Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 697–707 | Cite as

Mechanical behaviour of biocemented sands at various treatment levels and relative densities

  • Yufeng Gao
  • Lei Hang
  • Jia HeEmail author
  • Jian Chu
Research Paper

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that biocement, or microbially induced calcite precipitation, can improve the mechanical behaviour of clean sand. However, the behaviour of biocemented sand is affected by several factors. In this paper, triaxial consolidated drained tests and K0 consolidation tests were carried out on sands (Ottawa sand, ASTM graded) with varying biocement treatment passes and relative densities to study the failure and drained stress–strain behaviour and compressibility of biocemented sand. It is found that for loose and medium dense sands, the slight biocement treatment on sand can be as good as or better than the densification treatment in terms of the strength improvement and the deformation control. In the triaxial tests, the shear strength, the slope of failure line in p’-q plane and the peak dilation rate increase with the increase in treatment passes at various levels of relative density. For the loose sand (Dr = 30%), 2-pass biocement treatments (1.0% calcite content) are sufficient to achieve a shear strength, a slope of failure line and a peak dilation rate higher than or similar to that of untreated dense sand (Dr = 90%), and for the medium dense sand (Dr = 50%), 1-pass biocement treatment (0.79% calcite content) is sufficient. In the K0 consolidation tests, the axial strain of the sand decreases with the increasing treatment passes. For medium dense sand (Dr = 50%), 1-pass treatment can control the axial strain to a level similar to that of untreated dense sand (Dr = 90%). The variation of K0 value versus axial strain during K0 consolidation for the biocemented sand shows a different pattern compared with the untreated sand, due to the presence of biocementation effect. Biocemented sand shows a smaller K0 value than the corresponding untreated sand at the final state of the K0 consolidation tests. Scanning electron microscopy was also conducted on the sand samples to investigate the particle-level structure of the biocemented sand and its correlations to the mechanical behaviour.

Keywords

Biocement Microbially induced calcite precipitation Relative density Sand 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51608169, No. 41630638, No. 51609093), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2016YFC0800205), the Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. BK20150814), the 111 Project (Ministry of Education of China, No. B13024), the Ministry of Education, Singapore (No. MOE2015-T2-2-142), and Centre for Usable Space, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

References

  1. 1.
    Al Qabany A, Soga K (2013) Effect of chemical treatment used in MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils. Geotechnique 63(4):331–339Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Qabany A, Soga K, Santamarina JC (2012) Factors affecting efficiency of microbially induced calcite precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 138(8):992–1001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexiew D, Brokemper D, Lothspeich S (2005) Geotextile encased columns (GEC): load capacity, geotextile selection and pre-design graphs. Geo-Frontiers Congr 130:1–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM (2012) Standard specification for standard sand. C778-12, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blauw M, Lambert JWM, Latil MN (2009) Biosealing: a method for in situ sealing of leakages. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on ground improvement technologies and case histories, Singapore, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng L, Cord-Ruwisch R, Shahin MA (2012) Cementation of sand soil by microbially induced calcite precipitation at various degrees of saturation. Can Geotech J 50(1):1–10Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng XH, Ma Q, Yang Z, Zhang ZC, Li M (2013) Dynamic response of liquefiable sand foundation improved by bio-grouting. Chin J Geotech Eng 35(8):1486–1495Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chou CW, Seagren EA, Asce AM, Aydilek AH, Asce M, Lai M (2011) Biocalcification of sand through ureolysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(12):1179–1189Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chu J, Gan CL (2004) Effect of void ratio on K0 of loose sand. Geotechnique 54(4):285–288Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chu J, Leroueil S, Leong WK (2003) Unstable behaviour of sand and its implication for slope instability. Can Geotech J 40(5):873–885Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chu J, Varaksin S, Klotz U, Mengé P (2009) Construction processes. In: Proceedings of 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, pp 5–9Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui M, Zheng J, Zhang R, Lai H, Zhang J (2017) Influence of cementation level on the strength behaviour of bio-cemented sand. Acta Geotech 12(5):971–986Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dadda A, Geindreau C, Emeriault F, du Roscoat SR, Garandet A, Sapin L, Filet AE (2017) Characterization of microstructural and physical properties changes in biocemented sand using 3D X-ray microtomography. Acta Geotech 12(5):955–970Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeJong JT, Fritages MB, Nusslein K (2006) Microbially induced cementation to control sand response to undrained shear. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1381–1392Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dejong JT, Mortensen BM, Martinez BC, Nelson DC, Jonkers HM, Loosdrecht MCMV (2010) Bio-mediated soil improvement. Ecol Eng 36(2):197–210Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    DeJong JT, Soga K, Kavazanjian E, Burns SE, Paassen LAV et al (2013) Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress, opportunities and challenges. Geotechnique 63(4):287–301Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dejong JT, Montoya BM, Boulanger RW (2013) Dynamic response of liquefiable sand improved by microbial-induced calcite precipitation. Geotechnique 63(4):302–312Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dhami NK, Sudhakara RM, Abhijit M (2013) Biomineralization of calcium carbonates and their engineered applications: a review. Front Microbiol 4(314):314Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fujita Y, Taylor JL, Wendt LM et al (2010) Evaluating the potential of native ureolytic microbes to remediate a 90Sr contaminated environment. Environ Sci Technol 44(19):7652–7658Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamdan N, Kavazanjian EJ (2016) Enzyme-induced carbonate mineral precipitation for fugitive dust control. Geotechnique 66(7):1–10Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han ZG, Cheng XH, Ma Q (2016) An experimental study on dynamic response for MICP strengthening liquefiable sands. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 15(4):673–679Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harkes MP, Van Paassen LA, Booster JL et al (2010) Fixation and distribution of bacterial activity in sand to induce carbonate precipitation for ground reinforcement. Ecol Eng 36(2):112–117Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hawkins AB, McDonald C (1992) Decalcification and residual shear strength reduction in Fuller’s earth clay. Geotechnique 42(3):453–464Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    He J, Chu J (2014) Undrained responses of microbially desaturated sand under monotonic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 140(5):04014003Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    He J, Chu J, Ivanov V (2013) Mitigation of liquefaction of saturated sand using biogas. Geotechnique 63(4):267–275Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    He J, Chu J, Liu HL, Gao YF, Li B (2016) Research advances in biogeotechnologies. Chin J Geotech Eng 38(4):643–653Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ivanov V, Chu J (2008) Applications of microorganisms to geotechnical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 7(2):139–153Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jiang NJ, Soga K (2017) The applicability of microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) for internal erosion control in gravel–sand mixtures. Geotechnique 67(1):42–55Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jiang NJ, Soga K, Kuo M (2016) Microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) for seepage-induced internal erosion control in sand–clay mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(3):04016100Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee MJ, Choi SK, Lee W (2002) Shear strength of artificially cemented sands. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 27(3):201–216Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin H, Suleiman MT, Brown DG, Kavazanjian E (2016) Mechanical behavior of sands treated by microbially induced carbonate precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(2):04015066Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu YS, Tian QY, Lv JB (2005) Study on the quality evaluation method of coarse sand in the backfill of highway bridge. Highway 12:55–58 (In Chinese) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Manning DAC (2008) Biological enhancement of soil carbonate precipitation: passive removal of atmospheric CO2. Miner Mag 72(2):639–649Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martinez BC, Dejong JT, Ginnter TR et al (2013) Experimental optimization of microbial induced-carbonate precipitation for soil improvement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 139(4):587–598Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maryam, N. (2014). Biocementation of sand in geotechnical engineering. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer design: VLSI in computers and processors, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, pp 275–281Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Montoya BM, Dejong JT (2015) Stress–strain behavior of sands cemented by microbially induced calcite precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(6):04015019Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    MOT China (2007) Code for design of ground base and foundation of highway bridges and culverts. JTG, D63-2007Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    O’Donnell ST, Kavazanjian E (2015) Stiffness and dilatancy improvements in uncemented sands treated through MICP. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(11):02815004Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sasaki T, Kuwano R (2016) Undrained cyclic triaxial testing on sand with non-plastic fines content cemented with microbially induced CaCO3. Soils Found 56(3):485–495Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Paassen LA (2011) Bio-mediated ground improvement: from laboratory experiment to pilot applications. In: Proceedings of geofrontiers 2011: advances in geotechnical engineering., Dallas, TX, USA, pp 4099–4108Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment EngineeringHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Jiangsu Research Center for Geotechnical Engineering TechnologyHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations