of the BN expressway
to demonstrate the effect of a bamboo grid reinforced on the filling project. According to the physical and mechanical test results, in
embankment of the BN expressway. Assume that the filling height addition, the appropriate cutting age of fresh bamboo is 2 years old
H ¼ 20 m and the unit weight γ ¼ 20.2 kN=m3 . Therefore the and older.
maximum vertical earth pressure pz ¼ γH is approximately The friction coefficient at the interface of soil and bamboo in
400 kPa. The horizontal earth pressure ph ¼ K 0 pv is approxi- the friction test was 0.22 when the orientations of green (yellow)
mately 170 kPa if the static horizontal pressure coefficient (K 0 ) bamboo surfaces were identical, and the value was 0.32 for the
is 0.42 (Poison’s ratio = 0.3). Based on this analysis, the maximum other arrangement. The friction coefficient slightly decreased as the
confining pressure of the filling embankment on the BN express- normal stress increased. Therefore the latter arrangement, which
way project is within 170 kPa. This confirms that applying a bam- alternated the orientation of bamboo green and yellow surfaces,
boo geogrid to reinforce the filling embankment of an expressway was applied to reinforce the filling embankment of the BN express-
can lead to a better result. This conclusion was reached based on the way. Fig. 13 shows the practical bamboo grids applied to the BN
analysis performed and the data in Table 7. expressway.
The friction coefficient between soil and bamboo strips was 0.35
and the value for the interface of soil and polymeric strips was 0.38
Conclusions in the single-strip pullout test.
The growth rate of failure deviatoric stress in the reinforced soil
The density and water content of fresh bamboo are relatively stable was 46.0, 29.3, 24.1, 20.0, and 13.4% at corresponding confining
after 2 years of growth. The natural density of fresh bamboo is ap- pressures of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 600 kPa, compared with the
proximately 0.93–0.98 g=cm3 and its dry density is approximately prime soil. The smaller the confining pressure is, the more obvious
0.54–0.67 g=cm3 , based on test statistics. is the growth rate of failure deviatoric stress. The triaxial test clearly
Bamboo strips exhibit excellent mechanical behavior, and the reflects the stress environment of the filling embankment. The test
indexes of bamboo that is 2 years old or older can satisfy the speci- results show that the internal cohesion and friction angle for prime
fication requirements for traditional geogrids set by laboratory soil were 25.0 kPa and 35.7°, respectively. However, the internal
tensile and bending tests. Therefore it was feasible to apply eco- cohesion and friction angle for bamboo grid–reinforced soil were
nomical and environmentally friendly bamboo that is at least 2 years 64.6 kPa and 36.5°, respectively. The compressive strength for

© ASCE 05017004-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004

 bamboo grid–reinforced soil was significantly improved com-
pared with prime soil, and it can effectively suppress the settlement
of the filling embankment. The shear resistance increased corre-
spondingly, which could suppress a slip shear failure in the filling
embankment.
Only one type of bamboo (i.e., Sinocalamus affinis) and one
type of soil (i.e., red mudstone) were used in the study. Hence the
presented results are applicable to limited cases.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the National Key Basic Research Develop-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ment Program of China (Grant No. 2015CB057903) and the
New Century Excellent Talents Project by the Ministry of Educa-
tion of China (Grant No. NCET-13-0382) for financial support.
They also thank Elsevier’s Webshop for editing and polishing this
paper. Finally, they also thank the three peer reviewers for their
good suggestions.
References
Abdi, M. R., and Arjomand, M. A. (2011). “Pullout tests conducted on clay
reinforced with geogrid encapsulated in thin layers of sand.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 29(6), 588–595.
Abdul Khalil, H. P. S., Bhat, I. U. H., Jawaid, M., Zaidon, A., Hermawan,
D., and Hadi, Y. S. (2012). “Bamboo fibre reinforced biocomposites:
A review.” Mater. Des., 42, 353–368.
Agarwal, A., Nanda, B., and Maity, D. (2014). “Experimental investigation
on chemically treated bamboo reinforced concrete beams and columns.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 71, 610–617.
Akbulut, S., Arasana, S., and Kalkan, E. (2007). “Modification of clayey
soils using scrap tire rubber and synthetic fibers.” Appl. Clay Sci.,
38(1–2), 23–32.
Alamshahi, S., and Hataf, N. (2009). “Bearing capacity of strip footings
on sand slopes reinforced with geogrid and grid-anchor.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 27(3), 217–226.
Alawaji, H. A. (2001). “Settlement and bearing capacity of geogrid-
reinforced sand over collapsible soil.” Geotext. Geomembr., 19(2),
75–88.
ASTM. (2002). “Standard test method for determining the coefficient of
soil and geosynthetic or geosynthetic and geosynthetic friction by
the direct shear method.” ASTM D5321-02, Reston, VA.
BCS (Bureau of China Standards). (1975). “Method of testing in bending
strength of wood.” ISO 3133:1975, Beijing.
BCS (Bureau of China Standards). (1995). “Testing methods for physical
and mechanical properties of bamboos.” GB/T 15780:1995, Beijing.
BCS (Bureau of China Standards). (1999). “Geosynthetics plastic
geogrids.” GB/T 17689:1999, Beijing.
Benmebarek, S., Berrabah, F., and Benmebarek, N. (2015). “Effect of geo-
synthetic reinforced embankment on locally weak zones by numerical
approach.” Comput. Geotech., 65, 115–125.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). (1977). “Methods of tests for split
bamboos.” IS 8242:1976, New Delhi, India.
Chen, X. B., Zhang, J. S., and Li, Z. Y. (2014). “Shear behavior of a
geogrid-reinforced coarse-grained soil based on large-scale triaxial
tests.” Geotext. Geomembr., 42(4), 312–328.
Ghavami, K. (1988). “Application of bamboo as a low-cost construc-
tion material.” Proc., Int. Bamboo Workshop, Kerala Forest Research
Institute, Peechi, Kerala, India, 270–279.
Hebel, D. E., Javadian, A., Heisel, F., Schlesier, K., Griebel, D., and
Wielopolski, M. (2014). “Process-controlled optimization of the ten-
sile strength of bamboo fiber composites for structural applications.”
Compos. Part B: Eng., 67(67), 125–131.
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2014). “Use of bamboo in soft-ground
engineering and its performance comparison with geosynthetics: Exper-
imental studies.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0001224, 04014256.
© ASCE 05017004-9
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2015). “Experimental and analytical stud-
ies on soft clay beds reinforced with bamboo cells and geocells.” Int. J.
Geosynth. Ground Eng., 1(2), 1–13.
ISO. (2004). “Bamboo: Determination of physical and mechanical proper-
ties.” ISO 22157:2004, Geneva.
Jensen, W. B. (2008). “The origin of the polymer concept.” J. Chem. Educ.,
85(5), 624–625.
Kuity, A., and Roy, T. K. (2013). “Utilization of geogrid mesh for im-
proving the soft subgrade layer with waste material mix compositions.”
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 104(3), 255–263.
Kwan, C. C. J. (2006). “Geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast.” Ph.D.
thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Nottingham, Nottingham,
U.K.
Li, H. T., Zhang, Q. S., Huang, D. S., and Deeks, A. J. (2013). “Compres-
sive performance of laminated bamboo.” Compos. Part B: Eng., 54,
319–328.
Li, M., Chai, S. X., Du, H. P., Wei, L., and Shi, Q. (2010). “Reasonable
reinforcement position and shear strength model of reinforced saline
soil with wheat straw and line.” Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng., 29(3),
3293–3299 (in Chinese).
Li, Z. J., Liu, C. P., and Yu, T. X. (2002). “Laminate of reformed bamboo
and extruded fiber-reinforced cementitious plate.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002)14:5(359), 359–365.
Liu, C. N., Ho, Y. H., and Huang, J. W. (2009). “Large scale direct shear
tests of soil/PET-yarn geogrid interfaces.” Geotext. Geomembr., 27(1),
19–30.
Liu, D. G., Song, J. W., Debbie, P. A., Chang, P. R., and Hua, Y. (2012).
“Bamboo fiber and its reinforced composites: Structure and properties.”
Cellulose, 19(5), 1449–1480.
Low, I. M., Che, Z. Y., Latella, B. A., and Sim, K. S. (2006). “Mechanical
and fracture properties of bamboo.” Key Eng. Mater., 312, 15–20.
Mahdavi, M., Clouston, P. L., and Arwade, S. R. (2011). “Development
of laminated bamboo lumber: Review of processing, performance, and
economical considerations.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061 /(ASCE)MT
.1943-5533.0000253, 1036–1042.
Mattox, R. M. (1987). “Geogrid reinforcement for Cochrane bridge
embankment.” Geotext. Geomembr., 6(1), 225–232.
Mitch, D., Harries, K. A., and Sharma, B. (2010). “Characterization of
splitting behavior of bamboo culms.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000120, 1195–1199.
Mukhopadhyay, P., and Dutta, S. C. (2015). “Investigating compressive and
cleavage strengths of an Indian bamboo species.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001187, 06014029.
O’Kelly, B. C., and Naughton, P. J. (2008). “On the interface shear resis-
tance of a novel geogrid with in-plane drainage capability.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 26(4), 357–362.
Palmeira, E. M. (2009). “Soil-geosynthetic interaction: Modelling and
analysis.” Geotext. Geomembr., 27(5), 368–390.
Ramirez, F., Correal, J. F., Yamin, L. E., Atoche, J. C., and Piscal, C. M.
(2012). “Dowel-bearing strength behavior of glued laminated Guadua
bamboo.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533,
1378–1387.
Rowe, R. K., and Mylleville, B. L. J. (1996). “A geogrid reinforced em-
bankment on peat over organic silt: A case history.” Can. Geotech. J.,
33(1), 106–122.
Shah, M. Y., Saran, S., and Mittal, S. (2013). “Effect of geogrid reinforce-
ment on hyperbolic stress strain behavior of sand: An experimental
investigation.” Int. J. Sci. Res., 2(1), 654–659.
Sharma, B., Gatóo, A., and Ramage, M. H. (2015). “Effect of processing
methods on the mechanical properties of engineered bamboo.” Constr.
Build. Mater., 83, 95–101.
Singh, H. P. (2013). “Strength and stiffness response of medium dense
reinforced sand.” Int. J. Current Eng. Technol., 3(4), 1419–1423.
Sivakumar Babu, G. L., and Vasudevan, A. K. (2008). “Strength and stiff-
ness response of coir fiber-reinforced tropical soil.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:9(571), 571–577.
Sulastiningsih, I. M., and Nurwati (2009). “Physical and mechanical
properties of laminated bamboo board.” J. Trop. For. Sci., 21(3),
246–251.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Tatsuoka, F., Koseki, J., and Tateyama, M. (1995). “Performance of
geogrid-reinforced soil retaining walls during the great Hanshin-
Awaji earthquake.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Tokyo, 55–62.
Terai, M., and Minami, K. (2011). “Fracture behavior and mechanical
properties of bamboo reinforced concrete members.” Procedia Eng.,
10, 2967–2972.
Van der Lugt, P., Van den Dobbelsteen, A. A. J. F., and Abrahams, R.
(2003). “Bamboo as a building material alternative for Western
Europe?” J. Bamboo Rattan, 2(3), 205–223.
Van der Lugt, P., Van den Dobbelsteen, A. A. J. F., and Janssen, J. J. A.
(2006). “An environmental, economic, and practical assessment of
bamboo as a building material for supporting structures.” Constr. Build.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Manchester on 03/09/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mater., 20(9), 648–656.
Wang, H. K., Li, W. J., Ren, D., Yu, Z. X., and Yu, Y. (2014a). “A two-
variable model for predicting the effects of moisture content and density
on compressive strength parallel to the grain for moso bamboo.”
J. Wood Sci., 60(5), 362–366.
Wang, H. Y., Zhao, W. F., and Bu, G. B. (2012). “Application technology
of bamboo reinforced concrete in building structures.” Archit. Technol.,
43(7), 605–607.
© ASCE 05017004-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2018, 30(2): 05017004
Wang, L. Y., Chen, G. X., and Chen, S. (2015). “Experimental study
on seismic response of geogrid reinforced rigid retaining walls with
saturated backfill sand.” Geotext. Geomembr., 43(1), 35–45.
Wang, Q. B., Wen, X. K., Jiang, J. Q., Zhang, C., and Shi, Z. Y. (2014b).
“Experimental study on performance of multidirectional geogrid and its
application in engineering of high slope.” J. Wuhan Univ. Technol.
Mater. Sci. Ed., 29(4), 704–711.
Wong, K. J., Zahi, S., Low, K. O., and Lim, C. C. (2010). “Fracture char-
acterization of short bamboo fibre reinforced polyester composites.”
Mater. Des., 31(9), 4147–4154.
Xing, H. F., Zhang, Z., Liu, H. B., and Wei, H. (2014). “Large-scale tests
of pile-supported earth platform with and without geogrid.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 42(6), 586–598.
Yang, G. Q., Liu, H. B., Lv, P., and Zhang, B. J. (2012). “Geogrid-
reinforced lime-treated cohesive soil retaining wall: Case study and
implications.” Geotext. Geomembr., 35(39), 112–118.
Yoo, C. (2001). “Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behavior of
strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand slope.” Geotext. Geomembr.,
19(5), 279–298.
Yue, B. H., and Zhong, S. Z. (2001). The investigation report of the great
wall in Han dynasty on Shule River, Cultural Relics Press, Beijing
(in Chinese).
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.