approval sheet · web viewfrom the 62 species of bamboo present in the philippines, 21 of them are...

A Comparative Study on the Mechanical Properties of the Different Species of

Bamboo in the Philippines

by

Eizen Gabriel D. CasanovaJoi Z. Gutierrez

Jhane Crystal Raphael K. Macapaz Zoё T. Salinas

A Research Paper submitted to the Mapua Senior High School Department in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for

Research Project (RES04)

Mapua University April 2019

i

APPROVAL SHEET

This is to certify that we have supervised the preparation of and read the practicum paper prepared by Eizen Gabriel D. Casanova, Joi Z. Gutierrez, Jhane Crystal Raphael Macapaz, Zoë T. Salinas entitled A Comparative Study on the Mechanical Properties of the Different Species of Bamboo in the Philippines and that the said research paper has been submitted for final examination by the Oral Examination Committee.

Engr. Adonis P. Adornado Ms. Nestly C. Angeles, M.Sc.Industry Adviser Academe Adviser

As members of the Oral Examination Committee, we certify that we have examined this research paper, presented before the committee on April 4, 2019, and hereby recommend that it be accepted as fulfilment of the requirement for the Senior High School – STEM.

Engr. Alfred Kenneth Petiza Ms. Liza Coralyn MundoPanel Member Panel Member

Engr. Hazel Jean SorianoCommittee Chair

This research paper is hereby approved and accepted by the Mapúa Senior High School Office as fulfillment of the requirement for the course Practical Research 2 (RES02).

Dr. Lilibeth D. SabinoPrincipal

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our deepest appreciation to the Almighty Lord for guiding u

s throughout the entire process of creating this study.

This study would also not have been made possible without the advice and instruction of our

research advisers Dr. Allan Soriano and Engr. Adonis Adornado, our research professor Mrs.

Nestly Anne Cruz-Angeles, and Vergel Rodriguez, the staff of Mapua University’s UTM Ce

nter.

Utmost guidance and support was provided by the team of the Institute of Plant Breed

ing at the University of the Philippines Los Banos, especially Mr. Aldrin John Alvarez, Mr, J

essthony Paderon, Mr. Jhon Cristiam Gamboza, and Dr. Pompe Sta. Cruz.

Our passion and interest in conducting this study was inspired by the wisdom shared t

o us by Dr. Merdelyn Caasi-lit, for whom we will continue to pursue academic research for t

he betterment of mankind throughout our lives.

For this achievement and many more, we continue to give glory and gratitude to the omnipot

ent Father Almighty.

The researchers would like to thank the following:UPLB - College of Agriculture and Food Science- Institute of Plant Breeding Entomology Laboratory

Eizen Gabriel D. Casanova Joi Z. GutierrezJhane Crystal Raphael J. Macapaz Zoë T. Salinas

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

APPROVAL PAGE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

TABLE OF CONENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES v i

LIST OF FIGURES vi i

ABSTRACT i x

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4

Usage of bamboo in the industry 4

Effects of different factors to bamboo’ s mechanical properties 7

Bamboo as an alternative construction material for engineering projects 9

Effects of mechanical processes to the mechanical properties of bamboo 11

Comparative discussion regarding the mechanical properties of bamboo 11

Methods in determining the mechanical properties of bamboo 12

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 20Introduction 27Methodology 31

Sample Preparation 31

Testing Apparatuses 33

Determining the Mechanical Properties of Bamboo 33Comparison of Mechanical Properties 35

Statistical Formulas and Computations 36

iv

Results and Discussion 37

References 76

Chapter 4: CONCLUSION 72

Chapter 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 74

REFERENCES 76

APPENDICES 79

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Performance Comparison 19Table 2. Equipment used in Determining the Mechanical Properties of Bamboo 24(Verma, C. & Chariar, V., 2012)Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Bamboo (Acma, 2017) 25Table 4. Mechanical Properties of Bamboo (Sharma et al., 2015; Yang et al., 252018; Zakikhani et al., 2017)Table 5. Average Values of Mechanical PropertiesTable 6. ANOVA and Tukey Pairwise Comparison test result for Mechanical Properties vs Parts per species 38Table 7. ANOVA and Tukey Pairwise Comparison Test Result for Mechanical 57Properties Vs BambooTable 8. Summary of the Highest Average Values of the Mechanical Properties of 57BambooTable 9. Possible uses of Kiling based on its Mechanical PropertieS 66(Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017) Table 10. Possible uses of Bayog based on its Mechanical Properties 67(Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017) Table 11. Possible uses of Kayali based on its Mechanical Properties 68(Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017) Table 12. Possible uses of Laak based on its Mechanical Property 69(Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017)

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 2FIGURE 1. Flexural Strength Testing

FIGURE 2. Instron Universal Testing Machine Chapter 3FIGURE 3. FlowchartFIGURE 4. Bamboo Collection and Bamboo SamplesFIGURE 5. Sample of Different Parts of Laak Bamboo Strips FIGURE 6. Three-Point Setup and Universal Testing Machine ModelFIGURE 7. Compression TestsFIGURE 8. Tensile TestsFIGURE 9. Average Compression strength of KilingFIGURE 10. Comparison of The Compression strength Between the Parts of Kiling (1 - Base

2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 11. Average Compressive Strength of Kayali (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: To

p)FIGURE 12. Comparison of The Compressive Strength Between the Parts of Kayali (1 - Bas

e, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 13. Average Compressive Strength of Bayog (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green:Top)FIGURE 14. Comparison of The Compressive Strength Between the Parts of Bayog (1 - Bas

e, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 15. Average Compressive Strength of Laak (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)FIGURE 16. Comparison of the Compressive Strength Between the Parts of Laak (1 - Base,

2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 17. Average Flexural Strength of Kiling (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top) FIGURE 18. Comparison of The Flexural Strength Between the Parts of Kiling (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

FIGURE 19. Average Flexural Strength of Kayali (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)FIGURE 20. Comparison of The Flexural Strength Between the Parts of Kayali (1 - Base, 2 -

Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 21. Average Flexural Strength of Bayog (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)FIGURE 22. Comparison of the Flexural Strength Between the Parts of Bayog (1 - Base, 2 -

Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 23. Average Flexural Strength of Laak (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top) FIGURE 24. Comparison of The Flexural Strength Between the Parts of Laak (1 - Base,

2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 25. Average Tensile Strength of Kiling (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

vii

FIGURE 26. Comparison of the Tensile Strength Between the Parts of Kiling (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

FIGURE 27. Average Tensile Strength of Kayali (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top) FIGURE 28. Comparison of the Flexural Strength Between the Parts of Kayali (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 29. Average Tensile Strength of Bayog (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top) FIGURE 30. Comparison of the Flexural Strength Between the Parts of Bayog (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 31. Average Tensile Strength of Laak (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top) FIGURE 32. Comparison of the Flexural Strength Between the Parts of Laak (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)FIGURE 33. Average Compressive Strengths of the Bottom Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red,

Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)FIGURE 34. Average Compressive Strengths of the Middle Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red,

Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)FIGURE 35. Average Compressive Strengths of the Top Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Ba

yog: Green, Laak: Violet)FIGURE 37. Average Flexural Strength of the Bottom Parts

FIGURE 38. Average Flexural Strengths of the Middle Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet

FIGURE 39. Average Flexural Strengths of the Top Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)FIGURE 40. Comparison of Flexural Strength Between Species (1 - Kiling, 2 - Kayali, 3- Bayog, 4 - Laak)

FIGURE 41. Average Tensile Strengths of the Bottom Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

FIGURE 42. Average Tensile Strengths of the Middle Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

FIGURE 43. Average Tensile Strengths of the Top Parts (Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)FIGURE 44. Comparison of Tensile Strength Between Species ( 1 - Kiling, 2 - Kayali, 3- Bayog, 4 - Laak )

viii

Abstract

Bamboo is a useful and widely available natural resource that can be found in most Asian countries, yet it is not commonly used as a structural material despite its strength and durability compared to other materials. Studies was conducted by different researchers to evaluate the mechanical properties of different species of bamboo to determine their potential for practical use, but little to no studies have been made to investigate endemic species of bamboo grown in the Philippines. Because of this, the researchers studied the mechanical properties of various species of bamboo found in the Philippines, namely Gigantochloa atter, Bambusa vulgaris, Bambusa merilliana, and Bambusa philippinensis. Bamboo culms were collected and sampled from the University of the Philippines Los Baños and underwent different simulated tests. Among the mechanical properties, compression, flexural, and tensile strengths of the bamboo were determined by means of UTM to quantify the strength (measured in ASTM standard) of each property that varied among species used.

Keywords: bamboo, endemic, UTM, mechanical property, strength

ix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Bamboo- a naturally occurring composite material which is obtainable and is easily

accessible in most Asian countries (Li, 2004). In the study of Wang and Shen (1987), more t

han 1,200 species of bamboo have been identified (as cited in Li, 2004, p. 39). In addition,

Quang Lien and Danh Minh (2011) found that there are 1,250 bamboo species of 75 differen

t genera which are within most of the climatic regions that consist of tropical and subtropica

l temperature. According to Ohrnberger (1999), the various species can be found within diff

erent ecosystems that cover 18 million hectares of the continents of Asia, Africa and Americ

a (as cited in Bawer, 2015). The majority of important bamboo species are found in Asian c

ountries (Quang Lien & Danh Minh, 2011).

From the 62 species of bamboo present in the Philippines, 21 of them are endemic in

the country. Some of these endemic species are Bayog, which makes up 1.5% of the bambo

o in the Philippines, and Laak, which makes up 10%. These two species are on the list of the

Top 12 bamboo species that have the highest potential contribution to the country’s develop

ment (“Department of Science and Technology”, 2011).

Bamboo has been used the longest for constructing works (Latif, 1990). It commonly

is lighter than the other materials and stronger, causing it to be commonly used for the first a

irplane designs. Bamboo has a high silica content, which is used in manufacturing engineeri

ng materials. It has greater tensile strength than steel and even resists compression better tha

n concrete (Sharma et al., 2015). However, it is not commonly used in construction and is co

nsidered mostly as a decorative function. Studies about bamboo utilization in construction ar

e also relatively new and need more attention.

Various related studies by the previous researchers cited in this study conducted a si

1

milar process of testing the different factors affecting the mechanical properties of bamboo.

They used different conditions such as varying humidity, microwave drying, processing met

hods, strain rate, and density and heat treatment (Yang & Lee, 2018). The study by Ogunbiy

i et al. (2015) compared bamboo’s tensile strength with steel and concrete. Almost all of the

studies used either processed bamboo or bamboo culm in their studies. Most have used Univ

ersal Testing Machines (UTMs) and UTMs with modified four-point set-ups for the mechan

ical properties testing of the bamboo samples in their respective studies.

Further research is needed to experiment with the data gathered in the studies cited i

n this paper and put into application. Sharma et al. (2015) were able to simulate conditions t

o test the different varieties of the mechanical properties of bamboo. However, they did not i

nclude applying this with tangible prototypes to demonstrate how it can be used in construct

ion. An analysis on how bamboo can be best incorporated with other building materials and

what needs to be done for it to become suitable in engineering projects is needed. A compre

hensive study about bamboo’s chemical components is also needed for a deeper understandi

ng of its composition. Moreover, there are little studies about bamboo conducted in the Phili

ppines and focused on its endemic species. There is a limited number of studies that were ab

le identify what uses bamboo can potentially serve as an alternative material based on its me

chanical properties.

This study was conducted with the focus in the mechanical properties of the d

ifferent species of bamboo Gigantochloa atter (Kayali), Bambusa vulgaris (Kiling), Bambus

a merilliana (Bayog), and Bambusa Philippinensis (Laak), and to identify the uses of these pr

operties. Specifically, it intended to: (a) measure the mechanical properties of the above-ment

ioned species of bamboo, namely tensile strength, compression strength, and flexural strength;

(b) compare these mechanical properties among each species and among their parts; and (c)

2

determine to what extent and for what uses these bamboo species’ mechanical properties can

be applied.

This study was done in order to identify the maximum possible usability

of the different species of bamboo so as to further promote the usage of bamboo in the indust

ry; specifically, in construction. Also, as well as highlight the potential of bamboo as an abun

dant and under-used material. This paper may also serve as a future reference for studies rega

rding the use of bamboo as the construction material or to help bamboo-based manufacturers

promote their products. The results may contribute to the future of non-traditional materials i

n construction, especially in rural areas in the Philippines and Asia where bamboo is more ac

cessible and less expensive than traditional building materials, paving a way for more efficie

nt and cost-effective construction projects for countries where bamboo is endemic and abund

ant.

This research was designed to focus only on quantification of the three chose

n mechanical properties of those four chosen species of bamboo. This study did not experim

ent with the mixing of bamboo with other materials nor was it used to reinforce them. The re

searchers did not include the usage of bamboo in building prototypes nor the study using ba

mboo for new innovations or inventions.

3

Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter gives an overview regarding the previous researches on mechanical pro

perties of different species bamboo. This aims to introduce the framework of the research wi

th the use of citations from related studies.

1. Origins and taxonomy of bamboo

Bamboo is a tall, tree-like grass that are commonly grown in tropical countries (Li, 2

004; “Bamboo Groove”, 2007). It is known as “the plant of a thousand uses” (Clark, Londoñ

o & Sanchez, 2015). In terms of classification, bamboo is part of the grass family: Graminea

e or Poacea (Razal, Dolom, Palacpac, Villanueva, Camacho, Alipon, Bantayan, & Malab, 2

012). There are 3 tribes of various species of bamboo: Arundinarieae, Bambuseae, and Olyr

eae which are considerd as temperate, tropical, and herbaceous woody bamboos. Analyses o

f DNA sequence data was used to achieve a better comprehension regarding the

evolutionary relationships between tribes- through different forest types in both temperate a

nd tropical places where bamboo is developed, yet a few bamboo species have adjusted to a

widespace of grasslands or grow in specialized territory. Bamboo consists of different speci

es that can take in different properties: some species grow upright or are vine-like, some are

long or are stout, and some have a hollow space in the middle of the stem.

2. Usage of bamboo in the industry

Bamboo has been recognized by different industries as a very versatile material beca

use of its wide range of capabilities from ornamental to construction uses (Anokye et al., 20

4

14). In Southeast Asia, bamboo is used as a food source, as a construction material - for buil

ding roads, renovating damaged schools, houses, and scaffolding, as a fuel source, as well as

for household, farm, fishing tools. Other uses of bamboo include serving as a material for to

ys and ornamental crafts that are of an advantage to the daily lives of people (Liese & Ko hl,

2015; Razal et al., 2012; Li, 2004). Asian countries utilize bamboo as a temporary exterior s

tructural material for building bridges, scaffoldings and housing (Narasimhamurthy, Maya,

Nadanwar, Pandey, 2013). In China, bamboo is used for agroforestry, while Europe and the

United States use bamboo as ornamental plants (Gielis, 2002).

According to Abdullah et al. (2017), bamboo is cultivated because it possesses

good mechanical strength that can be used for structural application. After harvesting, bamb

oo can replenish itself, making it a renewable resource for biomass (Bawer, 2015). Utilizatio

n of its fast recovery and cheapness is a component that benefits the wood and paper industr

y (Gielis, 2002; Anokye et al., 2014). Commonly used by the rural poor population, bamboo

is one of the best options for materials as shelter and food for it costs less than other material

s such as wood (Bawer, 2015).

According to Gielis (2002), the uses of bamboo can be classified into two: as a plant

and as a material. Bamboo as a plant can be utilized for stabilization and conservation of eco

logy, as well as varying and innovating agroforestry. As a material, bamboo can be used in c

onstructing houses as an alternative to wood material, and can consequently benefit the woo

d and paper industries. Bamboo can also serve as a source of food, an ingredient for bioche

mical and pharmaceutical outputs, and as a renewable source of energy.

3. Effects of different factors to bamboo’s mechanical properties

According to Bawer (2015), the more elevated the bamboo species is, the div

5

ersity, richness, and evenness increases but the bamboo population decreases. In the experi

ment that Bawer conducted, she proved that the type of habitat has an effect to the biodiver

sity of bamboo. Man-made ecosystems such as farms and residential areas have lower speci

es diversity and have lower possibilities of having indigenous endemic species, unlike natur

al forest ecosystems (Bawer, 2015).

Moisture has a significant role in the bamboo’s mechanical properties (Jakovljević,

Lisjak, Alar, & Penava, 2017). Through experimentation, they concluded that when bamboo

is exposed to wet conditions, “the percentage of moisture change in specimens is less than 0,

73%”, which led to the statement that bamboo does not have any major changes in terms of i

ts weight (Jakovljević et al., 2017). The results also indicated that in 3 weeks of 60% humid

conditions or dry conditions, the specimens had lower mechanical properties; tensile, compr

essive and bending strengths all had a prominent decrease.

However, found in the study of Abdullah et al. (2017) was that increasing

the strength of bamboo’s mechanical properties can be achieved when water content is decr

eased. The mechanical properties of bamboo culm are lesser than other parts of the bamboo

(Abdullah et al., 2012). In contrast, bamboo nodes have higher density and mechanical prop

erties when matured (Gutu, 2013). According to Lakkad and Patel (1980), to maximize the

“tensile and flexural strength and rigidity” of the bamboo in the cellulose fibers, the fibers ar

e arrayed parallel to the length of the bamboo (as cited in Li, 2004).

Characterized by the nodes, the culm has strong oriented axial internodes which hind

er the lateral movement of nutrients or liquids due to the absence of radial elements. The dia

phragm has a solid wall inter-connected to the nodes that it provides (Walter, 2015).

In the study of Abdullah et al. (2014), mechanical properties of bamboo have a highe

r capacity than the soft and rigid woods. Almost all of the studies’ results encourage the bam

6

boo utilization as an alternative engineering material for constructions. Though the use of ba

mboo in some countries is still constrained to handicrafts and furniture, it can be proven to b

e suitable for construction through continuous research.

4. Use of bamboo in the Philippines

Bamboo is abundant in most Asian countries including the Philippines. According to

the Department of Science and Technology (2011), 62 species grow within the country but o

nly 21 of these are endemic or native species. According to Caasi-Lit, Mabesa, and Candelar

ia (2010), the most prevalent bamboo species is ‘Kauayang-tinik’ or Bambusa blumeana, w

hile ‘Kauayang-kiling’ or Bambusa vulgaris is the second most prevalent bamboos species.

‘Laak’ or Bambusa philippinensis is a species that can be seen mostly in the Davao province

(Caasi-Lit et al., 2010).

Due to the abundance of bamboo in the Philippines, it became a part of the culture, tr

adition, as well as the ecological system of the country. According to Bawer (2015), bambo

o holds one of the most efficient roles in the Philippines’ ecological, cultural, economic and

social needs. From the ancient times to the present, bamboo has been used as a material to cr

eate houses, mostly in the rural areas, used for cooking, as utensils and food, in fishing, as fi

shpens and boat material, and also farming, as fences (Razal et al., 2012).

In terms of tradition, bamboo is incorporated within the Filipino’s native parlor game

s and folk dances such as pabitin, palosebo and Tinikling. Over-harvesting of bamboo affect

ed its industry by causing major deterioration of soil in river banks according to a study abo

ut bamboo shoot by Caasi-Lit, Mabesa, and Candelaria (2010). Banning of harvesting of Ba

mbusa vulgaris for any kind of use was implemented in Ilocos in the 1990’s (Caasi-Lit et al.,

7

2010).

5. Bamboo as an alternative construction material for engineering projects

Bamboo has been used by humans for centuries (Narasimhamurthy et al., 2013; Raza

l et al., 2012). It is mostly used because it is an eco-friendly and cost-efficient resource (Lies

e & Ko hl, 2015; Razal et al., 2012). Due to its many benefits, it is used as an alternative for

metal (Liese & Ko hl, 2015). The wood-like characteristics of bamboo makes it an ideal

alternative to wood, especially with the accelerating depletion of wood supply from the f

orest (Anokye et al., 2014). According to the PCARRD, in the Philippine Furniture and Han

dicraft Sub-clusters Industry Strategic Plan (2005-2020) a recommendation of making the b

amboo processing industry as a alternative industry to a massive part ot the wood industry (a

s cited in Razal et al., 2012).

In the study of Wang, J. Zhang, and Z. Zhang (2017), the strength of wood, bamboo

and steel materials were tested. The hardness of each material was identified through the use

of a universal testing machine (UTM). According to Gutu (2013), Spruce wood, bamboo an

d steel produced a tensile strength of 0.1076 GPa, compression strength 0.0188 GPa, and fle

xural strength 0.0614 GPa. Furthermore, oak and Korean pine has the same result with woo

d, bamboo and steel.

Table 1. Performance Comparison (in Gpa)

8

Material Tensile strength(Gpa)

Flexural strength(Gpa)

Compressive strength(Gpa)

Oak 0.15355 0.11003 0.06223Korean Pine 0.0981 0.0653 0.0328

In the book of Sharma et al. (2015), researchers compared bamboo to a construction

material. Comparison between the mechanical properties of scrimber and laminated bambo

o’s to timber and timber-engineered products was conducted. Another study compared bamb

oo’s tensile strength to steel reinforcement bars (Ogunbiyi et al., 2015). Findings from both

researches indicated that bamboo has good mechanical properties which is suitable for build

ing constructions.

However, bamboo did not surpass the category for it to be the main structural material; it ca

n only be used in projects that are not heavy load-bearing.

Sharma et al., (2015) also compared both the scrimber bamboo and laminated bambo

o. The result showed that the two of them were anisotropic in behavior that can be innately s

een in natural bamboo. The same behavior is alike to the behavior of fibre reinforced compo

sites.

In the study of Kumar and Vasugi (2014), the focus was on the feasibility of bamboo

usage as reinforcement medium for concrete beams used for rural constructions. Both treate

d and untreated bamboo that concrete beams that is reinforced were casted together with dif

ferent stirrup mediums. The findings indicated that bamboo reinforced concrete beams can b

e considered because of their durability, cost-effectivity, and sustainability. However, the du

rability of conventional steel reinforced concrete beam is better than bamboo.

6. Effects of mechanical processes to the mechanical properties of bamboo

9

Based on the study of Yang and Lee (2018), the effect to the UBSBs (unidirectional

round bamboo stick boards) made from Makino bamboo of density and heat treatment was e

xamined. The results indicated that in thickness direction, the UBSBs with different densitie

s actually had uniform densities. Thus, there was a decrease in moisture content and tensile

property after the heat treatment. The researchers added that the UBSB with optimal density

and heat-treated bamboo sticks has the potential to be used as an eco-friendly and sustainabl

e material in engineering projects.

The importance of bamboo in the industry was highlighted in the book “Sustainable

bamboo development”. Bamboo is suitable for construction as an engineering material beca

use of its fine rigidity. Bamboo is processed to be used as a material for daily commodities o

r handicrafts (Zhu, Z., & Jin, W. 2018). Through the processing of bamboo, it was discovere

d that mechanical properties of the species of bamboo increased in capacity as the moisture

content decreased (Akinlabi et al., 2017). Furthermore, in another study by Sharma et al. (20

15), results indicated that the mechanical processes have no effects to the properties of engin

eered bamboo products.

7. Comparative discussion regarding the mechanical properties of bamboo

Abdullah et al. (2017) used five different bamboo species grown in Indonesia, name

ly Temen, Apus, Kuning, Gombong, and Hitam. The researchers identified the tensile stren

gth, modulus of elasticity, density, and morphology. These mechanical properties were com

pared among these species. Overall, they found Bamboo Temen to have the best mechanica

l performance. In a similar study, Acma (2017) compared seven bamboo species that were

planted in Central Mindanao and subjected them to four-point flexural tests, compression p

10

arallel to grain tests, and shear parallel to grain tests. The results produced were varied, sho

wing no particular species to have the most strength in all tests.

Another study by Zakikhan et al. (2017) discussed the comparison of four bamboo s

pecies by evaluating the number of fibre strands in vascular bundles and single fibres. Thes

e were extracted from three portions of each sample and examined. It was found that water

content and water absorption are inversely proportional to the performance of mechanical p

roperties. It was also evident that the bottom portion of each bamboo species tested exhibite

d the highest aspect ratio and tensile properties. The study concluded that the bamboo speci

es should be characterized for it to be utilized effectively before application in composite m

aterials. All three of these studies compared the mechanical properties of different kinds of

bambo, only 1 of which subjected the samples to strength testing.

8. Methods in determining the mechanical properties of bamboo

There are different methods to measure a certain mechanical property of bamboo: c

ompression strength test parallel to the grain to measure the compressive strength, shear str

ength test parallel to grain to measure the shear strength, flexural tests to measure the flexur

al strength strength and the flexural modulus, tensile test to measure the tensile strength and

the flexural test to measure the flexural strength of a bamboo. According to Jamal (2017), a

universal testing machine (UTM), which can be seen in Fig. 2, is used to know the measure

the tensile, shear, compression , and flexural strengths of the bamboo.

The compressive and the tensile strength of a bamboo are regarded as the longitudin

al direction that is parallel to the direction of the bamboo fibres (Fabiani, 2015). According

to Acma (2017), the use of compression supplemental tool of the universal testing machine

(UTM) with the stipulation of ISO/TC 165 /N314 will be able to test the bamboo’s compres

11

sive strength. Before testing, the specimens were all soaked in fresh water to avoid crackin

g before the actual test. Specimens were reduced of their nodes and their lengths were meas

ured the same from their outer diameters (Acma, 2017; Fabiani, 2015), but the measuremen

t was doubled for those of the outer diameter of specimens that measured 20 mm or less for

their outer diameter (Acma, 2017). To measure the compressive strength of bamboo, divide

it by the average area of the bamboo culm that is able to resist the load. This must be done

when the bamboo begins to break into small pieces (Acma, 2017). In reference to Acma (2

017), the compression test parallel to grain was done thrice and the average of the three dat

a that were accumulated from the top, middle and bottom part of the bamboo became the av

erage compression strength, whereas Fabiani (2015) had 12 compression tests for each spec

ies.

The bamboo’s bending strength is considered as one of the needed mechanical prope

rty, for a bamboo has a high possibility of having a factor that may cause it to bend (Anokye

et al., 2016). Placing four wood saddles at the supports and two load- points before the speci

mens were tested was a method to avoid the crushing of the bamboo before the test was con

ducted (Anokye et al., 2016). Thus, it was further explained that the specimens were then tes

ted by a four-point bending. Anokye et al. (2016), added that improvement unto the strength

of the cross-section was done by the hose clamps located at the support and at load-points.

Acma (2017) stated that modified four-point setup should be used to achieve the flex

ural strength of bamboo, as shown in Figure 1. A crack should be heard during the loading d

ue to either breakage of the bamboo in the bottom or ultimate bending in the location of atta

chment of the central fourpoint load. Furthermore, to achieve breaking in bending “the free s

pan was at least 30 x D, in which D is the outside diameter” (Acma, 2017).

12

Figure 1. Flexural Strength Test

Figure 2. Instron Universal Testing Machine

13

Table 2. Equipment used in determining the Mechanical Properties of Bamboo (Verma, C. & Chariar, V., 2012)

Mechanical Properties

Standard Used

Dimension of specimens(Overall

length x gage length x width

x thickness) (mmxmm)

Machine used and capacity

Cross head speed(mm/min

)

Tensile ASTM standard D3039

200 x100 x 15x

1.5

Instron UTM(5T) 2

Compressive ASTM standard D3410

120 x 6 x 16 x 1

Instron UTM(10T) 2

Flexural ASTM standard D7264 200 x 16 x 2 Instron

UTM(5T) 2

Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Bamboo (Acma, 2017)

14

Table 4. Mechanical Properties of Bamboo (Sharma et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2018; Zakikhani et al., 2017)

Among the results of the studies, many have suggested that bamboo is suitable t

o be used in engineering products and is not limited to a decorative function. However, it curr

ently cannot be used for projects that are heavy-load bearing. Further studies need to be cond

ucted to determine the ways in which bamboo can be used as a constructive material. Many o

f the studies were able to quantify the mechanical properties of bamboo, yet few have used th

e results to experiment their application in prototypes and projects. Additionally, there is a li

mited number of studies that experimented with different methods that can be used for the de

velopment and bettterment of the bamboo’s mechanical properties. Most of the studies focus

ed on testing the bamboo to determine their mechanical properties. Some researchers have do

15

ne this among several species and compared the mechanical properties among them. Other sp

ecies of bamboo have not been studied. A large meta-analysis is also needed in order to put al

l of the data gathered across various studies into practical use.

16

Chapter 3

A Comparative Study on the Mechanical Properties of the Different Species of Bamboo

Abstract

Bamboo is a useful and widely available natural resource that can be found in most Asian countries, yet it is not commonly used as a structural material despite its strength and durability compared to other materials such as concrete and steel . Conduction of different studies took place to evaluate the mechanical properties of different bamboo species to determine their potential for practical use, but little to no studies have been made to investigate endemic bamboo species grown in the Philippines. Because of this, the researchers studied the mechanical properties of various kinds of bamboo found in the Philippines, namely Gigantochloa atter, Bambusa vulgaris, Bambusa merilliana, and Bambusa philippinensis. Bamboo culms were collected and sampled from the University of the Philippines Los Baños and underwent different simulated tests. Among the mechanical properties, compression, flexural, and tensile strengths of the bamboo were determined by means of UTM to quantify the strength (measured in ASTM standard) of each property that varied among species used.

Keywords: bamboo, endemic, UTM, mechanical property, strength

1. Introduction

Bamboo- a naturally occurring composite material which is obtainable and is easily

accessible in most Asian countries (Li, 2004). In the study of Wang and Shen (1987), more t

han 1,200 species of bamboo have been identified (as cited in Li, 2004, p. 39). In addition,

Quang Lien and Danh Minh (2011) found that there are 1,250 bamboo species of 75 differen

t genera which are within most of the climatic regions that consist of tropical and subtropica

l temperature. According to Ohrnberger (1999), the various species can be found within diff

erent ecosystems that cover 18 million hectares of the continents of Asia, Africa and Americ

a (as cited in Bawer, 2015). The majority of important bamboo species are found in Asian c

ountries (Quang Lien & Danh Minh, 2011).

17

From the 62 species of bamboo present in the Philippines, 21 of them are endemic in

the country. Some of these endemic species are Bayog, which makes up 1.5% of the bambo

o in the Philippines, and Laak, which makes up 10%. These two species are on the list of the

Top 12 bamboo species that have the highest potential contribution to the country’s develop

ment (“Department of Science and Technology”, 2011).

Bamboo has been used the longest for constructing works (Latif, 1990). It commonly

is lighter than the other materials and stronger, causing it to be commonly used for the first a

irplane designs. Bamboo has a high silica content, which is used in manufacturing engineeri

ng materials. It has greater tensile strength than steel and even

resists compression better than concrete (Sharma et al., 2015). However, it is not commonly

used in construction and is considered mostly as a decorative function. Studies about bambo

o utilization in construction are also relatively new and need more attention.

Various related studies by the previous researchers cited in this study conducted a si

milar process of testing the different factors affecting the mechanical properties of bamboo.

They used different conditions such as varying humidity, microwave drying, processing met

hods, strain rate, and density and heat treatment (Yang & Lee, 2018). The study by Ogunbiy

i et al. (2015) compared bamboo’s tensile strength with steel and concrete. Almost all of the

studies used either processed bamboo or bamboo culm in their studies. Most have used Univ

ersal Testing Machines (UTMs) and UTMs with modified four-point set-ups for the mechan

ical properties testing of the bamboo samples in their respective studies.

Further research is needed to experiment with the data gathered in the studies cited i

n this paper and put into application. Sharma et al. (2015) were able to simulate conditions t

o test the different varieties of the mechanical properties of bamboo. However, they did not i

nclude applying this with tangible prototypes to demonstrate how it can be used in construct

18

ion. An analysis on how bamboo can be best incorporated with other building materials and

what needs to be done for it to become suitable in engineering projects is needed. A compre

hensive study about bamboo’s chemical components is also needed for a deeper understandi

ng of its composition. Moreover, there are little studies about bamboo conducted in the Phili

ppines and focused on its endemic species. There is a limited number of studies that were ab

le identify what uses bamboo can potentially serve as an alternative material based on its me

chanical properties.

This study was conducted with the focus in the mechanical properties of the d

ifferent species of bamboo Gigantochloa atter (Kayali), Bambusa vulgaris (Kiling), Bambus

a merilliana (Bayog), and Bambusa Philippinensis (Laak), and to identify the uses of these propert

ies. Specifically, it intended to: (a) measure the mechanical properties of the above-mentioned species

of bamboo, namely tensile strength, compression strength, and flexural strength; (b) compare these m

echanical properties among each species and among their parts; and (c) determine to what extent and

for what uses these bamboo species’ mechanical properties can be applied.

This study was done in order to identify the maximum possible usability

of the different species of bamboo so as to further promote the usage of bamboo in the indust

ry; specifically, in construction. Also, as well as highlight the potential of bamboo as an abun

dant and under-used material. This paper may also serve as a future reference for studies rega

rding the use of bamboo as the construction material or to help bamboo-based manufacturers

promote their products. The results may contribute to the future of non-traditional materials i

n construction, especially in rural areas in the Philippines and Asia where bamboo is more ac

cessible and less expensive than traditional building materials, paving a way for more efficie

nt and cost-effective construction projects for countries where bamboo is endemic and abund

ant.

19

2. Methodology

Figure 3. Flowchart

This research was designed to focus only on quantification of the three chose

n mechanical properties of those four chosen species of bamboo. This study did not experim

ent with the mixing of bamboo with other materials nor was it used to reinforce them. The re

searchers did not include the usage of bamboo in building prototypes nor the study using ba

mboo for new innovations or inventions.

Bamboo was selected according to age (3-5 years old) and variety of the four chosen

species. To test the mechanical properties, the researchers used a Universal Testing Machine.

The data was then compared between parts, between species, and with other materials.

2.1. Sample Preparation

Bamboo specimens were selected from a common environment - all were planted and

grown in the plant nursery of the Institute of Plant Breeding of the University of the Philippin

es Los Baños - according to their age (3-5 yefars as of February 2019) and variety (Gigantoc

hloa atter, Bambusa vulgaris, Bambusa merilliana, and Bambusa philippinensis). Five (5) dif

20

ferent plants per species were collected - with the exception of Bambusa merilliana due to th

e unavailability of specimens - wherein the specimens were separated into ten (10) parts each

for the bottom, middle and top of the plant. These bamboo species were used for the compre

ssion strength test.

Figure 4. Bamboo collection and bamboo samples: (a) cutting of bamboo species at the bottom part; (b) the top, middle, and botto

m parts of the three (3) samples of the species Bayog.

21

a b

For the tensile and flexural strength tests, two (2) of each part of each species were cut

into 2-inch wide strips as shown in Fig. 5. The samples were transferred to the experimental l

aboratory at Mapúa University without direct contact with sunlight to avoid cracking. Tests

were conducted within fourteen (14) days to preserve the samples and assure accuracy of the

tests. Each sample was measured for length, width, and thickness and recorded before underg

oing the tests. During experimentation, each test of the individual samples was repeated for t

hree (3) trials.

Figure 5. Sample of different parts of Laak Bamboo strip

22

ba

2.2. Testing Apparatuses

Figure 6. (a) Three-point setup of bamboo strips; (b) Universal Testing Machine Model UH-1000kNR

The samples were measured using a caliper for accurate measurements. The

Compression, Tensile and Flexural strength tests were conducted using a SHIMADZU UH-1

000kNIR Universal Testing Machine (UTM) as shown in Fig. 6. For tensile and flexural stre

ngth testing, the same machine was used. However, it was modified to a three-point set-up as

shown in Fig. 6 to fit the testing procedure.

2.3. Determining the Mechanical Properties of Bamboo

Testing the mechanical properties of the samples was carried out using the methods d

escribed by Acma (2017) and Ogunbiyi (2015) with slight modifications. The following are t

he different methods on accumulating the value of each of the mechanical properties:

2.3.1 Compression Testing

Compression strength test on bamboo was conducted using the UTM’s compression

accessory as can be seen in Fig. 7. Compression strength is the ability of a material to resist

23

breaking while in compression. The compression load was then applied gradually until defor

mation on the contact surface was seen, or until failure occurred.

Figure 7. Compression Testing

2.3.2 Flexural Strength Testing

Flexural strength tests were conducted with the use of UTM modified to have a three-

point point load set-up. It is the ability of a material to resist breakage under bending. Bambo

o strips of the specimen had no apparent defect. The set-up can be seen in Fig. 6.

24

2.3.3 Tensile Strength Testing

In determining the tensile strength of the bamboo specimen, the Universal Testing Mach

ine (UTM) was also used. Tensile strength is the measure of the force required to break a mat

erial and the extent of when the material is elongated before the breaking occurred. Elongatio

n and tensile modulus were also determined by the use of extensometer. The bamboo specim

en was placed in the holding grips of the universal testing machine at grip points and it was

pulled until occurence of failure can be seen (see Fig. 8).

Figure 8. Tensile Testing

2.4. Comparison of Mechanical Properties

The three trials of each test were averaged after experimentation. After conducting th

e tests and data collection, the values for each mechanical property of all three parts of the fo

ur bamboo species were listed and compared, both among parts and among species. Through

the data gathered, mechanical properties’ values served as the reference for the determining

of the bamboo species’ capacity and limitations upon comparison with the mechanical proper

ties of traditional construction materials, namely steel and concrete.

25

2.5. Statistical Formulas and Computations

Mean

x = ( Σ xi ) / n (3-1)

The mean formula was used to know the average values of the mechani

cal

properties between the three trials that was conducted in each part per bamboo species.

Area 𝜋𝑟2 (3-2)

This formula was used to determine the area of the bamboo samples. It was

used in determining the compressive strength of the different bamboo species.

For cross-sectional areas, the following procedures was automatically computed by th

e Universal Testing Machine software, however, the formulas that were used are the followin

g:

Flexural Strength

σ = 3FL / 2wd2 (3-3)

This was the used formula to determine the flexural bamboo strength. F is the

applied maximum force, L is the length of bamboo strip, w is the length of the sample

and d is its depth. By multiplying the maximum force to 3 together with the length an

d dividing it by the product of the width and depth multiplied to itself twice, the flexu

ral strength value was identified.

26

Compressive Strength

F= P/A (3-4)

This formula was used to determine the compressive strength of the samples where P

is the maximum load applied and A is the cross-sectional area of the specimen. By dividing

these two values, F was determined in which it is the compressive strength of the bamboo.

Tensile Strength Formula S = F/A (3-5)

The tensile strength was determined using this formula. F is the force that caused failur

e and A is the cross-sectional area of the samples. Dividing these two values will result to the

value of tensile strength.

For Statistical analysis, the statistical treatment used was ANOVA - the analysis of V

ariance. ‘Minitab’ was the application used to treat the data. The significant differences betw

een the parts of each bamboo species was determined

3. Results and Discussion

After sampling, the specimens were tested within 14 days. The raw data from

the UTM was converted into graphs by (a) average strengths per test (see section 3.2), and

(b) average strengths per species (see section 3.3). The results were also organized by averagi

ng the ultimate stress and breaking stress of the three (3) trials per each part of each species.

This was repeated for every test (see section 3.1). The average ultimate stress values were co

mpared among the parts and the highest were selected (see table 6). The parts with the highes

t US values were compared with the US values of steel and timber as seen in the results of th

27

e related studies.

3.1. Summary of the mechanical properties of the bamboo species

Table 5. Average Values of Mechanical Properties

Note: *U.S. = Ultimate Stress, *B.S. = Breaking StressNote: the highlighted values indicate the highest U.S. per test conducted

Table 5 shows the summary of the mechanical properties - tensile, flexural, and comp

ressive strengths - arranged according to species. The three (3) trials of each part of each spec

ies were computed in GPa (kN/mm2) and averaged. Both the ultimate and breaking stresses a

re summarized in Table 6. For the Kiling samples, the base has the highest U.S. for the tensil

e and flexural strength tests. However, the top portion of the Kiling samples has the highest a

verage U.S. for the compression test. For the Kayali samples, the base has the highest U.S. fo

r the tensile test. For the flexural strength test, the middle and bottom portions showed an equ

al average value of 0.0614 GPa. The middle portions also showed the highest U.S. value for t

28

Bamboo Species Parts

Mechanical Properties

Tensile Strength Flexural Strength Compression Strength

*U.S. (GPa)

*B.S. (GPa)

*U.S. (GPa)

*B.S. (GPa)

*U.S. (GPa)

*B.S. (GPa)

KilingBase 0.1149 0.1149 0.1147 -.- 0.0276 0.0139Mid 0.0880 0.0878 0.1147 -.- 0.0349 0.0094Top 0.0322 0.0300 0.0685 -.- 0.0540 -.-

KayaliBase 0.1076 0.1076 0.0614 -.- 0.0157 -.-Mid 0.1045 0.1045 0.0614 -.- 0.0205 0.0211Top 0.0221 -.- 0.0583 -.- 0.0102 -.-

BayogBase 0.2317 0.1703 0.0754 -.- 0.0233 0.0087Mid 0.3397 0.3292 0.0579 -.- 0.0371 0.0197Top 0.0167 -.- 0.0849 -.- 0.0041 -.-

LaakBase 0.1148 0.1120 0.1040 -.- 0.0329 0.0141Mid 0.0900 0.0900 0.0878 -.- 0.0407 -.-

he compression test. Among the Bayog, the middle portion had the highest U.S. values for bo

th the tensile and compressive strength tests, with a great difference between the base and top

portions. For the Laak samples, the base had the highest U.S. value for all the tests, with the e

xception of the compression test, wherein the middle portion had the highest average U.S.

29

3.2. Average values of mechanical properties per test

Table 6. ANOVA and Tukey Pairwise Comparison test result for Mechanical Properties vs Parts per species

Bamboo Species PartCompression Strength Flexural Strength Tensile Strength

Mean P-Value Mean P-Value Mean P-Value

Kiling

Base

0.02759 C0.000 0.11473 A 0.028 0.11493 A 0.090

Mid 0.07924 B 0.10871 A B 0.0880 ATop 0.09271 A 0.0685 B 0.032187 A

Kayali

Base

0.01568 A0.215 0.06138 A 0.937 0.10761 A 0.013

Mid 0.02053 A 0.06141 A 0.1045 ATop 0.010233 A 0.05826 A 0.02206 B

Bayog

Base

0.02328 A B0.006 0.0754 A 0.476 0.2317 A B 0.029

Mid 0.03711 A 0.0579 A 0.3397 ATop 0.00414 B 0.0849 A 0.01670 B

Laak

Base

0.03290 A0.001

0.1040 A0.584

0.1148 A0.069

Mid 0.04071 A 0.08777 A 0.0900 ATop 0.00592 B 0.0943 A 0.0357 A

*Note: P-Value lower than 0.05 means that there is significant difference.*Note: If mean is higher, then higher mechanical strength.

30

3.2.1. Compressive Strength Test Results

Figure 9. Average Compressive Strength of Kiling

(Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

Figure 10. ComparisoFigure 10. Comparison of the compressive strength between the parts of Kiling

(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

Fig. 9 shows the average compressive strength among each of the three (3) trials per

31

321

0.11

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

Part

Comp

ressi

on St

reng

th

Interval Plot of Compression Strength vs Part95% CI for the Mean

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

part of the bamboo species Kiling. It is apparent from Fig. 10 that the top parts of each of the

three samples, on average, showed the highest compressive strength against the UTM, follow

ed by the average strengths of the three (3) trials for the middle parts, while the average for th

e three (3) trials for the bottom part of the samples showed the least compressive strength.

32

Figure 11. Average Compressive Strength of Kayali (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

Figure 12. ComparisonFigure 12. Comparison of the compressive strength between the parts of Kayali

(1- Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

For the compressive strengths of Kayali, Fig. 11 demonstrates that the average

of the tops showed the least amount of compressive strength. This is followed by the averag

33

321

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

Part

Com

pres

sion

Stre

ngth



e of the middle portions of the three (3) samples of Kayali, then the bottom parts showed the

greatest compressive strength as shown in the comparison in Fig. 12.

Figure 13. Average Compressive Strength of Bayog(Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

Figure 14. Comparison of the compressive strength between the parts of Bayog

34

321

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

-0.01

Part

Comp

ressio

n Stre

ngth



(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)In Fig. 13, the average compressive strengths for the three (3) Bayog samples ar

e shown. Although it is not completely visible in the graph, the highest strength, on average,

by the top portions is 0.0371 GPa (See Table 6). In contrast, the middle portions, on average,

show a far greater compressive strength, followed by the bottom portions of the samples (see

Fig. 14).

Figure 15. Average Compressive Strength of Laak(Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

Figure 16. Comparison of the com

35

321

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

Part

Com

pres

sion

Stre

ngth



pressive strength between the parts of Laak

(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

The average compressive strengths for the Laak samples are shown in Fig. 15. The gr

aph for the average of the top portions makes it apparent that the samples were not able to sus

tain the force of the compression test. However, the machine showed that the maximum stren

gth by the top portion samples was 0.0059 GPa. The graph also shows a great difference bet

ween the compressive strengths of the top portions and the middle and bottom portions. On a

verage, as seen in Fig. 16, the middle portions of the Laak samples demonstrated the greatest

average compressive strength.

3.2.2. Flexural strength test results

Figure 17. Average Flexural Strength of Kiling(Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

.

36

321

0.150

0.125

0.100

0.075

0.050

Part

Flexu

ral S

treng

th

Interval Plot of Flexural Strength vs Part95% CI for the Mean


Figure 18. Comparison of the Flexural strength between the parts of Kiling

(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

For the flexural strength test, Fig. 17 presented the average strength of each part by th

e representation of the graph. The bottom portion had the highest average among the three (3)

parts, the second is the top part, and the last with the lowest average is the middle part, as can

be seen in Fig. 18.

37

Figure 19. Average Flexural Strength of Kayali(Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

321

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

Part

Flexu

ral S

treng

th



Figure 20. Comparison of the Flexural strength between the parts of Kayali

(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

Fig. 19. represents the average flexural strength results of the Kayali samples. The bot

tom part reached the highest average of all the part, followed by the middle part with not muc

38

h of a difference, with the top part having the lowest average flexural strength (see Fig. 20).

Figure 21. Average Flexural Strength of Bayog


321

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

Part

Flexu

ral S

treng

th



Figure 22. Comparison of the Flexural strength between the parts of Bayog (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

Fig. 21 reveals the average flexural strength of Bayog. The results showed that top pa

39

rt has the highest value, the second with the higher flexural strength is the bottom part and to

p part has the least force as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 23. Average Flexural Strength of Laak


321

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.11

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

Part

Flexu

ral S

treng

th



Figure 24. Comparison of the Flexural strength between the parts of Laak (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

40

Fig. 23. presents the average flexural strength of Laak. It shows the different level of f

orces that is displayed in the graph, the bottom part had the highest flexural strength while th

e top part had the second highest flexural strength and the middle part has a poor flexural stre

ngth.

3.2.3. Tensile strength test results

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

Stroke (mm)

Figure 25. Average Tensile Strength of Kiling (Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

41

Forc

e (k

321

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05

Part

Tens

ile S

treng

th

Interval Plot of Tensile Strength vs Part95% CI for the Mean


Figure 26. Comparison of the Tensile strength between the parts of Kiling(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

The average tensile strength of Kiling can be seen in Fig 25, which shows that the str

ip from the bottom part of Kiling has the highest tensile strength followed by the strip from t

he middle part and the bamboo strip from the top part of the plant. From the data gathered,

the breaking point and the maximum stress point of all three parts and from all trials has no

failing part.

42

Figure 27. Average Tensile Strength of Kayali


321

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.00

Part

Tens

ile S

treng

th



Figure 28. Comparison of the Flexural strength between the parts of Kayali

(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

As shown in the Fig. 27, the bamboo strips from the bottom part of the sample still ha

ve the highest tensile strength, the second being the middle, and the top having the lowest ten

43

sile strength. Thus, the fracture point of the strip from the bottom part was recorded (see Fig.

28).

Figure 29. Average Tensile Strength of Bayog(

321

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

Part

Tens

ile S

treng

th



Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

Figure 30. Comparison of the Flexural strength between the parts of Bayog(1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

44

In Fig. 29., it can be seen that the bamboo strip from the middle part of the bamboo h

as the highest tensile strength. The bamboo strip with the second highest tensile strength is th

e bamboo strip from the bottom part followed by the bamboo strip from the top part which ha

s the lowest tensile strength as shown in Fig. 30.

Figure 31. Average Tensile Strength of Laak(Blue: Bottom, Red: Mid, Green: Top)

45

321

0.175

0.150

0.125

0.100

0.075

0.050

0.025

0.000

Part

Tens

ile St

rengt

h



Figure 32. Comparison of the Flexural strength between the parts of La

ak (1 - Base, 2 - Mid, 3 - Top)

For the tensile strength test of Laak, as shown in Fig. 32, the bamboo strip fro

m the bottom part has the highest tensile strength followed by the bamboo strip from the mid

dle part. The bamboo strip from the top part has the lowest tensile strength, thus, the elastic r

egion of the bamboo strip from the top part was higher than the elastic region of the middle p

art as shown in the Fig. 31. However, the top part reached its ultimate stress point faster than

the bamboo strip from the top part of bamboo.

46

3.3. Comparisons of the mechanical properties between species

3.3.1. Average compressive strength of the bamboo species

Figure 33. Average Compressive Strengths of the Bottom Parts(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

As demonstrated in Fig. 21, Kiling has the highest average compressive strength. Laa

k has the lowest compressive strength among the species. Furthermore, Kayali is relatively cl

ose to the value obtained for Laak. The bamboo species Kiling lasted longer than the other th

ree (3) bamboo species before it reached its breaking point.

47

Table 7. ANOVA and Tukey Pairwise Comparison test result for Mechanical Properties vs Bamboo Species

Bamboo Species

Compression Strength Flexural Strength Tensile StrengthMean P-Value Mean P-Value Mean P-Value

1 Kiling 0.0665 A

0.000

0.09732 A

0.002

0.0784 A

0.0292 Kayali 0.01548 B 0.06035 B 0.0781 A3 Bayog 0.021651 B 0.07274 A B 0.1960 A4 Laak 0.02651 B 0.09549 A 0.0802 A

*Note: P-Value lower than 0.05 means that there is significant difference.*Note: If mean is higher, then higher mechanical strength.

*Note: A means that it has the highest value, B has the second highest value, and C, lowest value.

Figure 34. Average Compressive Strengths of the Middle Parts(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

According to Fig. 34, for the middle portions of the samples, Kiling has the greatest c

ompressive strength, followed with a large difference by Bayog. Kayali has the third greatest

compressive strength and is closely succeeded by Laak.

48

Figure 35. Average Compressive Strengths of the Top Parts(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

Fig. 35 compares the top portions of the bamboo species in terms of their compressiv

e strength. Kiling has by far the greatest compressive strength. The other three (3) species’ co

mpressive strengths are significantly weaker than that of Kiling’s. The closest is Kayali, follo

wed by Laak. Bayog displays the lowest compressive strength among all the species tested.

49

Figure 36. Comparison of Compression Strength between Species (1 - Kiling, 2 - Kayali, 3 - Bayog, 4 - Laak)

50

3.3.2. Average flexural strengths of the bamboo species

Figure 37. Average Flexural Strengths of the Bottom Parts(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

It is shown in Fig.37 that the bottom portions of the Kiling samples have a much great

er flexural strength than that of the other species. Second to this is Bayog. The flexural streng

ths of Laak and Kayali have little difference, with Laak having a greater flexural strength tha

n Kayali.

Figure 38. Average Flexural Strengths of the Middle Parts

51

(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

For the middle portions, it can be seen in Fig. 38 that Bayog has the highest flexural

strength, followed by Laak, Kayali, and Kiling. The flexural strength of Bayog is significant

ly greater than the rest, which have relatively close values to one another

- Laak having the highest among them, followed by Kayali and then Kiling.

Figure 39. Average Flexural Strengths of the Top Parts(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

The top portions of Kiling have a much greater average flexural strength compared to

those of Laak, Kayali, and Bayog as seen in Fig.39. Laak, which has a significantly weaker fl

exural strength, follows Kiling. The strength of this is relatively closely followed by that of K

ayali. However, the top portions of Bayog show a much weaker flexural strength.

52

4321

0.12

0.11

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

Bamboo Species

Flexu

ral St

rengt

h

Interval Plot of Flexural Strength vs Bamboo Species95% CI for the Mean


Figure 40. Comparison of Flexural strength between species

(1 - Kiling, 2 - Kayali, 3 - Bayog, 4 - Laak)

3.2.1. Average tensile strengths of the bamboo species

Figure 41. Average Tensile Strengths of the Bottom Parts(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

A pattern of the average tensile strengths of bottom portions of the bamboo species te

53

sted is visible in Fig. 41, except for Bayog, which has a much weaker tensile strength compar

ed to the other species. This is less than that of Laak, Kayali, and Kiling, with Kiling showin

g the highest tensile strength among the bottom portions of each species.

Figure 42. Average Tensile Strengths of the Middle Parts

(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

Fig. 42 shows the average tensile strengths of the middle portions computed from each

of the species. The similarity of the graphs demonstrates the similarity of the samples’ perfor

mances during the tensile strength test, with small differences in their acquired tensile strength

s - the greatest among which is Kiling, closely followed by that of Kayali, Bayog, and lastly,

Laak.

54

Figure 43. Average Tensile Strengths of the Top Parts(Kiling: Blue, Kayali: Red, Bayog: Green, Laak: Violet)

The average tensile strengths for the top portions can be seen in Fig.43. Kayali has th

e greatest strength and is preceded by Kiling and Laak. In contrast, the top portions of Bayog,

on average, show very weak tensile strengths compared to those of the other species.

55

4321

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Bamboo Species

Tens

ile S

treng

th

Interval Plot of Tensile Strength vs Bamboo Species95% CI for the Mean


Figure 44. Comparison of Tensile strength between species

(1 - Kiling, 2 - Kayali, 3 - Bayog, 4 - Laak)

3.4. Comparison of the mechanicalproperties of bamboo with other materials

Table 8. Summary of the Highest Average Values of the Mechanical Properties of Bamboo

Bamboo Species Tensile Strength Flexural Strength CompressionKiling 2 (b) 1 (b) 1(t)Kayali 4 (b) 4 (b&m) 4 (m)Bayog 1 (m) 3 (t) 3 (m)Laak 3 (b) 2 (b) 2 (m)

Note: b = bottom, m = middle, t = top

56

Table 8 shows the part of which each species has the highest in the tensile, flexural, a

nd compression strengths. Kiling’s base has the highest tensile and flexural strength while the

top has the highest compression strength among the three (3) parts of the bamboo. Kayali’s b

ase has the highest tensile and flexural strength while the middle part has the highest average

of flexural and compression strength. Furthermore, Bayog’s middle has the highest tensile an

d compression strength while its top part has the highest flexural strength. The base part of L

aak has the highest tensile and flexural strength and the middle part has the highest compressi

ve strength.

57

Table 9. Possible uses of Kiling based on its Mechanical Properties in GPa (Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017)

Possible Uses

Required Tensile St

rength

Tensile Strength of Bambo

o

Required Flexural Strength

Flexural Strength of Bamb

oo

Required Compressio n S

trength

Compression Strength of

Bamboo

Alternative Material for Gmelina arborea Plywood as Support Construction Material

≥ 0.0335 ≥ 0.0466 ≥ 0.0205

Alternative Material for Spruce Woo

d as Furniture Material

≥ 0.08900.1076

≥ 0.06800.0614

≥ 0.04300.0188

Alternative Material for Steel as Furniture Materia

l

≥ 0.1600 ≥ 0.1400 ≥ 0.1400

Alternative Material for Oak as Interi

or Design

≥ 0.1536 ≥ 0.11003

≥ 0.0622

Alternative Material for Korean Pine as Support Constructio n

Material

≥ 0.0981 ≥ 0.0653 ≥ 0.0328

58

Table 9 shows possible uses of Kiling based on the comparison of its mechanical pro

perties to the required strength of the mechanical properties for a bamboo species to be an al

ternative material. Kiling has a tensile strength of 0.1076 GPa, therefore, it can be used as an

alternative to: Gmelina arborea plywood, Spruce wood, and Korean pine as a support constr

uction material and furniture. Kiling has a flexural strength of 0.0614, thus it can also be use

d as an alternative material to plywood as a support construction material. For compression

strength, Kiling cannot be used as an alternative to any of the possible uses listed.

59

Table 10. Possible uses of Bayog based on its Mechanical Properties in GPa (Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017)

Possible Uses

Required Tensile St

rength


o



oo

Required Compression St

rength


Bamboo


≥ 0.0335 ≥ 0.0466 ≥ 0.0205

Alternative Material for Spruce Wood as Furnitur

e Material

≥ 0.08900.3397

≥ 0.06800.0849

≥ 0.04300.0371

Alternative Material for Steel as Furniture Materia

l

≥ 0.1600 ≥ 0.1400 ≥ 0.1400


or Design

≥ 0.1536 ≥ 0.11003

≥ 0.0622


Material

≥ 0.0981 ≥ 0.0653 ≥ 0.0328

60

Table 10 demonstrate the results of the possible uses of Bayog based on its mechanica

l properties. The tensile strength of Bayog has a 0.3397 GPa that can fit to the required tensil

e strength of: steel, oak, Korean pine, Spruce wood and Gmelina arborea plywood as an alter

native material.

The flexural strength of Bayog has a 0.0849 GPa that meets the required flexural stre

ngth of: Korean pine, Spruce wood and Gmelina arborea Plywood. Furthermore, the 0.0371

compression strength of Bayog did not acquire the required compression strength of Korean

pine and Gmelina arborea, but can be used as an alternative for oak, steel and Spruce wood.

61

Table 11. Possible uses of Kayali based on its Mechanical Properties in GPa (Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017)

Possible Uses

Required Tensile St

rength


o



oo


rength


Bamboo

Alternative Material for Gmelina arborea Plywood as Support Constructio n Material

≥ 0.0335 ≥ 0.0466 ≥ 0.0205 c

Alternative Material for Spruce Wood as Furnitur

e Material

≥ 0.08900.1076

≥ 0.06800.0614

≥ 0.04300.0205

Alternative Material for

≥ 0.1600 ≥ 0.1400 ≥ 0.1400

Steel as Furniture Material


or Design

≥ 0.1536 ≥ 0.11003 ≥ 0.0622


Material

≥ 0.0981 ≥ 0.0653 ≥ 0.0328

62

Table 11 displays the mechanical properties of Kayali and the possible materials to w

hich it can serve as an alternative. Kayali is a strong candidate as an alternative for Gmelina a

rborea plywood as a support construction material because it passed all the minimum limits f

or the three mechanical properties. Although Kayali surpasses the minimum range in the tens

ile property of Spruce wood as a furniture material and Korean pine as a support construction

material, it did not reach the flexural and compression strength, making Kayali a possible can

didate as the material’s alternative but with exceptions of heavy loads parallel and perpendic

ular to the grain. It did not reach the minimum to any of the mechanical properties of oak as i

nterior design.

63

Table 12. Possible uses of Laak based on its Mechanical Property In GPa (Required Mechanical Strength as seen in Gutu, 2013; Wang, J. Zhang, & Z. Zhang, 2017)

Possible Uses

Required Tensile St

rength


o



oo


rength


Bamboo


≥ 0.0335 ≥ 0.0466 ≥ 0.0205


Spruce Wood as Furniture

Material

≥ 0.08900.1148

≥ 0.06800.1040

≥ 0.04300.0407


Steel as Furniture Material

≥ 0.1600 ≥ 0.1400 ≥ 0.1400


or Design

≥ 0.1536 ≥ 0.11003

≥ 0.0622

Alternative Material for Korean Pine as Support Constructio n Materi

al

≥ 0.0981 ≥ 0.0653 ≥ 0.0328

64

Table 12 shows that in terms of Laak’s tensile strength, it cannot be used as an alterna

tive to any of the possible uses listed in the table. It has a flexural strength of 0.1040 GPa, ma

king it a suitable alternative to Gmelina arborea plywood, Spruce wood, and Korean pine as

both for furniture and as support construction material.

65

4. Conclusion

This study measured the mechanical properties namely, tensile, compression and stren

gth of the bamboo species Kiling (Bambusa vulgaris), Kayali (Gigantochloa atter), Bayog (B

ambusa merriliana), and Laak (Bambusa philippinensis), and determined their uses as possib

le alternative materials for construction and/or design. For each test of mechanical properties,

comparison between parts and between species was done.

The researchers were then able to conclude from the data gathered that Kiling has the

highest overall mechanical properties across the three tests, followed by Laak, then Bayog an

d Kayali. Kiling showed the highest compression strength and flexural strength among the fo

ur species, having an average of 0.0665 GPa and 0.09732 GPa, respectively. Bayog held the

highest tensile strength with a mean of 0.1960 GPa.

In testing the mechanical properties per species, Kiling, Bayog, and Laak had signific

ant differences in the compressive strength of their parts (base, middle, and top), with a P-val

ue of 0.000, 0.006, and 0.001, respectively. For the other mechanical properties, Kiling show

ed a significant difference in its parts for flexural strength with a P-value of 0.028. Bayog and

Kayali both had significant differences in the tensile strength of their parts: 0.029 and 0.013,

respectively.

These results became the basis for the possible uses of said bamboo species. Kiling, h

aving the highest overall mechanical properties, surpassed the minimum required mechanical

properties as an alternative material for Gmelina arborea plywood as a support construction

material. The same species also reached the minimum required flexural strength and compres

sion strength as an alternative material for Korean pine as a support construction material, an

d passed the minimum required flexural strength to be a candidate alternative material for Spr

66

uce wood as furniture. Bayog and Laak passed the minimum of the three mechanical properti

es needed to be a candidate as an alternative material for Gmelina arborea plywood as suppo

rt construction material, while Kayali only passed its tensile and flexural minimum strengths.

The tensile strength of Bayog is close to that of steel used for furniture and Oak used in interi

or design, as well as the tensile strength of Spruce wood as furniture and Korean pine as supp

ort construction material. Both Bayog and Laak surpassed Spruce wood’s and Korean pine’s

required flexural strength.

67

Chapter 4

CONCLUSION

This study measured the mechanical properties namely, tensile, compression and flex

ural of the bamboo species Kiling (Bambusa vulgaris), Kayali (Gigantochloa atter), Bayog

(Bambusa merriliana), and Laak (Bambusa philippinensis), and determined their uses as poss

ible alternative materials for construction and/or design. For each test of mechanical properti

es, comparison between parts and between species was done.

The researchers were then able to conclude from the data gathered that Kiling has the

highest overall mechanical properties across the three tests, followed by Laak, then Bayog an

d Kayali. Kiling showed the highest compressive strength and flexural strength among the fo

ur species, having an average of 0.0665 GPa and 0.09732 GPa, respectively. Bayog held the

highest tensile strength with a mean of 0.1960 GPa.

In testing the mechanical properties per species, Kiling, Bayog, and Laak had signific

ant differences in the compressive strength of their parts (base, middle, and top), with a P-val

ue of 0.000, 0.006, and 0.001, respectively. For the other mechanical properties, Kiling and K

ayali both showed a significant difference with their parts in flexural strength with P-values o

f 0.028 and 0.013, respectively. Bayog had a 0.029 significant difference in the tensile strengt

h of its parts.

These results became the basis for the possible uses of said bamboo species. Kiling, h

aving the highest overall mechanical properties, surpassed the minimum required mechanical

properties as an alternative material for Gmelina arborea plywood as a support construction

material. The same species also reached the minimum required flexural strength and compres

sion strength as an alternative material for Korean pine as a support construction material, an

68

d passed the minimum required flexural strength to be a candidate alternative material for Spr

uce wood as furniture. Bayog and Laak passed the minimum of the three mechanical properti

es needed to be a candidate as an alternative material for Gmelina arborea plywood as suppo

rt construction material, while Kayali only passed its tensile and flexural minimum strengths.

The tensile strength of Bayog is close to that of steel used for furniture and Oak used in interi

or design, as well as the tensile strength of Spruce wood as furniture and Korean pine as supp

ort construction material. Both Bayog and Laak surpassed Spruce wood’s and Korean pine’s

required flexural strength.

69

Chapter 5

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the future researchers who wish to continue studying the mechanical properties of

bamboo and their applications, the researchers recommend using, if available, more equipme

nt that may be helpful during the data gathering process such as a heavy-duty cast-iron bamb

oo splitter to ensure maximum uniformity between the samples. It is also ideal for the researc

hers to carve a thicker part at both ends of the bamboo strips for the tensile test in order for th

e UTM to properly hold the ends of the bamboo and record its breaking stress point the mom

ent before the sample breaks and the machine resets.

The researchers recommend using different models of UTMs with more extensive cap

abilities and different possible settings to be able to determine if there will be a significant dif

ference in the data acquired, and if so, to include the equipment used as a factor contributing

to the results of the study.

More mechanical properties such as shear strength and elasticity should also be studie

d to gain a wider and more comprehensive understanding of the capabilities of bamboo. After

wards, a large meta-analysis is needed in order to summarize the mechanical properties studi

ed in this paper and the papers cited. For comparison of the mechanical properties of bamboo

with different materials, it is ideal to include and compare more materials to establish a well-

defined scope of bamboo’s potential capabilities.

Lastly, it is recommended to repeat the procedure conducted in this research with othe

r bamboo species, especially endemic species in the Philippines which have a limited number

of studies.

70

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A. H., Karlina, N., Rahmatiya, W., Mudaim, S., P., & Fajrin, A. R. (2017). Physical and mechanical properties of five Indonesian bamboos. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,60, 012014. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/60/1/012014

Acma, L. C. (2017). Comparative Mechanical Properties of Selectied Bamboo Species. Int. Journal of Precious Engineering Research and Application,2(1), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.ijpera.com/papers/Vol-2 iss-1/72002.pdf

Akinlabi, E. T., Anane-Fenin, K., & Akwada, D. R. (2017). Bamboo: The Multipurpose Plant. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Anokye, R., Bakar, E. S., Jegatheswaran, R., & Awang, K. B. (2016). Bamboo Properties and Suitability as a Replacement for Wood. The Peranika Journal Scholarly Research Reviews,2(1). doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1939.3048

Anokye, R., Kalong, R. M., Bakar, E. S., Ratnasingam, J., Jawaid, M., & Awang, K. (2014). Variations in Moisture Content Affect the Shrinkage of Gigantochloa scortechinii and Bambusa vulgaris at Different Heights of the Bamboo Culm. BioResources,9(4). doi:10.15376/biores.9.4.7484-7493

Bawer, M. C. (2015). Diversity of Bamboo Species in Lubuagan, Kalinga, North Luzon, Bhonde, D., Dr., Nagarnaik, P. B., Parbat, D. K., Dr, & Waghe, U. P., Dr. (2014). Physical a

nd Mechanical Properties of Bamboo (Dendrocalmus Strictus). International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research,5(1), 455-459. Retrieved from https://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/Physical-and-Mechanica l- Properties-of- BambooDendrocalmus-Strictus.pdf.

Biswas, S. (2012). Mechanical properties of bamboo-epoxy composites a structural application. Advances in Materials Research,1(3), 221-231. doi:10.12989/amr.2012.1.3.221

Caasi-Lit, M. T., Mabesa, L. B., & Candelaria, R. B. (2010). Bamboo Shoot Resources of the Philippines: I. Edible Bamboo and the Current Status of the Local Bamboo Shoot Industry. Crop Protection Newsletter,35.

Caasi-Lit, M. T., Mateo, J. C., & Villareal, R. L. (august 17 2018). Promoting endemic Bambusa spp. (B. merrilliana and B. philippinensis) as sources of edible bamboo shoots in the Philippines. Retrieved from https:// worldbamboo.net/wbcxi/presentations/Caasi-Lit, Merdelyn Bayog and Laak_food.pdf.

Chaowana, P. (2013). Bamboo: An Alternative Raw Material for Wood and Wood-Based Composites. Journal of Materials Science Research,2(2). doi:10.5539/jmsr.v2n2p90

Clark, L., Londono, X., & Ruiz-Sanchez, E. (2015). Bamboo: The plant and Its uses(W. Liese & M. Ko hl, Eds.). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.

Dixon, P. G., & Gibson, L. J. (2014). The structure and mechanics of Moso bamboo tmaterial Journal of The Royal Society Interface,11(99), 20140321-20140321. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0321

Fabiani, M. (2015). Physical and mechanical properties of Italian bamboo culms. Retrieved from https://worldbamboo.net/wbcx/Sessions/Theme Product Design Technology/Fabi

71

http://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/Physical-and-Mechanical-Properties-of-



http://www.ijpera.com/papers/Vol-2

http://www.ijpera.com/papers/Vol-2

ani Marco.pdf

Gielis, J. (n.d.). Future possibilities for bamboo in European agriculture. Retrieved from https : //www.researchgate.net/publication/228719908_Future_possibilities_for_bamboo_in_E uropean_agriculture

Gutu, T. (2013). A Study on the Mechanical Strength Properties of Bamboo to Enhance Its Diversification on Its Utilization. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE),2(5), 314-319. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.675.9152&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hao, H., Tam, L., Lu, Y., & Lau, D. (2018). An atomistic study on the mechanical behavior of bamboo cell wall constituents. Composites Part B: Engineering, 151, 222231. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.05.046

Hu, D., Song, B., Dang, L., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Effect of strain rate on mechanical properties of the bamboo material under quasi-static and dynamic loading condition. Composite Structures, 200, 635-646. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.107

Jakovljević, S., Lisjak, D., Alar, Ž, & Penava, F. (2017). The influence of humidity on mechanical properties of bamboo for bicycles. Construction and Building Materials,150, 35-48. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.189

Jamal, H. (2017, August 23). Universal Testing Machine and Components of UTM. Retrieved from https://www.aboutcivil.org/universal-testing-machine-tools-components-applications.html Janssen, J. J. (2013). Mechanical properties of bamboo. Place of publication not identified: Springer.

Kumar, P., & Vasugi, V. (2014). STUDY ON MECHANICAL STRENGTH OF BAMBOOREINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS. International Journal of Advances in Science Engine

ering and Technology,2(3), 103-105. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iraj.in/journal/journal_file/journal_pdf/6-71-1404908852103-105.pdfLi, X. (n.d.). PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF BAMBO

O Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.553.9762&rep=rep

1&type=pdf Liese, W., & Ko hl, M. (2015). Bamboo: The plant and Its uses. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.

Liu, X., & Zhang, Z. F. (2013). Study on the Design of Outdoor Furniture Made of Recombinant Bamboo. Applied Mechanics and Materials,397-400, 907-910. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.397-400.907

Narasimhamurthy, Maya, C., Nadanwar, A., & Pandey, C. (2013). A study on physico-mechanical properties of Thyrsostachy ssiamensis (Kurz) Gamble and Dendrocalmus membrances (Munro) in Tumkur district, Karanataka, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science,2(2), 62-66. Retrieved from https://www.ijcmas . com/Archives/vol-2- 2/Narasimhamurthy, etal.pdf.

Ogunbiyi, M. A., Olawale, S. O., Tudjegbe, O. E., & S.R., A. (2015). Comparative Analysis Of The Tensile Strength Of Bamboo And Reinforcement Steel Bars As Structural Member In Building Construction. International Journal Of Scientific & Technology Research, 4(11), 47-52.

72

http://www.ijcmas.com/Archives/vol-2-



http://www.scientific.net/amm.397-400.907




http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.553.9762&rep=rep1&type=pdf


http://www.iraj.in/journal/journal_file/journal_pdf/6-71-1404908852103-105.pdf

http://www.aboutcivil.org/universal-testing-machine-tools-components-applications.html





http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228719908_Future_possibilities_for_bamboo_in_E




Origin of Bamboo. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bamboogrove.com/origins-of- bamboo.html PCARRD. (n.d.). Bamboo Resources and Production. Retrieved from http://www.pcaarrd.dost.gov.ph/home/momentum/bamboo/index.php ? view=article&type=raw &c atid=118&id=269:bamboo-resources-and- production&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=5

Rassiah, K., & Ahmad, M. M. (2013). Bamboo, Thermoplastic, Thermosets, and their Composites:

A Review. Applied Mechanics and Materials,330, 53-61.doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.330.53Razal, R., Dolom, P. C., Palacpac, A. B., Villanueva, M. B., Camacho, S. C., Alipon, M. B., .

. .

Malab, S. C. (2012). Mainstreaming Engineered-Bamboo Products for Construction and Furniture. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.3490.9200

Shao, J., Wang, F., Li, L., & Zhang, J. (2013). Scaling Analysis of the Tensile Strength of Bamboo Fibers Using Weibull Statistics. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2013, 1-6. doi:10.1155/2013/167823

Sharma, B., Gatóo, A., & Ramage, M. H. (2015). Effect of proce ssing methods on the mechanical properties of engineered bamboo. Construction and Building Materials, 83, 95-101.

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.048

Sharma, B., Gatóo, A., Bock, M., & Ramage, M. (2015). Engineered bamboo for structural applications. Construction and Building Materials, 81,

66-73.doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.01.077

Wang, M., Zhang, J., & Zhang, Z. (2017). The Application of Bamboo Materials in Furniture Design. International Journal of Trend in Research and Development,4(5), 139-143. http://www.ijtrd.com/papers/IJTRD10956.pdf

Yang, T., & Lee, T. (2018). Effects of density and heat treatment on the physico-mechanical properties of unidirectional round bamboo stick boards (UBSBs) made of Makino bamboo (Phyllostachys makinoi). Construction and Building Materials, 187, 406-413.

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.182

Youssefian, S., & Rahbar, N. (2015). Molecular Origin of Strength and Stiffness in Bamboo Fibrils.

Scientific Reports,5(1). doi:10.1038/srep11116

Zakikhani, P., Zahari, R., Mohamed Thariq Bin Haji Hameed Sultan, & Majid, D. L. (2017). Morphological, Mechanical, and Physical Properties of Four Bamboo Species. BioResources, 12(2). doi:10.15376/biores.12.2.2479-249

Zakikhani, P., Zahari, R., Mohamed Thariq Bin Haji Hameed Sultan, & Majid, D. L. (2017). Morphological, Mechanical, and Physical Properties of Four Bamboo Species. BioResources,12(2). doi:10.15376/biores.12.2.2479-2495

73

http://www.ijtrd.com/papers/IJTRD10956.pdf

http://www.scientific.net/amm.330.53



http://www.pcaarrd.dost.gov.ph/home/momentum/bamboo/index.php?view=article&type=raw

http://www.pcaarrd.dost.gov.ph/home/momentum/bamboo/index.php?view=article&type=raw

http://www.bamboogrove.com/origins-of-



Zhu, Z., & Jin, W. (2018). Sustainable bamboo development. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI.

74

Bamboo Species

Part Trial Outer Diameter (mm)

Outer Radius (mm)

Inner Diameter (mm)

Inner Radius (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Height (mm)

Kiling Base 1 49.27 24.64 19.55 9.78 14.86 320.002 50.69 25.35 18.73 9.37 15.98 360.003 56.87 28.44 22.41 11.21 17.23 300.00

Mid 1 50.72 25.36 41.94 20.97 4.39 315.002 54.49 27.25 42.95 21.48 5.77 305.003 48.30 24.15 38.22 19.11 5.04 300.00

Top 1 24.29 12.15 16.83 8.42 3.73 325.002 12.34 6.17 1.20 0.60 5.57 310.003 16.85 8.43 8.75 4.38 4.05 320.00

APPENDIX AMeasure of the Bamboo Samples

Bamboo Species Part Trial

Outer Area (sq. mm)

Inner Area (sq. mm)

Area (sq. mm)

Kiling

Base

1 1,906.58 300.18 1,606.402 2,018.06 275.53 1,742.533 2,540.13 394.43 2,145.70

Mid

1 2,020.45 1,381.49 638.962 2,331.97 1,448.83 883.153 1,832.25 1,147.28 684.96

Top

1 463.39 222.46 240.932 119.60 1.13 118.473 222.99 60.13 162.86


Max Force (kN)

Max Stress (kN

/mm2

)

Break Force (kN)

Break Stress (kN/

mm2)

Kiling

Base1 44.2031 0.0275 24.9688 0.01552 36.3750 0.0209 25.1250 0.01443 73.7969 0.0344 25.0938 0.01171 25.0156 0.0392 -.- -.-2 36.4531 0.0413 25.0313 0.0283

75

Mid 3 16.6875 0.0244 -.- -.-

Top1 1.0156 0.0042 -.- -.-2 13.4375 0.1134 -.- -.-3 7.2031 0.0442 -.- -.-


Outer Diameter (mm)

Outer Radius(mm)

Inner Diameter (mm)

Inner Radius(mm)

Thicknes s

(mm)Height (mm)

Kayali

Base

1 58.39 29.20 29.15 14.58 14.62 330.002 64.36 32.18 35.84 17.92 14.26 310.003 58.93 29.47 27.17 13.59 15.88 300.00

Mid

1 57.40 28.70 37.56 18.78 9.92 310.002 56.22 28.11 38.36 19.18 8.93 330.003 57.25 28.63 42.03 21.02 7.61 325.00

Top

1 12.88 6.44 6.80 3.40 3.04 300.002 11.88 5.94 7.46 3.73 2.21 320.003 10.20 5.10 3.80 1.90 3.20 305.00


Max Force (kN)

Max Stress (kN

/mm2

)

Break Force (kN)

Break Stress

(kN/mm2

)

Kayali

Base1 24.5000 0.0122 -.- -.-2 50.2813 0.0224 -.- -.-3 26.7344 0.0125 -.- -.-

Mid1 22.0781 0.0149 -.- -.-2 20.7344 0.0156 -.- -.-3 36.8438 0.0311 25.0313 0.0211

Top1 0.9688 0.0103 -.- -.-2 0.5938 0.0088 -.- -.-3 0.8125 0.0116 -.- -.-


Outer Area (sq.

mm)

Inner Area (sq. mm)

Area (sq. mm)

1 2,677.73 667.37 2,010.362 3,253.28 1,008.85 2,244.44

76

Kayali Base 3 2,727.49 579.79 2,147.70

Mid1 2,587.70 1,108.00 1,479.702 2,482.40 1,155.71 1,326.693 2,574.19 1,387.42 1,186.77

Top1 130.29 36.32 93.982 110.85 43.71 67.143 81.71 11.34 70.37


Outer Diamete r (mm)

Outer Radius (mm)

Inner Diamete r (mm)

Inner Radius (mm)

Thicknes s

(mm)Height (mm)

Bayog

Base

1 62.44 31.22 16.08 8.04 23.18 370.002 58.62 29.31 14.70 7.35 21.96 300.003 68.03 34.02 16.01 8.01 26.01 375.00

Mid

1 47.52 23.76 24.92 12.46 11.30 310.002 48.83 24.42 26.45 13.23 11.19 325.003 46.34 23.17 24.72 12.36 10.81 300.00

Top

1 8.05 4.03 8.05 4.03 0.00 350.002 6.43 3.22 6.43 3.22 0.00 300.003 8.10 4.05 8.10 4.05 0.00 310.00


Outer Area (sq. mm)

Inner Area

(sq.mm)

Area (sq. mm)

Bayog

Base1 3,062.07 203.08 2,859.002 2,698.87 169.72 2,529.153 3,634.89 201.31 3,433.57

Mid1 1,773.55 487.74 1,285.812 1,872.68 549.47 1,323.213 1,686.56 479.94 1,206.62

Top1 50.90 50.90 50.902 32.47 32.47 32.473 51.53 51.53 51.53

77


Max Force (kN)

Max Stress (kN

/mm2)

Break Force (kN)

Break Stress (kN/m

m2)

Bayog

Base1 36.5781 0.0128 25.1250 0.00882 94.8594 0.0375 25.0156 0.00993 67.1250 0.0196 25.0000 0.0073

Mid1 51.6875 0.0402 25.0000 0.01942 46.4375 0.0351 25.0781 0.01903 43.5000 0.0361 25.0000 0.0207

Top1 0.2188 0.0043 -.- -.-2 0.0469 0.0014 -.- -.-3 0.3438 0.0067 -.- -.-


Outer Diamete r (mm)

Outer Radius (mm)

Inner Diamete r (mm)

Inner Radius (mm)

Thicknes s

(mm)Height (mm)

Laak

Base

1 45.84 22.92 17.90 8.95 13.97 305.002 61.92 30.96 27.50 13.75 17.21 345.003 49.27 24.64 13.11 6.56 18.08 360.00

Mid

1 35.03 17.52 15.57 7.79 9.73 310.002 34.51 17.26 21.77 10.89 6.37 305.003 34.65 17.33 20.11 10.06 7.27 325.00

Top

1 10.24 5.12 2.84 1.42 3.70 305.002 10.61 5.31 2.17 1.09 4.22 310.003 7.74 3.87 0.86 0.43 3.44 310.00


Outer Area (sq.

mm)

Inner Area

(sq.mm)

Area (sq. mm)

Laak

Base1 1,650.36 251.65 1,398.712 3,011.28 593.96 2,417.333 1,906.58 134.99 1,771.59

Mid1 963.76 190.40 773.362 935.36 372.23 563.143 942.97 317.62 625.34

Top 1 82.35 6.33 76.022 88.41 3.70 84.72

78

3 47.05 0.58 46.47


Max Force (kN)

Max Stress (kN

/mm2

)

Break Force (kN)

Break Stress

(kN/mm2

)

Laak

Base1 47.9688 0.0343 24.8125 0.01772 83.4375 0.0345 24.9844 0.01033 52.9531 0.0299 24.9844 0.0141

Mid1 25.6406 0.0332 -.- -.-2 28.2656 0.0502 -.- -.-3 24.2656 0.0388 -.- -.-

Top1 0.6406 0.0084 -.- -.-2 0.5625 0.0066 -.- -.-3 0.1250 0.0027 -.- -.-

79

APPENDIX BGraphs of the Mechanical Properties per Bamboo Part

Trial 1: Blue, Trial 2: Red, Trial 3: Green, Average: Black

COMPRESSION TESTKILING-BASE

KILING – MIDDLE

80

KILING - TOP

KAYALI – BOTTOM

81

KAYALI – MIDDLE

KAYALI – TOP

BAYOG- BOTTOM

82

BAYOG – MIDDLE

BAYOG – TOP

83

LAAK – BOTTOM

LAAK – MIDDLE

84

LAAK – TOP

FLEXURAL STRENGTH TESTKILING- BOTTOM

85

KILING MIDDLE

KILING – TOP

86

KAYALI BOTTOM

KAYALI – MIDDLE

87

KAYALI TOP

BAYOG – BOTTOM

BAYOG- MIDDLE

88

BAYOG – TOP

LAAK- BOTTOM

LAAK – MIDDLE

89

LAAK – TOP

TENSILE TESTKILING – BASE

KILING – MIDDLE

90

KILING – TOP

KAYALI – BOTTOM

KAYALI – MIDDLE

91

KAYALI – TOP

BAYOG – BOTTOM

BAYOG MIDDLE

92

BAYOG – TOP

LAAK – BOTTOM

LAAK – MIDDLE

93

LAAK – TOP

94

APPPENDIX CDocumentation (from sample preparation to testing procedures)

Sample Preparations:

Testing Procedures :

Flexural Strength Test Compression Strength Test

Tensile Strength Test

95

Universal Testing Machine After testing procedures:

Compression Strength Test – Kayali Tensile Strength Test – Kayali

Flexural Strength Test – Kayali Compression Strength Test – Laak

96

–

Tensile Strength Test – Laak Flexural Strength Test – Laak

Compression Strength Test – Kiling Tensile Strength Test – Kiling

Compression Strength Test – Bayog Flexural Strength Test – Bayog

97

Tensile Test – Bayog

98

APPENDIX D

ANNOVA COMPUTATION VALUES

KILING

Bamboo SpeciesPart Compression Strength Flexural Strength Tensile Strength

1 1 0.0275 0.1248 0.11371 1 0.0209 0.1001 0.11151 1 0.0344 0.1193 0.11961 2 0.0747 0.1193 0.11121 2 0.0792 0.1105 0.01381 2 0.0837 0.0964 0.13891 3 0.0882 0.0516 0.03371 3 0.0927 0.0947 0.03201 3 0.0972 0.0593 0.0309

KAYALI


2 1 0.0122 0.0643 0.10722 1 0.0224 0.0718 0.09742 1 0.0125 0.0481 0.11832 2 0.0149 0.0531 0.13592 2 0.0156 0.0742 0.05392 2 0.0311 0.0569 0.12362 3 0.0103 0.0730 0.01102 3 0.0088 0.0545 0.02522 3 0.0116 0.0473 0.0301

BAYOG


3 1 0.0128 0.0695 0.32633 1 0.0375 0.0609 0.30783 1 0.0196 0.0957 0.06093 2 0.0402 0.0544 0.20443 2 0.0351 0.0783 0.42723 2 0.0361 0.0412 0.38763 3 0.0043 0.1263 0.0021

99

3 3 0.0014 0.0591 0.02943 3 0.0067 0.0693 0.0186

LAAK


4 1 0.0343 0.1214 0.09594 1 0.0345 0.1093 0.13764 1 0.0299 0.0814 0.11084 2 0.0332 0.0718 0.06924 2 0.0502 0.1027 0.14834 2 0.0388 0.0889 0.05264 3 0.0084 0.1074 0.05104 3 0.0066 0.0812 0.01454 3 0.0027 0.0415

100

approval sheet · web viewfrom the 62 species of bamboo present in the philippines, 21 of them are...

Documents