Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Land-Use Changes on the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Net Primary Productivity in Harbin, China
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Distributed Generation Mix to Enhance Distribution Network Performance: A Deterministic Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 13
10.3390/su17135977
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Engineered Bamboo for Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Characterization Methods

by
Nima Jafarnia
and
Amir Mofidi
*
Yousef Haj-Ahmad Department of Engineering, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(13), 5977; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135977
Submission received: 23 May 2025 / Revised: 18 June 2025 / Accepted: 25 June 2025 / Published: 29 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Green Building)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Engineered bamboo has been considered a viable replacement for traditional wood and steel for structural and architectural purposes due to its renewable nature, high strength, and compatibility with different processing techniques. This systematic review analyzed the literature on the mechanical properties and processing techniques of engineered bamboo products, which include bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo. The literature included in this systematic review was extracted from the Engineering Village platform. The studies retrieved from this platform were filtered to only have been published in top journals (Q1/Q2) related to engineering materials, materials science, and the construction industry. Using this methodology, from the initial 191 identified records, 51 studies that were the most relevant were chosen. The review revealed that bamboo scrimber has better performance for specific mechanical properties, which include its compressive, tensile, and bending strength. Laminated products had higher variability, which was often caused by the type of adhesive, orientation, and quality of adhesion. This study also identified the details of manufacturing processes, such as the adhesive systems, pre-treatment methods, and pressing conditions used. Moreover, the literature exhibited considerable inconsistencies in testing standards, reporting practices, and long-term durability evaluations. This review highlights these challenges and provides recommendations for future research to resolve these issues.

1. Introduction

The growing need for sustainable construction materials has drawn major attention to engineered bamboo as an alternative to traditional timber and steel [1]. Several recent studies on engineered bamboo products, including bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo, have indicated that engineered bamboo products can be utilized in construction due to their exceptional mechanical and physical characteristics [2,3,4,5]. Unlike natural bamboo, which is susceptible to splitting and buckling under excessive loads due to variability and geometric limitations, engineered bamboo is produced through controlled processes including fiberization, resin impregnation, and hot pressing to produce materials suitable for structural applications [6,7]. These modifications improve bamboo’s physical and mechanical characteristics, making the product more suitable for use in construction as beams, columns, wall panels, shear walls, flooring, and building envelopes [2].
In addition to its exceptional mechanical performance, bamboo is known for its superior strength-to-weight ratio, high flexural ductility, and rapid growth cycle when compared to traditional timber [8]. However, bamboo has not become a mainstream construction material yet, particularly due to the variability across bamboo species, ageing, culm regions, and preparation methods, which affect the density, strength, moisture content, and dimensional stability [9]. Additionally, mechanical properties such as the compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of rupture (MOR), and modulus of elasticity (MOE) have been shown to vary substantially depending on species selection, adhesive types, manufacturing techniques, and thermal or chemical treatments [8,9,10,11].
Furthermore, bamboo’s durability and resistance to harsh environmental conditions have caused major concerns, as untreated bamboo is susceptible to biological degradation and moisture-related damage [4,8]. Advances in treatment methods, including natural treatments like thermal modification and chemical treatments such as the use of boron-based preservatives or rosin impregnation (rosin is a natural resin obtained from conifer trees), have been shown to enhance bamboo’s durability [8,12]. The need to standardize these treatments and guidelines remains a significant barrier to bamboo’s broader integration into mass construction [8,13].
Bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo are the most prominent forms of engineered bamboo. Bamboo scrimber is fabricated by crushing entire bamboo culms into connected fibre bundles. These bundles are then soaked in resin, aligned in a longitudinal direction, and hot-pressed under a high pressure and temperature. This method retains the natural fibre orientation while increasing the density and reducing the material’s variability, resulting in products with high strength and stiffness. The process is also highly efficient in terms of the material yield, utilizing approximately 80 percent of the bamboo culm, including irregular and lower-quality portions. The pressed boards are subsequently trimmed, machined, and sanded to meet structural specifications [14,15]. Laminated bamboo is produced by slicing bamboo culms into narrow rectangular strips, followed by planing, node removal, and drying to a controlled moisture content. The prepared strips are then bonded using adhesives, typically in either parallel or cross-laminated configurations, and hot-pressed into boards or panels. This method produces a material with a smoother surface finish and more uniform appearance, which makes it especially suitable for use in non-structural applications such as flooring, wall panelling, and furniture. However, due to the selective trimming and surface preparation required, laminated bamboo tends to have a lower material utilization rate compared to scrimber [14,15]. Illustrations of the manufacturing processes of bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.
Recent studies have emphasized that the adhesive selection and hot pressing conditions critically affect the final properties of engineered bamboo products. For instance, research by Chen et al. [16] highlighted how variations in the pressing temperature, pressure magnitude, and pressing duration influence the density, fibre bonding quality, and mechanical strength of bamboo scrimber composites. Similarly, Li et al. [2] demonstrated that optimizing resin impregnation and mechanical processing techniques can significantly reduce variability and enhance structural uniformity in bamboo-based composites. Furthermore, Adier et al. [8] mentioned that bamboo’s mechanical behaviour is heavily influenced by its fibre morphology and that resin impregnation during processing significantly enhances its performance. These findings underline the necessity of systematically characterizing not only the mechanical attributes of engineered bamboo but also the underlying manufacturing parameters and material treatments that govern its behaviour.

Research Gaps and Contribution

Based on a survey on research gaps, needs, and priorities completed by stakeholders from 12 countries, Harries et al. [13] identified the lack of comprehensive databases on the geometrical, physical, and mechanical properties of bamboo as a significant research gap in the field of bamboo construction. By gathering and examining information on the mechanical properties and manufacturing processes of different engineered bamboo products, this systematic review study directly addressed this knowledge gap. This review provides a fundamental understanding of how production processes and adhesive selections affect bamboo’s durability and performance over time by systematically summarizing characteristics like the modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, and compressive and tensile strengths associated with various manufacturing techniques.
Furthermore, this study focused on existing methods for improving fire performance and advances in the use of sustainable adhesives in engineered bamboo production. Such knowledge gaps were also identified by Harries et al. [13]. The existing research clearly shows that the type of adhesive significantly influences the fire performance outcomes. For instance, He et al. [17] demonstrated that laminated bamboo lumber bonded with melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF) adhesives exhibited superior heat release reduction compared to phenol-formaldehyde (PF)-bonded samples, highlighting the critical role of adhesive selection in improving the fire behaviour. Heat release reduction in engineered timber and the investigation of bamboo’s fire properties consider methods aimed at reducing the amount of heat energy that these materials emit during combustion and their outcomes. Similarly, Xu et al. [18] reported that variations in the density and resin content had a significant impact on the combustion performance of engineered bamboo products, despite the use of the same adhesive. By documenting the types of adhesives and treatment methods employed across various engineered bamboo products, this review supports the broader goal of identifying safer and more environmentally sustainable bonding solutions.
Moreover, this study compiled state-of-the-art manufacturing techniques for engineered bamboo, which could help with the global industrial utilization of engineered bamboo products. By gathering information on the hot pressing conditions, achieved densities, and processing methods, this study provides information that can guide the optimization of production processes. Linking manufacturing parameters to mechanical properties not only supports efforts to improve the material’s efficiency but also showcases how engineered bamboo can be used as a viable material in the construction industry, which was the main objective of this systematic study.

2. Methodology

The literature search for this systematic review study was conducted using the Engineering Village platform, which utilizes the Compendex and Inspec databases. These databases were selected for their strong coverage of engineering, materials science, and construction-related research. The search strategy employed Boolean operators to combine keywords related to bamboo and its engineered applications. Specifically, the search strings included combinations such as (“bamboo” OR “bamboo culms” OR “engineered bamboo” OR “laminated bamboo” OR “bamboo scrimber”) AND (“mechanical properties” OR “manufacturing process”). This approach maintained a specific focus on applications relevant to construction while covering subjects related to the structural and mechanical characteristics of engineered bamboo products.
Only articles published in English and classified as journal articles were considered in this study. The search was refined further to focus exclusively on leading journals ranked as Q1 and Q2 according to the SCImago Journal Rankings (SJRs), including journals such as Construction and Building Materials, the European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, Advances in Structural Engineering, and Composites Part B: Engineering [19]. Additional classification filters were applied to restrict the selection to articles specifically related to engineering materials, materials science, and the construction industry.
After applying these criteria, a total of 191 articles were retrieved. In the next step, using the duplicate removal tool on the Engineering Village platform, 55 duplicates were removed. The initial screening phase involved a title and abstract review, resulting in the exclusion of 85 articles that were unrelated to the manufacturing, properties, or structural testing of engineered bamboo. Figure 3 shows a flowchart that showcases the methodology used in this systematic review.
The study selection process has been summarized using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram [20]. Following PRISMA guidelines enhances transparency and reproducibility in documenting the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases. The flow diagram (Figure 4) outlines the number of records retrieved, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the final synthesis [21].
Data extraction from the selected articles was conducted systematically. Information was organized into five thematic categories: (1) sustainable production approaches, (2) mechanical testing methods, (3) mechanical properties, (4) manufacturing processes, and (5) hot pressing conditions. Extraction focused primarily on capturing mechanical property data, including data on the compressive strength, tensile strength, shear strength, modulus of rupture (MOR), and modulus of elasticity (MOE). Additionally, physical property data, specifically data on the material density, was recorded when available. Data related to the adhesive types, treatment methods, manufacturing techniques, and pressing parameters (temperature, pressure, and duration) were also extracted. All the extracted information was manually coded into structured Excel spreadsheets to enable cross-study comparisons.

3. Results and Discussion

The studies included in this review were organized into two separate categories to facilitate the analysis of the results from the articles. The first group of studies examined the mechanical behaviour and durability of engineered bamboo, including properties such as its compressive strength, tensile strength, shear strength, modulus of rupture, and modulus of elasticity. The second group of studies addressed manufacturing and processing methods. These included adhesive types, application techniques, pre-treatment methods, and hot pressing conditions.

3.1. Mechanical Properties

The reviewed studies reported a wide range of mechanical properties for engineered bamboo, including its compressive strength, tensile strength, shear strength, modulus of rupture, and modulus of elasticity. These values, along with the associated bamboo species and product types, are summarized in Table 1.

3.1.1. Density

The previous studies gave a density of engineered bamboo products from 600 kg/m3 to 1300 kg/m3 [2,6,16,22,23]. The majority of bamboo scrimber products exhibited a greater density than laminated bamboo products as a result of the fibre densification process and the resin impregnation process involved in the manufacturing process [2,16,24].
The density of bamboo scrimber products ranges from 950 kg/m3 to 1300 kg/m3. For instance, Chen et al. [16] observed that scrimber panels can reach up to 1300 kg/m3 under high-pressure hot pressing with extensive resin impregnation. Gao et al. [24] similarly reported a density of 1200 kg/m3 in bamboo scrimber that had been processed using pressure-drying technology. Laminated bamboo lumber products (LBL) and cross-laminated bamboo (CLB) panels generally demonstrated lower density levels, with a range from 600 kg/m3 to 850 kg/m3 [3,6]. Li et al. [2] recorded around an 800 kg/m3 density for panels of laminated bamboo that had been produced using melamine-urea-formaldehyde adhesives but with moderate pressing. The lower density levels indicate less aggressive fibre compaction in the process of scrimber production. Studies that used denser species such as Phyllostachys edulis (Moso bamboo) recorded a high density for both scrimber and laminated materials [3,6]. This suggests a positive relationship between the density of the bamboo culm and the engineered bamboo’s density, although processing methods such as resin impregnation and hot pressing remain prominent factors that will influence the outcome.
Figure 5 shows that bamboo scrimber exhibits a significantly higher bulk density (median ≈ 1150 kg/m3) compared to laminated bamboo (median ≈ 720 kg/m3), indicating its denser and more compact structure.

3.1.2. Tensile Strength

The studies reviewed in this investigation generally indicated that the tensile strength of engineered bamboo products typically ranged from 80 MPa to 130 MPa (Figure 6). Bamboo scrimber specimens frequently achieved tensile strengths above 110 MPa, with Dong et al. [25] documenting 120 MPa along the fibre direction and Correal et al. [26] reporting the highest tensile strength of 143.1 MPa. In contrast, laminated bamboo typically remained below 90 MPa, as shown by Wei et al. [10], who recorded 69.3 MPa for laminated panels. Hybrid composites such as bamboo-Douglas fir materials demonstrated strong tensile capacities, with Chen et al. [27] measuring 125.28 MPa for bamboo components. The influence of the fibre orientation in particular was studied by Yang et al. [28], who observed that the tensile strength fell from 128.2 MPa when the loading was parallel to the fibres to just 8.1 MPa at 90°. In order to tackle this significant drop in the tensile strength under off-axis loading, orthogonal lamination has been shown to reduce the anisotropy in laminated bamboo. Qiu et al. [3] reported that the strength ratio between the parallel and perpendicular directions decreased from 8.32 to 1.52 in cross-laminated bamboo, significantly improving its suitability for structural applications.
Overall, the tensile strength values had a mean of 96.2 MPa with a standard deviation of 27.1 MPa. Studies that reported multiple orientations consistently noted at least a 60–80% reduction in strength when the samples were tested off-axis. The tensile strength results demonstrate the strong potential of engineered bamboo products for use in structural applications, particularly where a high tensile capacity is critical. Dong et al. [25] showed that the tensile strength declined when the loading was not perfectly aligned with the fibre orientation, underscoring the critical role of manufacturing precision in maximizing the material efficiency. This phenomenon was linked to the natural arrangement of vascular bundles and parenchyma tissue in bamboo culms, as also discussed by Wu et al. [29], who identified fibre pull-outs and matrix cracking as the dominant failure mechanisms under tensile loads.
The tensile strength showed a heavy reliance on the processing techniques. Studies such as those by Wu et al. [29] and Dong et al. [25] indicated that densification and a uniform resin distribution in bamboo scrimber led to enhanced tensile strength and more brittle, fibre-dominated failure modes. In contrast, laminated bamboo products were more vulnerable to shear failures, likely due to weaker adhesive bond lines [10]. These findings suggest that the optimization of adhesive types and lamination processes could further narrow the performance gap between scrimber and laminated bamboo materials.

3.1.3. Compressive Strength

The compressive strength varied from 28.64 MPa to 129.25 MPa, and the average compressive strength was 74.4 MPa, with a standard deviation of 23.7 MPa. As shown in Figure 7, bamboo scrimber has a higher and more consistent compressive strength (~96 MPa) than laminated bamboo (~63 MPa), a factor that is due to bamboo scrimber’s denser, more oriented microstructure achieved through the incorporation of heat pressing and resin impregnation techniques [10,25]. Wu et al. [29] reported compressive strengths ranging from 129.25 MPa when the loading was parallel to the fibres to lower values when the bamboo was loaded perpendicular to the grain. Guadua bamboo (Guadua angustifolia) had a compressive strength of approximately 62.0 MPa along the fibres, which was slightly lower than that of Moso bamboo products, indicating the impact of the bamboo species on the compressive strength. This may have been due to a lower compressive strength for raw Guadua bamboo when compared to Moso bamboo [1,26].
The compressive strength profile of engineered bamboo indicates adaptability to applications demanding compression loads, such as columns, wall panels, and compression braces. Laminated bamboo, however, exhibits greater variability, primarily due to weak points within the glue lines and between layers, which can lead to premature delamination under compressive loading [10]. The compressive strengths recorded for bamboo scrimber products approach or surpass those of traditional wood. For example, Chen et al. [27] reported a compressive strength of 96.35 MPa for bamboo scrimber, compared to 51.23 MPa for laminated Douglas fir.

3.1.4. Shear Strength

The shear strength values for engineered bamboo products showed considerable variation, ranging from 2.96 MPa to 31.0 MPa. The average shear strength across the studies was 16.1 ± 8.4 MPa. A maximum shear strength of 31.0 MPa for bamboo scrimber under parallel-to-grain loads was reported by Wu et al. [29]. Meanwhile, Tang et al. [11] reported shear strength values of about 13.5 MPa for parallel-strand bamboo and 12.0 MPa for laminated veneer bamboo. Hybrid composites, like the thin- and thick-strip glubam examined by Xiao et al. [30], showed shear strength values ranging from 16.0 to 17.5 MPa.
As demonstrated in Figure 8, bamboo scrimber exhibits significantly higher and more variable shear strengths than laminated bamboo, with median values of around 23 MPa and 13 MPa, respectively. The shear strength is a significant parameter for engineered bamboo product design because failure in shear is often brittle and sudden, particularly along adhesive interfaces, and can lead to a catastrophic structural collapse if not properly accounted for. The reported values across the studies show that engineered bamboo’s shear strength is comparable to that of conventional softwood glulam, which ranges between 8 and 10 MPa [31]. The anisotropy of bamboo had a significant impact on its shear behaviour. Wei et al. [10] reported that small changes in the orientation under loads resulted in noticeable effects on the shear strength. This angle sensitivity must be addressed through design considerations, especially for products under complex multiaxial stresses. The processing conditions and adhesive systems also became significant factors. High-temperature heat treatments could severely reduce the shear strength, achieving reductions of up to 50% for untreated samples, as shown by Brito et al. [32]. This underlines the importance of balanced treatment to promote durability. Although scrimber products showed optimized behaviour under shear loads, failure often occurred through fibre pull-outs and resin fractures and occurred less through the cracking of the material [29].

3.1.5. Modulus of Rupture

The modulus of rupture values varied widely for engineered bamboo products. The reported values varied from 31.3 MPa for bamboo-wood composites to 174.4 MPa for high-density bamboo scrimber [2,33]. The average modulus of rupture across the studies was about 105.6 ± 30.5 MPa. Dong et al. [25] reported values close to 119 MPa for bamboo scrimber, and the values for laminated bamboo panels generally ranged from 80 MPa to 110 MPa, as indicated in Figure 9. The highest values corresponded to materials that had undergone intensive densification and optimized resin impregnation, according to Wang et al. [33]. Hybrid systems, i.e., thin- and thick-strip glubam products, recorded average modulus of rupture values of 101.1 MPa and 104.9 MPa, respectively [30]. The findings suggest that engineered bamboo, specifically scrimber products, attains modulus of rupture values equaling or surpassing those of laminated veneer lumber (LVL), which range between 49.5 MPa and 139.3 MPa based on the veneer species and layup configuration [34].
The fibre orientation along the axis of loading not only enhanced the modulus of rupture but also the ductility, which allowed bamboo scrimber to be more linear elastic to failure [29]. In comparison, laminated bamboo materials tended to be constrained by poor interlaminar adhesion and thin resin-rich layers susceptible to microcrack initiation, according to Xu et al. [22] and Tang et al. [11]. Hybrid bamboo-wood composites also showed a diminished modulus of rupture between the materials [2,30]. Environmental conditioning also played a critical role, as Brito et al. [32] demonstrated that thermal and moisture exposure could reduce the bending properties of structural bamboo by 20–30%, highlighting the importance of appropriate post-treatment strategies.

3.1.6. Modulus of Elasticity

According to the product type, direction of testing, and processing method, the reported MOE values for engineered bamboo products varied substantially. In 31 studies, the MOE ranged between 0.58 GPa and 32.3 GPa [12,26]. The average MOE was 10.8 GPa, and an overall demonstration of the MOE values of bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo is depicted in Figure 10. The highest MOE values tended to be for bamboo scrimber products relative to laminated and hybrid composites. Dong et al. [25], for example, obtained an MOE of 13 GPa for samples tested under bending for scrimber. Similarly, Wu et al. [29] reported tensile MOE values close to 13.52 GPa for tests carried out in parallel to the fibre direction. Until now, however, laminated bamboo products and hybrid materials have generally shown lower values, ranging between 8 and 11 GPa [22, 31, and 35]. Yang et al. [28] reported a substantial decrease in the modulus from 11.29 GPa when loading was parallel to the fibres to 2.37 GPa when loading was perpendicular to the grain. Similar tendencies were observed by Sylvayanti et al. [35] and Al-Rukaibawi et al. [36], demonstrating bamboo’s pronounced anisotropic elasticity.
High MOE values are beneficial for deflection minimization in load-bearing beams, trusses, and structurally loaded panels. Processing techniques involving a dense fibre orientation and efficient resin impregnation routinely produced higher MOE values, consistent with the trends for the MOR [25,33]. This was attributed to the effective transmission of stresses through the fibres, minimizing the internal microcracking under loads. Additionally, laminated bamboo and hybrid composites had a lower and more scattered MOE due to their glue lines, resin-rich layers, and non-uniform fibre distributions [22,30].
The anisotropic properties of the bamboo significantly influenced the measurement of the MOE. Yang et al. [28] and Sylvayanti et al. [35] reported that stiffness reduction was caused by transverse and radial load directions, sometimes by 70–80% when compared to the stiffness under loading in the longitudinal direction. Environmental aspects, that is, thermal treatments and the humidity, also influenced the MOE. Heat treatments increased the MOE to some degree according to Brito et al. [32] through increased cross-linking within the fibre-resin system, but the high temperatures of the treatments reduced the overall stiffness.

3.1.7. Durability

Among the reviewed studies, 12 reported durability-related results that can be broadly categorized into (1) the resistance to moisture and dimensional stability and (2) the retention of mechanical properties over time.
  • Resistance to moisture and dimensional stability: Thermal treatment and densification procedures have been shown to improve the dimensional stability; however, they may be damaging to the ductility if used excessively. Brito et al. [32] reported that heat-treated bamboo samples had increased stiffness but reduced ultimate strength following thermal ageing tests. Some laminated bamboo materials were reported to be vulnerable to rolling shear under mechanical and environmental loads [2]. Moreover, laminated bamboo products appeared to be more susceptible to interlaminar degradation and moisture-driven failures, indicating the importance of adhesive system optimization [2]. Wei et al. [10] and Sylvayanti et al. [35] mention that the mechanical degradation trends suggest moderate vulnerability to environmental ageing without protective treatments.
  • The retention of mechanical properties: Generally, bamboo scrimber materials tend to exhibit higher durability performance, like for their other mechanical properties. Lei et al. [37] showed satisfactory deformation recovery for bamboo scrimber, and the elastic retention varied from 65% to 85% when the bamboo was loaded cyclically. Wu et al. [29] reported that scrimber panels still possessed a high load-bearing capacity after cracking partway through a test, demonstrating satisfactory residual structural strength. However, the study did not report quantitative residual strength metrics, making it difficult to evaluate post-crack load-bearing capacity for design purposes. Hybrid bamboo-wood composites yielded inconclusive outcomes. Chen et al. [27] reported stiffness retention for bamboo-Douglas fir composites under cyclic loads but performed no weathering or degradation tests. Good recovery behaviour after cyclic deformation and a high residual strength after cracking position scrimber favourably compared to untreated natural bamboo or traditional timber in terms of its service life expectations [29,37]. Studies like that by Brito et al. [32] emphasized that excessive thermal exposure could compromise these products’ toughness, indicating the need for carefully controlled heat treatment protocols.
The durability results reported in this article are insufficient to draw general conclusions on the subject because of the limited amount of available data.
Table 1. Reported mechanical properties of engineered bamboo across selected studies.
Table 1. Reported mechanical properties of engineered bamboo across selected studies.
ArticleBamboo SpeciesCompressive Strength (MPa)Tensile Strength (MPa)Shear Strength (MPa)Modulus of Rupture (MPa)Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)Test
Standards
[10]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Scrimber: 87.4; laminated: 68.7Scrimber: 75.1; laminated: 69.3Scrimber: 24.3 MPa (parallel), 19.4 MPa (perpendicular); laminated: 13.5 MPa (parallel), 12.0 MPa (perpendicular)Not reportedScrimber: 9.8; laminated: 9.8GB1927-1991 [38]
[24]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)84.9111.712.1111.99.2ASTM D143-14 [39]; ASTM D1990-16 [40]; GB 50005-2017 [41]; GB 50068-2018
[42]
[11]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Parallel-strand bamboo: 99.3–119.0; laminated veneer bamboo: 55.9–69.2Parallel-strand bamboo: ~125; laminated veneer bamboo: ~110Parallel-strand bamboo: ~13.5; laminated veneer bamboo: ~12.0Parallel-strand bamboo: up to 130; laminated veneer bamboo: ~112Parallel-strand bamboo: 11.5–13.8; laminated veneer bamboo: 8.5–11.6ASTM D143-14 [39]; ASTM D2915 [43]; ASTM D7078 [44]; ASTM D7078-12 [44]
[45]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)59.74 (ultimate)77.18 (ultimate)Not reportedNot reportedTension: 7.78; compression: 9.98ASTM D143 [39]; ASTM D198 [46]; GB 50005 [41]
[27]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) + Douglas firBamboo: 96.35; timber: 51.23Bamboo: 125.28; timber: 117.85Not reportedNot reportedBamboo: 15.43 (compression), 15.10 (tension); timber: 12.57 (compression), 14.76 (tension)GB 50005-2017 [41]
[37]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)84.9111.7Not reported111.99.19ASTM D198-02 [46]; GB50005 [41]
[2]Phyllostachys heterocycla (BMCP) + Hem-fir lumberNot reportedNot reportedNot reported31.3–32.66.27ASTM D198-2022 [46]
[47]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)75.1 (0°), 27.2 (60°)Not reported13.0 (15°), 14.5 (45°), varies with angleNot reported9.91 (0°), 2.43 (60°), varies with angleNot reported
[48]Not specifiedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported4.80–9.46 (span-dependent)ASTM D198 [46]
[29]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis), bamboo scrimber129.25 (parallel), 65.77–73.34 (perpendicular)108.45 (parallel), 7.62 (perpendicular)22.91 (parallel), 20.89–31.68 (perpendicular)Not reported13.52 (tensile, parallel), 12.32 (compressive, parallel), 2.75 (tensile, perpendicular), 2.99 (compressive, perpendicular)ASTM D143-14 [39]
[32]Dendrocalamus giganteus63.07–80.80Not reported2.96–6.3288.24–150.65 (bending)11.51–12.11ASTM D143 [39]; ASTM D5266 [49]
[50]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Not reported83–119Not reportedAn estimated 104 MPa for glubam10.34–10.71GB/T 50329-2012 [51]
[25]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)86 (parallel), 37 (perpendicular)120 MPa (parallel), 3 MPa (perpendicular)Not reported119 MPa (approx)13ASTM D198 [46]
[52]Not stated68.8 (mean)84.53 (mean)Not reportedNot reported7.007 (tensile), 9.393 (compressive)ASTM D198 [46]
[53]Phyllostachys (4–5 years old, >100 mm diameter)28.64123.82Not reportedNot reported8.52ASTM D143-14 [39]; ASTM D 198-15 [46]
[33]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Not reportedNot reportedNot reported173.94–174.4111.92–12.73GB/T 15780-1995 [54]; GB/T 17657-2013 [55]
[56]Phyllostachys spp. + Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata)107.5 (bamboo scrimber), 38.6 (Chinese fir)Not reportedNot reportedNot reported9.393 (compressive bamboo), 7.007 (compressive fir)ASTM D198-2022 [46]
[26]Guadua angustifolia Kunth62.0 (parallel), 3.5 (radial), 5.3 (tangential)143.1 (parallel), 2.6 (radial), 3.2 (tangential)9.5103.0 (radial), 122.4 (tangential)32.3 (compressive), 18.3 (tensile), 12.7–13.3 (flexural)ASTM D143 [39]; ASTM D4442 [57]; ASTM E132 [58]
[59]Bamboo scrimber + SPF (Spruce-Pine-Fir)Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported9.4–13.7Not reported
[60]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Not reported98–124Not reportedNot reported↑37.3% over ordinary scrimberGB/T 17657-2013 [55]; GB/T 18261-2013 [61]
[28]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Not reported128.2 (0°); 52.1 (15°); down to 8.1 (90°)Not reportedNot reported11.29 GPa (0°); 2.37 GPa (90°)ASTM D143 [39]; GB 50005 [41]
[62]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Not reportedNot reportedNot reported107.2 MPa (average)10.0 GPaASTM D143 [39]; ASTM D198 [46]; ASTM D4442 [57]; ASTM D5266 [49]; ASTM D905 [63]; ISO 22156 [64]; ISO 22157 [65]
[66]Julong bamboo (Dendrocalamus giganteus)71.4 (longitudinal), 22.7 (transverse)66.8 (longitudinal), 5.7 (transverse)Not reported70.9 MPa10.3 GPa (bending)Not reported
[35]Gigantochloa spp.57.734.313.247.9 MPa8.9 (bending), 8.4 (longitudinal), 3.6 (transverse)ASTM D143 [39]
[67]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedApprox. 100–110 MPa depending on typeNot reportedASTM D143 [39]; ISO 13061-10 [68]; ISO 13061-4 [68]
[22]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Bamboo scrimber: 84; laminated bamboo: 79Bamboo scrimber: 136; laminated bamboo: 122Not reportedUp to 110 MPa10.5–12.0ASTM D143-14 [39]; ISO 22156 [64]; ISO 22157 [65]
[12]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)56.2 (longitudinal), 43.1 (radial), 19.0 (tangential)106.9 (longitudinal), 1.8 (radial), 4.3 (tangential)17.3 (parallel to grain)80.89.5 (longitudinal), 0.58 (radial), 1.12 (tangential)ASTM D143 [39]; ASTM D2915 [43]
[69]Bamboo scrimber + Douglas fir96.35 (bamboo scrimber); 51.23 (Douglas fir)125.28 (Bamboo scrimber); 117.85 (Douglas fir)Not reportedNot reported15.43 (bamboo scrimber, compression), 12.57 (Douglas fir, compression)GB/T 1935-2009 [70]; GB/T 1938-2009 [71]
[36]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)68 (parallel); 15 (tangential); 13 (radial)Not reportedNot reportedNot reported8.75 (parallel); 2.19 (tangential); 1.11 (radial)ISO 23478-2022 [72]
[3]PBSL from Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Avg: 44.34–61.08 depending on angleAvg: 21.56–71.78 depending on angleNot reported39.32–82.49 (as bending strength)2.56–8.31 depending on test directionASTM D198-15 [46]
[73]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedApprox. 90–120Not reportedASTM D2344 [74]; ASTM D-1037 [75]; GB/T30364-2013 [76]
[30]Not reportedThin strip: 51.0; thick strip: 73.0Thin strip: 83.0; thick strip: 85.0 (longitudinal)Thin strip: 16; thick strip: 17.5Thin strip: 101.1; thick strip: 104.9Thin strip: 10.4–11.3; thick strip: 9.0–10.5NIST 2011 [77]; ASTM D143-14 [39]; ASTM E72 [78]

3.2. Manufacturing and Processing Methods

Table 2 provides a summary of the adhesive systems, bamboo species, and product types reported in the reviewed studies. This information highlights the diversity of manufacturing approaches used in engineered bamboo production, including variations in resin formulation, species selection, and structural configurations. The table serves as a reference point for understanding how the adhesive choice is associated with specific product types such as scrimber, laminated panels, and hybrid composites. The following sections touch upon the important details of the reviewed studies.

3.2.1. Adhesive Types and Performance

Across the reviewed studies, the most widely used adhesive was phenol-formaldehyde (PF), reported in studies by Li et al. [2], Chen et al. [16], and Huang et al. [6]. PF resins were typically applied at resin contents ranging from 13 percent to 20 percent by weight, often using brushing or immersion techniques. Other adhesives included phenol-resorcinol (PRF), urea-formaldehyde (UF), melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF), polyurethane (PUR), and water-based polymer isocyanate (WBPI). For example, PRF was used in panel bonding by Zhang et al. [79], while UF and MUF systems were used where the cost or indoor use suitability was prioritized. Liliefna et al. [80] used WBPI for low-tech laminated bamboo boards, and Chow et al. [81] applied a polyurethane wood adhesive in their laminated structures. These alternative adhesives were generally used in studies targeting non-structural or hybrid applications and were less frequently selected for scrimber production.
The adhesive application methods varied with the product type. Scrimber products relied primarily on full impregnation, using dipping or soaking to achieve deeper resin penetration and better inter-fibre bonding, as seen in Li et al. [2] and Chen et al. [16]. Laminated products such as glubam and veneer panels were used with surface spreading or layer-by-layer brushing. Performance comparisons indicated that PF-impregnated products often resulted in cohesive failures with evidence of fibre tear-outs, suggesting effective internal bonding [23]. In contrast, UF-bonded specimens showed more frequent glue-line failures and delamination after exposure to heat or moisture [32]. Liliefna et al. [80], using a WBPI adhesive, reported acceptable bond performance for interior-grade boards; however, the mechanical properties were lower compared to those observed in studies utilizing PF adhesives.

3.2.2. Processing and Treatment Methods

The bamboo processing methods included boiling, steam treatment, pressure-drying, carbonization, and mechanical conditioning. The treatments were primarily used to reduce the moisture content, improve adhesive absorption, stabilize the fibre structure, and enhance the resistance to biological degradation. Li et al. [2] reported the use of saturated steam treatment at 0.35 to 0.40 MPa, applied for 30 min prior to resin impregnation. This process was intended to soften the bamboo fibres, allowing for better alignment and more uniform densification. Similarly, Huang et al. [6] employed pressure-drying at 140 °C and 0.05 MPa, which improved both the dimensional stability and fibre bonding. Several scrimber-focused studies, such as those by Liang et al. [82] and He et al. [83], included roller-crushing or bundle-fluffing steps to prepare oriented fibre mats prior to pressing.
Other pre-treatment techniques were more mechanical. For instance, Colince et al. [84] and Zhang et al. [79] used planing and thin strip slitting to improve the layer uniformity in laminated products. Huang et al. [85] implemented a dual-step process using equal arc splitting followed by pressure-drying, which produced a curved, dimensionally stable bamboo unit for assembly. Wang et al. [33] used boiling in water for 60 min to reduce the sugar content while maintaining the fibre integrity. Chung and Wang [86] explored the steam-heating and peeling of bamboo culms to improve the dimensional stability in scrimber boards. Guan et al. [87] employed radial slicing and resin overlay lamination to modify both the strength and durability of the outer layer.

3.2.3. Hot Pressing Conditions

The hot pressing conditions were closely linked to the type of bamboo product being manufactured. Scrimber products typically required higher temperatures and pressures for shorter durations, whereas laminated bamboo was generally produced under milder or even cold pressing conditions. Chen et al. [16] applied hot pressing at 180 °C and 10 MPa for 34 min in scrimber manufacturing. Similarly, Liang et al. [82] used 140 °C and 6 MPa for 10 min to produce high-density scrimber, while He et al. [83] used 140 °C at 4 MPa for 120 min. In contrast, the low-tech laminated products described by Liliefna et al. [80] and Chow et al. [81] were manufactured using cold pressing, with durations ranging from 8 to 24 h and pressures as low as 0.6 MPa to 1 MPa.
Hybrid and glubam-based products showed more moderate parameters. For example, Li et al. [2] used 150 °C at 20 MPa for 15 min, and Zhang et al. [79] applied 150 °C for 40 min at an unspecified pressure. Some advanced studies implemented time-based scaling, such as that by Colince et al. [84], who reported a duration of 1.18 min per mm of board thickness at 150 °C and 1.47 MPa, optimizing the pressing time relative to the sample geometry.
Table 2. Adhesive types, bamboo species, and product configurations reported in selected engineered bamboo studies.
Table 2. Adhesive types, bamboo species, and product configurations reported in selected engineered bamboo studies.
ReferenceBamboo SpeciesAdhesive/Binder UsedProduct Type
[2]Not specifiedPhenolic formaldehyde resinGlubam beams (thick and thin plybamboo boards)
[3]Not specified, presumably MosoPhenolic resin (15–20% weight)Cross-laminated bamboo (CLB)
[6]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)None at EASB stage (adhesive for later use not applied yet)Equal arc-shaped bamboo splits (EASBs)
[2]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin (17 wt%)Bamboo scrimber composite (BSC)
[16]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Phenolic resin (13% weight)Bamboo scrimber (BS)
[85]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)No adhesive at current stage (future lamination possible)Equal arc-shaped bamboo splits (EASBs)
[88]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) and Chinese firNo adhesives, mechanical nailing onlyNail-laminated bamboo-timber (NLBT) panels
[80]Ater bamboo (Gigantochloa atter)Water-based polymer isocyanate (WBPI) adhesiveLaminated bamboo esterilla sheet (LBES)
[81]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Polyurethane wood adhesive (Lumber Jack 5 Min)Laminated bamboo composites (single-ply and two-ply)
[79]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) and European Spruce (C18 grade)Phenol-resorcinol adhesive for bamboo panels, water-based polyurethane structural adhesive for bamboo-timber laminationPrestressed laminated bamboo-timber composite beam
[82]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin (18% solid content)Bamboo scrimber (BS)
[83]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin (~20% solid content after dilution)Knitted bamboo scrimber (KBS) and commercial hot-pressed bamboo scrimber (CBS)
[89]Neosinocalamus affinisPhenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin (diluted to 30% solid content)Laminated bamboo bundle veneer lumber (BLVL)
[90]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin (solid content > 47%)Bamboo-wood composite (GFBW composite)
[91]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) and Guadua (Guadua angustifolia)Flange panels: urea-formaldehyde; OSB: phenol-formaldehyde; finger joints: epoxy resin (West Systems 105/206)Engineered bamboo I-joists
[84]Bamboo species not specifiedWater-soluble phenolic resin modified with melamine (~23.5% solid content)High-strength laminated bamboo composite
[86]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis) and Makino bamboo (Phyllostachys makinoi)Water-soluble urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin (63.6% solid content)Oriented bamboo scrimber boards (OBSBs)
[23]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin (46.56% solid content)Wide-bundle bamboo scrimber (WBS)
[87]Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis)Phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin (29% solid content)Overlaid laminated bamboo lumber (OLBL)

3.3. Key Methodological Challenges in the Literature

Although research on engineered bamboo has been growing over the past few years, several methodological challenges that are apparent in these studies hinder meaningful comparisons of their wide structural uses. These limitations are presented as follows:
  • Inconsistencies in mechanical testing protocols: The studies employed a wide range of test standards (e.g., ASTM D143 [39], ISO 22157 [65], GB 50005 [41]), specimen sizes, and load orientations. These discrepancies resulted in mechanical property values that were not directly comparable, particularly for the tensile and shear strength, where the fibre alignment and loading direction are critical. Adapting established timber adhesive testing methods, such as ASTM D198 [46], may provide a more consistent framework for evaluating the bonding performance in engineered bamboo systems.
  • A lack of standardized durability evaluation: Only a limited number of studies evaluated the long-term durability under environmental stressors such as moisture cycling, thermal ageing, or fungal exposure. Those that did used varying exposure conditions, often without control samples or replicates, making it difficult to assess bamboo’s durability under real-world application conditions.
  • Variable adhesive reporting and application conditions: Adhesive performance is crucial to engineered bamboo’s reliability, yet critical parameters like the solid content, spread rate, and curing profile are often underreported. More importantly, a lack of microscopic examinations of the bond line quality or failure mode monitoring also demonstrates the need for more research on adhesives’ effectiveness.
  • A lack of field validation: Most studies tested the mechanical properties under controlled, uniaxial laboratory conditions. Field-scale verification under real-world environmental and mechanical conditions, including assessments of the durability over time and load redistribution following cracking, is needed for engineered bamboo to be used in actual applications.
  • The limited consideration of anisotropy and fibre orientation effects: Bamboo’s mechanical anisotropy significantly affects its strength and stiffness, yet not all the studies accounted for or reported the directional dependence of loading. Without standardized orientation protocols, the influence of layup configurations or hybridization on the mechanical outcomes remains ambiguous.
To overcome these limitations, a higher priority should be given to adopting consistent test protocols. Modifying current timber test frameworks for application to engineered bamboo, as well as employing multiscale characterization (i.e., microstructural imaging, failure mode analysis), would considerably enhance the data comparability and consistency.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

4.1. Conclusions

The mechanical properties, methods of processing, and durability attributes of engineered bamboo, specifically bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo, were investigated in this study. This review set out to evaluate them as alternatives to conventional timber and steel as sustainable structural materials. From a comprehensive review of the recent literature, it was discovered that bamboo scrimber surpasses laminated bamboo considerably in nearly every major category of mechanical properties based on its methods of production, especially resin impregnation and high-pressure hot pressing. While bamboo scrimber demonstrates strong mechanical performance and the clear potential for structural use, its widespread adoption is limited by regulatory and industrial barriers, including the absence of standardized approval pathways in building codes and the technical demands of large-scale, quality-controlled manufacturing.
Engineered bamboo products showed stronger compressive, tensile, and shear strengths and higher moduli of elasticity and rupture. Densification treatment, which aligns and bonds the bamboo fibres and enhances the resin distribution and adhesion, was responsible for most of these increases. Although laminated bamboo has a better surface finish and appearance, due to its susceptibility to interlaminar failure caused by poor bond line adhesion, it is not a suitable choice for the main load-bearing material for construction. Nevertheless, it can still find applications in non-structural furniture and interior house panelling.
Despite its excellent structural and durability performance, engineered bamboo’s current dependence on formaldehyde-containing adhesives like PF and MUF creates a trade-off in terms of sustainability. These adhesives contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, which is in opposition to the environmental goals that make bamboo attractive in the first place. Therefore, the full replacement of traditional structural materials with reconstituted bamboo is conditional on the development of more sustainable, low-emission bonding systems. Nonetheless, this review confirms that, with optimized processing and appropriate adhesive systems, engineered bamboo is already a highly promising candidate for many structural applications. Incorporating life cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks into future evaluations will be essential to quantify these trade-offs and guide material choices.
The methodology consisted of structured database searching using the Engineering Village platform according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies were then chosen according to their relevance to application in construction and coverage by Q1 and Q2 journals. The data were extracted and compared considering five important topics, including sustainable production, mechanical tests, the properties of materials, techniques for manufacturing, and the pressing parameters under heat treatment. This allowed for the establishment of trends and relationships between the input conditions and performance outcomes.
Overall, the review emphasized a close relationship between the processing accuracy and mechanical properties. Phenol-formaldehyde adhesives had uniformly high bond quality and endurance, while competing adhesives like urea-formaldehyde or waterborne polymers had less water and heat resistance. Furthermore, wood products processed under optimized pressing and steam or pressure drying treatment demonstrated a higher density, stiffness, and dimensional stability. The study also highlighted the significance of the fibre orientation, adhesive choice, and pre-treatment procedure in determining the engineered bamboo’s performance. Because bamboo is naturally anisotropic, the fibre orientation and direction of testing strongly affected the strength characteristics. It was also seen through durability tests that scrimber managed to retain its structural stability under conditions involving cyclic loads and after cracking better than laminated bamboo, and thus it is more reliable for demanding structural purposes.

4.2. Future Research Needs

Future studies should prioritize the development and adoption of standardized testing protocols for engineered bamboo. This includes determining consistent specimen sizes, loading configurations, and environmental conditioning steps, which are essential for generating comparable results. There is also a need for more comprehensive long-term durability studies under real-world exposure conditions. These should include testing under moisture cycling and UV exposure and of engineered bamboo’s fungal resistance and fire performance, especially for exterior or structural applications. Such testing would strengthen the case for using engineered bamboo as a sustainable construction material. Research should also focus on establishing quantitative relationships between adhesive characteristics (e.g., the solid content, viscosity, and spread rate) and performance outcomes. Microscopic bond line imaging and failure mode analysis could provide more insight into adhesives’ effectiveness, particularly for hybrid products combining bamboo with other woods. In terms of processing, more work is needed to optimize pre-treatment methods like steam curing, pressure-drying, and bundle orientation techniques. Studies should aim to isolate their effects on the mechanical variability and performance under multiaxial loading.
In addition, future studies could incorporate bibliometric analysis tools such as VOSviewer to explore the publication trends, leading countries, and key author networks, offering a broader understanding of the research regarding engineered bamboo.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17135977/s1, PRISMA 2020 Checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M. and N.J.; methodology, A.M. and N.J.; formal analysis, A.M. and N.J.; investigation, N.J.; resources, A.M. and N.J.; data curation, N.J.; writing—original draft preparation, N.J.; writing—review and editing, A.M. and N.J.; supervision, A.M.; project administration, A.M.; funding acquisition, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), which provided Discovery Grant No. RGPIN 2023-05246 to Dr. Mofidi.

Data Availability Statement

All the data produced in this study are provided in the article/Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Drury, B.; Padfield, C.; Russo, M.; Swygart, L.; Spalton, O.; Froggatt, S.; Mofidi, A. Assessment of the Compression Properties of Different Giant Bamboo Species for Sustainable Construction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, Z.; Yang, G.S.; Zhou, Q.; Shan, B.; Xiao, Y. Bending performance of glubam beams made with different processes. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2019, 22, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Qiu, Z.; Zhu, W.; Fan, H. Anisotropy attenuation of reconstituted bamboo lumber by orthogonal layup process. Compos. Commun. 2023, 40, 101608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mofidi, A.; Abila, J.; Ng, J.T.M. Novel advanced composite bamboo structural members with bio-based and synthetic matrices for sustainable construction. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Richardson, C.; Mofidi, A. Non-Linear Numerical Modelling of Sustainable Advanced Composite Columns Made from Bamboo Culms. Constr. Mater. 2021, 1, 169–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Huang, B.; Chen, L.; Wang, X.; Ma, X.; Liu, H.; Zhang, X.; Sun, F.; Fei, B.; Fang, C. Eco-friendly, high-utilization, and easy-manufacturing bamboo units for engineered bamboo products: Processing and mechanical characterization. Compos. Part B Eng. 2023, 267, 111073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Drury, B.; Padfield, C.; Rajabifard, M.; Mofidi, A. Experimental Investigation of Low-Cost Bamboo Composite (LCBC) Slender Structural Columns in Compression. J. Compos. Sci. 2024, 8, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Adier, M.F.V.; Sevilla, M.E.P.; Valerio, D.N.R.; Ongpeng, J.M.C. Bamboo as Sustainable Building Materials: A Systematic Review of Properties, Treatment Methods, and Standards. Buildings 2023, 13, 2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Padfield, C.; Drury, B.; Soltanieh, G.; Rajabifard, M.; Mofidi, A. Innovative Cross-sectional Configurations for Low-Cost Bamboo Composite (LCBC) Structural Columns. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wei, Y.; Zhou, M.; Zhao, K.; Zhao, K.; Li, G. Stress-strain relationship model of glulam bamboo under axial loading. Adv. Compos. Lett. 2020, 29, 2633366X20958726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tang, S.; Zhou, A.; Li, J. Mechanical properties and strength grading of engineered bamboo composites in China. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 6666059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, D.; Li, H.; Lorenzo, R.; Yuan, C.; Hong, C.; Chen, Y. Basic mechanical properties of laminated flattened-bamboo composite: An experimental and parametric investigation. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023, 35, 04023258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Harries, K.A.; Mofidi, A.; Naylor, J.; Trujillo, D.; Lopez, L.F.; Gutierrez, M.; Sharma, B.; Rogers, C. Knowledge gaps and research needs in bamboo construction. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Non-conventional Materials and Technologies (NOCMAT 2022), Online, 7–23 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sharma, B.; Gatóo, A.; Bock, M.; Ramage, M.H. Engineered bamboo for structural applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 81, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Huang, Y.; Ji, Y.; Yu, W. Development of bamboo scrimber: A literature review. J. Wood Sci. 2019, 65, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, M.; Semple, K.; Hu, Y.A.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, C.; Pineda, H.; Xia, Y.; Zhu, W.; Dai, C. Fundamentals of bamboo scrimber hot pressing: Mat compaction and heat transfer process. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 412, 134843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. He, Z.; Huang, H.; Sun, L.; Fan, D.; Ren, H. Mechanical and fire properties of flame-retardant laminated bamboo lumber glued with phenol formaldehyde and melamine urea formaldehyde adhesives. Polymers 2024, 16, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xu, Q.; Chen, L.; Harries, K.A.; Li, X. Combustion performance of engineered bamboo from cone calorimeter tests. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. SCImago. SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank. 2025. Available online: https://www.scimagojr.com (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  20. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Chou, R.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xu, Q.; Leng, Y.; Chen, X.; Harries, K.A.; Chen, L.; Wang, Z. Experimental study on flexural performance of glued-laminated-timber-bamboo beams. Mater. Struct. 2018, 51, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hu, Y.; Xiong, L.; Li, Y.; Semple, K.; Nasir, V.; Pineda, H.; He, M.; Dai, C. Manufacturing and characterization of wide-bundle bamboo scrimber: A comparison with other engineered bamboo composites. Materials 2022, 15, 7518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gao, D.; Chen, B.; Wang, L.; Tang, C.; Yuan, P. Comparative Study on Clear Specimen Strength and Member Strength of Side-Pressure Laminated Bamboo. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 2546792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dong, W.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Gong, M. Experimental study on bending properties of cross-laminated timber-bamboo composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 300, 124313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Correal, J.F.; Echeverry, J.S.; Ramírez, F.; Yamín, L.E. Experimental evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of Glued Laminated Guadua angustifolia Kunth. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 73, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, S.; Wei, Y.; Wang, G.; Zhao, K.; Ding, M. Mechanical behavior of laminated bamboo-timber composite columns under axial compression. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2023, 23, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, D.; Li, H.; Xiong, Z.; Lorenzo, R.; Corbi, I.; Corbi, O. Fibre alignment angles effect on the tensile performance of laminated bamboo lumber. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2022, 80, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wu, M.; Mei, L.; Guo, N.; Ren, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y. Mechanical properties and failure mechanisms of engineering bamboo scrimber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 344, 128082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiao, Y.; Cai, H.; Dong, S.Y. A pilot study on cross-laminated bamboo and timber beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 06021002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Forest Products Laboratory. Wood Handbook: Wood as An Engineering Material (General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA; Forest Products Laboratory: Madison, WI, USA, 2010.
  32. Brito, F.M.S.; Paes, J.B.; da Silva Oliveira, J.T.; Arantes, M.D.C.; Vidaurre, G.B.; Brocco, V.F. Physico-mechanical characterization of heat-treated glued laminated bamboo. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 190, 719–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, S.; Jiang, Z.; Huang, L.; Huang, B.; Wang, X.; Chen, L.; Ma, X. High-performance bamboo-wood composite materials based on the natural structure and original form of bamboo: Fracture behavior and mechanical characterization. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 447, 138118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McGavin, R.L.; Nguyen, H.H.; Gilbert, B.P.; Dakin, T.; Faircloth, A. A comparative study on the mechanical properties of laminated veneer lumber (LVL) produced from blending various wood veneers. BioResources 2019, 14, 9064–9081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sylvayanti, S.P.; Nugroho, N.; Bahtiar, E.T. Bamboo scrimber’s physical and mechanical properties in comparison to four structural timber species. Forests 2023, 14, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Al-Rukaibawi, L.S.; Kachichian, M.; Károlyi, G. Mechanical properties of laminated bamboo lumber N-finity according to ISO 23478-2022. J. Wood Sci. 2024, 70, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lei, J.; Chen, B.; Yuan, P. Experimental Study on Flexural Properties of Side-Pressure Laminated Bamboo Beams. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 5629635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. GB 1927-1991; Method of Sample-Tree Collection for Physical and Mechanical Tests of Wood. China Standards Press: Beijing, China, 1991.
  39. ASTM D143-14; Standard Test Methods for Small Clear Specimens of Timber. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
  40. ASTM D1990-16; Standard Practice for Establishing Allowable Properties for Visually-Graded Dimension Lumber from In-Grade Tests of Full-Size Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  41. GB 50005; Standard for Design of Timber Structures. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. State Administration for Market Regulation: Beijing, China, 2017.
  42. GB 50068-2018; Unified Standard for Reliability Design of Building Structure. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. State Administration for Market Regulation: Beijing, China, 2018.
  43. ASTM D2915-10; Practice for Sampling and Data-Analysis for Structural Wood and Wood-Based Products. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010. [CrossRef]
  44. ASTM D7078/D7078M-12; Standard Test Method for Shear Properties of Composite Materials by V-Notched Rail Shear Method. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
  45. Li, J.; Singh, A.; Zhou, Y. Experimental study on the flexural behavior of I-shaped laminated bamboo composite beam as sustainable structural element. Buildings 2024, 14, 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. ASTM D198; Standard Test Methods of Static Tests of Lumber in Structural Sizes. American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York City, NY, USA, 2015.
  47. Yang, D.; Li, H.; Xiong, Z.; Mimendi, L.; Lorenzo, R.; Corbi, I.; Corbi, O.; Hong, C. Mechanical properties of laminated bamboo under off-axis compression. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2020, 138, 106042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, H.; Wei, Y.; Lin, Y.; Chen, S.; Chen, J. Out-of-plane characteristics of cross-laminated bamboo and timber beams under variable span three-point loading. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 411, 134647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. ASTM D5266; Standard Practice for Estimating the Percentage of Wood Failure in Adhesive Bonded Joints. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2005.
  50. Wen, J.; Xiao, Y. The flexural behavior of cross laminated bamboo and timber (CLBT) and cross laminated timber (CLT) beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 408, 133739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. GB/T 50329-2012; Standard for Test Methods of Timber Structures. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2012.
  52. Li, H.; Wu, G.; Zhang, Q.; Deeks, A.J.; Su, J. Ultimate bending capacity evaluation of laminated bamboo lumber beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 160, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Huang, D.; Zhou, A. The ultimate load-carrying capacity and deformation of laminated bamboo hollow decks: Experimental investigation and inelastic analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 117, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. GB/T 15780-1995; Testing Methods for Physical and Mechanical Properties of Bamboos. Standardization Administration of China: Beijing, China, 1995.
  55. GB/T 17657-2013; Test Methods of Evaluating the Properties of Wood-based Panels and Surface Decorated Wood-based Panels. Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2013.
  56. Wang, Y.; Huang, Q.; Dong, H.; Wang, Z.; Shu, B.; Gong, M. Mechanical behavior of cross-laminated timber-bamboo short columns with different layup configurations under axial compression. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 421, 135695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. ASTM D4442; Standard Test Methods for Direct Moisture Content Measurement of Wood and Wood-Based Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  58. ASTM E132; Standard Test Method for Poisson’s Ratio at Room Temperature. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  59. Li, H.; Wei, Y.; Chen, J.; Du, H.; Zhang, Y. Out-of-plane bending and shear behavior of cross-laminated bamboo and timber under four-point loading with variable spans. Eng. Struct. 2025, 323, 119273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, C.; Xizhi, W.; Li, X.; Liu, X. Structure and physical properties of high-density bamboo scrimber made from refined bamboo bundles. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2024, 82, 1867–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. GB/T 18261-2013; Test Method for Anti-Mildew Agents in Controlling Wood Mould and Stain Fungi. Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2013.
  62. Sinha, A.; Way, D.; Mlasko, S. Structural performance of glued laminated bamboo beams. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140, 04013021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. ASTM D905; Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of Adhesive Bonds in Shear by Compression Loading. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008.
  64. ISO 22156; Bamboo Culms – Structural Design. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  65. ISO 22157; Bamboo Structures – Determination of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Bamboo Culms – Test Methods. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  66. He, M.; Li, Z.; Sun, Y.; Ma, R. Experimental investigations on mechanical properties and column buckling behavior of structural bamboo. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2015, 24, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, C.Q.; Zhou, S.C.; Lai, S.T.; Xu, M.D.; Xiao, Y. Impact Toughness and Quasi-Static Bending Strength of Glubam. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2023, 35, 04023322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. ISO 13061; Physical and Mechanical Properties of Wood – Test Methods for Small Clear Wood Specimens. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  69. Chen, S.; Wei, Y.; Zhao, K.; Dong, F.; Huang, L. Experimental investigation on the flexural behavior of laminated bamboo-timber I-beams. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 46, 103651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. GB/T 1935-2009; Method of Testing Compressive Strength Parallel to Grain of Wood. Standardization Administration of China: Beijing, China, 2009.
  71. GB/T 1938-2009Method of Testing Tensile Strength Parallel to Grain of Wood. Standardization Administration of China; Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  72. ISO 23478:2022; Engineered Bamboo Products — Test Methods for Determination of Physical and Mechanical Properties. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
  73. Yu, Y.; Zhu, R.; Wu, B.; Hu, Y.A.; Yu, W. Fabrication, material properties, and application of bamboo scrimber. Wood Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. ASTM D2344/D2344M-22; Standard Test Method for Short-Beam Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials and Their Laminates. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2022.
  75. ASTM D1037; Standard Test Methods for Evaluating Properties of Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  76. GB/T 30364-2013Bamboo Scrimber Flooring. Standardization Administration of China; Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  77. NIST 2011; Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels. National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2011.
  78. ASTM E72-15; Standard Test Methods of Conducting Strength Tests of Panels for Building Construction. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
  79. Zhang, H.; Shen, M.; Deng, Y.; Andras, P.; Sukontasukkul, P.; Yuen, T.Y.; Tang, Y.; Wong, S.H.; Limkatanyu, S.; Singleton, I.; et al. A new concept of bio-based prestress technology with experimental Proof-of-Concept on Bamboo-Timber composite beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 402, 132991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Liliefna, L.D.; Nugroho, N.; Karlinasari, L.; Sadiyo, S. Development of low-tech laminated bamboo esterilla sheet made of thin-wall bamboo culm. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 242, 118181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chow, A.; Ramage, M.H.; Shah, D.U. Optimising ply orientation in structural laminated bamboo. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 212, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liang, E.; Chen, C.; Tu, D.; Zhou, Q.; Zhou, J.; Hu, C.; Li, X.; Ma, H. Highly efficient preparation of bamboo scrimber: Drying process optimization of bamboo bundles and its effect on the properties of bamboo scrimber. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2022, 80, 1473–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. He, S.; Xu, J.; Wu, Z.X.; Yu, H.; Chen, Y.H.; Song, J.G. Effect of bamboo bundle knitting on enhancing properties of bamboo scrimber. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 1071–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Colince, L.; Qian, J.; Zhang, J.; Wu, C.; Yu, L. Study on the Molding Factors of Preparing High-Strength Laminated Bamboo Composites. Materials 2024, 17, 2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Huang, B.; Wang, X.; Su, N.; Fang, C. High-performance engineered bamboo units with customizable radius based on pressure-drying technology: Multi-scale mechanical properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 457, 139472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chung, M.J.; Wang, S.Y. Effects of peeling and steam-heating treatment on mechanical properties and dimensional stability of oriented Phyllostachys makinoi and Phyllostachys edulis scrimber boards. J. Wood Sci. 2018, 64, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Guan, X.; Yin, H.; Lin, C.; Zhan, W. Effect of layups on the mechanical properties of overlaid laminated bamboo lumber made of radial bamboo slices. J. Wood Sci. 2022, 68, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, T.Y.; Deng, J.Y.; Chen, J.Q.; Xiao, Y.; Shan, B.; Xu, H.; Qin, S.; Yu, Q. Bending performance of nail-laminated bamboo-timber panels made with glubam and fast-grown plantation Chinese fir. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 384, 131425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Deng, J.; Li, H.; Wang, G.; Chen, F.; Zhang, W. Effect of removing extent of bamboo green on physical and mechanical properties of laminated bamboo-bundle veneer lumber (BLVL). Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2015, 73, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ma, Y.; Luan, Y.; Chen, L.; Huang, B.; Luo, X.; Miao, H.; Fang, C. A Novel Bamboo-Wood Composite Utilizing High-Utilization, Easy-to-Manufacture Bamboo Units: Optimization of Mechanical Properties and Bonding Performance. Forests 2024, 15, 716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Aschheim, M.; Gil-Martín, L.M.; Hernández-Montes, E. Engineered bamboo I-joists. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 136, 1619–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 05977 g001
Figure 1. Illustration of the bamboo scrimber manufacturing process.
Figure 1. Illustration of the bamboo scrimber manufacturing process.
Sustainability 17 05977 g001
Sustainability 17 05977 g002
Figure 2. Illustration of the laminated bamboo manufacturing process.
Figure 2. Illustration of the laminated bamboo manufacturing process.
Sustainability 17 05977 g002
Sustainability 17 05977 g003
Figure 3. Flowchart summarizing the methodology used for this systematic review.
Figure 3. Flowchart summarizing the methodology used for this systematic review.
Sustainability 17 05977 g003
Sustainability 17 05977 g004
Figure 4. PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion processes for studies included in the systematic review.
Figure 4. PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion processes for studies included in the systematic review.
Sustainability 17 05977 g004
Sustainability 17 05977 g005
Figure 5. Plot of density (kg/m3) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Figure 5. Plot of density (kg/m3) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Sustainability 17 05977 g005
Sustainability 17 05977 g006
Figure 6. Plot of longitudinal tensile strength (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Figure 6. Plot of longitudinal tensile strength (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Sustainability 17 05977 g006
Sustainability 17 05977 g007
Figure 7. Plot of longitudinal compressive strength (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Figure 7. Plot of longitudinal compressive strength (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Sustainability 17 05977 g007
Sustainability 17 05977 g008
Figure 8. Plot of longitudinal shear strength (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Figure 8. Plot of longitudinal shear strength (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Sustainability 17 05977 g008
Sustainability 17 05977 g009
Figure 9. Plot of longitudinal modulus of rupture (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Figure 9. Plot of longitudinal modulus of rupture (MPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Sustainability 17 05977 g009
Sustainability 17 05977 g010
Figure 10. Plot of longitudinal modulus of elasticity (GPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Figure 10. Plot of longitudinal modulus of elasticity (GPa) for bamboo scrimber and laminated bamboo.
Sustainability 17 05977 g010
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jafarnia, N.; Mofidi, A. Engineered Bamboo for Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Characterization Methods. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5977. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135977

AMA Style

Jafarnia N, Mofidi A. Engineered Bamboo for Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Characterization Methods. Sustainability. 2025; 17(13):5977. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135977

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jafarnia, Nima, and Amir Mofidi. 2025. "Engineered Bamboo for Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Characterization Methods" Sustainability 17, no. 13: 5977. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135977

APA Style

Jafarnia, N., & Mofidi, A. (2025). Engineered Bamboo for Sustainable Construction: A Systematic Review of Characterization Methods. Sustainability, 17(13), 5977. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17135977

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop