Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Impact bending behaviors of parallel bamboo strand lumber beams: Velocity

sensitivity and anisotropy
Zhenyu Qiu a, Jingxuan Wang b, Hualin Fan b,c,⇑
a
State Key Laboratory for Disaster Prevention & Mitigation of Explosion & Impact, Army Engineering University of PLA, Nanjing 210007, China
b
Research Center of Lightweight Structures and Intelligent Manufacturing, State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical Structures, Nanjing University of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China
c
China National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Materials under Shock and Impact, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 10081, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In order to investigate the impact bending behaviors of parallel bamboo strand lumbers (PBSLs), low‐velocity‐
Parallel bamboo strand lumber impact experiments were carried out on six kinds of PBSL beams with fiber orientations varying from 15° to 90°
Anisotropy under the condition of impact velocity changing from 2 m/s to 10 m/s. Dynamic anisotropic characterization
Low‐velocity impact and velocity effect of the PBSL beam were revealed and quantitatively expressed. PBSL beams have excellent
anti‐impact ability when the fiber is along the beam axis or the included angle is below 45°. The impact force
and the energy absorption increase with the increase of the impact velocity. Failure pattern transforming from
tensile failure to shear failure can explain the decrease of the anti‐impact ability. In shear failure, increasing
impact velocity results in much more energy absorption as the number of fracture zones increases from one
to three.

1. Introduction In addition, as bamboo materials are anisotropic, fiber orientation

As a new kind of green building material, bamboo based composite
material not only has good mechanical properties, but also has a broad
market and wide application prospect [1,2]. Generally speaking, bam-
boo is light and strong, and its growth cycle is short, generally
3–5 years, while its annual growth is large, 5–6 times as much as that
of trees. Bamboo is a building material with low energy consumption.
For buildings of the same are, the energy consumption ratio is 1:8
between bamboo and concrete, and 1:50 between bamboo and steel
[3].
However, most studies on bamboo at present are based on quasi‐
static loading conditions. Investigations on the dynamic performance
of bamboo materials are still rare. Zeng et al. [4] studied the impact
toughness of three kinds of bamboo composites. Liu et al. [5] proposed
matrix cracking, fiber‐matrix interface debonding and delamination,
and fiber breakage are the three main fracture mechanisms of the bam-
boo composites under low velocity impact. Hu et al. [6] investigated
the strain rate effect of bamboo materials by quasi‐static and dynamic
split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) compression experiments. Li et al.
[7,8] have reported the dynamic compression behaviors of parallel
bamboo strand lumber (PBSL) specimens.
might greatly affect their mechanical responses. Quasi‐static aniso-
tropy has been investigated. García et al. [9] raised an approach to
determine anisotropic elastic constants of different species of bamboo
materials. Chow et al. [10] focused on the anisotropic tensile property
of the laminated bamboo. Shangguan et al. [11] investigated the ani-
sotropic compression property of the PBSL. Qiu et al. [12] proposed a
nonlinear model and composite failure criteria to reflect the aniso-
tropy of the PBSL. They [13] also built a high‐order anisotropic beam
theory to predict the flexural behavior of PBSL beams. However, all
these studies are based on quasi‐static loading. Qiu et al. [14] investi-
gated low‐velocity impact behaviors of PBSL beams whose fibers are
along the beam axis. Till now, there are few reports on the dynamic
anisotropy of bamboo materials.
In this research, low‐velocity impact behaviors of anisotropic PBSL
beams were experimentally investigated. Velocity sensitivity and ani-
sotropy of the anisotropic PBSL beam were quantitatively character-
ized bases on the measured impact force and the energy absorption.
The research could provide a basis for the further study of bamboo‐
based protective structures.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fhl15@nuaa.edu.cn (H. Fan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113711
Received 7 November 2020; Revised 2 January 2021; Accepted 5 February 2021
Available online 13 February 2021
0263-8223/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Qiu et al.
2. Experimental scheme
2.1. Specimen design
To study anisotropic anti‐impact behaviors under low‐velocity
impact, seven groups of PBSLs with fiber directions changing from
0° to 90° at an interval of 15°, were initially prepared. As experiments
on samples (DW1) with fibers along 00 direction (beam axis) have
been completed before [14], only specimens with fiber direction
changing from 15° to 90° were studied in this paper. The included
angle between the beam axis and the fiber direction changes from
15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75° to 90°, labeled by DW2, DW3, DW4, DW5,
DW6 and DW7, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.
For each type of specimen, experiments were carried out at nine
impact velocities. The test was repeated three times at each impact
velocity. The size of the beam is 300 mm × 20 mm × 20 mm, with
a flexural span of 124 mm. The density is 958 kg/m3.
2.2. Experimental methods
The impact test was carried out on an INSTRON CEAST‐9350 drop-
ping hammer test system, as shown in Fig. 2(a), while the quasi‐static
test as a reference was carried out on a universal test machine, as
shown in Fig. 2(b).
3. Experimental investigations
3.1. Quasi-static test
The quasi‐static test provides a reference to the dynamic test. As
shown in Fig. 3(a), the failure of the PBSL beam is just along the fiber,
rendering an interfacial failure pattern. The mid‐span deflection curves
of the specimens are listed in Fig. 3(b), which can be divided into three
stages: the elastic stage, the nonlinear deformation stage and the post‐
failure stage. As listed in Table 1, the load capacity of the PBSL beam
decreases from 5.53 kN to 1.02 kN, when the fiber angle changes from
15° to 90°. The ultimate deflection has the same variation with the
peak load.
3.2. Impact loads
Dynamic impact force is an effective index to evaluate the impact
resistance. Fig. 4 shows the load‐time curves of the specimens with dif-
ferent fiber angles under different impact velocities. Different from
those quasi‐static deflection curves shown in Fig. 3(b), the dynamic
flexural curves fluctuate violently on the whole, shown as multi‐crest
oscillation curve. Under the same impact velocity, specimens with dif-
ferent fiber angles have different responses. Specifically, the larger is
Fig. 1. Six PBSL specimens from DW2 to DW7 with fiber orientation changing
from 150 to 900 at an interval of 150.
2
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711
the fiber angle with respect to the beam axis, the shorter are the load-
ing time and the smaller the load peak.
As shown in Fig. 5(a), the impact force increases quasi‐linearly with
the initial impact velocity, v. For DW 7, this velocity‐dependent coeffi-
cient, λF , is enlarged to 14.80, as shown in Fig. 5(b). Based on tested
data in Fig. 5(b), the impact force is velocity‐dependent, which is given
by
kF
λF ¼ 1 þ v ð1Þ
2
where kF is the slope of the linearly fitted line of velocity‐dependent
coefficients, as listed in Table 2. Beams with larger fiber angles are
more sensitive to the impact velocity. DW2 has more gentle variation
compared with other beams, indicating there may be two interaction
mechanism or failure patterns in the impact.
The velocity‐dependent coefficient slope, kF , can non‐linearly fitted
by


θ
K F ¼ Aexp þC ð2Þ
B
with A = 0.08, B = 16.37035 and C = 0.33 for fiber orientation smal-
ler than 45° and A = 0.00546, B = 16.28269 and C = 1.49668 for
fiber orientation larger than 45°, as shown in Fig. 5(c). The velocity‐
dependent coefficient of the energy absorption and the impact tough-
ness, λE , can be non‐linearly fitted by

 
θ v
λF ¼ 1 þ Aexp þC ð3Þ
B 2
Eq. (3) can consistently reflect the velocity‐dependence and the
anisotropy of the impact force of the anisotropic PBSL beam tested
in this research.
It is found that at the same impact velocity, the peak force
decreases with the fiber orientation, as shown in Fig. 6(a). But impact
velocity will reduce this difference. As shown in Fig. 6(b), at 0 m/s the
ratio of the impact force of DW7 to DW2 is 0.184. At 10 m/s this fiber‐
orientation‐dependent coefficient is enlarged to 0.717.
3.3. Impulses
The impulse curves of the specimens are shown in Fig. 7. As an
important parameter to evaluate the impact performance of the spec-
imen, the impulse can be obtained by integrating the load‐time curve
during the impact process. It is found that the impulse decreases with
the increase of the fiber angle at the same impact velocity. With
greater bending rigidity, such as DW2, as shown in Fig. 8(a), the
impulse subjected by the beams is much greater, indicating these
beams have stronger impact‐resistance. For DW2, the impulse
decreases with the impact velocity as shown in Fig. 8(b), while for
the others the impulse is insensitive to the impact velocity. There
may be a transformation of anti‐impact mechanism between DW2
and DW3.
3.4. Load-displacement curves
Fig. 8 shows the load‐displacement curves of specimens with differ-
ent fiber angle and under different impact velocity. The curves have
great fluctuations, as shown in Fig. 9. These curves can also be divide
into three types. For the 1st type, the peak load occurs in the 3rd per-
iod and while that in the 2nd period is much smaller, where the fiber
angle with respect to the beam axis is not more than 45°. For the 2nd
type, the peak load occurs in the 1st period and that in the 2nd period
is much smaller while the peak force in the 3rd period is only a little
smaller, where the fiber angle is larger than 45° and the impact veloc-
ity is not high. For these beams, when the impact velocity is high
enough, the third type curve is observed with gradually decreasing
fluctuations.
Z. Qiu et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711

Fig. 2. (a) Low velocity impact bending test and (b) quasi-static three-point bending test.

Fig. 3. (a) Quasi-static failure pattern diagram and (b) experimental curves.

Table 1 kE
λE ¼ 1 þ v ð4Þ
Quasi-static three-point bending results. 2
PBSL Fiber angel Peak force (kN) Mean value (kN) The velocity‐dependent coefficient slope, kE , is listed in Table 4,
which is a little greater than kF . As the slope of DW2 is much smaller,
DW2-0 15° 5.57; 5.92; 5.09 5.53
DW3-0 30° 3.43; 3.25; 3.64 3.44 there may be two failure patterns.
DW4-0 45° 1.97; 1.71; 1.82 1.83 The fiber‐orientation‐dependent coefficients are compared in
DW5-0 60° 1.96; 1.74; 1.56 1.75 Fig. 11(b). For DW3, the coefficient drops fast while from DW4 to
DW6-0 75° 1.65; 1.95; 1.26 1.62 DW7. The descent becomes gentle, indicating there may be a transfor-
DW7-0 90° 1.04; 1.03; 0.99 1.02
mation of failure pattern at DW4. Under 2 m/s, the coefficient of DW7
is only 0.088. This ratio is enlarged to 0.223 under 10 m/s. High
impact velocity will reduce the difference in energy absorption.
3.5. Energy absorption The velocity‐dependent coefficient slope, kE , can non‐linearly fitted
by
The energy absorption (E) and the impact toughness (IT, ratio of "
d #1
energy to cross sectional area) are important parameters in impact. θ
The energy absorption of PBSL beams can be calculated by integrating kE ¼ a þ b 1 þ ð5Þ
c
load‐displacement curve.
Fig. 10 and Table 3 compare the energy absorption of specimens with a = 0.32266, b = 1.52947, c = 28.71865 and d = 3.43262, as
with different fiber angle at various impact velocity. As shown in shown in Fig. 11(c). The velocity‐dependent coefficient of the energy
Fig. 9(a), the quasi‐static energy absorption has a smooth upward absorption and the impact toughness, λE , can be non‐linearly fitted by
trend. Under impact, the curve fluctuates and the fluctuation increases ( "
d #1 )
with the increase of the fiber angle and the impact velocity. As shown θ v
λE ¼ 1 þ a þ b 1 þ ð6Þ
in Fig. 10(k) and (l), the energy absorption and the impact toughness c 2
increase with the increase of the impact velocity and decrease with the
Eq. (6) can consistently reflect the velocity‐dependence and the
increase of the fiber angle.
anisotropy of the energy absorption of the anisotropic PBSL beam
For DW2, the velocity‐dependent coefficient under 10 m/s is 3.1.
tested in this research.
For DW7, this velocity‐dependent coefficient is enlarged to 10.4. Based
on tested data in Fig. 11(a), the velocity‐dependent coefficient of the
energy absorption and the impact toughness, λE , can be linearly fitted
by

3
Z. Qiu et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711

Fig. 4. Load-time curves of DW2 to DW7 under impact velocity from (a) 2 m/s, (b) 3 m/s, (c) 4 m/s, (d) 5 m/s, (e) 6 m/s, (f) 7 m/s, (g) 8 m/s, (h) 9 m/s to (i)
10 m/s.

Fig. 5. (a) Peak force varying with velocity, (b) velocity-dependent coefficient and (c) fitting curve of velocity-dependent coefficient.

4
Z. Qiu et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711

Table 2
Velocity-dependent coefficient slope, kF .

Fiber orientation 0° [14] 15° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90°

kF 0.41 0.53 0.83 1.58 1.72 2.04 2.87

Fig. 6. (a) Fiber-orientation-dependent peak force and (b) its coefficient.

Fig. 7. Impulse-time curves of DW2 to DW7 under impact velocity from (a) 2 m/s, (b) 3 m/s, (c) 4 m/s, (d) 5 m/s, (e) 6 m/s, (f) 7 m/s, (g) 8 m/s, (h) 9 m/s to (i)
10 m/s.

5
Z. Qiu et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711

Fig. 8. Impulse variation with (a) velocity and (b) fiber direction.

Fig. 9. Load-displacement curves of DW2 to DW7 under impact velocity from (a) 2 m/s, (b) 3 m/s, (c) 4 m/s, (d) 5 m/s, (e) 6 m/s, (f) 7 m/s, (g) 8 m/s, (h) 9 m/s to
(i) 10 m/s.

4. Failure phenomena
4.1. Failure patterns
Failure patterns of the specimens are listed in Fig. 11. From the
number of facture zones, there are three failure patterns: Type I with
one fracture zone at the mid‐span, Type II with two fracture zones at
the mid‐span and one support and Type III with three fracture zones
at the mid‐span and the supports. As shown in Fig. 12, DW2 has one
fracture zone, independent of the impact velocity. For other beams,
accompanying with the increase of impact velocity, the fracture zones
develop from one to three, leading to a significant increase in energy
absorption. This explains why the velocity‐dependent coefficient
approaches 6.4. It is interesting that keeping only one fracture zone,
the velocity‐dependent coefficient approaches only 2.5 for DW2. This
comparison demonstrates the importance of number of fracture zones
to the energy absorption.

6
Z. Qiu et al.
Fig. 10. Energy absorbed by DW2 to DW7 under impact velocity from (a) 0 m/s, (b) 2 m/s, (c) 3 m/s, (d) 4 m/s, (e) 5 m/s, (f) 6 m/s, (g) 7 m/s, (h) 8 m/s, (i) 9 m/s
to (j) 10 m/s and energy variation with (k) velocity and (l) fiber direction.
4.2. Failure mechanism
Phenomenologically, the beams have a difference in the number of
fracture zones. Essentially, the failure mechanism is different. There
are two failure mechanism. For beams with mid‐span fracture zone,
the failure is induced by flexural deformation whether the tensile
stress or the shear stress induces crack initiation and propagation.
For DW2, the crack initiation is orthogonal to the fiber and then
inclined to the fiber interface. It is interesting that high velocity impact
changes this inclination and the orthogonal part gets longer and finally
the crack is completely orthogonal to the beam axis, as shown in
Fig. 13. Fiber fracture also endows DW2 high impact resistance. For
other beams, the mid‐span crack grows basically along the fiber, as
shown in Fig. 14. Crack grows along the fiber. Interfacial fracture will
weaken the impact‐resistance. For beams with two or three fracture
7
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711
zones, the failure is induced by punching shear deformation at high
velocity impact. Although interfacial fracture is not ideal for impact‐
resistance, the increase of fracture zone makes up for this deficiency.
5. Conclusions
Low‐velocity impact experiments were performed to investigate
impact bending behaviors of PBSL beams with different included angle
between the bamboo fiber and the beam axis under different impact
velocity. The velocity‐sensitivity and anisotropy of the anti‐impact
behaviors were revealed and described quantitatively.
1) Fiber‐orientation‐dependent effect is obvious for PBSL beams,
concluded from that PBSL beams have excellent anti‐impact
ability when the fiber is along the beam axis or the included
Z. Qiu et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711

Table 3
Experimental results.

PBSL Pmax E IT PBSL Pmax E IT

(kN) (J) (J/cm2) (kN) (J) (J/cm2)

DW2-0 15° 5.53 11.59 2.90 DW5-0 60° 1.75 1.37 0.34
DW2-2 8.20 14.18 3.54 DW5-2 3.92 2.88 0.72
DW2-3 7.91 19.91 4.98 DW5-3 5.63 4.38 1.09
DW2-4 9.68 17.81 4.45 DW5-4 7.67 5.99 1.50
DW2-5 11.40 26.08 6.52 DW5-5 9.00 8.20 2.05
DW2-6 13.05 27.01 6.75 DW5-6 10.81 8.26 2.07
DW2-7 16.81 32.45 8.11 DW5-7 12.04 9.11 2.28
DW2-8 18.90 33.25 8.31 DW5-8 14.07 12.70 3.17
DW2-9 18.25 34.09 8.52 DW5-9 17.12 15.45 3.86
DW2-10 21.07 35.47 8.87 DW5-10 15.60 14.44 3.61
DW3-0 30° 3.44 4.43 1.11 DW6-0 75° 1.62 1.25 0.31
DW3-2 4.54 6.43 1.61 DW6-2 3.58 2.35 0.59
DW3-3 6.53 8.49 2.12 DW6-3 6.03 2.83 0.71
DW3-4 9.09 11.65 2.91 DW6-4 8.01 4.95 1.24
DW3-5 12.05 13.77 3.44 DW6-5 10.39 6.03 1.51
DW3-6 11.24 17.94 4.49 DW6-6 10.17 7.75 1.94
DW3-7 13.54 26.05 6.51 DW6-7 13.70 8.73 2.18
DW3-8 16.62 29.24 7.31 DW6-8 14.10 10.04 2.51
DW3-9 13.79 27.55 6.89 DW6-9 17.23 11.56 2.89
DW3-10 18.64 33.49 8.37 DW6-10 18.79 13.64 3.41
DW4-0 45° 1.83 1.85 0.46 DW7-0 90° 1.02 0.93 0.23
DW4-2 3.48 3.22 0.80 DW7-2 2.97 1.51 0.38
DW4-3 4.92 4.11 1.03 DW7-3 4.55 2.48 0.62
DW4-4 6.68 6.51 1.63 DW7-4 6.29 3.53 0.88
DW4-5 7.95 8.90 2.22 DW7-5 8.15 5.06 1.27
DW4-6 10.57 10.08 2.52 DW7-6 9.89 5.48 1.37
DW4-7 12.13 9.98 2.50 DW7-7 11.74 6.88 1.72
DW4-8 15.02 13.12 3.28 DW7-8 12.88 7.68 1.92
DW4-9 14.08 13.56 3.39 DW7-9 15.11 8.47 2.12
DW4-10 16.97 15.96 3.99 DW7-10 15.10 9.68 2.42

Fig. 11. (a) Velocity-dependent and (b) fiber-orientation-dependent coefficients and (c) fitting curve of velocity-dependent coefficient.

angle is below 45°. When the fibers have included angle larger 2) Velocity‐dependent effect is obvious for PBSL beams, concluded
than 45°, the anti‐impact ability is greatly weakened. Beams from the impact force and the energy absorption, which are
with great bending stiffness have great anti‐impact ability. greatly improved when the velocity is increased from 2 m/s
tom 10 m/s.

8
Z. Qiu et al. Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711

Table 4
Velocity-dependent coefficient slope, kE .

Fiber orientation 0° [14] 15° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90°

kE 0.34 0.44 1.20 1.43 1.93 1.77 1.77

Fig. 12. Failure patterns of PBSLs: Type I, Type II and Type III.

Fig. 13. Evolution of crack growth mode of DW2 with impact velocity.

9
Z. Qiu et al.
Fig. 14. Crack growth direction.
3) Fiber orientation and impact velocity produce quite different
dynamic failure mechanism. These mechanisms determine the
anti‐impact ability of the PBSL beam. DW1 and DW2 have flex-
ural failure mechanism, while the others have punching shear
failure mechanism. Shear failure weakens the anti‐impact abil-
ity but fracture zones increasing from 1 to 3 accompanying with
the increase of the impact velocity endow anisotropic PBSL
beams more energy absorption. Flexural failure dominated by
fiber fracture endows PBSL beams much more excellent anti‐
impact ability.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhenyu Qiu: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing
‐ original draft. Jingxuan Wang: Formal analysis, Investigation. Hua-
lin Fan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing ‐ orig-
inal draft, Writing ‐ review & editing, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Supports from National Natural Science Foundation of China
(11972184 and U20A20286), China National Key Laboratory Founda-
tion of Science and Technology on Materials under Shock and Impact
(6142902200203), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of
China (BK20201286), National Defense Basic Scientific Research Pro-
gram of China (TCA20030), and Science and Technology Project of
Jiangsu Province of China (BE2020716) are gratefully acknowledged.
Data availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings can-
not be shared at this time due to technical or time limitations.
10
Composite Structures 263 (2021) 113711
References
[1] Liliefna LD, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118181.
[2] Qiu Z, Fan H. Nonlinear modeling of bamboo fiber reinforced composite materials.
Compos Struct 2020;238:111976. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2020.111976.
[3] Xiao Y, Li J. Research status and prospect of modern bamboo structure. Industr
Constr 2015;4:1–6.
[4] Q.Y. Zeng, Z.T. Thang, S.H. Li, et al. Investigation of the impact toughness of
normal bamboo, reformed bamboo and reformed bamboo composites. Sci Eng
Compos Mater 1995; 4(4): 255-260.
[5] Liu H, Jiang Z, Sun Z, Yan Y, Cai Z, Zhang X. Impact performance of two bamboo-
based laminated composites. Eur J Wood Prod 2017;75(5):711–8. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00107-016-1118-y.
[6] Hu D, Song B, Dang L, Zhang Z. Effect of strain rate on mechanical properties of the
bamboo material under quasi-static and dynamic loading condition. Compos Struct
2018;200:635–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.107.
[7] Li X, Ashraf M, Li H, Zheng X, Wang H, Al-Deen S, Hazell PJ. An experimental
investigation on Parallel Bamboo Strand Lumber specimens under quasi static and
impact loading. Constr Build Mater 2019;228:116724. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.116724.
[8] Li X, Ashraf M, Li HT, et al. Experimental study on the deformation and of parallel
bamboo Strand Lumber under drop-weight penetration impact. Constr Build Mater
2020;242:118135.
[9] García JJ, Rangel C, Ghavami K. Experiments with rings to determine the
anisotropic elastic constants of bamboo. Constr Build Mater 2012;31:52–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.089.
[10] Chow A, Ramage MH, Shah DU. Optimising ply orientation in structural laminated
bamboo. Constr Build Mater 2019;212:541–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.04.025.
[11] Shangguan W, Zhong Y, Xing X, Zhao R, Ren H. Strength models of bamboo
scrimber for compressive properties. J Wood Sci 2015;61(2):120–7. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10086-014-1444-9.
[12] Qiu Z, Wang J, Fan H, Li T. Anisotropic mechanical properties and composite
model of parallel bamboo strand lumbers. Mater Today Commun 2020;24:101250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101250.
[13] Qiu Z, Wang J, He H, Fan H. First-order anisotropic beam model and failure
criterion for flexural parallel bamboo strand lumbers. Constr Build Mater
2020;263:120125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120125.
[14] Qiu Z, Wang J, Fan H. Low velocity flexural impact behaviors of bamboo fiber
reinforced composite beams. Polym Test 2021;94:107047. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.107047.