Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 657–671 | Cite as

Polymer-modified microbially induced carbonate precipitation for one-shot targeted and localized soil improvement

  • Xiangrong Wang
  • Junliang TaoEmail author
Research Paper
  • 199 Downloads

Abstract

The viscous nature of certain hydrophilic polymer solutions and the tendency of these solutions to retain moisture may make them suitable carriers for the process of microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) for certain engineering proposes. Specifically, tuning the viscosity of the cementation solution enables the control of its infiltration process and thus control of the treatment region in highly permeable soils; the enhanced water retention also helps to maintain the moist conditions required for MICP in certain treatment cases. Therefore, it seems promising to utilize a hydrophilic polymer to develop a one-shot polymer-modified MICP approach for potential applications that require localized and targeted soil improvement. Presented in this paper are experiments conducted to investigate a new polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)-modified MICP approach. Standard Ottawa graded sand was treated using both polymer-modified and conventional water-based MICP solutions with different concentrations of cementation media. For the obtained specimens, the chemical components were identified through thermogravimetric analysis, the CaCO3 content was measured, and unconfined compression tests were conducted to evaluate the shear strength. The morphology, distribution, and crystal polymorphs of the precipitated CaCO3 were also characterized. The experimental results demonstrated the feasibility of the proposed polymer-modified MICP approach as a one-shot MICP treatment scheme. Moreover, two bench-scale soil improvement cases were conducted to highlight the advantages of the proposed polymer-modified MICP approach over the water-based approach for certain potential soil improvement applications.

Keywords

CaCO3 polymorph Hydrophilic polymer Microbially induced carbonate precipitation One shot Soil improvement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was partly supported by the Ohio Department of Transportation and The University of Akron, and this support is greatly appreciated. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Ruotian Bao for his assistance in preparing the MICP solutions used in this study. Suggestions and support from Prof. Teresa J. Cutright and Prof. Jiahua Zhu at The University of Akron regarding the facility used to prepare the MICP solutions are greatly appreciated. The authors also want to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided extremely detailed and insightful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Al Qabany A, Soga K (2013) Effect of chemical treatment used in MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils. Géotechnique 63(4):331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Qabany A, Soga K, Santamarina C (2011) Factors affecting efficiency of microbially induced calcite precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 138(8):992–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM D (2006) Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil. ASTM International, 1991Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braissant O, Cailleau G, Dupraz C, Verrecchia EP (2003) Bacterially induced mineralization of calcium carbonate in terrestrial environments: the role of exopolysaccharides and amino acids. J Sediment Res 73(3):485–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng L, Shahin Mohamed A, Mujah D (2017) Influence of key environmental conditions on microbially induced cementation for soil stabilization. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(1):04016083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chu J, Ivanov V, Naeimi M, Stabnikov V, Liu H-L (2014) Optimization of calcium-based bioclogging and biocementation of sand. Acta Geotech 9(2):277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cui M-J, Zheng J-J, Zhang R-J, Lai H-J, Zhang J (2017) Influence of cementation level on the strength behaviour of bio-cemented sand. Acta Geotech 12(5):971–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dadda A, Geindreau C, Emeriault F, du Roscoat SR, Garandet A, Sapin L et al (2017) Characterization of microstructural and physical properties changes in biocemented sand using 3D X-ray microtomography. Acta Geotech 12(5):955–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeJong JT, Fritzges MB, Nüsslein K (2006) Microbially induced cementation to control sand response to undrained shear. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1381–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeJong JT, Soga K, Banwart SA, Whalley WR, Ginn TR, Nelson DC et al (2010) Soil engineering in vivo: harnessing natural biogeochemical systems for sustainable, multi-functional engineering solutions. J R Soc Interface 8(54):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeJong JT, Mortensen BM, Martinez BC, Nelson DC (2010) Bio-mediated soil improvement. Ecol Eng 36(2):197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeJong J, Soga K, Kavazanjian E, Burns S, Van Paassen L, Al Qabany A et al (2013) Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress, opportunities and challenges. Geotechnique 63(4):287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feng K, Montoya BM (2016) Influence of confinement and cementation level on the behavior of microbial-induced calcite precipitated sands under monotonic drained loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(1):04015057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fujita Y, Taylor JL, Wendt LM, Reed DW, Smith RW (2010) Evaluating the potential of native ureolytic microbes to remediate a 90Sr contaminated environment. Environ Sci Technol 44(19):7652–7658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gomez MG, Martinez BC, DeJong JT, Hunt CE, deVlaming LA, Major DW et al (2015) Field-scale bio-cementation tests to improve sands. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Gr Improv 168(3):206–216Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamdan N, Kavazanjian E Jr (2016) Enzyme-induced carbonate mineral precipitation for fugitive dust control. Géotechnique 66(7):546–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamdan N, Zhao Z, Mujica M, Kavazanjian E Jr, He X (2016) Hydrogel-assisted enzyme-induced carbonate mineral precipitation. J Mater Civ Eng 28(10):04016089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holland BJ, Hay JN (2001) The thermal degradation of poly(vinyl alcohol). Polymer 42(16):6775–6783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawaguchi H, Hirai H, Sakai K, Sera S, Nakajima T, Ebisawa Y et al (1992) Crystallization of inorganic compounds in polymer solutions. Part I: control of shape and form of calcium carbonate. Colloid and Polymer. Science 270(12):1176–1181Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim IW, Robertson RE, Zand R (2005) Effects of some nonionic polymeric additives on the crystallization of calcium carbonate. Cryst Growth Des 5(2):513–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin H, Suleiman MT, Brown DG, Kavazanjian E Jr (2015) Mechanical behavior of sands treated by microbially induced carbonate precipitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(2):04015066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lyu SG, Park S, Sur GS (1999) The synthesis of vaterite and physical properties of PP/CaCO 3 composites. Korean J Chem Eng 16(4):538–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martinez B (2012) Experimental and numerical upscaling of MICP for soil improvement. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martinez B, DeJong J, Ginn T, Montoya B, Barkouki T, Hunt C et al (2013) Experimental optimization of microbial-induced carbonate precipitation for soil improvement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(4):587–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Montoya B, DeJong J, Boulanger R (2013) Dynamic response of liquefiable sand improved by microbial-induced calcite precipitation. Géotechnique 63(4):302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morales L, Romero E, Jommi C, Garzón E, Giménez A (2015) Feasibility of a soft biological improvement of natural soils used in compacted linear earth construction. Acta Geotech 10(1):157–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rodriguez-Blanco JD, Sand KK, Benning LG (2017) ACC and vaterite as intermediates in the solution-based crystallization of CaCO3. In: New perspectives on mineral nucleation and growth. Springer, pp 93–111Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rodriguez-Navarro C, Jimenez-Lopez C, Rodriguez-Navarro A, Gonzalez-Muñoz MT, Rodriguez-Gallego M (2007) Bacterially mediated mineralization of vaterite. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 71(5):1197–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaber PM, Colson J, Higgins S, Thielen D, Anspach B, Brauer J (2004) Thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) of urea in an open reaction vessel. Thermochim Acta 424(1):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Paassen LA (2009) Biogrout, ground improvement by microbial induced carbonate precipitation. Delft University of Technology, TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Paassen L (2011) Bio-mediated ground improvement: from laboratory experiment to pilot applications. In: Geo-Frontiers 2011: advances in geotechnical engineering, pp 4099–4108Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Paassen L, Harkes M, Van Zwieten G, Van der Zon W, Van der Star W, Van Loosdrecht M (2009) Scale up of BioGrout: a biological ground reinforcement method. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering: Lansdale IOS Press, pp 2328–2333Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Paassen LA, Ghose R, van der Linden TJ, van der Star WR, van Loosdrecht MC (2010) Quantifying biomediated ground improvement by ureolysis: large-scale biogrout experiment. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(12):1721–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang J, Dewanckele J, Cnudde V, Van Vlierberghe S, Verstraete W, De Belie N (2014) X-ray computed tomography proof of bacterial-based self-healing in concrete. Cement Concr Compos 53:289–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang J, Snoeck D, Van Vlierberghe S, Verstraete W, De Belie N (2014) Application of hydrogel encapsulated carbonate precipitating bacteria for approaching a realistic self-healing in concrete. Constr Build Mater 68:109–110Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang J, Soens H, Verstraete W, De Belie N (2014) Self-healing concrete by use of microencapsulated bacterial spores. Cem Concr Res 56:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Whiffin VS, van Paassen LA, Harkes MP (2007) Microbial carbonate precipitation as a soil improvement technique. Geomicrobiol J 24(5):417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu J, Lei M, Cheng B, Zhao X (2004) Facile preparation of calcium carbonate particles with unusual morphologies by precipitation reaction. J Cryst Growth 261(4):566–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhao Q, Li L, Li C, Li M, Amini F, Zhang H (2014) Factors affecting improvement of engineering properties of micp-treated soil catalyzed by bacteria and urease. J Mater Civ Eng 26(12):04014094CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering MechanicsThe University of DaytonDaytonUSA
  2. 2.School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built EnvironmentArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations