A Term Paper on

EFFECT OF BACTERIA ON CONCRETE CHARACTERISTICS

By

P. NAGIREDDY 168W1A01G7

D. LAKSHMANA RAO 178W5A0127

M. AVINASH 168W1A01G0

P. RK. SANJEEV 168W1A01H1

Under the guidance of

N. BALAJI

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

V R SIDDHARTHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE (Autonomous)
VIJAYAWADA-520007
 EFFECT OF BACTERIA ON CONCRETE CHARACTERISTICS

ABSTRACT:

This paper focuses upon the increase in strength and durability of Concrete by
introducing a bacteria where it exhibits a phenomenon known as bio-calcification. Here the
bacteria secretes calcium carbonate (CaCO3) which fills up voids, cracks and brings out a
compact texture thereby increasing its strength. From the literature we have found that there
are different ways of application of this bacterial concrete depending upon the condition of
the structure. For already existing structures the bacteria is sprinkled over the surface of the
structure for healing the cracks in them. For a structure which is being constructed the
bacteria is added after the concrete is mixed then this concrete is used for making cubes and
beams. A comparision study was made with this type of concrete cubes and beams which
were subjected to flexural and compressive strength tests and it was found that there was a
high increase in the strength of the concrete and also healing capabilities were acquired by
this concrete. This is because when water enters through the cracks, it reacts with the bacteria
which secretes precipitates of calcium carbonate through its pores. This calcium carbonate
precipitate fills the cracks making the member crack-free.

INTRODUCTION:

Concrete is the most commonly used building material. It is strong, durable and
abundantly available. But the most common problem with concrete is it is weak in tension.
This can cause cracks in concrete. These cracks will lead to several other problems in the
structures such as dampness, decrease in durability of the structure, poor aesthetic look,
decrease in strength etc. By using a Phenomenon known as Bio-mineralization we have found
that this problem can be solved. This is done by using a Sewage Bacteria known as Bacillus
Pasteurii. This Bacteria precipitates Calcium Carbonate in presence of carbon sources. This
precipitate fills the cracks and voids in the material. This process is known as ‘Micro
Biologically induced Calcite precipitation’. Various Strength Tests were done with and
without adding the bacteria and it was evident that Bacteria was useful in increasing its
strength and healing properties. Bacterial Concrete is specially made to increase the strength
and durability of the structure by ‘Self-Healing’ action of the material. Bacterial Concrete is
also ‘eco-friendly’ which does not show any adverse effects to living beings and
environment.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION:

All RCC members are porous in texture in a microscopic scale. This porosity of
building material allows moisture and water due to precipitation seep into the concrete
members in time which causes cracks and thereby corrosion of steel reinforcements thus
reducing the structural integrity and durability of the structure and at worst case scenario
failure of the structure .An additive that seals the pores and cracks and thus reduces the
permeability of the structure would immensely improve its life. Conventionally, a variety of
sealing agents such as latex emulsions and epoxies etc., and surface treatments with water
repellents such as silanes or siloxanes are used to enhance the durability of the concrete
structures. However, they suffer from serious limitations of incompatible interfaces,
susceptibility to ultraviolet radiations, unstable molecular structure and high cost.

LITERATURE REVIEWS:

Ravindranatha, et al (2014)have experimented on “Self-Healing” Bacterial Concrete. Here

a comparison study was made with concrete cubes and beams subjected to compressive and
flexural strength tests with and without the bacterium Bacillus pasteuri. The concrete cubes
and beams were prepared by adding calculated quantity of bacterial solution and they were
tested for 7 and 28 day compressive and flexural strengths. It was found that there was high
increase in strength and healing of cracks subjected to loading on the concrete specimens.
The microbe proved to be efficient in enhancing the properties of the concrete by achieving a
very high initial strength increase. The calcium carbonate produced by the bacteria has filled
some percentage of void volume thereby making the texture more compact and resistive to
seepage.

Chithra P Bai, etal (2017) made different experiments upon Bacterial concrete.Here they
have used Bacillus Subtilis. Here different cell concentrations of 10^3, 10^5 and 10^7
cells/ml were considered while preparing the bacterial concrete. Cement was partially
replaced by 10%, 20% and 30% of fly ash by weight for making the bacterial concrete.
Concrete of grade M30 was prepared and tests such as Compressive strength, Split tensile
strength, Flexural strength and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity were conducted after 28 and 56
days of water curing. For fly ash concrete, maximum compressive strength, split tensile
strength, flexural Strength and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity values were obtained for 10% fly
ash replacement. For bacterial concrete maximum compressive strength, split tensile strength,
flexural strength, and UPV values were obtained for the bacteria cell concentration of
10^5cells/ml. The improvement in the strength properties of fly ash concrete is due to the
precipitation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the micro environment by the bacteria
Bacillus Subtilis.

Jagadeesha Kumar, et al (2013) published a paper on Effect of Bacterial Calcite

Precipitation on Compressive Strength of Mortar Cubes. Three bacterial strains Bacillus
flexus, Bacillus pasteurii and Bacillus sphaericus were used. Among the three strains of
bacteria, Cubes treated with Bacillus flexus, which is not reported as bacteria for calcite
precipitation has shown maximum compressive strength than the cubes treated with other two
bacterial strains. All the three strains of bacteria were tested for urease activity. The change
of the colour of the media from yellow to pink indicated that it is urease positive. All the
three strains were urease positive.

R. Sri Bhavana, et al (2017) experimented upon Bacterial Concrete. Inthis paper they have
prepared cubes of size 150x150x150mm and were casted for 0%,10% and 30% of fly ash as
replacement of cement with and without bacterial solution. Cubes were tested in compressive
testing machine after 3, 7 and 28 days curing period. From the experimental results, it was
found that cement replaced with 30% fly ash showed less compressive strength compared to
10% fly ash in both normal and bacterial concrete. They have also prepared cylindrical
moulds of size 150x300mm for tensile strength test and prisms of size 500x100x100mm for
flexural strength test. These cylinders and beams were also casted for 0%, 10% and 30% of
fly ash as replacement of cement with and without bacterial solution. From these results, it
was found that cement replaced with 30% fly ash showed less strength compared to 10% fly
ash replacement in both conventional and bacterial concrete. Finally, they have concluded
that bacterial concrete is advantageous than conventional concrete due to its self-healing
capacity and ecofriendly nature.

Gopikumar S, et al (2017) made an investigation on the strength and durability of concrete

by introducing bacteria obtained from waste activated sludge. In this study they have used fly
ash and sludge in 30:70 ratio as a binding material in concrete mix. They prepared cubes of
size 150 x 150 x 150 mm using this geo polymer bio concrete mix. These cubes were tested
after 9 days of curing where it has given a compressive strength of 22 MPa. They have also
found that there was a significant increase in durability of the material. From the results they
have found that fly ash and waste activated sludge can used as an alternative to cement. They
have concluded that geopolymer concrete has more compressive strength and durability than
the ordinary concrete.

S. Dinesh, et al (2017), made an investigation upon self-healing concrete. In this paper they
prepared the cubes by adding calculated amount of bacteria called Bacillussubtilis along with
calcium lactate, nitrogen and phosphorus. Compressive strength and tensile strength tests
were conducted on these concrete cubes. From the results obtained they have found that due
the application of bacteria in concrete the compressive strength and tensile strength of
concrete has increased with a decrease in permeability , water absorption and corrosion of
reinforcement compared to that of conventional concrete. Bacterial concrete influences the
durability characteristics of the structure by healing of cracks in the structure.

METHODOLOGY:

The process majorly involves:

Preparation and testing of ordinary concrete cubes.
 Making of ordinary concrete mix using standard mix proportion.
 Casting the cubes of size 150 x 150 x 150 mm.
 Curing the cubes with proper water curing.
 Testing the cubes at 7, 14 and 28 days.
Preparation and Testing of Bacterial Concrete cubes.
 Mixing the bacteria with ordinary concrete mix.
 Casting the bio concrete cubes of size 150 x 150 x 150 mm.
 Curing the cubes with proper water curing.
 Testing the cubes at 7, 14 and 28 days.
Comparing the strengths of ordinary concrete cubes with bio concrete cubes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
A. Compressive Strength Test
1) Fly Ash Concrete: The results obtained for different mixes at 28 day and 56 day are shown
in figure .The compressive strength of normal concrete at 28 day is 39.8MPa. From the
results it is observed that on addition of fly ash, 28 day strength was decreases at all
replacement level. The decrease in strength may be due to slow hydration process since fly
ash is a slow reactive pozzolans which delays the hydration process. It is evident that beyond
28 day, the strength increased with the addition of fly ash. The maximum compressive
strength obtained at 56 day is 43.68 MPa for fly ash concrete of 10% partial replacement of
cement with fly ash. The 56 day strength of fly ash concrete with 20% and 30% replacement
level is lower than 10% replacement level. Therefore the fly ash percentage is optimized to
10%, for making bacterial concrete.

2) Bacterial Concrete: The results obtained for different mixes at 28 day and 56 day are
shown in figure. It is observed that the 28 and 56 day compressive strength of bacterial
concrete with different bacteria cell concentrations are higher compared to normal concrete
and fly ash concrete. Comparing the 28 day strength of fly ash concrete with bacterial
concrete, strength of bacterial concrete is increased by 9-14% and the maximum strength is
42.4MPa. Compared to normal concrete strength increased by 2-7%. Comparing the 56 day
strength, maximum strength obtained for the mix BC5 is 47.66MPa.

B. Split tensile Strength Test

1) Fly Ash Concrete: The results obtained for different mixes at 28 day and 56 day are shown
in figure. From the test results 28 day strength of fly ash concrete decreases compared to
normal concrete. The 56 day strength of fly ash concrete increased compared to normal
concrete. Maximum strength 3.31MPa is obtained for the mix FC10. Beyond the 10%
replacement of fly ash the 56 day strength was also decreased. Therefore the fly ash
percentage is optimized to 10% for making bacterial concrete.

2) Bacterial Concrete: The results obtained for different mixes at 28 day and 56 day are
shown in figure. It is observed that 28 and 56 day split tensile strength of bacterial concrete is
higher compared to normal concrete and fly ash concrete. At 28 day maximum strength
obtained is 3.24MPa and for 56 day it is 4.28MPa. Maximum strength obtained for the mix
BC5. In bacterial concrete minimum strength obtained for the mix BC3.

C. Flexural Strength Test

1) Fly Ash Concrete: The results obtained for different mixes at 28 day and 56 day are shown
in figure .Comparing 28 day flexural strength of fly ash concrete with normal concrete the
strength decreases with increase in percentage of fly ash. The decrease in strength may due to
slow hydration process since fly ash is a slow reactive pozzolans which delays the hydration
process. Maximum flexural strength at 56 day is 5.60MPa obtained for the mix FC10.
Therefore the fly ash percentage is optimized to 10% for making bacterial concrete of varying
concentrations.
2) Bacterial Concrete: The results obtained for different mixes at 28 day and 56 day are
shown in figure . It is observed that the flexural strength of bacterial concrete at 28 and 56
day is increased compared to normal concrete and fly ash concrete. Maximum strength at 28
and 56 day is 5.68MPa and 7.44MPa. The maximum strength obtained for the bacterial cell
concentration of 105cells/ml.

D. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

The results obtained for different mixes at 28 day are shown in figure 6.The ultrasonic pulse
velocity of fly ash concrete decreases with increase in fly ash percentages compared with the
normal concrete. Decrease in velocity value indicates the voids in the concrete. Bacterial
concrete shows higher values compared to normal and fly ash concrete at 28 days.
The maximum value 4.98 km/sec is obtained for bacterial concrete with 105 cell/ml
concentration. UPV value of mix FC30 is 4.48 km/sec and it is comes under ‘Good’ category.
All other mixes have UPV value greater than 4.5 km/sec therefore the mixes are ‘Excellent’
category
CONCLUSIONS:
The following results were obtained from the experimental study on fly ash based
bacterial concrete.
1) Compressive strength of fly ash concrete is increased at 56 day compared to 28 day. The
later strength of fly ash is due to the pozzolanic action. The maximum strength obtained for
the 10% replacement of fly ash and the strength increased by 7% compared to 56 day strength
of normal concrete.
2) Compressive strength of bacterial concrete at 28 day is increased by 2-7% and 9-14%
compared to normal and fly ash concrete. The maximum strength for 28 and 56 day obtained
for the mix BC5 and the 56 day strength of is increased 9% and 17% compared to fly ash and
normal concrete.
3) Split tensile strength of fly ash concrete increased at 56 day. The maximum strength
obtained for the 10% replacement of fly ash and it is increased by 13% compared to normal
concrete. For mixes FC20 and FC30 strength decreases.
4) The split tensile strength of bacterial concrete at 28 day is increased by 3-14% and 17-30%
compared to normal and fly ash concrete. The maximum strength for 28 and 56 day obtained
for the mix BC5. The 56 day strength of bacterial concrete is increased by 9% and 17%
compared to fly ash and normal concrete.
5) The maximum flexural strength of fly ash concrete at 56 day is obtained for 10%
replacement of fly ash. Compared to normal concrete the strength increased by 3%. Beyond
10% fly ash replacement the strength decreases.
6) Flexural strength of bacterial concrete at 28 and 56 day is higher compared to normal and
fly ash concrete. Maximum strength obtained for the bacteria cell concentration of
105cells/ml and the 28 day strength increased by 7% and 10% compared to normal and fly
ash concrete. The 56 day strength is increased by 13% and 17% compared to fly ash and
normal concrete.
7) Maximum UPV value obtained for the bacteria cell concrete of 105cell/ml. UPV value of
mix FC30 is comes under ‘Good’ category. All other mixes are in ‘Excellent’ category.
8) Comparing all the test results of fly ash concrete, maximum compressive strength, split
tensile strength, flexural strength, and UPV value obtained for 10% fly ash replacement.
The following results were obtained from the experimental study on fly ash based bacterial
concrete.

1) Compressive strength of fly ash concrete is increased at 56 day compared to 28 day. The
later strength of fly ash is due to the pozzolanic action. The maximum strength obtained for
the 10% replacement of fly ash and the strength increased by 7% compared to 56 day strength
of normal concrete.
2) Compressive strength of bacterial concrete at 28 day is increased by 2-7% and 9-14%
compared to normal and fly ash concrete. The maximum strength for 28 and 56 day obtained
for the mix BC5 and the 56 day strength of is increased 9% and 17% compared to fly ash and
normal concrete.
3) Split tensile strength of fly ash concrete increased at 56 day. The maximum strength
obtained for the 10% replacement of fly ash and it is increased by 13% compared to normal
concrete. For mixes FC20 and FC30 strength decreases.
4) The split tensile strength of bacterial concrete at 28 day is increased by 3-14% and 17-
30% compared to normal and fly ash concrete. The maximum strength for 28 and 56 day
obtained for the mix BC5. The 56 day strength of bacterial concrete is increased by 9% and
17% compared to fly ash and normal concrete.
5) The maximum flexural strength of fly ash concrete at 56 day is obtained for 10%
replacement of fly ash. Compared to normal concrete the strength increased by 3%. Beyond
10% fly ash replacement the strength decreases.
6) Flexural strength of bacterial concrete at 28 and 56 day is higher compared to normal and
fly ash concrete. Maximum strength obtained for the bacteria cell concentration of
105cells/ml and the 28 day strength increased by 7% and 10% compared to normal and fly
ash concrete. The 56 day strength is increased by 13% and 17% compared to fly ash and
normal concrete.
7) Maximum UPV value obtained for the bacteria cell concrete of 105cell/ml. UPV value of
mix FC30 is comes under ‘Good’ category. All other mixes are in ‘Excellent’ category.
8) Comparing all the test results of fly ash concrete, maximum compressive strength, split
tensile strength, flexural strength, and UPV value obtained for 10% fly ash replacement.
9) For bacterial concrete maximum compressive strength, split tensile strength, flexural
strength, and UPV value obtained for the bacteria cell concentration of 10 5cells/ml. The
increase in strength is due to the deposition of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in

REFERENCES:
1. Ravindranatha, N. Kannan, Likhit M. L “Self-Healing Material Bacterial Concrete”
International Journal of Research of Research in Engineering and Technology
(IJRET), Volume 3, Issue 3, (2014).
2. Jagadeesha Kumar B G, R Prabhakara , Pushpa H “Effect of Bacterial Calcite
Precipitation on Compressive Strength of Mortar Cubes” International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) Volume 2, Issue 3,(2013).
3. Chithra P, BaiShibi Varghese “An experimental investigation on the strength
properties of fly ash based bacterial concrete” International Journal of Innovative
Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) Volume 3, Issue 8, (August 2016).
4. Gopikumar S , Kiruthika K , Suriyaprakash CRT , Vignesh P “Next Generation Low
Cost Bio Concrete for Sustainable Building” International Journal of Engineering and
Science Invention www.ijesi.org Volume 6, Issue 9. (2017).
5. R. Sri Bhavana, P. PoluRaju, S SAsadi “ An Experimental Study on Bacterial
Concrete with partial replacement of Cement by Fly Ash”, International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology” (IJCIET) Volume 8 , Issue 4, (2017).
6. S. Dinesh , R. Shanmugapriyan , S.T. Namitha Sheen , “Self-Healing Concrete” ,
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research(IJIR) Volume 3 , Issue 1,(2017).