MICROBIOLOGICALLY INDUCED CALCIUM CARBONATE

PRECIPITATION (MICP)
SEMINAR REPORT
Submitted by

ANANDHU VENUGOPAL
Reg. No : UKP17CE014

To

the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree

of

Bachelor of technology

In

Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINNERING

UKF COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
PARIPALLY, KOLLAM 691302
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINNERING
UKF COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
PARIPALLY, KOLLAM 691302

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that report entitled “MICROBIOLOGICALLY INDUCED CALCIUM

CARBONATE PRECIPITATION” is a bona-fide report of the seminar presented during
seventh semester by ANANDHU VENUGOPAL , UKP17CE014 ,to the APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of Bachelor Technology(B.Tech) in civil engineering during the academic year 2020-
2021 .

Guided by Head of the Department

Mrs. Suja S Nair Mrs. Suja S Nair
Asst. Professor Head of the department
Dept. of Civil Engg. Dept. of Civil Engg.
UKFCET, Parippally UKFCET, Paeippally
 DECLARATION

I undersigned hereby declare that the seminar report “MICROBIOLOGICALLY

INDUCED CALCIUM CARBONATE PRECIPITATION”,submitted for partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology of APJ
Abdul Kalam Technological University, Kerala is a bona fide record of the seminar presented
by me. I declare that I have adhered to ethics of academic honestly and integrity and have not
mispresented or fabricated any data or idea or fact or source in my submission. I understand
that any violationof the above will be a cause for disciplinary action by the institute and/or
the university and can also evoke penal action from whom proper permission has not been
obtained. This report has not been previously formed the basis for the award of any degree,
diploma, or similar title of any other University .

Place : Signature

Date : ANANDHU VENUGOPAL

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I extend my warm gratitude to my Principal,Dr. E GOPALAKRISHNA SARMA , who has

always supported me in all my activities that I have in my college.

I thank my Head of the Department, Mrs. SUJA S NAIR, for her graceful support to
complete this seminar.

I extend my gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. NITTIN JOHNSON, Assistant Professor in the

Civil Engineering department, for his valuable guidance, encouragement, constructive
criticism, and unreserved cooperation extended each stage to complete this seminar
successfully.

I am extremely grateful to my parents and friends for their constant encouragement and moral
support throughout my venture. Last but not least I would also like to thank almighty for
showering his blessings upon us for completing this seminar on time.

ANANDHU VENUGOPAL

iv
 ABSTRACT

Concrete is one of the most used, most durable and most lasting products used in
construction which we will find around us. But with the pros comes some cons as well.
Means if not used properly then one cannot take full benefits out of this raw material, hence
proper placement of the concrete is utmost important in any construction work. Otherwise
one has to face issues related to cracking, its durability as well as its strength. Here we are
going to discuss issues related to the cracking of concrete. A building part develops cracks
when its strength falls short of the externally applied load.

Microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) has been widely

explored and applied in the field of environmental engineering over the last decade. Calcium
carbonate is naturally precipitated as a byproduct of various microbial metabolic activities.
This biological process was brought into practical use to restore construction materials,
strengthen and remediate soil, and sequester carbon. MICP has also been extensively
examined for applications in self-healing concrete. Biogenic crack repair helps mitigate the
high maintenance costs of concrete in an eco-friendly manner. In this process, calcium
carbonate precipitation (CCP)-capable bacteria and nutrients are embedded inside the
concrete. These bacteria are expected to increase the durability of the concrete by
precipitating calcium carbonate in situ to heal cracks that develop in the concrete.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No.

List of figures VIII

List of tables IX
CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.1 Bacteria as self healing agent 3

2.1.2 Applications of bacterial self healing 3

Concrete as a water permeable building
material
2.1.3 Self healing of concrete cracks by 4
Ceramsite loaded micro-organisms

CHAPTER 3

3.1 Concrete 5
3.2 Repair of concrete

3.2.1 Using fibres 6

3.2.2 Using cement mortar 6

3.2.3 Using epoxy resin 6

3.2.4 Using silica gel 7
3.2.5 Stitching method 7
3.2.6 Stressing and Shortcrete method 7

vi
CHAPTER 4
4.1 Self healing mechanism 8
4.2 Materials and sample preparation 9
4.2.1 Bacterial culture and cultivation 10
4.2.2 Preparation of cementation solution 10
4.2.3 Preparation of mortar specimens 11
4.2.4 Generation of cracks in mortar 12
specimens
4.2.5 Crack repair 12
4.2.6 Test and methods

4.2.6.1 Water permeability 13

4.2.6.2 Splitting tensile strength 13

CHAPTER 5
5.1 Results and discussions 14
5.2 Permeability 15
5.3 Split tensile strength 16
CHAPTER 6
6.1 Conclusion 23
REFERENCES 25

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Title Page No.

Fig 4.1 Graphic reprecentation of the reaction 9

Of CaCO3 with bacteria

Fig 4.2(a) Flow diagram of overall process 9

followed

Fig 4.2(b) Bacterial culture 10

Fig 4.2(c) Cultivation of culture 10
Fig 4.2(d) Crack generation and generated 12
cracks

Fig 4.2(e) Soaking of samples 12

Fig 4.2(f) Permeability sample mould 13
Fig 5.1 Generated crack width vs % fracture 15
Area of mortar sample

Fig 5.2(a) Repaired specimens using MICP 16

treatment

Fig 5.2(b) % reduction in permeability 17

Fig 5.2(c) Permeability results for untreated 17
specimens

Fig 5.3(a) Crack width from 0.12-0.16mm 19

Fig 5.3(b) Crack width from 0.27-0.6mm 20
Fig 5.3(c) Crack width from 0.72-1.1mm 20
Fig 5.3(d) Crack width % vs CaCO3 21
Fig 5.3(e) Crack width vs STS 21

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
Title Page No.
Table 3.1 Emitted energy and CO2 emissions 5
Of building materials
Table 5.1(a) Test result of sample 14
Table 5.1(b) Test result of untreated samples 15
Autogenous healing

ix
 CHAPTER 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The generation of cracks in concrete is a natural phenomenon due to earthquakes,
weathering or manmade activities which will adversely affect the life and durability of the
structures. The measure cause of the crack is due to lower tensile strength and brittle nature of
concrete. The harmful pollutants, chemicals, and water penetrate through the cracks which lead
to deterioration of concrete. The present methods existing to repair such cracks are the use of
chemicals, grout, or surface treatment which could be harmful to the end-users as well as to the
environment. Eco-friendly, sustainable and new technique MICP as the new area of interest is a
substitute to repair cracks [1]. MICP process depends on ureolytic non-pathogenic bacteria
(Bacillus pasteurii) to hydrolyze urea in the presence of calcium ion which leads to calcite
precipitation. Purified bacterial cells, containing the enzyme in high concentrations, were used to
catalyse the hydrolysis of urea and produce ammonium and carbonate ions. Urease enzyme
decomposes urea into ammonium (NH4+) and carbonate ions (CO32-). The combination of this
negative carbonate ions and positive Calcium ions (Ca2+) available from cementing solution,
result in the formation of Calcium Carbonate. The reactions involved are as follows :

CO(NH2)2 + 2H2O 2NH4+ +CO32-

Ca2+ +CO32- CaCO3

This bio generated CaCO3 binds loose particles of matter together, plugs fine pores and
cracks. The ultimate effect of this is to increase the engineering properties of concrete and fill the
existing cracks, if any. MICP process can be applied for repairing cracks in two ways. First, as
pre-treatment where bacteria and cementation solution are mixed with fresh concrete to prevent
crack development. This is referred to as autogenous repair or self-healing and another is post-
treatment where bacteria and cementation solution are applied in the crack influenced areas of
concrete. The method of crack healing induced by MICP can be employed in two ways. Alkali-
resistant spore-forming bacteria get activated by water and oxygen which infiltrated through
cracks and further feed on an available substrate. Subsequently decomposition of a substrate to

1
produce calcium carbonates result in the healing of cracks .Most commonly use bacterias are
spore-forming Bacillus species micro-organism. Bacillus pesudofirmus, Bacillus sphaericus,
Bacillus alkalinitrilicus.

2
 CHAPTER 2

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.1 BACTERIA AS SELF HEALING AGENT

This study was aimed to find the possibility of applying Bacillus subtilis integrated into
mortar matrix as a self-healing agent to seal cracks. Bacterial spores at concentrations of 104,
105, and 106 cells/ml were directly added into pulverized fly ash as medium to protect bacteria
in high alkaline conditions.Bacterial spores at concentrations of 104, 105, and 106 cells/ml were
directly added into pulverized fly ash as medium to protect bacteria in high alkaline conditions.
The results show that the addition of Bacillus subtilis spores into the mortar mixture enhanced
the compressive strength.

2.1.2 APPLICATIONS OF BACTERIAL SELF HEALING CONCRETE

AS A WATER PERMEABLE BUILDING MATERIAL

Concrete is the most widely-used building material in the world, with a potential
lifespan of 50-100 years. However, water seeping into cracks in the concrete lowers its pH and
causes metal supports to oxidize. Over time, this oxidation compromises the structure’s strength.
To mitigate damage caused by these cracks, structures are currently built larger than necessary.
This leads to an increase in the amount of material required and, therefore, higher construction
costs. Concrete by nature is difficult to recycle, and researchers have determined that recycled
concrete retains only a fraction of the parent concrete’s compressive strength. Additionally, the
production of cement, a component of concrete, releases high amounts of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. These factors suggest a need to reduce the production of concrete and increase its
lifespan.Self-healing concrete is a material that could revolutionize the construction industry in
the near future. The material is superior to traditional abiotic reinforced concrete in several areas .
Self-healing concrete lasts much longer than traditional concrete because it can heal cracks
caused by water with no human intervention. Traditional concrete is expensive to produce and
impossible to recycle efficiently, therefore indicating it is neither economically sustainable nor
environmentally friendly. Because self-healing concrete can renew itself and extend the life of

3
the buildings it comprises, it requires much less concrete to be produced, therefore saving money
on building costs in the long run and reducing the amount of waste associated with the
demolition of traditional concrete structures.The material is a relatively new adaptation on a
longstanding substance, so it is not without flaw. The high cost of cultivating the bacteria used in
development of the material results in upfront expenses that are orders of magnitude higher than
traditional concrete.
2.1.3 SELF HEALING OF CONCRETECRACKS BY CERAMSITE-
LOADED MICRO-ORGANISMS

Bacterial spores, together with nutrients and mineralizationprecursors, are mixed in

concrete mixtures during casting. After hardening, spores will stay as dormant. Whenthe cracks
form, bacterial spores are exposed to moisture and air. The spores will rejuvenate and produce
minerals,which mostly appear as calcium carbonate, to seal the cracks. Meanwhile, the
negatively charged cell walls canchelate cations, which makes bacteria cells to act as
thenucleation sites of precipitation products. In order to allow the bacterially induced concrete
selfhealingsystem work, bacterial spores should be incorporatedin fresh-state concrete. Basically,
there are twoways to add bacterial cells into concrete matrix: directlymixing and carrier
immobilization. Directly mixing is muchstraightforward but will expose bacteria to the harsh
environmentof concrete, which is harmful to the bacterial activity.Moreover, the process of
mixing and continuoushydration could apply physical stress on bacterial cells. Heat treatment,
instead of NaOH soaking, could increaseporosity of ceramsite, which thus improves the
immobilizationcapacity. /e optimal heating temperature was 750°C,which results in the highest
loading content and a negligibledecrease in mechanical strength. Ceramsite particles providea
preferable microenvironment for bacterial spores that theviability of spores can be preserved
during the urea decompositionprocess.

4
 CHAPTER 3

3.1 CONCRETE

Concrete is the most commonly used man-made material on earth. It is an

important construction material used extensively in buildings, bridges, roads and dams. Its uses
range from structural applications, to paviours, kerbs, pipes and drains. Concrete is a composite
material, consisting mainly of Portland cement, water and aggregate (gravel, sand or rock).
When these materials are mixed together, they form a workable paste which then gradually
hardens over time..Concrete strength is determined by the force required to crush it and
is measured in pounds per square inch or kilograms per square centimetre. Strength can be
affected by many variables including moisture and temperature.The
tensile strength of concrete can be improved with the addition of metal rods, wires, cables or
mesh. Where very high tensile stresses are expected (such as in wide
unsupported spans in roofs or bridges) concrete can include pretensioned steel wires. This creates
compressive forces in the concrete that help offset the tensile forces that the structure is subject
to.Sacrificial probes can be integrated within concrete to provide strength determination and this
is likely to help improve construction methodologies.

Concrete is a huge burden to the environment, due to the high energy consumption
(Table1) during production and use. Table 1 presents examples of building materials and the
amount of energy produced by them :

Building materials Energy (MJ/Kg) Kg CO2/Kg

Aggregate 0.083 0.0048
Concrete 1.33 0.208
Steel 20.2 1.37
Brick 3.0 0.24

Table 3.1 : Emitted energy and CO2 emissions of building materials

For this reason , concrete should be protected against external factors in order to increase its
durability. Structures deteriorate due to different reasons, such as the impact of external

5
environment, overload or accidental damage, and then they need to be repaired in order to extend
their lifetime. The cracks resulting from reactions such as :

Freeze-thaw action , shrinkage , hardening of concrete , low tensile strength of concrete, etc.

3.2 REPAIR OF CONCRETE

3.2.1 USING FIBRES

One of the suitable solutions for concrete cracks repair is to use small quantities of fiber
to control the widening of cracks and to increase tensile strength of concrete.The wide
application of fibers has begun in the early 1960s in advanced industrial countries, and over the
past four decadesthe material and form of fibers, as well as production of fiber-reinforced
concrete hasimproved, andits application has increased.The new natural and artificial
fibersreplaced straw and cement replaced clay that were traditionally used in cob building
material.The fibers used in concrete are made of different materials, such as glass, steel, carbon,
polypropylene, Kevlar, etc.

3.2.2 USING CEMENT MORTAR

By this method the cracks with a width of 1 mm are filled with plastic material. If
cracks are not active, it is possible to use a mortar made of Portland cement or a mortar that
hasexpanding properties.However, if the cracks are active, necessarily by taking into account the
conditions, sealing with pressuremay also be carried out.

3.2.3 USING EPOXY RESIN

Filling the cracks with epoxy resin injections. By this method narrow ports with a width
of 0.05 mm are put along the cracksat short intervals, and then crackssurface is completely
sealed to prevent resin escape and leakage while injecting. If start and end of a crack is not on

6
one heightlevel, the injection should be started from the lowest point until the
highest.Transparent tubes are used to ensure optimum filling of injectable material into the
cracks.

3.2.4 USING SILICCA GEL

Silica gel is used to immobilize bacteria. Silica gel was used not only for bacterial
immobilization, but also as a cracks filler before the precipitation ofCaCO3 .Silica gel is a
known microorganisms’ immobilizer. Like bacterial cells and yeasts and algae, it creates
biological immobilization and is a suitable place for porosity and transfer of molecules and ions
and Polyurethane is also used in addition to bacterial immobilization to seal the cracks .

3.2.5 STITCHING METHOD

This method can be used when high tensile strength is required among large cracks.
Sewing of cracks leads to stiffening of the structure and that prevents the cracks to transfer to
other parts of the structure, therefore it may be necessary to evaluate and to reinforce the
surrounding parts as well.

3.2.6 STRESSING AND SHORTCRETE METHOD

In stressing method the rebar or cables are employed in the damaged area of concrete,
and then the pre-calculated stresses are entered onto them, thusfinally stressing them. By using
this method care should be taken to ensure that the cracks do not migrate to other areas.In
shortcrete method concrete or mortar is shot using air pressure into the holes, channels, molds,
and surfaces to be repaired, but afterwards the surface does not become smooth, it is rough and
uneven because of the unequal size of the aggregates used in the sprayed mixture.

7
 CHAPTER 4

4.1 SELF HEALING MECHANISM

Biological concrete as well as a self-healing, or MICP, produces CaCO3 using

bacteria. It fills cracks that appear in concrete materials. Several types of bacteria are used
in concrete, e.g., Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus pseudofirmus, Bacillus pasteurii, Bacillus
sphaericus, Escherichia coli, Bacillus cohnii. These are bacteria that can survive in
environments with high alkali contents, i.e., these bacteria use metabolic processes such as
sulphate reduction, photosynthesis and urea hydrolysis. The result is calcium carbonate as a
by-product. Some reactions also increase the pH from neutral to alkaline conditions,
creating bicarbonate and carbonate ions. These precipitate with the calcium ions in the
concrete to form calcium carbonate minerals. They are chemoorganotrophs, i.e., they draw
energy from the oxidation of simple organic compounds. The microorganisms are Bacillus
species and are not harmful to humans at all. Bacteria genus Bacillus are used in this
process, as well as bacterial nutrients. These can be calcium compounds, nitrogen and
phosphorus. All the components are added to the concrete during the production process.
The listed components remain nonreactive inside the material until the material is damaged,
which can take up to 200 years. However, this period can be shortened when the concrete is
damaged. The water in the outside environment will then start to penetrate the damage. In
this case, the bacterial spores will be able to grow in convenient conditions. Soluble
nutrients are transformed into insoluble calcium carbonate. Then, it solidifies on the
damaged surface or inside the material. In this way, the concrete is sealed . The bacteria
consume oxygen during their growth, which is why the reinforcement does not corrode.
This increases the durability of the concrete . On the surface, calcium carbonate is formed
as a result of Reaction. The reaction of calcium hydroxide with calcium chloride and the
products of bacterial metabolism causes the formation of calcite (calcium carbonate).
Figure 4.1 shows a representation of Reaction in concrete :

8
 Fig 4.1 : Graphic representation of the reaction of CaCO3 production with bacteria

4.2 MATERIALS AND SAMPLE PREPERATION

Figure 4.2(a) represent the basic flowchart which gives detail information about
the selection of bacteria and its cultivation of culture. Preparation of desired molarity
cementation solution of Cacl2 using standard OPC cement, locally available sand with
desired water cement ratio. Cement mortar was prepared by using this mixture.

Fig 4.2(a) : Flow diagram of overall process followed

9
 4.2.1 BACTERIAL CULTURE AND CULTIVATION

Due to the high urease activity of Bacillus pasteurii or Sporosarcinapasteurii,

these microbes are extensively preferred to produce a high amount of precipitates within a
short period of time. Bacterial culture of Bacillus Pasteurii NCIM 2477 shown in Figure
4.2(b) . Bacillus Pasteurii is cultivated in the laboratory using nutrient agar media with
protocol and instruction mentioned on the container of culture medium. 20 grams of agar
and four grams of nutrient agar powder were mixed well in 250 ml distilled water and the
pH was adjusted between 7 to 7.5. The Nutrient agar solution was then heated up to boiling
point 100°C using the heater. The autoclave was used for sterilization of nutrient solution
and other glassware. Figure 4.2(c) shows the Cultivation of culture.

Fig 4.2. : (b)Bacterial clture (c)Cultivation of culture

4.2.2 PREPERATION OF CEMENTATION SOLUTION

Ureolytic driven calcite precipitation was achieved by using urea calcium

cementation media. From the AR grade of urea and calcium chloride (CaCl2) were used. For
complete production of calcite, molecular weights of urea (CO (NH2)2) and anhydrous
calcium chloride (CaCl2) is approximately 60.06 g/mole and 111 g/mole, respectively. The
cementation solution of 0.25 M of concentration was made by dissolving 15.1 g of urea (solid)
and 27.75 g of anhydrous CaCl2 (solid) into 1 liter of water. To facilitate precipitation of small

10
size and strong calcium carbonate which can penetrate in small cracks, a low chemical
concentration was used.

4.2.3 PREPERATION OF MORTAR SPECIMEN

Type I ordinary Portland cement (OPC) of 53 grade, river sand, and distilled water
were used to prepare mortarThe water-to-cement (w/c) ratio was 0.4 and the sand-to-cement
(s/c) ratio was 3.0. To prepare a homogeneous mix of the mortar, the cement was first added
into water and mixed by hand for 2 min followed by sand mixing for another 2 min. Thin
plastic pipes (45 mm in diameter and 90 mm in height) were used for casting. Two half rods of
10 mm diameter and 90 mm length were placed in molds to ensure single and straight crack in
the sample. The freshly mixed mortar was poured into these molds as shown in Figure 3b, in
two layers, and each layer of all samples was compacted to the equal desired density. After
casting, the mortar samples were sealed and placed in a lab environment (24 to 26°C) for 28
days for curing. At the age of 28 days, three virgin samples (ST1, ST2, ST3) were tested for
split tensile strength according to IS-5816-1999 and the rest cylinder samples were cut to
develop/gain different crack sizes and then to perform crack repair.

4.2.4 GENERATION OF CRACKS IN MORTAR SPECIMENS

In the process of generation of artificial cracks of different sizes in all 10 mortar

samples, end portions were trimmed by 10 mm and the middle 80 mm was cut in equal two
half with their plastic molds on, each of 45 mm diameter and 40 mm in length. These, 20 short
discs samples were split to have different crack widths using a jaw clamp as shown in Figure
4.2(d) A sample crack generated is shown in Figure 4.2(d). A small clamping arrangement was
made to keep crack open, and photographs of both end cross-section were taken. At the end of
28 days, small clamps were removed, and crack repair work was initiated .

11
 Fig 4.2(d) : Crack generation and Generated crack

4.2.5 CRACK REPAIR

MICP treatment for sixteen samples was performed in bacterium solution and urea-
CaCl2 solution at room temperature 30 ± 2°C. Each cracked sample was soaked in bacterium
solution for 2 hours as shown in Figure 4.2(e) and allowed the samples to saturate. After taking
out from the bacterium solution, samples were made to drain off. Then all these samples were
put in a container having urea-CaCl2 cementation solution as shown in Figure 4.2(e) hours for
the MICP process to happen. These 24 hours is counted as one round of treatment. The whole
assembly of the sample with cementation solution was kept circulating with the help of a plate
and stirrer bar. Repeat all these steps for the next 8, 16, 24 rounds of the treatment

Fig 4.2(e) : Soaking of samples

12
4.2.6 TEST AND METHODS

4.2.6.1 WATER PERMEABILITY

Permeability test on all sixteen samples was conducted using the constant head
method as to find the efficiancy of repair using MICP treatment and curing period concerning
crack width. All samples were soaked in water for 24 hours for saturation before conducting
the permeability test. A sample of 45 mm diameter and 40 mm length was trimmed at the end
to just fit at bottom of transparent graduated glass pipe of 45 mm diameter, 150 mm height.
The proper arrangement was made to seal the joints of the pipe and specimen. This assembly of
permeability mould as shown in Figure 4.2(f). Tap water was continuously filled in a glass pipe
to maintain a constant head with a proper outlet for overflow .

Fig 4.2(f) : Permeability sample mould

4.2.6.2 SPLITTING TENSILE STRENGTH

At the end of 28 days, three virgin samples (ST1, ST2, ST3) of 45 mm diameter and 90 mm in
height which were not subjected to MICP treatment, were tested for STS according to IS 5816-
1999. Sixteen samples (TC1 to TC16) were split to gain different sizes of crack and then used
for crack repair using MICP treatment and four samples (UTC1 to UTC4) as control samples
without MICP treatment. These sixteen (TC1 to TC16) were dried under an ambient
environment for two days and tested for STS as per IS 5816-1999. The amount of CaCO3
deposited on both end fractured surfaces were measured and expressed as percent of the total
fractured surface area.

13
 CHAPTER 5

5.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Permeability test on all sixteen samples was conducted using the constant head
method as per IS2720-1986 (Part17) to find the efficiancy of repair using MICP treatment and
curing period concerning crack width. All samples were soaked in water for 24 hours; the
results obtained for sixteen MICP treated samples through permeability, STS and percent of
precipitated CaCO3 are summarized in Table 2. Table 3 depicts the results of permeability on
four untreated samples. Figure 5.1 illustrate the linear relation of crack width generated and
percent of fractured area. Figure 5.1, illustrate that crack width is directly proportional to
percent of fractured area. Figure 5.1 satisfies strong linear association among the crack width
and fractured area.

Table 5.1(a) : Test result of samples

14
 Table 5.1(b) : Test result of Untreated samples for autogenous healimg

Fig 5.1 : Generated crack width vs % fracture area of mortar sample

5.2 PERMEABILITY

Figure 5.2(a) and 5.3(b) and Tables 5.1(a) and 5.1(b) represent crack repairing
performance of MICP treated and untreated mortar samples on permeability respectively.
Increase in permeability with an increase in average crack width, as seen in Figure 5.2(a). As
crack width increases from 0.12 mm to 1.3 mm, permeability has increased from 0.008335
mm/sec to 1.4721 mm/sec. Th average crack width of the split cylinder increased from 0.15 to
0.30 has resulted in an increase in permeability from 0.05 mm/sec to 0.5 mm/sec. In the present

15
study crack width ranges from 0.12 to 1.3 mm. The slope of (permeability vs crack width, Figure
5.2(b) curve is steeper for 0th round in comparison with the 24th round of MICP. Also, Figure
5.2(c) depicts an average 60% reduction in permeability of all cracked samples at end of 8th
round after MICP treatment. The however smaller rate of reduction in permeability was observed
at the end of 16th (25%) and 24th (14%) round respectively. This point out the percent of healing
of cracks is faster up to 8th round and it slows down thereafter. This could happen because of the
amount and dissemination of CaCO3 in the cracks which have reduced permeability. At the end
of the 24th round, the maximum reduction was in the range 73 to 85% as that of 0th round,
indicating, 100% reduction in permeability could not be achieved because of the non-healing of
all cracks.

From the above discussion, it is cleared that, number of MICP treatment rounds
influences the reduction of permeability. Also, a higher rate of decrease in permeability at an
early stage (8th cycle) as compared to the lower rate of decrease with an increase in the number
of the round. Sample with wider cracks will have a higher rate of decrease in permeability as
compared with fine cracks. This could happen because of more MICP solution can easily
penetrate through wider cracks and deposits CaCO3.On the contrary small cracks get plugged
at the early stage of treatment. A decrease in R-squared values of curves in Figure 5.2(a) from
0.93 (0th round) to 0.75 (24th round) might be due to the amount and size of precipitated
CaCO3 in the cracks.

5.2(a)

16
 5.2(b)

5.2(c)

Fig 5.2 : (a) Repaired specimens using MICP treatment (b) % reduction in permeability

(c) Permeability results for untreated specimens (soaked in water only)

17
Figure 5.3(a) represents crack repairing performance of untreated (soaked in water only)
mortar samples on permeability. The decrease in permeability up to 25% for the sample
(UTC1) with fine 0.16 mm average crack width, from 0.08053 mm/sec at 0th round to 0.06013
mm/sec at 24th round could be the result of autogenous healing due to hydration of cement . As
anticipated for sample (UTC4) with a major crack of 1.55 mm, reduction in permeability on
account of autogenous healing due to hydration of cement was negligible (11%).

5.3 SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH

The results of STS conducted on three virgin samples (ST1, ST2, ST3) at the age of 28
days, was 3674±126 kPa. This test was also conducted on MICP treated samples (TC1 to TC16)
at the end of the 24th round. However, the test could not be possible on the untreated sample
(UTC1 to UTC4) as it fails immediately on the application of negligible load. This could be
because of insufficient binding developed due to the autogenous healing of cracks. The results
obtained from the split tension test on TC1 to TC16 samples are shown in Figure 5.3(a). Based
on these following findings are noted.
 There is no co-relation of crack width on STS. The maximum values of STS were in the
range of 29.85kPa to 380.5 kPa, almost 10% of the virgin sample (3674 kPa).

 The majority of the MICP treated sample has shown linear stress-strain behaviour with
brittle failure at various axial strains.

It is presumed that the lower value of STS could be because of insufficient healing of cracks
imperfect bonding developed among the cracked sample. Relationships between the STS, crack
width, and percent of precipitation of CaCO3 on the fractured crack surface and effectiveness
of crack healing by MICP were studied.

18
5.3(a)

5.3(b)

19
 5.3(c)

Fig 5.3 : (a) Crack width from 0.12-0.26 mm (b) Crack width from 0.27-0.6 mm

(c) Crack width from 0.72-1.1 mm

Figures 5.3(a) to 5.3(c) STS vs strain curves for repaired specimens with different
crack widths. Figure 5.3(d), depicts the graphical presentation of the amount of CaCO3
precipitated Vs. crack width. A peanut swing from 4.12 to 7.19% in calcium carbonate
deposition is seen in a region I, where crack width is less than 0.27 mm. This could be due to
minimal entry of bacteria or cementation solution in small cracks followed by 15 to 20%
increase in CaCO3 in region II of crack width 0.29 to 0.6 mm. Substantial increases in region
III (52 to 82%) imply that the favorable crack width for repair through MICP is 0.72 to 1.1
mm. For region IV for 1.3 mm crack, an unexpected slight decrease in CaCO3 may due to
unidentified reasons.

20
 5.3(d)

5.3(e)

Fig 5.3 : (d) Crack width % vs CaCO3 (e) Crack width vs STS

21
 The relationship between STS and crack width as shown in Figure 12(b) indicates that
in the region I for crack width less than 0.29 mm, there is no clear co-relation. This could be
because of quick sealing of small cracks might have stopped the entry of bacteria and
cementation solution resulting in lower values of STS. Exactly reverse of this is observed in the
region III, despite large crack width (1.3mm), STS has decreased (311 kPa) over prior values
(380 kPa). One of the causes could be insufficient sticking/formation of the bond between cracks
and smaller size and microstructure of distribution of CaCO3. This indicates from region II that,
0.31 to 1.1 mm crack width sizes in mortar can be effectively repaired by MICP .

22
 CHAPTER 6

6.1 CONCLUSION

 Generated cracks in cement mortar can be repaired/healed by MICP. The performance of

healing increases with an increase in treatment rounds. Almost all cracks rapidly get
repaired in the first 8th round and thereafter process of healing becomes slower.
 The smallest and largest crack width was 0.12 and 1.3 mm respectively. The percent of
reduction in permeability for the cracks ranging from 0.12 to 1.3 mm was in the range
from 65 to 85%. The initial permeability of the smallest crack width was 0.008335
mm/sec which has reduced to 0.002812 mm/sec in 8th round, 0.002104 mm/sec in 16th
and 0.001853 mm/sec in 24th round. While for the largest crack of width, reduction in
permeability was from 1.4721 to 0.81367 mm/sec in 8th round, 0.62576 mm/sec in 16th
round followed by 0.51576 mm/sec in 24th round. A maximum percent of reduction in
permeability was observed for crack width of 0.8 mm which is from 1.1254 mm/sec to
0.37384 at 8th round, and 0.27758 to 0.1712 mm/sec at16th and 24th round respectively.
 For untreated specimen having small crack width (0.16 mm), a considerable reduction in
permeability took place in the first 8th round as compared to a large crack width of
1.55mm. This implies autogenously crack healing due to hydration of cement is more
prominent in a small crack in comparison to larger crack width. The percent of reduction
in permeability through autogenously crack healing was 25 to 11% for 0.16 and 1.55 mm
crack width respectively.
 The results of STS conducted on three virgin samples (ST1, ST2, ST3) were 3674±126
kPa while on MICP treated samples (TC1 to TC16) it varies in the range 43 to 380 kPa
i.e.1 to 10% of virgin samples. Conventional failure of concrete mortar is at 3% axial
strain with stress-strain behaviour as linear. In our case, most of MICP repaired
specimens of small crack (0.12 to 0.26 mm) have failed at axial strain less than 1% and
specimens with larger crack (0.5 to 1.3 mm) at axial strain more than 2%, indicating a
good improvement in repair after MICP treatment.

23
  Based on the test results obtained for percent of deposition of CaCO3, STS, axial strain at
failure, it implies, repairs through MICP is most effective for the size of cracks width
within the range of 0.29 to 1.1 mm crack width.

MICP IS the application of bacteria to precipitate calcite in cracks in concrete. With

this method relatively large cracks in reinforced concrete can be filled. By filling the crack ,the
path to the reinforcement is blocked. Herewith the ingress of liquids and ions that start
reinforcement corrosion is stopped and thus the durability of the structure is enhanced. The
material is a relatively new adaptation on a longstanding substance, so it is not without flaw.
The high cost of cultivating the bacteria used in development of the material results in upfront
expenses that are orders of magnitude higher than traditional concrete. Because contractors
cannot justify incorporating a material this expensive in their projects, and their warranties do
not cover cracks in concrete, it has not yet gained much headway in the construction industry.
However, due to the results of the laboratory experiments detailed above, it has proven its
ability. It can be extrapolated that there are few experimental limitations to the self-healing
concrete in its current state, but the economic and environmental impact of the material is not
yet fully understood. Further research will be required to reduce the cost of producing the
bacteria so that the material may have a lower upfront cost and be accepted by contractors.
Until then, this innovative material will remain the “concrete of the future.”

24
REFERENCES

[1] Van Tittelboom, Kim, Nele De Belie, Willem De Muynck, and Willy Verstraete. “Use of Bacteria to
Repair Cracks in Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research 40, no. 1 (January 2010): 157–166.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.08.025.

[2] Wang, Jianyun, Kim Van Tittelboom, Nele De Belie, and Willy Verstraete. “Use of Silica Gel or
Polyurethane Immobilized Bacteria for Self-Healing Concrete.” Construction and Building Materials 26,
no. 1 (January 2012): 532–540. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.054.

[3] Wang, J.Y., H. Soens, W. Verstraete, and N. De Belie. “Self-Healing Concrete by Use of
Microencapsulated Bacterial Spores.” Cement and Concrete Research 56 (February 2014): 139–152.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.11.009.

[4] Jonkers, Henk M., Arjan Thijssen, Gerard Muyzer, Oguzhan Copuroglu, and Erik Schlangen.
“Application of Bacteria as Self-Healing Agent for the Development of Sustainable Concrete.” Ecological
Engineering 36, no. 2 (February 2010): 230–235. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.12.036.

[5] Wiktor, Virginie, and Henk M. Jonkers. “Quantification of Crack-Healing in Novel Bacteria-Based
Self-Healing Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Composites 33, no. 7 (August 2011): 763–770.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.03.012.

[6] Khaliq, Wasim, and Muhammad Basit Ehsan. “Crack Healing in Concrete Using Various Bio
Influenced Self-Healing Techniques.” Construction and Building Materials 102 (January 2016): 349–357.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.006.

[7] Ramachandran S. K., V. Ramakrishnan, and S. S. Bang, “Remediation of Concrete Using

Microorganisms.” ACI Materials Journal 98, no. 1 (2001): 3–9. doi:10.14359/10154.

[8] Abo-El-Enein, S.A., A.H. Ali, Fatma N. Talkhan, and H.A. Abdel-Gawwad. “Utilization of Microbial
Induced Calcite Precipitation for Sand Consolidation and Mortar Crack Remediation.” HBRC Journal 8,
no. 3 (December 2012): 185–192. doi:10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.02.001.

25
[9] Achal, Varenyam, Abhijeet Mukerjee, and M. Sudhakara Reddy. “Biogenic Treatment Improves the
Durability and Remediates the Cracks of Concrete Structures.” Construction and Building Materials 48
(November 2013): 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.061.

[10] De Muynck, Willem, Dieter Debrouwer, Nele De Belie, and Willy Verstraete. “Bacterial Carbonate
Precipitation Improves the Durability of Cementitious Materials.” Cement and Concrete Research 38, no.
7 (July 2008): 1005–1014. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.03.005.

[11] Schlangen, H. E. J. G., H. M. Jonkers, S. Qian, and A. Garcia. "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, 23-28 May 2010. 2010.

[12] Zahra Askari, Mehdi Asadi Aghbolaghi, Ali Hasantabar Amiri, Kaveh Ostad-Ali-Askari, and Saeid
Eslamian, ”Crack Repair in Concrete Using Biological Methods”, American Research Journal of Civil
and Structural Engineering 1, no. 1, (2017): 28-35.

[13] Joshi, Sumit, Shweta Goyal, Abhijit Mukherjee, and M. Sudhakara Reddy. “Microbial Healing of
Cracks in Concrete: a Review.” Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 44, no. 11
(September 12, 2017): 1511–1525. doi:10.1007/s10295-017-1978-0.

[14] Pungrasmi, Wiboonluk, Jirapa Intarasoontron, Pitcha Jongvivatsakul, and Suched Likitlersuang.
“Evaluation of Microencapsulation Techniques for MICP Bacterial Spores Applied in Self-Healing
Concrete.” Scientific Reports 9, no. 1 (August 28, 2019). doi:10.1038/s41598-019-49002-6.

[15] Sikder, Ankita, and Purnachandra Saha. "Effect of Bacteria on Performance of Concrete/Mortar: A
Review." In International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE-2019), vol. 21, (2019):
12-17.

[16] Chaurasia, Leena, Vishakha Bisht, L.P. Singh, and Sanjay Gupta. “A Novel Approach of
Biomineralization for Improving Micro and Macro-Properties of Concrete.” Construction and Building
Materials 195 (January 2019): 340–351. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.031.

26