Discussions and Closures
Closure to “Engineering Properties of Biocementation
Coarse- and Fine-Grained Sand Catalyzed by
Bacterial Cells and Bacterial Enzyme” by Tung Hoang,
James Alleman, Bora Cetin, and Sun-Gyu Choi
Tung Hoang
Assistant Professor, Univ. of Danang—Univ. of Science and Technology,
Danang 550000, Vietnam. Email: tung.hoang@ntu.edu.sg
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VPI & SU on 06/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
James Alleman
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Science,
Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 45556. Email: jalleman@nd.edu
Bora Cetin, M.ASCE
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824 (corresponding author).
Email: cetinbor@msu.edu
Sun-Gyu Choi
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon 44538,
Korea. Email: choisg@kaist.ac.kr
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003083
The discussers asked the writers opinion on the 15 kPa backpres-
sure applied during the saturation process and the oven drying pro-
cedure used before unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests,
and ask the following question: “Because no confining pressure
was applied, could the applied backpressure brake some of the par-
ticles’ bonding?” The writers followed a constant head permeabil-
ity test procedure [ASTM D2434 (ASTM 2006)], which required a
saturation step before performing the permeability test. Section
6.6.4 of the standard recommends to apply 50 cm (20 in.) Hg for
15 min to remove air adhering to soil particles and from the voids.
The 50 cm (20 in.) Hg equals 67.7 kPa of pressure. However, the
writers applied 15 kPa for approximately 120 min to prevent crack-
ing of CaCO3 clusters in treated specimens. The 15 kPa of back
pressure in saturation process was adopted from previous research
(Hoang et al. 2018; Cheng et al. 2013). Note that the treated spec-
imens were soaked under water for 24 h before conducting the per-
meability test.
Regarding the second question and comment, “Was the pro-
posed oven drying period of 48 h at 50°C before UCS tests capable
to ensure the specimens core complete drying? Any remaining mois-
ture content could develop a suction effect, which could increase
UCS,” the writers would like to clarify that the moisture content of
the specimens after the oven drying process was not measured. The
oven drying process was mentioned in our previous work (Hoang
et al. 2018). It was also suggested by Hawkins and McConnell
(1992). This method is followed to avoid an increase in shear strength
of specimens that may occur due to baking effects.
It is true that the remaining moisture content could develop a
suction effect; however, the writers believe that the moisture
amounts in the oven dry MICP treated specimens are negligible.
Nevertheless, the writers agree that matric suction of these materials
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(6): 07021007
should be measured and monitored if possible. In addition, even
though the effects of the degree of saturation on UCS of the spec-
imens were not investigated in our current study, it should be stud-
ied in the future. This is noted as one of the limitation of our
previous studies (Hoang et al. 2018) and mentioned in the “Future
Research Recommendations” section as follows: “Shear strengths
of BEICP and MICP treated specimens should be investigated
under different saturation levels including fully saturated condi-
tions. It is recommended to conduct these tests with a triaxial test
device that would allow to control the degree of saturation of each
specimen.”
Regarding the discussion on suggested equations, the writers
would like to emphasize that the goal of this study is not to predict
the UCS of soils treated with biocementation technique. The sam-
ple size is not adequate to develop such a statistically significant
correlation equation.
The discussers’ suggested equation was derived from their
previous work for portland cement stabilized soils. Portland ce-
ment stabilization and biocementation stabilization techniques’
working mechanisms are different and equations developed for
predicting UCS of portland cement stabilized soils may not
be directly applicable to soils stabilized using biocementation
techniques.
In addition, the one of the main challenges of using the
discussers’ suggested equation for soils stabilized with bioce-
mentation (either MICP/BEICP method) is the application of sta-
bilization method during specimen preparation. Soils and
portland cement are mixed uniformly at their dry states during
the stabilization process, whereas the biocementation stabiliza-
tion adopts a percolation circulation technique that solidifies the
specimen column from top to bottom. This does not allow uni-
form CaCO3 precipitation through the entire specimen. As a
result of this, the porosity of the specimen is not uniform within
the biocemented soils. Therefore, using a porosity parameter,
which is a main factor of the fitting equation, may not be the best
alternative.
Furthermore, the discussers’ equation presents a relationship
between UCS and the porosity/cement index that are suitable for
portland cement stabilized soils via mixing method. The mixing
method allows for the determination of the initial weight of port-
land cement in the stabilized soil specimens. However, it is not
possible to determine the calcium carbonate content before the
treatment process because it occurs during stabilization process.
In addition, the writers believe that the prediction of CaCO3 , just
based on number of treatment cycles, is not a reliable approach
because CaCO3 production during biocementation process depends
on many other factors including soil type, porosity, pH, tempera-
ture, Ca concentrations, and presence of other chemicals in the
treatment solutions and soil matrix.
Moreover, the discussers mentioned 1.0 for value of Z
[Eq. (2)] or a [Eq. (3)]. It is indicated that these parameters
are related to type of binder. It is not clear why 1.0 was selected
07021007-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 for Z and a because such values are not available for biocemented Cheng, L., R. Cord-Ruwisch, and M. A. Shahin. 2013. “Cementation of
soils in the literature yet. The writers believe that this is important sand soil by microbially induced calcite precipitation at various degrees
and requires more research to determine the value of parameter of saturation.” Can. Geotech. J. 50 (1): 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1139
Z (or a). /cgj-2012-0023.
Hawkins, A. B., and B. J. McConnell. 1992. “Sensitivity of sandstone strength
and deformability to changes in moisture content.” Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydro-
References geol. 25 (2): 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1992.025.02.05.
Hoang, T., J. Alleman, B. Cetin, K. Ikuma, and S.-G. Choi. 2018. “Sand
ASTM. 2006. Standard test method for permeability of granular and silty-sand soil stabilization using bacterial enzyme induced calcite
soils (constant head). ASTM D2434–68. West Conshohocken, PA: precipitation (BEICP).” Can. Geotech. J. 56 (6): 808–822. https://doi
ASTM. .org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0191.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VPI & SU on 06/15/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE 07021007-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(6): 07021007