4.7 Article

Variation of through-culm wall morphology in P. edulis bamboo strips used in glue-laminated bamboo beams

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 232, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117248

Keywords

Bamboo; Fibre volume ratio; Glue-laminated bamboo lumber; Image analysis

Funding

  1. [US] National Science Foundation [1634739]
  2. Leverhulme Trust
  3. [UK] Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/K023403/1]
  4. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  5. Directorate For Engineering [1634739] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. EPSRC [EP/K023403/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Image analysis is used to quantify the distribution of fibre volume ratio, VI, in strips of P. edulis bamboo obtained from two commercially available glue-laminated bamboo beam products. In total, 58 cross sections containing more than 3500 19 x 6 mm strips were analysed. Simple digital manipulation techniques were found to work well in establishing fibre volume data from the 1200 dpi source images. Total fibre volume for each strip was established and was found to vary in a linear manner through the strip thickness. The observations presented indicate significantly different bamboo source (feedstock) material used by the two manufacturers. Autocorrelation analysis was used to demonstrate that the orientation of the individual strips in each beam section was not random. The impact of a non-random distribution of strip orientation in a section subject to flexure is relatively small but does result in variation from analyses that assume a homogenous distribution of mechanical properties. Finally, nodes, a weak location in glued-laminated bamboo members were observed to represent 3-4% of all strips in a given cross section. The distribution of nodes appeared to be random. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available