Name: Date:

Course Code and Section: Course Degree and Year:

RESEARCH LITERATURE SECTION EXERCISE 1

Directions: Identify the rhetorical units and sub-rhetorical units of the following Related Studies section by
surrounding each of them with brackets and extending each of the brackets with arrows leading to the writing of
the specific units on the margins.

2.6 Related Studies

Bamboo has proven itself more beneficial than the conventional construction materials by displaying its many
outstanding properties. Many studies have been conducted to uncover and explore its remarkable properties such as
Oka et al. (2014), Harries et al. (2012), Atanda (2015), Richard (2013), Gottron (2014), Dixon et al. (2015), Parao
(2017), Barotil (2014), and Trujillo & Lopez (2016). Importantly, bamboo is a renewable resource and construction
material alternative, along with the effect of its fiber density and nodes to its compressive strength that can resolve
problems on standardization.
Renewable resource, as defined by The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (2005), is “any resource, such as
wood or solar energy, that can or will be replenished naturally in the course of time (p. 275).” Atanda (2015) stresses
that bamboo is a renewable resource due to its low cost, and high availability in localities. Additionally, he also
compared bamboo to trees which are also a renewable resource. His study showed that it is a better construction
material because it has a faster regeneration rate of 3 to 5 years than trees of 10 to 20 years. Similarly, according to
Gottron (2014), bamboo is not only locally available but also regenerates rapidly making it a renewable resource.
Hence, it is recognized as a substitute construction material.
Bamboo has better mechanical properties than most conventional construction materials such as concrete,
steel, masonry, and timber. All the studies above have concluded that it can replace or act as a substitute of the
common construction materials. In his 2015 study, Atanda reported that the average strength of bamboo is 204-250
MPa which is similar to mild steel. Moreover, it doubles the compressive strength of concrete (Barotil, 2014). Also,
Richard (2013) asserted that it supersedes the high cost and hard procurement of construction materials like concrete,
and steel. It is also observed that it performs better during occurrence of disasters (e.g. seismic events); hence, it is
used for disaster mitigation (Harries et al., 2012).
The compressive strength of bamboo is affected by many factors; some of these are nodes and fiber density.
In the early studies of bamboo, compressive strengths were tested using samples obtained from node and internode
sections. However, Oka, et al. (2014), Gottron (2014), and Barotil (2014) confirmed that nodes have no significant
effect on a bamboo’s compressive strength. This means that node and internode samples reach almost the same
results with little or negligible variation. On the other hand, fiber density significantly influences the strength of bamboo
based on the studies of the following authors. Harries, et al. (2012) described bamboo as “a natural fiber composite”
(p.67) with increasing density of fiber from inner to outer part of the culm. Likewise, Atanda (2015) noted the same
description about bamboo. In the 2014 study of Gottron, she observed that cross-sectional area of bamboo is not
uniform along its entire length; outer diameter and thickness decreases from bottom to top. However, she has found
that strength increases from bottom to top; thus, strength is not governed by the outer diameter and thickness but by
fiber density. Furthermore, the same as Atanda and Harries et al., Gottron discovered that fiber in the outer part of
bamboo is denser than its inner part and increases in volume from bottom to top. In addition, bamboo acts stronger
along the fiber which is in the direction of the culm length (Gottron, 2014). This is in fact supported by Trujillo’s and
Lopez’ (2016) findings that fibers contribute to the strength of bamboo by acting as the reinforcement of the whole
construction material. Additionally, they determined that strength increases as fiber density increases. Dixon et al.
(2014) also characterized bamboo as a “fiber reinforced composite” (p.11) as seen in the field of engineering. With
regard to concrete and bamboo, steel bar/rod and fiber act as reinforcement, respectively. Similar with the previous
three investigations, Dixon and his co-researchers declared that there is an increase in the fiber volume along culm
length from bottom to top and from inner to outer wall.
Despite being recognized as an alternative construction material, lack of standardization hinders bamboo’s
development in the construction industry. According to Harries et al. (2012), bamboo is not fully accepted in the field
of engineering due to the lack of building codes or standards that are necessary for structural design. This may be
caused by several factors. Gottron (2014) reported that this hindrance is affected by the wide variety of species of
bamboo that have different mechanical properties and the lack of equipment and design knowledge with the use of
bamboo. For instance, two species of bamboo results in two different values of compressive strength. Barotil (2014)
determined that the average compressive strength parallel to the fiber of 5-6 years old bambusa blumeana J.A. & J.H.
Schultes (local name: kawayan tinik) is 35.99 MPa for samples with nodes and 36.4 MPa for the internode samples.
While in the 2014 study of Oka et al., the compressive strength of gigantochloa atroviolacea is 52.27 MPa for nodal
samples, and 50.5 MPa for internodal samples. Besides species, age and application of load may have affected the
compressive strength which is not included in the study of Oka et al. The lack of structural code that aids in the design
of structures also leads to bamboo being inferior to other construction materials (Richard, 2013). The studies above
except Dixon et al. and Atanda’s assert that there is a need of standards for bamboo to be fully accepted as
construction material.