|C. Venkata Siva Rama Prasad||Department of Civil Engineering, University College of Engineering & Technology, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur Dist., Andhra Pradesh., India-522510|
|T.V.S. Vara Lakshmi||Department of Civil Engineering, University College of Engineering & Technology, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur Dist., Andhra Pradesh., India-522510|
Bacterial concrete has emerged as a remedial measure for healing cracks in structures such as bridges, RCC buildings, RCC pipes, canal linings and pavements. Crack formation is an extremely common occurrence in concrete structures, and allows water and different chemicals to enter the concrete through cracks, diminishing its strength. In addition, it has consequences on the reinforcement once it comes into contact with water, CO2 and other chemicals. The repair of cracks within concrete requires regular maintenance and special kinds of treatment, which can be very expensive. In bacterial concrete, particular types of microorganism can be extremely useful for refurbishing cracks in existing concrete structures. In this research, an experimental investigation was made to prevent cracks in concrete using Bacillus subtilis bacteria and calcium lactate. Bacillus subtilis bacteria with calcite lactate were used at varying percentages of 5%, 10% and 15% cement weight for M40 grade concrete. The fine aggregate used in all the mixes was crushed rock sand. A Cantabro loss test was conducted for all the mixes after 3, 7, 14 and 28 days of curing. An empirical relation between flexural and compressive strength is proposed in the form of ft = 0.66 ?fck for river sand mixes and ft = 0.89fck0.46for crushed rock sand. An empirical relation is also proposed between Cantabro loss and flexural strength for bacterial concrete.
Bacillus subtilis; Bacterial concrete; Cantabro loss; Compressive strength; Flexural strength; Split tensile strength
In any building construction, cement concrete is a primary substance in the modern era of infrastructural projects across the globe. Like this material is lying face down to fracture in arrears towards in elastic and less resistant to straining demands the practice of rebar in it. Since it bonds with steel bars, concrete becomes more effective in resisting tension than without any reinforcement, and the tensile strength of concrete is relatively lower than compressive strength. Any cracks that have formed expose the reinforcement and thus affect its structural integrity, leading to corrosion. However, it does crack and endure genuine wear and tear throughout the years of its predictable term of service (Wang et al., 2012) but is not versatile and cannot handle high levels of strain. Ordinary concrete can tolerate from near zero to 1% strain before giving out. Concrete that is able to heal on its own normally seeks to repair these flaws, thus increasing the service lifetime of any given concrete structure. There exists a material which is a type of self-healing concrete in growth which will solve several of the issues usually related with ordinary concrete (Ramadhansyah et al., 2011). Self-healing concrete consists of a mixture of microorganisms (Bacillus subtilis) fused into the concrete, and calcium lactate and nutrient broth food to support these microorganisms once they become active (Li & Herbert, 2012). The microorganisms, feeding on the food supply provided, heal the cracks. This paper will make an in-depth case for the method that extent part behind microorganism that helps to heal the concrete, and describes the various parts that extent part enclosed within the process and the way they work severally and put together. The paper deals with sensible applications of self-healing concrete, as well as its real-world integration in structures. The abrasion resistance, i.e. surface abrasion loss and cantabro loss at various ages of concrete from 3 days to 90 days, is influenced by the flyash content and presence of M-Sand (Rao et al., 2016). To measure the abrasion resistance on pervious concrete, a new method is proposed in combination with other three methods (the loaded wheel test, surface abrasion test, and Cantabro test). They concluded that the Cantabro test shows promising results (Dong et al., 2010).
1.1. The Biological Self-healing Process
It is vital to hustle what forms of bacteria can live in concrete, however they effort to rise the robustness of structures, what the chemical agents are with the purpose of causes the biochemical process within the microorganism, what takes place in the precise forms of specialized microorganism once unprotected to the substance, and the mode they work along to not solely seal cracks before they form, but also strengthen the overall structure. Once the bacteria are uncovered to the atmosphere and for that reason become “food,” the microorganisms stand an action that sources them to stabilize and wrath, filling in the crack that has formed. This method extends the robustness of the structure, additionally fixing any cracks that have occurred. The method of healing a crack takes around 28 days (Jonkers et al., 2010).
Concrete structures are presently designed in keeping with set standards that enable cracks to form up to 2 mm wide. Such small cracks are usually thought to be tolerable, as they do not directly weaken the structure. Moreover, small cracks generally patch themselves up, as numerous varieties of concrete display an explicit crack-healing capability. Analysis has shown that this ‘autonomous’ healing capability is essentially allied with the level of non-responded cement particles’ ability in the concrete. In crack development, water acts in response to these elements, leading to the closure of small cracks. However, owing to the unpredictability of the self-directed crack remediation of concrete buildings, water run as a results of negligible crack creation in underpass and underground structures will occur. 0.2 mm (Zwaag, 2008; Reddy et al., 2012) wide-ranging cracks were observed to self-heal in conventional samples, while all the cracks were healed in the samples that contain bacteria. The fundamental idea behind our specific version of this technique is the utilization of sure categories of bacteria (in this case Bacillus subtilis) and approach of operate to closure tiny cracks within the concrete earlier they develop into bigger and further durable to manage cracks and fissures. This bio- calcification method involves many steps to complete the tasks (Jonkers & Schlangen, 2007; Joseph et al., 2007).
Trendy techniques such as X-ray diffraction tests and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis are employed to quantify the study of the stages of spar deposition (Kessler et al., 2003).
1.2. How Do Bacteria Remediate Cracks?
Once the mixing of concrete and bacteria is complete, the bacteria undergo inactive state. When they are exposed to the environment (air), all their functions are stimulated. When cracks form in concrete, the bacteria start to bring on calcite minerals to the crack (Ramakrishnan et al., 2001). At the point when the microorganisms interact with water and calcium lactate, the bacteria spores start germinating and the bacteria start feeding calcium lactate. This kind of pore is available in concrete up to two hundred years (Jonkers, 2011). Limestone heals cracks which have formed in concrete. By consuming the oxygen, the corrosion of steel decreases and the stability of reinforced concrete structures increases. The procedure of preparing synthetic calcium carbonate response from fractured calcium hydroxide can be identified properly (Schlangen et al., 2010).
CO2 + Ca(OH)2 ? CaCO3 + H2O (1)
CaC6H10O6+ 6O2 ? CaCO3 + 5CO2 + 5H2O (2)
From the experimental work conducted on the bacterial concrete mixes, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The Cantabro loss, i.e. the abrasion resistance of bacterial concrete mixes, is strongly influenced the flexural strength; (2) the Cantabro loss is good at 10% bacteria in the crushed sand bacterial concrete mixes; (3) the flexural strength values increased and Cantabro loss decreased at up to 10% bacterial solution in the bacterial concrete mixes; (4) the addition of bacteria to concrete significantly improved the Cantabro loss and flexural strength at all ages; (5) the strength of the bacterial concrete for crushed rock sand mixes showed higher values than river sand mixes at all ages, irrespective of the percentage bacterial solution; (6) based on the test results, the optimum dosage of bacterial solution to improve strength at any age is 10% by weight of cement; an empirical relation exists between the compressive and flexural strength of bacterial concrete, which can be presented in the form ft= 0.66 ?fck for river mixes and 0.89fck0.46 for crushed rock sand; and (7) the SEM analysis showed that the presence of calcium carbonate in bacterial concrete.
Anbuvelan, K., Subramanian, K., 2014. An Empirical Relationship between Modulus of Elasticity, Modulus of Rupture and Compressive Strength of M60 Concrete Containing Metakaolin. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Volume 8(11), pp. 1294-1298
ASTM C1747/C1747M. 2011. Standard Test Method for Determining Potential Resistance to Degradation of Pervious Concrete by Impact and Abrasion. American Society of Testing and Materials International
IS: 4031-1980. Methods of Physical Test for Hydraulic Cement-Determination of Consistency of Standard Cement Paste. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi
IS:10262-2009. Concrete Mix Proportioning Guidelines (first revision). Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi
IS: 456-2000. Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi
IS: 516-1959. Methods of Tests for Strength of Concrete. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi
IS: 12269-1987, Indian Standard 53 Grade OPC
Jonkers, H.M., Thijssen, A., Muyzer, G., Copuroglu, O., Schlangen, E., 2010. Application of Bacteria as Self-healing Agent for the Development of Sustainable Concrete. Ecological Engineering, Volume 36(2), pp. 230–235
Jonkers, H.M., Schlangen, E., 2007. Crack Repair by Concrete-immobilized Bacteria. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Self-Healing Materials, pp. 18–20
Jonkers, H.M., 2011. Bacteria-based Self-healing Concrete. Heron, Volume 56(1/2), pp. 1–12
Joseph, C., Jefferson, A.D., Cantoni, M.B., 2007. Issues Relating to the Autonomic Healing of Cementitious Materials. In: First International Conference on Self-healing Materials. pp. 1-8
Kessler, M.R., Sottos, N.R., White, S.R., 2003. Self-healing Structural Composite Materials. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Volume 34(8), pp. 743–753
Kumar, A.A., Raguraam, S., 2018. Comparison of Fresh and Hardened Properties of Normal, Self-Compacting and Smart Dynamic Concrete. International Journal of Technology, Volume 9(4), pp. 707–714
Li, V.C., Herbert, E., 2012. Robust Self-healing Concrete for Sustainable Infrastructure. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, Volume 10(6), pp. 207–218
Dong, Q., Wu, H., Huang, B., Shu, X., Wang, K., 2010. Development of a Simple and Fast Test Method for Measuring the Durability of Portland Cement Pervious Concrete. Report PCA R&D Serial No. SN3149, Portland Cement Association, 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois, USA
Ramadhansyah, P.J., Bakar, B.H.A., Azmi, M.J.M., Ibrahim, M.H.W., 2011. Engineering Properties of Normal Concrete Grade 40 Containing Rice Husk Ash at Different Grinding Times. International Journal of Technology, Volume 2(1), pp. 10–19
Ramakrishnan, V., Ramesh, K.P., Bang, S.S., 2001. Bacterial Concrete. In: Proceeding Smart Materials, International Society for Optics and Photonics, Volume 4234, pp. 168–177
Rao, S.K., Sravana, P., Rao, T.C., 2016. Investigating the Effect of M-sand on Abrasion Resistance of Fly Ash Roller Compacted Concrete (FRCC). Construction and Building Materials, Volume 118, pp. 352–363
Reddy, S., Satya, A., Rao, S., Azmatunnisa, M., 2012. A Biological Approach to Enhance Strength and Durability in Concrete Structures. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, Volume 4(2), pp. 392–399
Santhosh, K.R., Ramakrishnan, V., Duke, E.F., Bang, S.S. 2000. SEM Investigation of Microbial Calcite Precipitation in Cement. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cement Microscopy. International Cement Microscopy Association, Volume 22, pp. 293-305
Schlangen, E., Jonkers, H.M., Qian, S., Garcia, A. 2010. Recent Advances on Self-healing of Concrete. In: FraMCos-7: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures, Jeju Island, Korea, pp. 23–28
Wang. J., Van Tittelboom, K., De Belie, N., Verstraete, W., 2012. Use of Silica Gel or Polyurethane Immobilized Bacteria for Self-healing Concrete. Construction and Building Materials, Volume 26(1), pp. 532–540
Zwaag, S., 2008. Self-healing Materials: An Alternative Approach to 20 Centuries of Materials Science. Springer Science+ Business Media BV, Volume 30(6), pp. 20–21